Slog Comments
Seattle Gun Buyback Exceeds Expectations, Blows Through $118,000 in Under Three Hours
1
Looked like those clean cut gents would be willing to buy your orphaned guns though. (Take a good look at their pics....you'll be seeing them again)
2
Not to mention the mayhem and panic you could cause brandishing a real missile launcher. Who the hell is going to recognize it's unloaded? And any civilian who'd own it in the first place is not playing with a full deck. We're all better off now.
And the gun show/private sale loophole? Remember: every time a gun nut tells you they want the governemnt to enforce existing law, it's a lie. The NRA is the criminal's best friend.
And the gun show/private sale loophole? Remember: every time a gun nut tells you they want the governemnt to enforce existing law, it's a lie. The NRA is the criminal's best friend.
3
Well done, Seattle. Hope this is just the beginning of your gun buyback program. The first in my town this year (fittingly, on MLK's birthday) also was a huge success, albeit at a smaller scale. (Two more to come, on Lincoln's birthday and Good Friday).
6
How many of the so-called bought back guns were stolen? Probably easier to get a c-note or two for your stolen firearm, than to fence it. Of the legit-owned firearms, I doubt that many of them were in goodenough shape to be worth even a hundred bucks. A friend of mine was a "private buyer" at one of these buy backs in 1993 in Seattle. In fact, the only one. He offer 60 bucks and up,, when the city was paying only 50 bucks. Lots of people talked with him, but he only found four weapons that he was willing to pay 60 bucks for - out of over a hundred that talked with him.
8
What kind of person wants to be rid of a perfectly good Street Sweeper? If you've got 5 Black Blockers trashing your car or your business and the cops aren't doing anything to stop them a bit of street sweeping might be in order.
9
I turn in 5 firearms for people I know and waiting in line for hours in the cold. Most people that I talked to there just didn't want them anymore and had them legally, except for one guy who had an unregistered short barreled shotgun. The whole thing was really poorly planned and organized. Hopefully Seattle does a better job next time.
10
"The whole thing was really poorly planned and organized."
Who cares! It's all about feeeeeelings.
Who cares! It's all about feeeeeelings.
13
I've not see a single person make fun of this event as a waste of time or money, they've made fun of people touting it as a full success when it was poorly executed. In fact, the most common description given was that it turned into a gun fair with even just one hand gun being bought by someone preferring to stand "oddly"; as you put it in the open, and pay for a firearm increasing the risk of any gun death.
Even the surface to air missile was being bought openly on the side of the street; something you acknowledge, and demonstrates a pretty open feeling about selling weapons to strangers.
Its great that we got the weapons that we did off the street, but maybe extending the IOU offer to people the whole six hours, or having more city people there collecting to shorten the wait period would have meant even more guns turned in.
Especially, if as you said people would do it just for free, why did they start turning them away?
Even the surface to air missile was being bought openly on the side of the street; something you acknowledge, and demonstrates a pretty open feeling about selling weapons to strangers.
Its great that we got the weapons that we did off the street, but maybe extending the IOU offer to people the whole six hours, or having more city people there collecting to shorten the wait period would have meant even more guns turned in.
Especially, if as you said people would do it just for free, why did they start turning them away?
14
That missle launcher is a single-use type according to dorks on Reddit. The tube is spent and can't be reloaded. It's a novelty that could scare people at worst.
But still, semiautomatic 12-shell shotguns? Jesus alive. Imagine what the nuts who don't want to dump their guns are holding on to.
But still, semiautomatic 12-shell shotguns? Jesus alive. Imagine what the nuts who don't want to dump their guns are holding on to.
15
#2 You'd have a much easier time determining if an FIM-92 tube is inert than you would identifying, say, an airsoft gun from its real counterpart. The tube will be empty. Before firing, an FIM tube has a blowout disc secured to prevent the ordinance from falling out.
Also, the tubes have color coding. Tubes with Bronze Squares, such as the one pictured, are training dummies. The tube in the picture is not an expended live tube, it's a field trainer designed to familiarize soldiers with the weight and sight picture of the weapons system.
Also, the tubes have color coding. Tubes with Bronze Squares, such as the one pictured, are training dummies. The tube in the picture is not an expended live tube, it's a field trainer designed to familiarize soldiers with the weight and sight picture of the weapons system.
18
As someone who was there, I can say that the notion that people did not want to sell the guns to private parties was totally false. The article was misleading, every 30 seconds someone would get tired of the line and sell out to one of the people next to me. As I have said elsewhere, I left with 7 nice handguns and an Ak47 underfolder. all for under 800 bucks. Great stuff.
19
Dude speaks the truth. I saw plenty of people do private party sales and one of the local news stations recorded two from start to finish. I have photos posted here. https://plus.google.com/photos/106492023…
21
@18 @19 I didn't say private sales didn't happen. They did, especially after the buyback shut down early. But most of the folks with guns weren't interested. I talked to a bunch of buyers at around 11:15, and few had managed to purchase any at that point. Later they had more success.
22
@6
You'd rather have stolen guns stay on the street?
You do realize that if the owner made a police report and the serial numbers are intact, the gun will be returned to the owner? If not, at least the gun is out of the criminal's hands. How is that a bad thing?
But maybe gun buybacks motivate thieves to steal guns. Because offering far below market value for goods increases demand? What school of economics says that? But whatever. Crackhead gun burglars who can't do math, amiright?
What's a gun owner to do? Store your guns with trigger locks. Buy a gun safe. If more gun owners properly lock up their guns in response to this, that's icing on the cake.
You'd rather have stolen guns stay on the street?
You do realize that if the owner made a police report and the serial numbers are intact, the gun will be returned to the owner? If not, at least the gun is out of the criminal's hands. How is that a bad thing?
But maybe gun buybacks motivate thieves to steal guns. Because offering far below market value for goods increases demand? What school of economics says that? But whatever. Crackhead gun burglars who can't do math, amiright?
What's a gun owner to do? Store your guns with trigger locks. Buy a gun safe. If more gun owners properly lock up their guns in response to this, that's icing on the cake.
23
i don't give a shit if it was poorly organized. that's 1180 less guns in the hands of a populace of angry mouth breathers.
24
Wow. Semi-automatic shotguns? How "rare" and "illicit". That and a bunch of junk that was never on the street and unlikely to have ever been heard of until today. Now Goldfucker suggests Microsoft and Boeing should waste money on this feel good bullshit. Where's your donation? Or are you to, umm...culturally "thrifty" to put cash behind your bleating?
25
The SPD using public donations for a gun buyback is like Chevrolet using United Way money to get Toyotas off the road. What a crock!
