Fuck its silent in here.......

[J. Walter Weatherman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn14RwuJJRg

Watch to the end for a very special cameo.

[MikeC]

Gun rights goes a bit deeper than just having one to defend yourself. Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide. Taking away the rights of citizens to defend themselves is the easiest way to assert your domination of that group of people.

Now i am not saying we as a nation are anywhere near that or that it could happen soon in America, its just what history has shown.

Take for instance the most recent genocide occurring on this Earth, taking place in the Sudan. 

The Islamist Arab Government seized power in 1989 through a military coup. And what was one of their main goals? Gun control.

In Sudan, it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to lawfully acquire and possess the means for self-defense. According to the national gun-control statutes, a gun licensee must be over 30 years of age, must have a specified social and economic status, and must be examined physically by a doctor. Females have even more difficulty meeting these requirements because of social and occupational limitations.

When these restrictions are finally overcome, there are additional restrictions on the amount of ammunition one may possess, making it nearly impossible for a law-abiding gun owner to achieve proficiency with firearms. A handgun owner, for example, can only purchase 15 rounds of ammunition a year. The penalties for violation of Sudan's firearms laws are severe, and can include capital punishment.

The practical application of the gun laws is different. If you are someone the government wants to slaughter—such as all the black Africans of southern and western Sudan, regardless of their religion—then you are absolutely forbidden to possess a firearm. A U.S. Department of State document notes: "After President Bashir seized power in 1989, the new government disarmed non-Arab ethnic groups but allowed politically loyal Arab allies to keep their weapons."

And it doesn't even really start and end with guns, forbidding the Scots from using swords and such was a means of suppressing the population. Why do you think stone throwing was so popular with them? It was about the only thing they could use to defend themselves that the English couldn't take away from them, because they were forbidden to bear or train with arms.

Taking away the means for average citizens to defend themselves almost always ends up badly for the side that is subjected to them. And the founders of our nation were keen to note this in creating our Constitution.

More importantly Law Enforcement can't protect everyone and usually show up after the crime has happened. There is no better means of deterrent than an armed public. Studies in prisons with criminals have shown if they had the choice between a non-armed house but a pretty good chance of getting arrested versus an armed house and no chance of getting arrested they would choose the unarmed house. I believe one of the main explanations given was that with the armed house that person isn't restrained by any kind of rules and regulations like a police officer is. The civilian with the gun is more likely to shoot first and ask questions later. The criminals were more afraid of armed citizens than the police. And that's how you get an effective deterrent. And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide.

Nothing like a sweeping, overbroad, unsupported statement to kicks things off.

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

And I feel like I can safely say that they sentence above is 100% plainly and categorically false as written. In fact, it's a pretty fucking ludicrous thing to write.

And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

The majority of Chicago gun violence is gang-related. So most of it is not so much a matter of gun-toting urban youth targeting an unarmed populace as it is gun-toting gangbangers targeting other gun-toting gangbangers and shooting each other along with innocent bystanders.

[CBStew]

Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide.

Nothing like a sweeping, overbroad, unsupported statement to kicks things off.

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

And I feel like I can safely say that they sentence above is 100% plainly and categorically false as written. In fact, it's a pretty fucking ludicrous thing to write.

And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

The majority of Chicago gun violence is gang-related. So most of it is not so much a matter of gun-toting urban youth targeting an unarmed populace as it is gun-toting gangbangers targeting other gun-toting gangbangers and shooting each other along with innocent bystanders.

J. Walter,  don't you realize that it is those armed gangs in Chicago who are protecting us from the government?

[flannj]

Gun rights goes a bit deeper than just having one to defend yourself. Every instance in human history where the government stepped in and took away peoples guns, its been genocide. Taking away the rights of citizens to defend themselves is the easiest way to assert your domination of that group of people.

Now i am not saying we as a nation are anywhere near that or that it could happen soon in America, its just what history has shown.

Take for instance the most recent genocide occurring on this Earth, taking place in the Sudan.  

The Islamist Arab Government seized power in 1989 through a military coup. And what was one of their main goals? Gun control.

