Home - by BigFurHat - December 18, 2012 - 03:30 America/New_York - 65 Comments
December 18th, 2012
How do we broadcast this up in the sky REAL BIG and REAL LOUD for all of America to watch? Every day for a whole week.
“My position is that anybody that is in favor of gun control is a fucking moron.” ~ Jackie Mason
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Good stuff, linked at my rag
Boobie the Rocket Dog
A half hour well spent. If only it were SFW it could be passed on those who really need it: pussies.
Suzanne’s story in this video broke my heart.
Another classic from P&T. Have passed this along to many of my contacts.
Jackie Mason says it best!
Funny, more and more ponytailed guys are coming around to our side. Don’t know if that’s a good thing or not, but these guys seem to have a good grip.
Stranded in Sonoma
If you deny a person the means of self defense you also deny them the right of self defense.
The most succinct statement about the right to own a firearm. Frame it an put it on your wall.
@ Boobie: I was on our side BEFORE I had a ponytail!
I won’t worship at the church of the godless. I understand that at least one of these guys does. I’ll give them credit for fighting for the right side, if that’s what they are actually doing.
Always figured they must be gay or have something else up their sleves.
Excellent. Will pass this on to the cool constitutionalists and to the lefturds on my email list.
@ Four .45′s – Touché. But I think you’d be the exception.
They lost me at 43 seconds when they said ‘the guys who founded our country gave us the right to have guns’.
BS,the guys who founded our country recognized our right to have guns then wrote the Second Amendment to prohibit the government from interfering with that right.
If you believe the founders gave us the right to have guns then you will also believe the purpose of the second amendment is so we can go deer hunting. This is what vacuum-brained Sen Joe Manchin believes, but he’s an idiot.
It’s a shame you didn’t keep going because the episode is great, especially since you’re hung up on a technicality, a technicality that is arguable.
At what point does your defensive weapon of choice wander into being offensive?
If there is such a line, one that will not be tolerated by society, then you will see that that weapon is not an unalienable right to possess (*on your person.)
This is the basis of the entire argument of the 2nd amendment and you chose to throw high-profile allies under the bus because of their wording, wording which is usually associated with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as being unalienable.
Your pursuit of happiness, say for instance, wearing a bandolier of grenades in public, has been struck down by our courts because it impinges on my pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
You can’t make the argument that the creator has given you this right. At some point the argument becomes absurd.
Update: I shouldn’t let this hang out there like a big Matzah Ball. I agree that if I were writing the script for Penn and Teller I would not have worded it that way, because personal defense is a God-given right. But there was no reason to not go on watching the episode as if they were the enemy to gun rights. They aren’t.
Blink, Your point is very important.
Most people think a piece of paper GIVES us the right of bearing arms for our self defense – be it personal or national.
They think: If only we could change the words written on that paper there will be no more right to arms.
There will be much blood shed once they feel comfortable enough to start grabbing them.
The right came before the need to write the words we have that are only meant to remind the Govt to back off and not restrict this natural right.
They knew an unarmed populace could never remain free for long.
Stand strong. Don’t budge an inch.
There is no line.
The Founders intended We the people to be as well armed as the regular Army.
There is a line- it’s called what you have the right to have on you in public.
And also notice that your wording here is similar to Penn’s. You said the “Founder’s intended.” Shouldn’t you have said, “God intended us”?
There is a big difference between stockpiling as many weapons as you’d like in your basement as part of an armed militia and walking around with a flame thrower.
You cease to be someone protecting themselves, your inalienable right, and you become a lunatic and a menace, something the SCOTUS has recognized as an impingement on my pursuit of happiness.
You can argue all you want that you have a God given right to protect yourself, you will soon see that God can’t do a thing for you when you cross the line that you say is not there.
Keep the flamethrower home.
Even the police do not walk around with AK 47′s and full riot gear at all times. There is a reason for that. It’s called menacing, something that God told me I do not have to put up with.
You have the right to keep and bear arms. You do not have the right to a personal nuclear deterrent.
I did’nt say anything about public display.
God’s speaking to you?
I think if you have the money and the safe storage space you can have anything you want, barring WMD.
There is not enough space you can own to protect people from your “right to personal protection.”
And if you obtain weapons of mass destruction you can shout, “God has given me this right” as loud as you want as you’re led to the loony bin.
If my neighbor has bombs in his house, as part of his “personal protection,” he can have that inalienable right discussion with God, and sooner than he thinks, because I will shoot the motherfucker in the head if he thinks it’s his right to have weapons that can kill me that aren’t even AIMED AT ME.