27
As an accused 'fake liberal' and NRA shill, I have no problem with today's gun buyback.
I'd only like to highlight it as an example of my fellow liberals propensity for extolling feel-good bullshit to address gun violence.
I'd only like to highlight it as an example of my fellow liberals propensity for extolling feel-good bullshit to address gun violence.
28
lol @25 fails at analogies with the type of enthusiasm and ambition typically reserved for successes.
29
@27
Fair enough. What do your deeply held liberal convictions tell you everyone should be doing instead?
Fair enough. What do your deeply held liberal convictions tell you everyone should be doing instead?
30
i think that everyone that made this happen deserve a joint and a beer at least. seriously, here's to the next one. thanks to all you people. its also cool that people still handed them in even without the payment.
31
I was a little tempted to sell a weapon today, but hesitated because of the price.
I've got a nice handgun I bought shortly after I got out of the military. It is a high quality weapon in excellent condition. I've no need of it anymore, and would just as soon be rid of it. I chose not to get in line this morning primarily because it is worth $600 or $700, and I'm not willing to give it away for a $100 gift card. And I don't want to sell it to some tweeker on a street corner. I suppose I'd get more money if I sold it to a dealer, but then who knows where it will end up. So I'm still hanging on to it for now.
If someone ever conducted a buyback that paid something closer to value, I'd turn it in immediately. At these prices, I imagine they're just getting mostly junk guns and low hanging fruit. The street sweepers are probably the exception. Still, 1700+ less guns is 1700 less guns, so its still a good thing.
I've got a nice handgun I bought shortly after I got out of the military. It is a high quality weapon in excellent condition. I've no need of it anymore, and would just as soon be rid of it. I chose not to get in line this morning primarily because it is worth $600 or $700, and I'm not willing to give it away for a $100 gift card. And I don't want to sell it to some tweeker on a street corner. I suppose I'd get more money if I sold it to a dealer, but then who knows where it will end up. So I'm still hanging on to it for now.
If someone ever conducted a buyback that paid something closer to value, I'd turn it in immediately. At these prices, I imagine they're just getting mostly junk guns and low hanging fruit. The street sweepers are probably the exception. Still, 1700+ less guns is 1700 less guns, so its still a good thing.
33
Hey Stranger staff, be sure to post when a new buyback program is in the works. Every gun nut in this thread is another $20 in my donation jar...
34
dude sell it to a good gun shop there are plenty of them around im sure. what i don't understand is why people would want to hoard these things they still make lots of guns and ammo each year wtf?. and the assault rifle laws are gonna happen. just make our gun laws like canada's gun laws or australia's. those countries are the same as the usa anyway and they own and use guns with less deaths and injuries. americans are generally stupid when it come to defense related stuff thats why we always end up blowing up other smaller countries all the time like spoiled babies.
35
While I'm glad that street sweepers and SAM launchers were removed from the streets, I wonder what drove the purchaser to buy these items to begin with.
I'd like to think of Seattle as a relatively peaceful city. Compared to places like New Orleans and Detroit, we look pretty good as far as violent crime rates go (though we do rank high in property crime and theft). I'd like to know what prompted someone to think that they needed a rocket launcher in a place like this. This isn't Mogadishu, after all.
When it comes to free market capitalism, the market for guns is so unrestricted and so wild. If we knew what drove people to want combat munitions, we could do something to affect that market, to discourage people from wanting to buy such artillery to begin with. The tobacco market used to be just as unregulated, until medical and Public Health research uncovered the drives that made people want to smoke. Now, we have laws regulating tobacco that specifically target the social phenomena that promote smoking, and the result is fewer smoking-related illnesses.
Lets do the same with guns. I want the WA State DOH to commission a study as to hat makes someone living in the Emerald City want a Surface to Air Missile launcher. Lets find out what they felt and thought about when they decided to buy a street sweeper. And then lets address those concerns before they go out to the gun show searching for mortar cannons.
I'd like to think of Seattle as a relatively peaceful city. Compared to places like New Orleans and Detroit, we look pretty good as far as violent crime rates go (though we do rank high in property crime and theft). I'd like to know what prompted someone to think that they needed a rocket launcher in a place like this. This isn't Mogadishu, after all.
When it comes to free market capitalism, the market for guns is so unrestricted and so wild. If we knew what drove people to want combat munitions, we could do something to affect that market, to discourage people from wanting to buy such artillery to begin with. The tobacco market used to be just as unregulated, until medical and Public Health research uncovered the drives that made people want to smoke. Now, we have laws regulating tobacco that specifically target the social phenomena that promote smoking, and the result is fewer smoking-related illnesses.
Lets do the same with guns. I want the WA State DOH to commission a study as to hat makes someone living in the Emerald City want a Surface to Air Missile launcher. Lets find out what they felt and thought about when they decided to buy a street sweeper. And then lets address those concerns before they go out to the gun show searching for mortar cannons.
36
@29
My deeply held liberal convictions are that feel-good gun control is precisely that. Feel-good bullshit. I say the main problem starts with the state of mental health care in this country isn't merely abysmal, it's non-existent.
I say it starts with mental health care but is certainly a much larger problem, but lets start with what I think would be most effective.
Esentially mental health care in the US amounts to three things:
1) Be rich.
2) Be homeless. (AKA Fuck You.)
3) County Jail. (Fuck you even more.)
That's it. What I'm truly driving at though is part of a larger problem, and that's the egregious lack of single-payer health care in this country.
The way I see it, there are two great failures of the Obama administration. In reverse order, nobody on Wall Street has been prosecuted for torpedoing our economy and...
...more importantly was Obama's Nevelle Chamberlainesque appeasement to Big Medical by taking single-payer off the table before negotiations had even begun.
The United States is the only industrialized nation on earth without universal health care. I don't see all those other nations, like Germany, Japan and South Korea at a competetive disadvantage to us.
How's that for a fake liberal?
My deeply held liberal convictions are that feel-good gun control is precisely that. Feel-good bullshit. I say the main problem starts with the state of mental health care in this country isn't merely abysmal, it's non-existent.
I say it starts with mental health care but is certainly a much larger problem, but lets start with what I think would be most effective.
Esentially mental health care in the US amounts to three things:
1) Be rich.
2) Be homeless. (AKA Fuck You.)
3) County Jail. (Fuck you even more.)
That's it. What I'm truly driving at though is part of a larger problem, and that's the egregious lack of single-payer health care in this country.
The way I see it, there are two great failures of the Obama administration. In reverse order, nobody on Wall Street has been prosecuted for torpedoing our economy and...
