Not a surprise to me.

You probably won't have to worry about hunting rifles and shotguns. The guns that will be in jeopardy if the Democrats start talking gun control will be military "assault" style rifles, handguns, and handguns with capacity higher than 10 rounds.

Also at risk might be your ability to get a concealed carry permit. That's what I'd advise everyone right now if you don't have one already. If you live in Massachusetts, NY, NJ, sorry. You're already lost. It's possible for you, but it's either really expensive, or you need some political connections, a really good reason, or a degree of celebrity. But it's worth going through the process just to see how difficult gun ownership and carry has been made in those states (while not cutting down on criminals' being able to get guns at all).

To start the process, you have to walk into your local police station and ask for the forms. Sometimes they'll have them online. You have to search the NRA website for a basic pistol safety course in your area (very cheap, very easy). Make sure you have good picture ID. In some cases make sure you get passport-style pictures taken for your permit, and have a few copies.

Some states require fingerprint cards, some don't. These are the kind of bureaucratic things that stop most people from exercising their rights. Don't be afraid to ask your issuing agency where to get everything you need to complete the application.

The best resource for finding out you local firearms laws is here.

It should be noted that of the two states in the union who do not support weapons carry of any kind, one is Illinois, the state Barack Obama is a senator from.

The other is Wisconsin, FYI.

Another good idea is to be licensed in more than one state. First you have to get a permit in your own state. Then it's fairly easy to get a permit in another state, as long as it's a "SHALL ISSUE" state, and that it shall issue to non-residents.

Because there are various reciprocities, with certain states honoring other states' carry permits, you can get reasonably good coverage across the nation by being licensed in 2, 3, or a handful of states. Florida is a good one to get, a Florida permit gives you the following other states:
Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Wyoming.

Fiddle around with the map to see which states honor permits from your state, as well as which "shall issue" permits to nonresidents. Start with adjacent states to yours and work your way out. You'll never cover the entire US, thanks to places like IL, WI, CA, NY, etc. But with a bit of effort, you can be legal to arm yourself in most states.

I know this guy whose brother had his guns confiscated by the NYPD. I think he was a gun collector. The NYPD decided he had to many.

That is interesting about Illinois and Wisconsin. Funny as Chicago is the murder capital of the world right now. Wasn't Hussein a community agitator in Chicago?

Yeah the NYC gun laws are crazy. I think there's a 20 gun limit. So if you're a collector, they treat you like an illegal arms dealer.

All those minutemen who fought and died for this country are turning in their graves. The British tried to confiscate their weapons too.

It's been clearly proven that the places with the worst gun laws have the worst violent crime. Crooks can be confident that the public can't fight back. Meanwhile, they think twice in places where anyone walking on the street can be armed, and is thus not an easy target.

Women are traditionally more anti-gun than men, until they are the victims of a violent crime. Then all bets are off.

Many women can't seem to understand why guys like to collect guns, with the argument: "why do you have so MANY?" Men? All you have to do is point to their shoe closet.

Meanwhile, this is a page everyone should check out.

Most deceptive is the language around appealing the Tihard Amendment. It's described as:

quote:

which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

Actually, the amendment prohibits the release of federal firearm tracing information to anyone OTHER than a law enforcement agency conducting a bona fide criminal investigation.

Anti-gun zealots want the amendment repealed so THEY can trace individual firearms and use the information to mount frivolous lawsuits to try and shut down gun manufacturers.

There is a pretty large privacy issue here. Imagine a guy like your gun collector friend, who's info gets released to a rabid anti-gun group who can make public how many guns he has, what they are... they can brand him a gun nut and drag his name through the mud. Meanwhile, making that information public makes him a possible target of crime, as crooks love to steal guns, because guns are one of those things that are easy to fence for instant cash.

Making guns "childproof" is another code word for trying to put gun companies out of business. But designing weapons in such a way as to assume they are going to fall into the hands of children is patently ridiculous. It's like making sure booze bottles are childproof, or cigarette packets are.

The chances of a child being killed in a firearm accident is less than one in one million. Firearm related deaths have decreased 86 percent since 1975.

And why stop there? Kitchen knives are pretty sharp, so are fish hooks, fishing lures (which look like little toy fish), household chemicals are dangerous, etc. etc. Meanwhile, one in a million kids drown themselves in a splash pool or bucket of water. Might as well child proof those too.

They child-proofed drawstring hoods so kids wouldn't accidentally hang themselves on the monkey bars. Which happened to something like one kid... but I still think running with a pencil is probably more deadly. Perhaps we could childproof those. Put big pads on the sharp nasty point.