You see, that is the difference. That is where you cross that line that “doesn’t exist.”
“At what point does your defensive weapon of choice wander into being offensive?”
When you decide to shot up a school. You might be giving guns just a tad to much credit for the dirty deed. If this clown used a bomb, knife, acid, what ever the topic of discussion would hopefully be focused where it belongs.
You didn’t say public display, but that is the basis of the entire gun rights argument.
What good is the right to bear arms that you’re not allowed to bring into the public?
Your argument is that you have the right to bring anything you want into the public.
I agree that you should have the right to protect your homestead, and that arsenal can and should be bigger than what you’re allowed to carry for personal protection when you’re off your private property.
If you think you have the right to bring an AK-47 onto public property during peace time, than you’ve lost the argument.
“I will shoot the motherfucker in the head ”
Are you listening to youself?
That’s exactly the kind of talk that should prevent you from ever owning a firearm.
Are you listening to YOURSELF?
I am protecting myself by shooting the guy in the head, because in my argument, some moronic jackwagon thinks it’s his right to possess weapons that can kill me in my sleep because of a “whoopsie daisy.”
I have MY inalienable right to protect myself and my family from unreasonable lunatics.
No, that is not my argument.
I said there is a line.
I’m demonstrating what that line is.
There is a line where your GOD GIVEN RIGHT impinges on MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT.
If you can’t see that the argument is a stalemate than there is no reason to pursue it.
You have said in a past blog that you don’t own a gun nor have you ever held or shot one.
So as you’ve said leave it to people that own them to argue the point.
Now you’re just flailing, and being obtuse and intentionally insulting, probably out of fear of having a weak argument.
My point about the libs saying you can’t have an opinion on abortion if you’re a man, and then using that argument against them in the arena of gun control, was to show how idiotic their argument is.
So, have you chosen to introduce the idiotic argument into your debate arsenal?
No, just being obtuse.
Here, have a beer on me!
Open carry allows rifles in some states.
My argument is not weak.
An AK is a rifle.
God has given you the right to protect yourself. Man is tasked with sorting out how to reasonably affirm that right within the framework of society.
You just said yourself “some states allow.”
That is man sorting out one man’s God-given right to defense versus another man’s God-given right to pursue happiness without the threat of a menace.
I believe one man is entitled to acquire as many weapons as he damn well pleases as long as it stays on his homestead for the sole purpose of protecting that homestead.
When he wanders onto public property there is a threshold where one’s “personal protection” becomes threatening and menacing. There IS A LINE.
Man has to decide where that line is.
I think it becomes absurd to say, I need my AK-47 in public because that other guy has an AK-47 in public.
It’s also absurd to claim that the very existence of a weapon gives you the right to brandish that weapon under the guise of saying “the other guy might have it.”
You become the “other guy,” and round and round the argument goes until now you claim it’s your God-given right to walk around with a shoulder mounted anti-aircraft missile.
So, there is a line.
Where is it? That’s the question.
Oddly, I have no problem at all with a concealed carry society. But I have a problem with open carry. Open carry seems offensive, not defensive.
“A strong body makes a strong mind. As to the species of exercise I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” –Thomas Jefferson
“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
I agree with Jefferson.
Everyone has the right to carry a gun for self-defense.
That doesn’t mean a society where everyone walks around with AK-47s and battle fatigues.
At some point it goes beyond self-defense and wanders into being offensive.
And this is a valid argument under the constitution.
Your right to self-defense can definitely at some point infringe upon my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
You have your gun. That’s great. I want you to have it.
You also have your personal stockpile that can arm a militia, that’s great too. Leave it at home.
No need to have the HK 416 at the Outdoor Symphony at the Town Square.
It’s only creating a heightened feeling of tension and mayhem.
Scalia has written about the “menace” argument extensively. And I agree with him.
Where I get nervous is what the left would call “menacing.”
Anything that can be concealed carried, by definition, is NOT menacing.
A mace with steel spikes is menacing.
Let’s find the reasonable area.
No stockpile here.
And you’re right, we are at a stalemate.
I’m not going to convince you and you’re not going to convince me.
Jefferson’s point was defence against Tyrany.
Defence of our Union, our Country.
Yes. And as I said, I think everyone is entitled to their munitions stockpile, for the reasons you mention. I don’t think they are entitled to carry it around with them wherever they go in case a sudden attack of tyranny breaks out.
Let’s use common sense. There is personal self-defense, and then there’s a militia that is stockpiled for use against an army.