...more importantly was Obama's Nevelle Chamberlainesque appeasement to Big Medical by taking single-payer off the table before negotiations had even begun.
The United States is the only industrialized nation on earth without universal health care. I don't see all those other nations, like Germany, Japan and South Korea at a competetive disadvantage to us.
How's that for a fake liberal?
37
i was most likely a souvenir turned in as a joke. but still, the nra would say a national gun safety public relations campaign was somehow counter to the second amendment and i just don't see how that is. and the feds can make strict gun laws that would also be constitutional. its on the gun owners to clean up their act in this case. the yearly death and injury statistics don't lie. and the fucking nra can't even hold a parade anymore without sporadic gunfire related injuries happening on their watch. f those dummies.
38
For a city that cries "Poor" every day, all of a sudden they produce a few hundred grand for this. Meanwhile that same money could be used to house a hundred homeless people over the winter...
39
i just found this here:
From the mid- 1980s to the mid-1990s, the CDC conducted original, peer-reviewed research into gun violence, including questions such as whether people who had guns in their homes gained protection from the weapons. (The answer, researchers found, was no. Homes with guns had a nearly three times greater risk of homicide and a nearly five times greater risk of suicide than those without, according to a 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.)
But in 1996, the NRA, with the help of Congressional leaders, moved to suppress such information and to block future federal research into gun violence, Rosenberg said.
An amendment to an appropriations bill cut $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, exactly the amount the agency’s injury prevention center had previously spent on gun research. The money was returned to the agency later, but targeted for brain injury trauma research instead.
In addition, the statute that governs CDC funding stipulated that none of the funds made available to the agency can be used in whole or in part “to advocate or promote gun control.”
reference:
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/…
From the mid- 1980s to the mid-1990s, the CDC conducted original, peer-reviewed research into gun violence, including questions such as whether people who had guns in their homes gained protection from the weapons. (The answer, researchers found, was no. Homes with guns had a nearly three times greater risk of homicide and a nearly five times greater risk of suicide than those without, according to a 1993 study in the New England Journal of Medicine.)
But in 1996, the NRA, with the help of Congressional leaders, moved to suppress such information and to block future federal research into gun violence, Rosenberg said.
An amendment to an appropriations bill cut $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, exactly the amount the agency’s injury prevention center had previously spent on gun research. The money was returned to the agency later, but targeted for brain injury trauma research instead.
In addition, the statute that governs CDC funding stipulated that none of the funds made available to the agency can be used in whole or in part “to advocate or promote gun control.”
reference:
http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/…
40
Getting guns that people don't want out of circulation? Good. No point in keeping them around to get stolen and used to commit crimes. I have to agree with the private buyer Goldy quoted: if you're willing to give away your guns for next to nothing, you probably weren't the archetypical Responsible Gun Owner.
Private buyers swooping in to buy up guns at the event? Well, it's legal but it's really disturbing. I'm not assuming that every private buyer there is a dangerous psychopath, but it only takes one to commit a massacre. I guess I didn't really have a direct understanding of how the gun show loophole works in practice, but now that I do I'm all in favor of closing it.
Private buyers swooping in to buy up guns at the event? Well, it's legal but it's really disturbing. I'm not assuming that every private buyer there is a dangerous psychopath, but it only takes one to commit a massacre. I guess I didn't really have a direct understanding of how the gun show loophole works in practice, but now that I do I'm all in favor of closing it.
41
There have been at least 1243 people kil… That's even more per week than the weekly American killed average during the worst of Vietnam. What a great nation!
43
OK so, psychologically, I "get" why humans love the POWER involved with having and using a firearm-- a magical shortcut to adding a foot in height, 50lbs of muscle, and 5 inches of dick against any competitor or challenger without having to earn it or be genetically fit(physically or mentally) whatsoever.
But still it just boggles my mind how much people get off on it. Does it permeate throughout their lives to know they could ~take down~ anybody they wanted?
Sometimes I wish I was ignorant and could rely on such things like having a gun in one pocket and a bible in the order to feel so intrinsically superior to other beings without merit, but, I just, ugh, barf, blah, fuck, I can't even
But still it just boggles my mind how much people get off on it. Does it permeate throughout their lives to know they could ~take down~ anybody they wanted?
Sometimes I wish I was ignorant and could rely on such things like having a gun in one pocket and a bible in the order to feel so intrinsically superior to other beings without merit, but, I just, ugh, barf, blah, fuck, I can't even
45
@36
Nice, but you apparently weren't paying attention to the Democratic primary in '08. Hillary lost. Had she had won, she would not have been able to pass single payer. So it's not like Obama caved. But it's also beside the point. Single payer wasn't ever going to pass.
But besides that, Adam Lanza was rich. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were rich. Or at least well off. The list goes on. Some of mass shooters were poor, uninsured, slipping through the cracks, on and off their meds. But many had all the mental health care you could imagine.
Nice start, but also a non-starer. You're saying "do nothing because we can't do this thing which is not going to happen any time soon." Maybe after 2016, at the soonest. But also, we have Obama's pragmatic expansion of access to health care, which will reduce potential violence from some who would have otherwise had no mental health treatment.
And what about civil liberties? Tagging and tracking everybody who was ever mentally ill? Or what? Probably not going to happen, and is that what we really want anyway?
Which -- what do you know! -- takes us right back to where the gun lobby wants us to be: "Lets do nothing!" Imagine that. Whodathunk you'd end up at doing nothing? Except send the NRA $1000.
I guess some really arrogant liberals do nothing all their lives except sit around and bitch that the world isn't perfect and the President isn't their personal hand puppet. Is that the kind of liberal you are?
Nice, but you apparently weren't paying attention to the Democratic primary in '08. Hillary lost. Had she had won, she would not have been able to pass single payer. So it's not like Obama caved. But it's also beside the point. Single payer wasn't ever going to pass.
But besides that, Adam Lanza was rich. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were rich. Or at least well off. The list goes on. Some of mass shooters were poor, uninsured, slipping through the cracks, on and off their meds. But many had all the mental health care you could imagine.
Nice start, but also a non-starer. You're saying "do nothing because we can't do this thing which is not going to happen any time soon." Maybe after 2016, at the soonest. But also, we have Obama's pragmatic expansion of access to health care, which will reduce potential violence from some who would have otherwise had no mental health treatment.
And what about civil liberties? Tagging and tracking everybody who was ever mentally ill? Or what? Probably not going to happen, and is that what we really want anyway?
Which -- what do you know! -- takes us right back to where the gun lobby wants us to be: "Lets do nothing!" Imagine that. Whodathunk you'd end up at doing nothing? Except send the NRA $1000.