All those minutemen who fought and died for this country are turning in their graves. The British tried to confiscate their weapons too.

That's sort of what I was thinking. I don't even know where to begin in a topic like this. No, guns are not penises, but taking them away is a close match. I think the data shows that taking guns away just leaves people at the mercy of the criminals and the state. It doesn't say in the second amendment "In order to go turkey shooting" or "In order to shoot tin cans off a fence." No, it says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

Well, gee, why do we need a Militia if we have an army? Well, because you can't always trust an army to be on your side. The Framers saw guns as protecting liberty. And notice that it is the liberals who are constantly after guns. Why? Because they care about people being hurt by them? Don't make me laugh. That's not it at all. It's about the state being the only ones carrying a big stick. Liberals love coercive power. Conservatives love checks and balances. Liberals love government, the more the better. Conservatives are naturally suspicious of it, and for good reason. So guns become the front line between this intrusive nanny-state philosophy which, of course, needs as much power at its disposable to implement it's agenda, and the less-is-more Patriot orientation that recognizes that the ultimate power and legitimacy of government derives from the consent of the people. Take people's big stick away and you not only materially neuter them but psychologically neuter them as well.

You know where I stand on this. It's just that I don't want a gun. My gun is my pen. And Obama and his minions with their Fairness Doctrine, political correctness, multiculturalism, and hate speech laws can pry that from my cold, dead hand, if even then.

And why stop there? Kitchen knives are pretty sharp, so are fish hooks, fishing lures (which look like little toy fish), household chemicals are dangerous, etc. etc. Meanwhile, one in a million kids drown themselves in a splash pool or bucket of water. Might as well child proof those too.

Shhh. Don't give them any ideas. But I think the natural question presents itself about where you draw the line on this type of stuff. For things like traffic intersection, I believe it goes by where the actual higher rates of accidents and fatalities are taking place. That decides where to build a new stop light or post slower speed limits. I think the main point is that you can't always anticipate these things. You just react to them when they happen. Now, of course, manufacturers and law-makers aren't so much reacting to accidents after they happen but before they happen. And I wish I could say that was out of the goodness of their heart. It's usually just to avoid lawsuits or to be voted out of office. And this is the way the world works and I can think of no other way it could work. But at some point we have to draw some lines or else one day you'll be subject to arrest by the CPS if you're child doesn't go out every day in his or her bubble-boy suit.

Yeah, they make blunt-end scissors for young children, and that works well. But there's really no getting around the fact of sharp pens or pencils. And hammers have to remain hammers. Nails have to remain nails. Cooking knives have to remain cooking knives. I understand that we can and should make incremental improvements. But do we really need labels on Superman costumes warning that you can't fly? No. But those are there purely for the lawyers, not to protect kids. I'm not really very big on this whole "Darwin Awards" philosophy. But, really, if some kid is so stupid that he or she thinks a suit of clothes can allow them to fly, well, that's a tough one.

But for guns to be guns they need to be able to shoot bullets. One day (and I think this will be soon), non-lethal (and highly effective) guns will be available for the average person. That's what we need to transition to while still, of course, keeping lethal guns legal. But if the point is to quickly and completely disable a threat, if that can be done non-lethally, fine. But we would still want guns for sport shooting and hunting. And you should, of course, retain the right to own lethal guns and to protect your homes using them. I wouldn't want non-lethal weaponry to act as the slippery-slope to banning regular guns. Let the market decide. And the market would probably decide in huge numbers to go non-lethal if they were just as effective as lead bullets.

That's what those bemoaning guns should be shooting for, not banning the guns themselves. But IF this were really an issue about protecting people instead of enslaving them, you'd see that. It's a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned.

quote:

One day (and I think this will be soon), non-lethal (and highly effective) guns will be available for the average person.

Oh non-lethal guns have been available for decades. The technology is always improving. You can order a Taser online, that will stop most attackers. Pepper spray stops plenty. There are nonlethal rounds like beanbags and rubber.

I have no objection to nonlethal weaponry. That's a personal decision, like owning any weapon. My take on it is, if somebody threatens you with lethal force, you return lethal force. Criminals don't give a rat's ass about crippling or killing their victims, only good people hesitate about the use of lethal force. Because they don't want to be killers. Killing is a huge, enormous philosophical thing for us. Not for the animal kingdom, where it's often up there with licking your balls or impregnating your females... just part of survival.