I think if there is such a thing as a “gun nut” this would be the definition-
A guy that walks around fully armed with tactical weaponry, sending out the signal that he’s sufficiently armed at all times for the coming revolution, or coup, or tyranny, or whatever. Me thinks he can’t wait for the shooting to begin.
I think a really nice concealed carry pistol is a very good thing to have at all times.
Let’s make that happen nationally. It never will if people insist on not letting go of the fantasy that this is Bolivia and everyone should have a carbine strapped to their backs with a few bandoliers criss-crossing their fatigues.
And we are not at the stalemate yet. lol.
Should felons be allowed to have guns?
^Depends on the crime. Felon is a pretty large range.
No. Felons lose their rights.
So Ann B. can’t have a gun after she gets out of prison?
I think if there is such a thing as a “gun nut” this would be the definition-
A guy that walks around fully armed with tactical weaponry,
I know several people exactly like this. They all belong to the local SWAT team.
No, I’m not asking what happens to felons and their guns. I’m asking you what you think should happen with felons and their guns.
Is, “felons lose their rights” your personal position?
You asked if felons should be allowed to have guns.
I answered no.
Don’t be cryptic, get to your point.
For a non-violent financial protest against the government, you think she deserves to have her right to gun ownership revoked?
Think about this: it’s all about money to the authorities. If it were about justice, you (I, we, whatever) wouldn’t be able to buy our way out of traffic tickets, would we? I don’t mean to transfer this entire argument onto Ann’s situation, but isn’t that the totality of her crime? Withholding funds? There was no violence threats or harm to others.
Yet people use the broad brush “felon” and deny rights based on a single word. Why not take the actual crime into consideration?
Then you don’t believe the right to defend yourself with a gun is an unalienable right.
Wait, X. I don’t want to get lost in the weeds on this just yet.
I’m asking MNP if possessing a gun is an unalienable right.
Sorry to interrupt, I’ve been cooking dinner in-between “”surfing.” When I decide to go shooting or hunting. I discretely transfer my weapons from my residence to my vehicle in canvas or plastic gun cases. If a neighbor happens to see, I’m sure they may realize that these are firearms, but they cannot actually see them. I do have a concealed carry permit but I usually only “pack” on my way to work and back. I also carry a sidearm or rifle (or both) when I’m out exploring our remote areas. I really would not want to live in a society where people walk around with rifle’s slung! With freedom, comes responsibility AND respect for others, not a belligerent “I have the right.” This is a HUGE part of what is wrong with our “I do so because I can” society (flag burners for example,….guurrr). I’m with Fur (BIG-TIME) on this one! I want to protect my right to own my firearms, and I’d really rather nobody know what I have or if I have one on-me. With all this said, I can see no reason to walk around with a weapon in plain view just because “I can.” Not only is it disrespectful to the public in general, but it is also bound to generate a lot of undesired attention.
Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are our unalianable rights.
Felons lose their liberty and their pursuit of happiness and sometimes their life.
So by your logic we have no unalianable rights.
I’m asking you if felons should lose their unalienable right to defend themselves with a gun after they get out of prison.
Yes they lose that right.
Come on, where’s the gotcha?
This is what I’m getting at.
If you look earlier in this thread, Blink said they couldn’t watch the rest of this video because Penn said the founders gave us the right to own a gun.
He said, “wrong.” God gave us that right. It’s unalienable. This is the predominant conservative position.
Meanwhile, another predominant conservative position is that felons lose their right to own a gun.
So much for unalienable.
God gives us the right to own a gun and defend ourselves … until we decide to take the gun away from certain people based on man’s law.
If this is acceptable I think maybe you can accept man’s law when it comes to deciding on a threshold of what is a reasonable defense weapon to brandish in public.
So, there is a line, as I said all along. And it’s not an unalienable right to defend yourself with a gun, otherwise felons should have guns.
Wow. That’s my first touche ever on the innerwebz.
This is a historic moment!!!
I’m screenshotting it.
(I have a permit to screen shoot)
I did’nt realize I was defending Blink.
But I stand by my post above your Nooo.
Felons lose their unalianable rights.
Hey. Off topic.
Is anyone else having a problem with the gravatars not loading?
As far as the line goes I’ll accept it.
Yes to your off topic question.
Ya. Okay, that was a fun debate. Thank you.
I have to go look into this gravatar issue.
Catch you on another hot topic.
Snail Mail- BigFurHat / PO BOX 150 Southfields, NY 10975-0150
Want an Avatar? Find out how here.
--SUBSCRIBE by Email FREE