I guess some really arrogant liberals do nothing all their lives except sit around and bitch that the world isn't perfect and the President isn't their personal hand puppet. Is that the kind of liberal you are?
46
In other news, Ontario just elected an out lesbian as their Premier (Canadian equivalent of a Governor). Once again, the Canadians area ahead of the United States in terms of Civil Rights.
Ed Murray for Governor in 2016!
Ed Murray for Governor in 2016!
47
@46, Toronto, the capital of Ontario also elected this fucktard http://gawker.com/5978975/the-best-of-to…
Also Ontario didn't elect a lesbian as a Premier, the liberal party elected a lesbian as their leader and since they have control of parliament she gets to become Premier. So lets not give Ontario praise it doesn't deserve yet. Living both in Ontario and Seattle, I'd rather be in Seattle.
Also Ontario didn't elect a lesbian as a Premier, the liberal party elected a lesbian as their leader and since they have control of parliament she gets to become Premier. So lets not give Ontario praise it doesn't deserve yet. Living both in Ontario and Seattle, I'd rather be in Seattle.
48
44
Yea and people only need one vehicle to go to work, but you can have as many cars as you want. This is America, and firearms are highly tooled exquisite pieces of engineering. They are collectible and all are unique in look and function. I for one refuse to believe that this country has become a place where the many are punished for the faults of a few, and I am deemed irresponsible by people far less qualified than I am.
Signed an Atheist, college educated upper-middle class gun lover.
Yea and people only need one vehicle to go to work, but you can have as many cars as you want. This is America, and firearms are highly tooled exquisite pieces of engineering. They are collectible and all are unique in look and function. I for one refuse to believe that this country has become a place where the many are punished for the faults of a few, and I am deemed irresponsible by people far less qualified than I am.
Signed an Atheist, college educated upper-middle class gun lover.
49
"I'd like to think of Seattle as a relatively peaceful city. Compared to places like New Orleans and Detroit"
Well, that's what happens when your city is less than 8% black vs. 80% black.
"a rocket launcher in a place like this. This isn't Mogadishu, after all."
It's a trainer numbskull. Only way it could kill anyone is if it were dropped on your head from a height.
Well, that's what happens when your city is less than 8% black vs. 80% black.
"a rocket launcher in a place like this. This isn't Mogadishu, after all."
It's a trainer numbskull. Only way it could kill anyone is if it were dropped on your head from a height.
50
@47,
Either way, the next Premier of Canada's largest sub-national political entity will be an out Lesbian. This is the equivalent of an out gay Governor of California.
The True North Proud and Free, indeed. Freer than we are, in the sense that that a marriage is a marriage is a marriage, no matter where you live in that country, and your sexual orientation is not a barrier to your becoming a leader within the natural ruling party of that country.
I am proudly Washingtonian, and love my state more than any place on Earth. I also recognize areas in which our home can be vastly improved, such as equality of opportunity in the political sphere. Pointing these out is not an insult to Washington or a sign of hate. It's a gesture of love for my homeland, a sign that I give enough of a shit about it to want it to improve.
One improvement I definitely want to see is an out GLBT person in the Governor's Mansion within ten years, and the White House within twenty.
Now, whether that's Ed Murray or Laurie Jenkins, I'm happy either way. And in the meantime, I'm going to display a little pride in Kathleen Wynne, for having come so far. And no, no amount of jaded cynicism on your part is going to diminish the pride I feel in seeing a fellow gay person come to power in Ontario.
Either way, the next Premier of Canada's largest sub-national political entity will be an out Lesbian. This is the equivalent of an out gay Governor of California.
The True North Proud and Free, indeed. Freer than we are, in the sense that that a marriage is a marriage is a marriage, no matter where you live in that country, and your sexual orientation is not a barrier to your becoming a leader within the natural ruling party of that country.
I am proudly Washingtonian, and love my state more than any place on Earth. I also recognize areas in which our home can be vastly improved, such as equality of opportunity in the political sphere. Pointing these out is not an insult to Washington or a sign of hate. It's a gesture of love for my homeland, a sign that I give enough of a shit about it to want it to improve.
One improvement I definitely want to see is an out GLBT person in the Governor's Mansion within ten years, and the White House within twenty.
Now, whether that's Ed Murray or Laurie Jenkins, I'm happy either way. And in the meantime, I'm going to display a little pride in Kathleen Wynne, for having come so far. And no, no amount of jaded cynicism on your part is going to diminish the pride I feel in seeing a fellow gay person come to power in Ontario.
51
I wonder how many 2nd Amendment stalwarts support Anonymous & Wikileaks' incursions into state information security. They are waaaaaaay more effective as militia than any gun group is or ever would be, and their weapons are infinitely hotter.
Don't jibe with their principles? So what? If you want *representation* from people who have the power to contest and disrupt the status quo, you'd have to, you know, look to the democratic process - form/support political parties, stand/front candidates, vote....
I have no idea why Murkins think that the 2nd Amendment *protects* their democracy.
Don't jibe with their principles? So what? If you want *representation* from people who have the power to contest and disrupt the status quo, you'd have to, you know, look to the democratic process - form/support political parties, stand/front candidates, vote....
I have no idea why Murkins think that the 2nd Amendment *protects* their democracy.
53
Ugh, did the troll sign up under a new name today and claim to have bought a bunch of guns on the street?
54
48: your car collecting analogy works I guess. You can have as many cars as you want but none of them are legally allowed clock over X speed. Just like everyone agrees you should be able to have as many guns as you want without being able to go over X speed (automatic, huge magazines, etc.) I know cars aren't in the constitution, but can you understand that line of thinking?
But actually, wonderment was actually more centered in my comment of 43 (the allure and weird boner people have for guns because they lend instant unbridled power to their operators). I am not addressing their utility for defense but threw in the caveat because they also lend an undeniable instant and unbridled confidence in defending yourself against anything: intruders, zombies, tanks, whatever the insecurity may be.
But actually, wonderment was actually more centered in my comment of 43 (the allure and weird boner people have for guns because they lend instant unbridled power to their operators). I am not addressing their utility for defense but threw in the caveat because they also lend an undeniable instant and unbridled confidence in defending yourself against anything: intruders, zombies, tanks, whatever the insecurity may be.
55
all debate aside, when i first casually scrolled past this post and saw the bucket of ammo i thought "wow, they had candy at the gun exchange?"
56
It just frustrates me when people have such strong convictions about something they have no experience with. For instance, I make no commentary on the legality of drug usage, because I personally do not use drugs, I know nothing about them. Who the F would I be to make comments on them? A modern defensive carbine is exponentially more ergonomic and easy to shoot than a handgun. On top of that people tend to overlook the supreme court case where the precedent was set that the arms of the populace may emulate the arms of the military with the exception of fully automatic fire. Look it up.