But in civilized societies, it's wrong to kill. And I do believe that. Being armed is not something you do on a whim or because it's cool. It's owning the idea that even in civilized society, there are TRUE life-and-death encounters with people out to kill YOU. It's great in theory to imagine that we can set our tasers on stun, and the bad guy will drop his weapon and all that's left is waiting for the cops to come scoop him up. But in reality, a Taser or a stun-gun is a close-contact weapon, like a knife... and it can be slow to stun or disable. There are wired versions, but these are definitely still single-attacker solutions, unlike a pistol. Oh, and it's unsettling to note that the stunning effect of a taser can tighten a finger on the trigger of a gun... which if it's already pointing at you, could be trouble.

There's stories of gang-bangers using tasers on people they mug. It disables the person, they empty their pockets, take all their digi-devices and gizmos, remove all their jewelry. But a disturbing trend, that to improve status in their gangs, these robbers will--after the robbery is over--kick in the skulls of the stunned people. So they can tattoo another dot or skull or star on themselves. That's what we're dealing with. That's the kind of life you will be preserving with a nonlethal weapon. Someone who is just as likely to use one for murder.

Most nonlethal rounds in firearms don't have disabling attackers in mind, as much as they do causing pain or discomfort, and dispersing crowds... getting people to run away. The most effective ones come out of big riot-guns, which of course are not the kind of thing you can carry discreetly.

Unfortunately, the less-is-more solution is a handgun. It can handle multiple attackers, it is able to stop attackers--sometimes literally--dead in their tracks, and is effective both at close ranges and at distance. It can stop dangerous animals as well as humans. But most of all, it can level the playing field between armed attacker and victim. Even if that armed attacker claims to be acting on behalf of the government. If somebody starts shooting at you, you aren't going to be any less dead because it's the US army or the police opening fire. It could all be a terrible mistake, mistaken identity, a coup, whatever... and you can't always yell time out and explain the situation or use your mighty pen to explain the truth. But in any kind of a bad situation where people are trying to kill you, you go from no chances, to *a* chance of survival, if you can fight back.

I'm personally of the opinion that having a gun that never comes out of the holster or the drawer is a good thing. I hope to go my entire life without ever drawing my weapon in self defense. But I also resolve not to be a victim. If a violent criminal tries to harm me or my loved ones, and draws a weapon on me, I will have no problem using lethal force to stop them.

But I'm not the kind of a guy who'll blow some kid away who breaks into my house, even though where I live I have every right to do so. Chances are, I'll draw on him, and unless I see a weapon come out, I'll give him the chance to surrender or run away. I don't want to be a killer. I don't have a burning need to take human life. You read the bullshit on some of the gun forums, and it's like they can't WAIT to pull the trigger. That's immaturity. That's not appreciating the second amendment as grave and deep personal responsibility for yourself, and your way of life.

Granted, a lot of it is bluster and tough-talking... which is mostly fear-based. Like "they better not come after ME!" I sympathize. I've been totally at the mercy of armed people overseas, with no way to protect myself, and it's not fun. There's a feeling of helplessness and dread that's almost impossible to describe. And there's also a latent anger, as in how DARE you take something as precious as innocent life, and treat it with such a lack of respect? But that's what we deal with, with criminals and terrorists. They are people for whom human life is cheap. The idea of nonlethal weaponry to them, would be laughable.

I have no objection to nonlethal weaponry. That's a personal decision, like owning any weapon. My take on it is, if somebody threatens you with lethal force, you return lethal force. Criminals don't give a rat's ass about crippling or killing their victims, only good people hesitate about the use of lethal force. Because they don't want to be killers. Killing is a huge, enormous philosophical thing for us. Not for the animal kingdom, where it's often up there with licking your balls or impregnating your females... just part of survival.

I was thinking more along the lines of Star Trek phaser. All of the non-lethal devices I know about are not as effective as stopping an assailant. Tasers are one-shot, right? Better hit your target. Bean bags? Good for riot control, but no when you want to drop someone instantly and surely who is going after one of your family members. That's why I said "highly-effective." I don't think there's a substitute yet for the stopping power of a gun. On the issue of returning kind with kind, I think a lot more people might not hesitate to protect themselves if they could avoid the all-or-nothing aspect of killing someone. A lot of people can't live with that (I could…in a heartbeat) and so might not arm themselves in the first place. I'm sure I would have some regrets at killing another human being, but I really don't think I'd lose too much sleep over someone who was meaning me harm.

