Liberals pissing their pants

They don't.

I know that, and you know that, but there is no good way of determining it quickly and safely. Taking guns to political meetings is just fine, for 99.999% of the population. By the same token, taking bombs on airplanes is just fine, for 99.999% of the population. But for the same reason that I don't want people to be able to take bombs on airplanes, I don't want them to be able to take guns to political meetings: That 1 person out of 100,000 who is crazy enough to do something stupid.

And it is nonsense to pretend it doesn't happen and wouldn't happen.

​

So I get punished for what someone else might do? That's real freedom right there, I tells ya.

Think of it like the scene in Pulp Fiction. *BANG!* "I'm sorry. Did I interrupt? Please continue. Oh, you were finished? Well allow me to retort..." I suspect that your elected official is a lot less likely to pull something sneaky if you quietly set a large revolver down on the table in front of you while he is talking and stare at him intently.

That's how the law works.

Most people could safely drive well over the speed limit, most of the time, in quite a few areas. But the law doesn't allow anyone to do it, because of what some might do.

99% of the time, if not more, you could park your car in front of a fire hydrant without it being any kind of inconvenience to anyone. Yet in many places (not here in France, but I know it is the case in Michigan) you aren't allowed to do it because the fire department might happen to need that fire hydrant, and your car parked there might be a problem.

I could be trusted to walk out of a store with merchandise, with the promise that I will come back and pay for it later. But if I try it, they won't let me, because some people wouldn't be trustworthy.

A majority of people who drink and drive are not dangers to others on the road. Yet I am sure you have punished more than one person because of what he or others might do.

Most male gym teachers in elementary schools could walk into the girls' shower without there being any danger of them doing anything at all improper towards the girls (who are too little to be sexually interesting to normal men). Are you suggesting that only those who are known pedophiles should have their freedom to do so limited?

I could multiply the list endlessly. Your pious "Why should my freedom ever be limited because of what a small minority of people would perhaps do in the same circumstance?" sounds so nice, but reality doesn't work that way. In fact, most laws are based on the very principle that things are outlawed because they are a risk, rather than only outlawing those things that actually do harm to others in every single instance.

But I think you, of all people, know that very well.

​

Elwood is always soft on pedophiles. It's why he permabanned me for trying to alert the board to Bock's deviancy.

But nothing says it must work that way.

Invalid comparison. Excessive speed and DUI are more like firing a gun in random directions than merely displaying or brandishing it. Sure, you might not hit anyone, but the fact remains that the threat you present has moved firmly from "potential" to "real," and is no longer covered by "what you might do." You are doing something threatening. I HATE seeing this distinction blurred.

It's simple: You start getting angry and confrontational with a government representative in the room, and you start brandishing a gun, you deserve to get your ass knocked to the ground by a pile of secret service agents, because you are an unthinking idiot. If a man gets confrontational with you while your family is present and starts brandishing a gun, you going to stand there and say "it's okay, honey, he's only saying his piece"? Hell no, you're going to protect your family from some moron who doesn't know proper gun behavior and has become a threat to you and everyone around you.


J.

Well, if you feel that way, maybe you should bring a gun too. "An armed society is a polite society."

So you're saying I should bring a gun, that way when you do something inordinately stupid like screaming at a representative with your gun out and about, we all get in trouble? Nah. I'm not stupid.

J.

Anybody find out what heppened to this guy? Did the Men in Black come and bundle him away to some dark corner where they asked him over and over and over again to explain why he was exercising his right; or did they just leave him be?

A gun, a sign saying "time to water the tree of liberty," and a place soon to be occupied by the president of the U.S. Yeah, nothing to worry about there.

Second. If you look at the clip the guy is carrying it on his leg. It is carried in such a way that anyone could easily knock it off by bumping into him and then we have a potential accident. If you want to carry, then carry responsibly.

What is, "things that give Gunforgers a hard-on," Alex?

Easily? It's in a retention rig with a thumbreak strap over the gun. That gun ain't going anywhere unless it's intentionally drawn from the holster, and the thumbsnap intentionally unsnapped.

That's not to say some idiot behind him couldn't grab it and draw it before he could stop them, but there can be no "kock[ing] it off."

T.R., what you just said is a load of crap.

The way he's wearing it, the sign he's holding, his attitude, all say "I want to start some fucking trouble".

J.

Yeah, but it's in a drop leg holster.

Carrying your primary weapon in a drop leg, especially when you don't have a gowzillion things like mag pouches, dump bags, handcuffs, grenades, and other crap taking up all the room on your actual belt = :lookatme: :lookatme: :lookatme: "I'm An Operator!" "Blackwater said I was overqualified!" wannabe poser.

Don't be stupid. It's an implied threat, and you know it. Doesn't matter who or what is being referenced, it's still a threat.

A threat being made by someone carrying a weapon, even a legal one, is something that deserves to be taken seriously.

And it's practically a neon sign to crazies saying "this is how you get close to the President with a gun."

Not that some folks would have a problem with that, of course. It's all part of the plan.

Pull your head out. People feel threatened! Don't be surprised when they respond in kind, and quote great American figures when they do. It's in our blood after all.

True, for some. Most gun owners probably think that guy was a douche just because of his attitude and how he was carrying himself. That kind of douche gets responsible gun owners in trouble.

J.

And what should be done about the threat that Obama is proposing to the American way of life?

Oh right, you're too busy sucking his dick to notice anything.

We should hang around where he's going to be speaking and make thinly veiled threats indicating we'd like to kill him? Oh, yeah, that's the answer.

What sort of "threat" does the President pose that making a death threat becomes a justifiable response?

Someone got their Glen Beck fix this morning.

Here we go with the spin.

If people feel threatened by what Obama is doing to THEIR country, how should they respond?

You do know that fighting against government tyranny is part of the American way of life. Or at least it used to be.

Its sad how willing some of you are to give up your freedom to the government.

You see, Cynthia McKinney and the cast of Code Pink are crazy, but making thinly veiled calls for assassination -- well, that's just self-defense and patriotism.