I mean who here has actually fired a modern repeating rifle? Who owns one? Who has invested the time and money to take a carbine course? To master the weapon they have just purchased? You really have little room to talk unless you can say yes to most of the above.
I mean who here has actually fired a modern repeating rifle? Who owns one? Who has invested the time and money to take a carbine course? To master the weapon they have just purchased? You really have little room to talk unless you can say yes to most of the above.
57
Ho. Ly. Shit. Could you wear your agenda any higher up on your sleeve? Even the most basically functional individual would require about 30 seconds of research to know that your *****shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missile launcher****** (bold text doesn't work for me here) is an inert tube from a single use system, essentially making it a useless prop that's about as deadly as a length of plumbing pipe. Gleefully misinformed doesn't even begin to describe the tone of this article. I remember a few years back when a deeply republican relative of mine ended an argument with me about abortion rights by pointing out that "just because you're a liberal doesn't mean you're the most open-minded person in the room." In reading this article I now fully grasp the sentiment that he was trying to express. The level of confirmation bias in your writing actually made me a little ill.
58
You're more than entitled (and arguably expected) to have a strong opinion on drug use. You've no doubt seen first-hand the effects and consequences their use has on our society. The same we've all seen the consequences of an unregulated gun market. Nice analogy, really.
59
@57,
Goldy very clearly states within the article that the weapon poses no actual threat. He even states that it's a potentially useful tool for critics of the buyback. Perhaps the bias that exists here isn't in his writing, but rather in your reading of it.
Goldy very clearly states within the article that the weapon poses no actual threat. He even states that it's a potentially useful tool for critics of the buyback. Perhaps the bias that exists here isn't in his writing, but rather in your reading of it.
60
@45
As usual, you do an excellent job of inserting non-existent words into my mouth. By that I mean things I've never said or called for. At no point have I ever said, "do nothing because we can't do this thing which is not going to happen any time soon."
Your single-payer notion is a straw man. First of all, Hillary didn't win and we have no idea what she would've done had she won. Guess what else? If grandma had balls she'd be grandpa.
We also have no idea what would've happened if Obama hadn't shitcanned single-payer before negotiations even began.
The way I see it, you asked me for solutions that might have worked. I responded with mental health.
Why don't you tell me how an 'assault weapons' ban or a ban on high capacity magazines would've prevented any mass shooting in the last 20 years.
You used Dylan Klebold as an example. Last time I checked, when he shot up Columbine, 'assault weapons' were already 'banned.'
You also bring up civil liberties, asking, "What about civil liberties? Tagging and tracking everybody who was ever mentally ill?" Uhh...yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Oddly enough, it seems to be the left that's calling for the prevention of potential demonization of the mentally ill.
So, the way I see it. That's the kind of liberal I am and I'll continue to point out the folly of emotional feel-good bullshit by my left-wing compatriots.
What kind of liberal are you? When calling for keeping guns out of the hands of fucktards, how exactly do you propose to make this happen? You seem to suddenly be concerned about what is politically feasible, so let's hear what you think can be done.
I'm wondering who the actual fake liberal is in this exchange.
More...
As usual, you do an excellent job of inserting non-existent words into my mouth. By that I mean things I've never said or called for. At no point have I ever said, "do nothing because we can't do this thing which is not going to happen any time soon."
Your single-payer notion is a straw man. First of all, Hillary didn't win and we have no idea what she would've done had she won. Guess what else? If grandma had balls she'd be grandpa.
We also have no idea what would've happened if Obama hadn't shitcanned single-payer before negotiations even began.
The way I see it, you asked me for solutions that might have worked. I responded with mental health.
Why don't you tell me how an 'assault weapons' ban or a ban on high capacity magazines would've prevented any mass shooting in the last 20 years.
You used Dylan Klebold as an example. Last time I checked, when he shot up Columbine, 'assault weapons' were already 'banned.'
You also bring up civil liberties, asking, "What about civil liberties? Tagging and tracking everybody who was ever mentally ill?" Uhh...yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Oddly enough, it seems to be the left that's calling for the prevention of potential demonization of the mentally ill.
So, the way I see it. That's the kind of liberal I am and I'll continue to point out the folly of emotional feel-good bullshit by my left-wing compatriots.
What kind of liberal are you? When calling for keeping guns out of the hands of fucktards, how exactly do you propose to make this happen? You seem to suddenly be concerned about what is politically feasible, so let's hear what you think can be done.
I'm wondering who the actual fake liberal is in this exchange.
61
@31: What type? I might know some buyers (all who have CPL & safes). In the middle of a refi, myself, or I might even be one of them.
62
I would just take @56 at his word and conclude that he either has no opinion on child porn or is a consumer of child porn.
63
@45 Again...
You know what? You got me. Took me a second thought but you finally exposed yourself as a troll.
Saying better mental health care is a bad idea because some mass murderers were rich white kids. And, who will stand up for the civil liberties for the mentally ill if they want access to guns?
Ha! Good job and nice trolling. You got me good. We're done now.
You know what? You got me. Took me a second thought but you finally exposed yourself as a troll.
Saying better mental health care is a bad idea because some mass murderers were rich white kids. And, who will stand up for the civil liberties for the mentally ill if they want access to guns?
Ha! Good job and nice trolling. You got me good. We're done now.
64
"gun show loophole"? Obviously this wasn't a gun show so i don't see how they can use that loop hole. Its amazing that unidentified persons are allowed to buy/sell and handle firearms and rifles on public sidewalks right in sight of the SPD buy back event when just a few short years ago an SPD officer gunned down John Williams for walking with an exposed small whittling knife.
I saw many sidewalk buyers today carrying fully exposed rifles so why weren't they cited?
I saw many sidewalk buyers today carrying fully exposed rifles so why weren't they cited?
66
@65 better than being a buncha sheep fuckers. Personally, I keep waiting for the everything East of Exit 60 to finally burn to the ground. Without KC's tax base and Federal it would have already, you goddamn sponges.
68
Wow, my donation jar is getting pretty full! Thanks, gun nuts.
$20 of fresh gun buyback donations in the jar for each gun nut in the thread. Double for racist gun nuts.
$20 of fresh gun buyback donations in the jar for each gun nut in the thread. Double for racist gun nuts.
69
"In the six months after Seattle's 1992 gun buyback -- the city's only other such effort -- the average number of firearms-related homicides increased. The mean number of firearms-related assaults in Seattle also increased, as did the mean number of robberies with guns. Even the mean number of accidental shooting deaths more than doubled, according to data in a government journal."