But a disturbing trend, that to improve status in their gangs, these robbers will--after the robbery is over--kick in the skulls of the stunned people. So they can tattoo another dot or skull or star on themselves. That's what we're dealing with. That's the kind of life you will be preserving with a nonlethal weapon. Someone who is just as likely to use one for murder.

Again, I don't have much problem with killing people like that in self-defense or while police are trying to apprehend them. I think society needs to look at the far worse price we pay in human lives by making our cops scared-stiff of doing their job. There's a certain line people cross where they no longer deserve to be handled with kid gloves.

But I'm not the kind of a guy who'll blow some kid away who breaks into my house, even though where I live I have every right to do so. Chances are, I'll draw on him, and unless I see a weapon come out, I'll give him the chance to surrender or run away. I don't want to be a killer. I don't have a burning need to take human life. You read the bullshit on some of the gun forums, and it's like they can't WAIT to pull the trigger. That's immaturity. That's not appreciating the second amendment as grave and deep personal responsibility for yourself, and your way of life.

No, shooting kids (who can be as dangerous as adults, if not more so) is certainly not something to look forward to. But I understand the anger that must be out there among some people. The cops don't do nothing. The politicians won't do nothing. So if some little bugger comes into someone's house and the homeowner has an itchy trigger-finger, too bad. Don't do the crime if you don't want to be shot at. It's a horrible commentary on the parents that there kids are even in the position to be shot. Yeah, it's awful when some kid is shot, but intruder look like any other intruder in the middle of the night.

Granted, a lot of it is bluster and tough-talking... which is mostly fear-based. Like "they better not come after ME!" I sympathize. I've been totally at the mercy of armed people overseas, with no way to protect myself, and it's not fun. There's a feeling of helplessness and dread that's almost impossible to describe. And there's also a latent anger, as in how DARE you take something as precious as innocent life, and treat it with such a lack of respect? But that's what we deal with, with criminals and terrorists. They are people for whom human life is cheap. The idea of nonlethal weaponry to them, would be laughable.

When it comes right down to it, life *is* cheap. We'll all die but they'll keep making more. We can snuff it rather early or live until we're eighty. And it never escapes my mind that animals are born with teeth and claws and the desire and knowledge to use them. This is a hostile world. Life has probably always been way cheaper than we perceive it being now. And people wouldn't evolve to treat life cheaply if there wasn't some advantage in it. I respect the Gandhis of the world. I really do (which is one reason I get so pissed off at the fake-Ghandhis, the so-called "peace protester".) I think this world needs both types. We need the Clint Eastwood "Dirty Harry's" that enforce the law surely and swiftly and let the bad guys know the price they'll pay for treating life cheap. And there's room for the Gandhis, for poor slobs with either pens or styluses who know that ultimately the only way to civilize the world is to promote civilization. One end of that is scraping up and dispensing with the bad guys. The other side is promoting a Gandhi vibe. Reagan is a great example of someone who could do both. He could talk peace *and* carry a big stick. I like the ethic (in idealized form) of the martial arts expert who is slow – very slow – to anger, who doesn't use the first insult as an excuse to whoop ass. But when the point comes where some slimeball lays a finger on you or your friends, you can quickly and decisively destroy them. LOL. I swear, I was probably one of the few people who saw Michael Douglas' "Falling Down" as a comedy. Well, maybe not a comedy, but not as a guy who FLIPPED OUT and we were supposed to all go "Oh, those angry white males. How awful they are." No, a little baseball bat is just what this world needs now and then.

Very well said.

I also see that we're a species that uses tools to survive. We're master toolmakers. We've gone from a wood and stone club to a nuclear warhead in a relatively short period of time. These things have given us an unbelievable survival advantage. But it's also not lost on me that weapons have a tremendous CIVILIZING advantage.

A weapon is potentially a nasty, messy, brutal thing. But it also has a powerful deterrent effect. Predators, no matter how cheaply they hold life, usually hold their OWN lives dear, and they definitely think twice before attacking somebody if there's a chance where they're risking their lives to commit their crimes.

Even a tiny woman can take down a gladiator-sized crook, with a tool that fits in her purse. That's a great leveler.

I also see that we're a species that uses tools to survive. We're master toolmakers. We've gone from a wood and stone club to a nuclear warhead in a relatively short period of time. These things have given us an unbelievable survival advantage. But it's also not lost on me that weapons have a tremendous CIVILIZING advantage.