In Sudan, it is virtually impossible for an average citizen to lawfully acquire and possess the means for self-defense. According to the national gun-control statutes, a gun licensee must be over 30 years of age, must have a specified social and economic status, and must be examined physically by a doctor. Females have even more difficulty meeting these requirements because of social and occupational limitations.

When these restrictions are finally overcome, there are additional restrictions on the amount of ammunition one may possess, making it nearly impossible for a law-abiding gun owner to achieve proficiency with firearms. A handgun owner, for example, can only purchase 15 rounds of ammunition a year. The penalties for violation of Sudan's firearms laws are severe, and can include capital punishment.

The practical application of the gun laws is different. If you are someone the government wants to slaughter—such as all the black Africans of southern and western Sudan, regardless of their religion—then you are absolutely forbidden to possess a firearm. A U.S. Department of State document notes: "After President Bashir seized power in 1989, the new government disarmed non-Arab ethnic groups but allowed politically loyal Arab allies to keep their weapons."

And it doesn't even really start and end with guns, forbidding the Scots from using swords and such was a means of suppressing the population. Why do you think stone throwing was so popular with them? It was about the only thing they could use to defend themselves that the English couldn't take away from them, because they were forbidden to bear or train with arms.

Taking away the means for average citizens to defend themselves almost always ends up badly for the side that is subjected to them. And the founders of our nation were keen to note this in creating our Constitution.

More importantly Law Enforcement can't protect everyone and usually show up after the crime has happened. There is no better means of deterrent than an armed public. Studies in prisons with criminals have shown if they had the choice between a non-armed house but a pretty good chance of getting arrested versus an armed house and no chance of getting arrested they would choose the unarmed house. I believe one of the main explanations given was that with the armed house that person isn't restrained by any kind of rules and regulations like a police officer is. The civilian with the gun is more likely to shoot first and ask questions later. The criminals were more afraid of armed citizens than the police. And that's how you get an effective deterrent. And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

Mike, I neither want or need your "help".

[CT III]

More importantly Law Enforcement can't protect everyone and usually show up after the crime has happened. There is no better means of deterrent than an armed public. Studies in prisons with criminals have shown if they had the choice between a non-armed house but a pretty good chance of getting arrested versus an armed house and no chance of getting arrested they would choose the unarmed house. I believe one of the main explanations given was that with the armed house that person isn't restrained by any kind of rules and regulations like a police officer is. The civilian with the gun is more likely to shoot first and ask questions later. The criminals were more afraid of armed citizens than the police. And that's how you get an effective deterrent. And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

I just want to know who funds these studies, because I would like to sell them a bridge.

[Wheezer]

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

The routine doesn't play too well in a world of pure phenomena associated only by sychronicity and attachment, either.

[Chuck to Chuck]

And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

I see.  The people don't have guns, so it's open season.  Who can be doing this if the people don't have guns? 

I KNOW!!!!



He's in for the weekend with a few days to kill.

[Chuck to Chuck]

[J. Walter Weatherman]

If you ever wonder why no one takes you seriously around here, it's at least in part because either an inability to reason logically or a simple lack of interest in dealing with actual facts (or maybe both) leads you to places that make no sense in a world of facts and people who reason logically.

The routine doesn't play too well in a world of pure phenomena associated only by sychronicity and attachment, either.

Quiet, Hume.

[Wheezer]

How have I missed this?

[MAD]

And its why Chicago on a regular basis has 50+ shootings in a weekend, the citizens aren't armed, so it's open season on them.

I see.  The people don't have guns, so it's open season.  Who can be doing this if the people don't have guns? 

I KNOW!!!!



He's in for the weekend with a few days to kill.

Jon Burge looks nothing like that.



Okay, maybe a little.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

How have I missed this?

I need a ruling from CT....























Irony?

[Wheezer]

How have I missed this?

I need a ruling from CT....

That's another goddamn Bronco, isn't it?

[J. Walter Weatherman]

BTW: the leading lights of the Hip New Right...