Oops! Luckily, only the chicks-with-dicks crowd take Goldfucker seriously.
Oops! Luckily, only the chicks-with-dicks crowd take Goldfucker seriously.
70
#69 what you are describing is correlation, no causation. Just because one thing increases following an event, it does not mean they're related. It is just as likely the overall number of events would have been even higher and that the gun buyback reduced the number of these events. This is also a misleading quote because gun deaths were rising rapidly from 1985-1993, so any buy back program was certainly not going to decrease gun fatalities but still may have had an impact.
71
No public money? "Sizable donations from the ...UW Medical Center..." um, that's the University of Washington, the state university, funded by our tax dollars.
72
"Double for racist gun nuts"
Looking at the photos, not a lot of ghetto thugs were in line yesterday. You know, the folks regularly responsible for 70% of Seattle murders, 50% nationwide.
Looking at the photos, not a lot of ghetto thugs were in line yesterday. You know, the folks regularly responsible for 70% of Seattle murders, 50% nationwide.
73
The homies were all over at Mudede's house peacefully reading Marxist books and listening to Macklemore.
74
@60
I never said I was a liberal. I don't need to try to draw people in to sow dissent and confusion. I'm not an NRA shill like you. Everything I say stands or falls on its own merits.
No fuckheads? First, the NRA, the guys you write checks to, passed a special law custom designed to cripple the ATF and prevent law enforcement from doing even the most minimal investigation of sketchy gun sales. Also, your favorite lobby group managed to cut off all funding to research the causes of gun violence. So gun nuts think they have a point when they criticize the solutions that are on the table after preventing proper data collection? We'd have a lot better idea of what works and what doesn't if we had more science to support it.
Now we're stuck with more of a trial and error approach. Does that infringe on the freedoms of law abiding gun owners? Maybe. Thank the NRA for that.
Gun show loophole: again, your friends at the NRA helped ensure no tracking of private sales. Columbine happened in this environment. Bad law enforcement, no science, and untracked private sales.
The assault weapons ban? It would have taken longer than 10 years to begin to have an influence. It had only been in effect for a couple years when Columbine happened. But it came with an expiration, and it didn't ban nearly as many guns as it should have. Why the expiration? Why was it so limited? Your friends at the NRA again. Your money at work, pulling the teeth from laws to help criminals and ensure corporate profits.
Don't even get me started on the granting of personhood to corporations, letting them exercise the full free speech rights of a citizen. Which they abuse to put branded images of guns in movies and TV and games, and to target kids with this advertising. And then your NRA pretends they have a problem with that? Please.
All of these things are designed to sell as many guns as possible to as many people as possible. Especially if they're fuckheads. They make the best customers.
This goes on and on and on. We're talking about a multifaceted problem, with many complicated moving parts. There is not just one solution, and every aspect needs to be fine tuned and react to changing circumstances.
The bottom line is you are here to try to fool people into thinking that following the NRA line of doing nothing is a real liberal position. In fact, you're a gun nut and a corporate whore.
More...
I never said I was a liberal. I don't need to try to draw people in to sow dissent and confusion. I'm not an NRA shill like you. Everything I say stands or falls on its own merits.
No fuckheads? First, the NRA, the guys you write checks to, passed a special law custom designed to cripple the ATF and prevent law enforcement from doing even the most minimal investigation of sketchy gun sales. Also, your favorite lobby group managed to cut off all funding to research the causes of gun violence. So gun nuts think they have a point when they criticize the solutions that are on the table after preventing proper data collection? We'd have a lot better idea of what works and what doesn't if we had more science to support it.
Now we're stuck with more of a trial and error approach. Does that infringe on the freedoms of law abiding gun owners? Maybe. Thank the NRA for that.
Gun show loophole: again, your friends at the NRA helped ensure no tracking of private sales. Columbine happened in this environment. Bad law enforcement, no science, and untracked private sales.
The assault weapons ban? It would have taken longer than 10 years to begin to have an influence. It had only been in effect for a couple years when Columbine happened. But it came with an expiration, and it didn't ban nearly as many guns as it should have. Why the expiration? Why was it so limited? Your friends at the NRA again. Your money at work, pulling the teeth from laws to help criminals and ensure corporate profits.
Don't even get me started on the granting of personhood to corporations, letting them exercise the full free speech rights of a citizen. Which they abuse to put branded images of guns in movies and TV and games, and to target kids with this advertising. And then your NRA pretends they have a problem with that? Please.
All of these things are designed to sell as many guns as possible to as many people as possible. Especially if they're fuckheads. They make the best customers.
This goes on and on and on. We're talking about a multifaceted problem, with many complicated moving parts. There is not just one solution, and every aspect needs to be fine tuned and react to changing circumstances.
The bottom line is you are here to try to fool people into thinking that following the NRA line of doing nothing is a real liberal position. In fact, you're a gun nut and a corporate whore.
75
@64
It's only called the "gun show loophole". In fact, all private sales are untracked. At gun shows, dealers pretend they're private sellers, and get around the law that way. Forty percent of gun sales happen this way.
Closing the gun show loophole actually means requiring all buyers and sellers, whether it's two guys on the street or someone at a table in a gun show, to physically travel to a gun store and complete paperwork and a background check before finalizing the sale.
It's only called the "gun show loophole". In fact, all private sales are untracked. At gun shows, dealers pretend they're private sellers, and get around the law that way. Forty percent of gun sales happen this way.
Closing the gun show loophole actually means requiring all buyers and sellers, whether it's two guys on the street or someone at a table in a gun show, to physically travel to a gun store and complete paperwork and a background check before finalizing the sale.
76
"a dangerous schizophrenic" REALLY??? 1.) People with schizophrenia aren't any more dangerous than anyone else. 2.) Two thirds of people with schizophrenia most likely don't have money to buy guns from strangers. Do your research http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/fac…
77
"or a dangerous schizophrenic." REALLY??? 1.) People with schizophrenia aren't any more violent than anyone else. 2.) Two thirds of people with schizophrenia would probably not have any money to buy guns. Do your research before you stigmatize and hurt real people. Here, I'll give you a place to start: http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/fac… . Those words need to be deleted or changed now.
79
@63
I never said better mental health care was a bad idea. I said you are proposing nothing. And you're following the NRA playbook trying to distract everyone with a phantom mental health proposal. Real improvements in mental health care are most welcome. Why don't you and the NRA want a real plan?
You have no plan, and you oppose all real change. You wish Obama could have passed single payer, which everyone knows was impossible. You probably know it was and is impossible. That's the essence of the NRA's distractions here. Bullshit to do nothing and make the issue go away.