It's an astonishing level of tool making, crafting, and culture. Look at the cathedrals. These were made by chimps just barely out of the trees. It's remarkable. It's magic. No wonder people believe in a god of some kind and that man has the divine spark. Look at what we can do. And it's just the tip of the iceberg. It's a remarkable universe. Maybe it's dead. Maybe it's not. Maybe it's pointless on the large scale. Maybe it's not. But it's hard to get a perspective on just how astonishing it all is, especially when we're living inside it and become so inured to it.

An interesting and excellent (and counter-intuitive) point about weapons being a civilizing advantage. Without such things, we'd still be at the mercy of saber-toothed lions. But one sharpened, pointed stick can give us a destiny other than meat-on-the-hoof (foot, in this case). Without the advantages of weapons, we'd be prey, not predators. Okay. We've done a really lousy and primitive job with our weaponry. We're savages, just out of the trees, and it shows. It still shows today in our wars, crime, and other mindless violence. And yet the rule of law is a tremendously civilizing thing, and you need teeth behind the law or the law is useless. Weapons are that teeth. The wisdom to use them properly (and to make good laws) is what is often lacking. But, again, we're just out of the trees. That divine spark may be there, but we were wearing rubber gloves or something when it was given to us because it didn't penetrate very far. No. No. No. You'll never mistake me for a socialist, Communist, Marxist, or Progressive, the kind who says, "Oh, if only we got rid of that terrible thing called 'selfishness' we could build a better world." This is what coming out of the trees and gaining wisdom means: It means realizing that self-interest is the inherent and central part of life, and that the very reason we ever come together in groups is because it is in our interest to do so. Some lose sight of this one-to-one connection and see groups themselves as the point. They're not. Oh, they are in the sense that groups (or nations or tribes) of one kind or another have been battling each other for millennia. There is always strength in numbers. But the true advance of our Western way of life is to sanctify the individual, and the rights of the individual, and to put limits on groups (and the 'group' that first and foremost must be limited is government).

Guns are key to not only the material protection of the individual, but the symbolic protection of the individual. And force, as you said (in wise hands with wise laws, we would prefer) is necessary for civilization. The dumb-asses such as Obama think that if only we will disarm, wars will disappear. Nope. Doesn't work that way. Peace through strength. Don't take away my gun, and don't take away the sheriff's gun either.

quote:

Guns are key to not only the material protection of the individual, but the symbolic protection of the individual

That's it right there. It's the one tool that changes all kinds of rules. No longer are you at the MERCY of mother nature (fangs and claws go for you, and BANG!)... or the mercy of thugs, but even sitting in its holster unused, it exists as the POTENTIAL for your freedom and liberation from forces that could bring you down.

Yes, there are tradeoffs... you have to learn the safety rules, how to actually USE the weapon... but you start living a different life, when you realize that by wearing this tool on your hip, you cut out a great number of things that could potentially fuck with you. It makes you a more powerful creature. Even if you are physically slight.

You become king of the jungle. Now you'd do well not to advertise or flaunt this... but the sense of personal security and confidence changes other things in your life. Because there are certain fears that don't really apply to you anymore. Proficiency with this particular tool, allows you a degree of personal freedom that I think the founders were aiming for.

Tyrants thrive when people are timid and afraid.

quote:

Tyrants thrive when people are timid and afraid.

Absolutely. That's another one that can go on the fridge or on a bumper sticker. I don't dislike civil disobedience and protests. I just ask that people not be stupid about them. I ask that they not have the shout-down trimmings of fascism to them. But, good god, thank god for the people who are willing to stand up and be counted, even if they're wrong. And sometimes even when they're wrong it forces us to re-think our principles, flesh them out a bit, and reaffirm if they are on solid ground or not.

But we're getting more and more to the point in this country where dissent itself is considered a bad thing. Those who mean well are supposedly the ones who go along, who throw away their principles, and simply acquiesce. That is the opposite habit of liberty.

I don't think we have a situation where dissent is a bad thing. Democrats felt they were dissenting against Bush and Republicans, and they won an election thanks to that.

Everyone thinks their dissent is best. The true mark of an American, however, is how you tolerate dissent that's not yours. If you try to squelch it, or if you recognize it as the same thing you had when you were a dissenter.

It boils down to whether or not you think that "to win" you have to silence dissent. That's a fundamentally weak position. A fundamentally unamerican position. And it's a true-color-showing kind of thing.

Say something against me or my kind, and I destroy you... that's not American. I don't think I've ever seen a conservative try to silence a liberal. But I've seen plenty of liberals try to silence conservatives.

You can usually tell who's in the wrong by the squelch impulse. If their line of shit is, it'd be better if so-and-so WOULD JUST SHUT UP, then they're squelchers.

Silencing dissent always comes from whoever the bad guys are. And there are storm clouds on the horizon for that already. If right-wing talk radio gets silenced as a result of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", then it's wrong and unamerican. Period and end of story.

I wouldn't dream of trying to get left-wing talk radio shut down. I wouldn't dream of shutting down the Church of Scientology or stopping Creationists from blathering on about God. There's no petition in this country I'd ever sign that was involved with silencing expression of ideas or opinions. Regardless of what I might personally think of those opinions. I don't think people should get fired for what they say or believe, just what they do.

There's no law against being a racist. But people get fired for letting a racist idea slip out. To me, that's the same thing as firing somebody for letting a religious idea slip out. And yet we supposedly have both freedom of speech, and freedom of religion in this country. How we treat people with unpopular or minority opinions is the mark of our adherence to our own Constitution. Squelching is always wrong.

And yet, you look at how threatened the left is by talk radio, and how quickly they're moving into squelch mode. Well, it's sobering.

Everyone thinks their dissent is best. The true mark of an American, however, is how you tolerate dissent that's not yours. If you try to squelch it, or if you recognize it as the same thing you had when you were a dissenter.

It just seems that psyches have become so fragile these days. Or maybe they've always been that way. When Mormons come to my door, I dismiss them (and usually very politely). I certainly don’t call for laws or regulations to ban door-to-door salesmanship. Living in a society with other people means you can't always have things your own way. Everyone speaks of tolerance, but that's just a nice-sounding word. Most conflicts could be solved between people without a lot of fuss and bother if they didn't think they somehow had the right to go through life with unruffled feathers. It just gets to ridiculous. I use the word "wuss" to describe that attitude because I don't know what else to call it. I was raised to handle things myself and that tattle-tailing was a bad thing. I'd say 75% of the things people run to the law or government to resolve could be resolved themselves peaceably, clearly, and directly if the didn't abrogate their responsibility to behave like decent, civilized people. But everyone wants to run to a lawyer. There's a place for the law, lawyers, government officials, and regulations, but the more we cede to them to resolve the fine-grained issues of our lives, the more we lose our humanity; the more we become just cogs in a vast bureaucracy of cold rules.

Owning guns are a right, of course. But it damn near should be a requirement just to knock some of that wuss out of people. Eventually they took the training wheels off our bikes. Taking on the responsibility for your own safety by owning a gun is sort of like taking off the training wheels of your life. Neither Batman nor government can be there as fast as you need them in some dark alley. And that's true of so many other areas of our lives. But now people commonly feel quite offended and put upon if they have to resolve things for themselves like an adult. Instead, they run for lawyers, lawmakers, politicians, and regulators. We're a tattle-tale society. We're a society that would be much better for going out to the target range every week or so and squeezing off a few. But I'll keep my pen handy.

quote:

I certainly don’t call for laws or regulations to ban door-to-door salesmanship

Yet you are fully within your rights to put up a sign on your door saying "no solicitors." And a knock on the door or a doorbell ringing does not have magic powers over you. You don't HAVE to answer it. Same as a telephone. When it sounds, it's simply a request for your time. If you're busy, or don't want to talk to anyone, you don't have to.

And with free speech, speaking freely is the right. There is no "force people to listen" or "force people to agree" or "because they say it, it's true" inherent in that.

What I see, now that I've been on this planet approaching half a century, is just a bunch of conditioned responses where people assume they don't have responsibility or control over their lives. You don't have to cave in every time. Most of the con-artists in the world try to tell you you are powerless. They assume gullibility. They live in a world of sharks and marks. The cunning at the top of the food chain, and the chimps and sheep.

What kills me, is people believe crap that people tell them about THEMSELVES. And sometimes when they really need to stand up and speak up, they don't. Sometimes all they need to just knock the wus out of them, is open their friggin' mouths and express themselves. And that's not necessarily by following some program.

We have more say in our lives than politicians and clergy would have you believe. God and the angels obey our whims. Tomorrow you could decide to be a Buddhist, and Jesus himself wouldn't object. Only perhaps your fellow parishoners in a church would try to talk you out of it. Like peer pressure.

A politician could change from Democrat to Republican to Independent and back again. There's no law of allegiance to a party. And yet look at everyone who's done it. They're treated like a turncoat. And yet every party is supposedly American.

You're born a citizen, yeah, but you choose to obey the rule of law. You AGREE to the precepts of the Constitution. You participate in society. You have the option to exercise common-sense rights like speech and keeping and bearing arms. The only things that are forced on you, are higher and higher taxes. But we're working on that.