And who cares if you think I'm a troll? Trolls are a much higher class of being than a lying NRA shill.
I never said better mental health care was a bad idea. I said you are proposing nothing. And you're following the NRA playbook trying to distract everyone with a phantom mental health proposal. Real improvements in mental health care are most welcome. Why don't you and the NRA want a real plan?
You have no plan, and you oppose all real change. You wish Obama could have passed single payer, which everyone knows was impossible. You probably know it was and is impossible. That's the essence of the NRA's distractions here. Bullshit to do nothing and make the issue go away.
And who cares if you think I'm a troll? Trolls are a much higher class of being than a lying NRA shill.
80
I am so, so glad there's a picture of the shoulder-fired surface-to-air guided missile launcher. LOL.
81
Goldy doesn't write that there was an open air arms bazaar for a radius of four blocks around the "Freedom for giftcards" exchange. I saw more weapons bought than any gun show I have ever been to. There were auctions happening on and trades on the street. Turned out everyone did not want exchange their rights for a government handout, they would rather have cash.
I walked away with a neat little High Standard .22 pistol. It was worth it to see the lady's face light up when I handed her a hundo. Also my friend got his first magazine fed semiautomatic rifle, a Poly-tech AK folder with 5 40 round magazines, still in the box, he paid pennies on the dollar despite a bidding war. In total 8 of us purchased 9 firearms, and pretty much every buyer there got at least 1 gun. I am glad they were rescued from the furnaces and instead wound up in the hands of good Americans who understand the value of the BILL OF RIGHTS.
I can't wait until The City of Seattle has another publicly funded gun show. It was so much better to see the cops standing around bored rather than out catching real criminals responsible for the violence in our streets..
I also would like to congratulate Mayor Mike McDick for having the wisdom to tie up traffic in the city's hospital district, or as the locals call it "pill hill". You can really tell that some one cares about public safety when they cause a traffic jam that delays the ambulances trying to reach the regions cardiac and trauma centers.
@68
Enjoy throwing your money away.
It is still a fraction of what I give to the NRA, SAF, and JPFO, which in turn is a fraction of what I spend on ammo.
Even yesterday, I would estimate that the gun buyers had more money then was donated to buyback by rubes.
I do have to hand it to Jeff Bezos, he spent $30,000 and got people to buy $88,000 worth of gift cards from Amazon. Almost a 200% return on his investment in less than a month.
I wonder what Big Mario got for his $500, perhaps he is solely happy he got to be a greasy gun grabbing Italian Fascist who is too racist to deliver past Yesler.
More...
I walked away with a neat little High Standard .22 pistol. It was worth it to see the lady's face light up when I handed her a hundo. Also my friend got his first magazine fed semiautomatic rifle, a Poly-tech AK folder with 5 40 round magazines, still in the box, he paid pennies on the dollar despite a bidding war. In total 8 of us purchased 9 firearms, and pretty much every buyer there got at least 1 gun. I am glad they were rescued from the furnaces and instead wound up in the hands of good Americans who understand the value of the BILL OF RIGHTS.
I can't wait until The City of Seattle has another publicly funded gun show. It was so much better to see the cops standing around bored rather than out catching real criminals responsible for the violence in our streets..
I also would like to congratulate Mayor Mike McDick for having the wisdom to tie up traffic in the city's hospital district, or as the locals call it "pill hill". You can really tell that some one cares about public safety when they cause a traffic jam that delays the ambulances trying to reach the regions cardiac and trauma centers.
@68
Enjoy throwing your money away.
It is still a fraction of what I give to the NRA, SAF, and JPFO, which in turn is a fraction of what I spend on ammo.
Even yesterday, I would estimate that the gun buyers had more money then was donated to buyback by rubes.
I do have to hand it to Jeff Bezos, he spent $30,000 and got people to buy $88,000 worth of gift cards from Amazon. Almost a 200% return on his investment in less than a month.
I wonder what Big Mario got for his $500, perhaps he is solely happy he got to be a greasy gun grabbing Italian Fascist who is too racist to deliver past Yesler.
82
@68
Enjoy throwing your money away.
It is still a fraction of what I give to the NRA, SAF, and JPFO, which in turn is a fraction of what I spend on ammo.
Even yesterday, I would estimate that the gun buyers had more money then was donated to buyback by rubes.
I do have to hand it to Jeff Bezos, he spent $30,000 and got people to buy $88,000 worth of gift cards from Amazon. Almost a 200% return on his investment in less than a month.
I wonder what Big Mario got for his $500, perhaps he is solely happy he got to be a greasy gun grabbing Italian Fascist who is too racist to deliver past Yesler.
Enjoy throwing your money away.
It is still a fraction of what I give to the NRA, SAF, and JPFO, which in turn is a fraction of what I spend on ammo.
Even yesterday, I would estimate that the gun buyers had more money then was donated to buyback by rubes.
I do have to hand it to Jeff Bezos, he spent $30,000 and got people to buy $88,000 worth of gift cards from Amazon. Almost a 200% return on his investment in less than a month.
I wonder what Big Mario got for his $500, perhaps he is solely happy he got to be a greasy gun grabbing Italian Fascist who is too racist to deliver past Yesler.
83
@82: In addition to being a poster child for the paranoid gun nut crowd, you're not so good with concepts like ROI. Amazon runs margins of about 3%; they will make about $2600 in profit on that $88,000 in gift cards. How does the negative ROI fit into your paranoid world view? Surely there's another conspiracy theory you can switch to.
84
Private buyers had plenty of success. Here's one successful buyer's haul: http://www.reddit.com/r/guns/comments/17…
85
@81 I write a post in which I specifically mention the private gun sales going on in the streets, and then I'm accused in the comment thread of ignoring the private gun sales going on in the streets. Curious.
But don't worry, I always planned to do a follow up post on the subject. It's coming.
But don't worry, I always planned to do a follow up post on the subject. It's coming.
86
The lisping-ignorance in this thread is par for the course I guess. [Lisping on] thhhhis isthhh thhhhhe Sthranger after all... [Lisping off] I thought that Libs were supposed to be tolerant of everyone's views. Guess not.
Read your Constitution people, and understand the case law behind the 2nd Amendment. It is one of those things that protect the 1st Amendment that we ALL hold dear. There is a reason it is in our rule-book.
Guns are not inherently evil, any more than prescription drugs, vehicles, etc. (though the last two are not Constitutionally protected). It is the person (Emphasis on person) using these tools that really matters. All of these examples, when abused, are punishable by our existing laws. No need to take away a Constitutional right for people that have done no wrong...