Yet you are fully within your rights to put up a sign on your door saying "no solicitors."

There you go. Fine-grained, personal responsibility stuff instead of one size of law that's supposed to fit all in all circumstances. It's sort of like having an operating system that allows you to change the fonts and customize it a little.

And a knock on the door or a doorbell ringing does not have magic powers over you. You don't HAVE to answer it. Same as a telephone.

No, you're wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. The telephone does have magic powers over people. I've seen it. I've seen carefully-prepared dinners get cold while someone interrupts their dinner to answer the phone. My counsel of "let the machine get that" usually falls on deaf ears. And now we know why. Look at the explosion of cell phone use. We're all just one silent moment away from oblivion. That's exactly what it looks like. We look like we're living in a Twilight Zone episode where people start disappearing into thin air if they go longer than five minutes without talking. And so people desperately run to the mall and get a cell phone. They talk on it constantly, even when just walking down the street, even when just picking out vegetables in the grocery store, even when making difficult and dangerous left-hand turns in their cars. Even when they have better things to do like eat a hot dinner. You've got it all wrong, thalo. There are indeed magic powers at work.

Brothel told me this little story yesterday. I told him to write it up in a Facebook post because I thought it was good, but I don't know if he'll get around to it so I'll tell what I know of it here.

Brothel was at the supermarket or something the other day. It was some place that had a large magazine rack. Anyway, he said young Triple-B (he's five years old) ignored the Nickelodeon magazine, the multiple video gaming magazines, and the ubiquitous kid's "Sesame Street" type magazines and made a beeline to "Guns and Ammo" and was oohing and awing over all the cool guns inside.

I laughed when I heard that. That's so Triple-B. He's a guy, of course. All guy. The school, daycare system, and gay Tele-Tubbies haven't yet succeeded in making a girly-man out of him, and I suspect they never will. He's future Republican material, that's for sure.

I think I told you about my friends who are ultra-liberal PC parents. They denied their boys toy guns, and what did the kids do? they simply MADE guns out of sticks and went "pow pow"... but their parents treated this like they committed a completely unpardonable offense. I mean they really reacted poorly, got all hypersensitive, and basically guilted the kids into breaking down and sobbing at how bad guns were. They got time out to think about all the children killed by guns, or something like that. It was a wussification-defining moment.

Welcome to the left's circle of life, I thought.

I don't know what I would have done without gunplay as a kid. If my parents had tried to take that away, I wouldn't have friggin' BELIEVED it. And I never once, not as early as I could remember, ever thought of myself as not being able to tell the difference between toys and reality.

Now, a liberal parent catches a kid with a doll or action figure "not respecting gender" or something else equally laughable... they actually punish or lecture over it. And we all know what a slut Barbie is. I mean come on.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: thalo,

quote:

They denied their boys toy guns, and what did the kids do? they simply MADE guns out of sticks and went "pow pow"... but their parents treated this like they committed a completely unpardonable offense. I mean they really reacted poorly, got all hypersensitive, and basically guilted the kids into breaking down and sobbing at how bad guns were. The got time out to think about all the children killed by guns, or something like that. It was a wussification-defining moment.

You are one emmer-effer of a congenial and open-minded person if you can count quacks like that among your friends. But as you said about movies, if you had to weed out all the liberal kooks and flakes, there wouldn't be much left to watch.

My mother is still somewhat convinced that video games are the devil's tools. Well, she doesn't use that exact language (although she does freak out at Brothel's "Magic" playing cards with all the demons and monsters on them). But she doesn't like the idea of video games. And Brothel's wife was a little hesitant about all the guns and rough games the two boys were always drawn to. But she quickly caved. I think Brothel was having none of that. He provided the much-needed male influence. Image how fucked up kids can get when they don't have that male influence. I realize that it's all PC to say that fathers are superfluous, but that is just not the case. We really create fucked up societies when these young boys are running around and their isn't a bull elephant there to make sure they don't go too far.

Certainly it wouldn't be a good thing to teach kids to torture cats and shoot people with bb guns. And some parents actually are pretty brutal and facilitate such behavior. But that's not what playing with plastic guns, playing cowboys and indians (sorry, "Native Americans"), and playing pretend sword fighting is all about. It's about playing with and channeling that masculine energy in a heathy way. Your friends are, frankly, kooks. I have a few kooks on my side as well, so I know how that goes.

quote:

Now, a liberal parent catches a kid with a doll or action figure "not respecting gender" or something else equally laughable... they actually punish or lecture over it. And we all know what a slut Barbie is. I mean come on.

That's one reason I refer to it as The Cult of Liberalism. This stuff is so goofy, the notions so bizarrely indoctrinated, that I don't know what else to call it. These are attitudes utopian in nature and so disconnected from reality. Please do not invite me over to the people's houses where they are doing this kind of stuff. I probably couldn't keep my mouth shut and there would be hard feelings.

quote:

Your friends are, frankly, kooks.

Oh god yes. They really are. I've honestly tried to keep my mouth shut. And have had limited success. We've had words about stuff. I can tell the wife just barely tolerates me. And most of the evil comes from her.

Of course nobody listens to me because I crack wise about everything. Meanwhile, every present I've ever gotten the boys has been taken away from them and thrown out by the stupid nazi parents. And it's been some cool stuff, like whoopie cushions, and snowball maker/throwers. The boys still talk about the cool presents from thalo, when they probably got to play with them for a grand total of a day, before they got thrown out.

This oppressive liberal PC parenting is doing the kids no good. They're turning into sort of dependent girly-boys. But they're starting to rebel and disobey, which is probably a good thing. Going off to college is probably what they need. Somewhere they can at least play violent video games in peace on an X Box or something.

I'd love to be able to take them hunting and fishing. Never happen. Those things simply aren't on the approved activities list. These are the sorts of parents kids need to break free from, emancipate from.

They love their boys, but it's so much about protection and control. I'm sure I've told you about these idiots, with all the protective body armor if the kids dare to ride their bikes. Plus they drive them everywhere. Everywhere. I mean to the corner store. When I was a kid, mama thalo opened the door in the morning, let us out, rain or shine... and then sometimes remembered to let us in at night. My sister and I had a "range" and it was a free range, and could extend for miles and include countless activities.

We'd hustle money, all kinds of ways, doing odd jobs, shining shoes, shoveling snow, raking leaves, mowing lawns... I always had a paper route. We'd score meals at all manner of different friends' houses. Sometimes mama thalo would be the one to provide sandwiches or money for pizza or whatever. We had lemonade stands, we washed cars, I mean just the normal stuff of childhood that kids no longer do. We played constant baseball, kickball, army. We followed sources of natural snack foods like wild raspberries, blackberries, apples. We built forts and clubhouses. We made bi-weekly pilgrimages to early "recycyling" centers to find playboys and penthouses, the occasional "Hustler" or "Oui" which were real finds.

We garbage picked. We dug in the dirt. We had fights with sticks, rocks, dirt, bricks, water balloons, squirtguns, disc-firing "tracer" guns, slingshots.

We were barely supervised, except on family trips to the Jersey shore. And even then, it was hustling money by running errands going to get the adults a pack of smokes, the paper, or a hoagie, and being able to keep the change and buy ourselves snacks or treats. Otherwise we just played on the beach, or rode bikes... all day every day.

And it ain't like we never watched TV. But it was usually at night or on Saturday mornings. Sometimes there was a rare show that you just had to catch in the afternoon, and the world stopped for it. Otherwise, too bad.

And with me, it was endless comic books and pulp novels. I'd find a place to sit and read the latest Captain America, Hulk, or Spidey... and then go about my business. It was a life of freedom. Sometimes it got rough, some kids were evil and some gangs were violent. But we made it through. The fact is, it was a far less supervised life than kids nowadays have. And it's clear that boys like those I've been telling you about, who are forbidden toy guns... end up little wussies.

Not the mention the next generation of mmm mmm mmm Obama supporters.

Epic. Your life should be a movie. Not "Gangs of New York," not "Little Rascals of New York" but "Real Kids in the Big City" or something like that.

Contrast that life (not all that different from my childhood in terms of free range) with this:

quote:

They love their boys, but it's so much about protection and control. I'm sure I've told you about these idiots, with all the protective body armor if the kids dare to ride their bikes. Plus they drive them everywhere. Everywhere. I mean to the corner store. When I was a kid, mama thalo opened the door in the morning, let us out, rain or shine... and then sometimes remembered to let us in at night. My sister and I had a "range" and it was a free range, and could extend for miles and include countless activities.

Want to create a dependent class? Do this. Does the woman wear the pants in this family? Is the man a complete spineless wuss? Or maybe this is what he wants for his kids too. Many a man has married into a family where the woman was set on raising the kids in her religion. And make no mistake, the goofball stuff we're seeing here is not much less than a religion.