If people feel better about handing their defensive weapons to the Gubment, fine, it is their property and most Libs have no problem with giving their property to the "Man." But don't then project your simpleton ideas onto the rest of the law-abiding taxpayers who want to be able to defend themselves effectively if and when the need arises (and it does BTW).
Read your Constitution people, and understand the case law behind the 2nd Amendment. It is one of those things that protect the 1st Amendment that we ALL hold dear. There is a reason it is in our rule-book.
Guns are not inherently evil, any more than prescription drugs, vehicles, etc. (though the last two are not Constitutionally protected). It is the person (Emphasis on person) using these tools that really matters. All of these examples, when abused, are punishable by our existing laws. No need to take away a Constitutional right for people that have done no wrong...
If people feel better about handing their defensive weapons to the Gubment, fine, it is their property and most Libs have no problem with giving their property to the "Man." But don't then project your simpleton ideas onto the rest of the law-abiding taxpayers who want to be able to defend themselves effectively if and when the need arises (and it does BTW).
87
@86 - I'm not American, and I'm genuinely puzzled as to how the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st. If you believed the govt infringed your right to speech, they'd still be the govt, right? And it would still be illegal to shoot em?
89
@31 You can sell your unwanted gun to a used gun shop, or put it on a consignment sale. DJ's Loan and Sport in Bothell is a little out of the way, but they have a good rep on Yelp and stuff. It's a sellers market right now. Demand top dollar!
If you want the thrill of a face-to-face sale, there is a Craigslist for guns called Armslist. Meet the gun nuts! If you want to meet fewer of the scary gun nuts, and vastly fewer potential customers, there is the Liberal Gun Club forum.
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/…
If you want the thrill of a face-to-face sale, there is a Craigslist for guns called Armslist. Meet the gun nuts! If you want to meet fewer of the scary gun nuts, and vastly fewer potential customers, there is the Liberal Gun Club forum.
http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/…
90
#87 The intent of the 2nd Amendment is not for hunting as Libs always say (usually goes something like "you don't need a 30 round magazine to kill little Bambi", blah-blah-blah). It is to provide a check against a tyrannical government.
When James Madison (One of our Founding Fathers) presented the Second Amendment to the Constitutional Delegates, he said that his purpose was "to keep the government in fear of an armed and aroused populace." And that, friends and neighbors, is what the Libs are afraid of. It's not about anything else.
To answer your question, the TYRANNICAL government would not be the government for long. It was illegal to shoot at the British (with then-banned muskets no less) back in the day. Just say'n...
When James Madison (One of our Founding Fathers) presented the Second Amendment to the Constitutional Delegates, he said that his purpose was "to keep the government in fear of an armed and aroused populace." And that, friends and neighbors, is what the Libs are afraid of. It's not about anything else.
To answer your question, the TYRANNICAL government would not be the government for long. It was illegal to shoot at the British (with then-banned muskets no less) back in the day. Just say'n...
91
You do realize the 'street sweepers' were plants to make this event look successful don't you? Every buy-back that has been happening lately has done the same thing. I guess it's to be expected in today's world of sensationalized journalism.
92
You do realize the 'street sweepers' were plants to make this event look successful don't you? Every buy-back that has been happening lately has done the same thing. I guess it's to be expected in today's world of sensationalized journalism.
93
@90 If your democracy is failing that badly, and your government is using all the powers available to a tyrannical government, including information control and its own vast weaponry, how are ad hoc individuals with guns going to help?
Who would decide that tyranny has begun and why do you trust those people more than or as much as your democratically elected government? i.e I understand that there are some of your citizens who currently believe your democratic process is failing, like militia groups and anonymous - why do you trust them enough to want them fully armed? Do you fully support them disrupting govt institutions violently or through information control now? And if not now, how would the public in general ever come to a rationalised decision that that kind of disruption was 'democratic', rather than seditionary?
And if this is a helpful democratic protection, how come democracy works so much better in many of the places without an armed populace than in places riddled with militias?
Who would decide that tyranny has begun and why do you trust those people more than or as much as your democratically elected government? i.e I understand that there are some of your citizens who currently believe your democratic process is failing, like militia groups and anonymous - why do you trust them enough to want them fully armed? Do you fully support them disrupting govt institutions violently or through information control now? And if not now, how would the public in general ever come to a rationalised decision that that kind of disruption was 'democratic', rather than seditionary?
And if this is a helpful democratic protection, how come democracy works so much better in many of the places without an armed populace than in places riddled with militias?
94
@93: As far as resisting a tyrannical government, look to the troubles Our Government is having with a few disgruntled hillbillies in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Great Britain, the IRA at it's height, was a couple hundred guys, and THEY kept the British Army at bay in Northern Ireland for years.
Who decides when the balloon goes up? I'll say that when the government starts going door-to-door confiscating arms, it won't go over too well. Look back to our Revolutionary War for a handy reference.
Who decides when the balloon goes up? I'll say that when the government starts going door-to-door confiscating arms, it won't go over too well. Look back to our Revolutionary War for a handy reference.
95
@94 But actually none of those guys are or were just disgruntled hillbillies. They are organised groups with developed ideologies, and funding and weapons supply from foreign regimes. They are or were supported by substantial populations who support their ideology. Is that what you want in the US? And if it is, is the second amendment going to help you with that?
96
@8 Street Sweepers are subject to a very high level of regulation. I'm amazed there were three of them around.
http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_stre…
http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_stre…
97
Believe it or not it is legal in some states to sell a gun to someone who has already been through an extensive background check if they have a permit to carry or a permit to buy. Scary loophole isn't it? You can take advantage of a weeks long check without having an instant check. Kind of like getting to dring Starbucks instead of freeze dried instant.
98
Believe it or not it is legal in some states to sell a gun to someone who has already been through an extensive background check if they have a permit to carry or a permit to buy. Scary loophole isn't it? You can take advantage of a weeks long check without having an instant check. Kind of like getting to dring Starbucks instead of freeze dried instant.
99
The issue we are having with the few disgruntled hillbillies in Afghanistan is that we are not able to do what needs to be done.
I think if we should ship in more sheep for them to have fun with.
I think if we should ship in more sheep for them to have fun with.
100
It’s appropriate time to make some plans for the future and it is time to be happy. I have read this post and if I could I wish to suggest you few interesting things or advice. Perhaps you could write next articles referring to this article. I desire to read even more things about it!
http://www.casino-poipet.net
http://www.casino-poipet.net
101
I love the way you write and share your niche! Very interesting and different! Keep it coming!
skin treatment
skin treatment
Comments (101) RSS