You'll need it.

Live and let live...

It seems to me that it is accusing the NRA of being racist. But I don't see how the cartoon itself is racist.

How is it racist?

The dark-skinned person is told they can't get the insurance due to "a pre-existing skin condition".

The cartoon accuses SYG of being racist.

Anymore than someone accusing the KKK of being racist makes the accuser racist.

That was my point.

I guess you could make the case that the dark skinned person seems stupid, but is that because he is playing the "straight man" in the little joke, or because all dark skinned people are stupid?

is that those of us who support SYG laws are racist.

and it true to those roots today

bigots. And you are right, right wingers used their guns to intimidate. I see no reason to continue that.

A black guy tried to force the lock on my front door last night at midnight. Instead of running out the back door and screaming like a girl to wake up the neighborhood, I grabbed a loaded handgun.
Does that make me racist?

He kept trying, I called the cops, does that mean I fear minorities?

If he made it in before the cops got here and I shot him, does that mean I hate minorities?

and everyone here knows that.
I find his bigoted rants funny as hell because all he's doing is representing what the pro gun control movement is all about.
Thats why I encourage him to keep on ranting.

...while they, of course, are the souls of reason.

Why is the first thing you notice that he was black? Maybe he was starving, or he was just at the wrong house? Instead of trying to help the man, you say "OMG A BLACK MAN IS AT MY DOOR! GRAB THE GUN MA!"

The first thing I noticed was the perp was MALE. Next thing I noticed was he was black. Funny, the first thing the dispatcher asked was the race of the perp.

A biggoted anti-gun group did.

I have a GOA shirt I like, and an MSI ballcap, but I will never wear anything that even remotely suggests violence. If I ever had to use a firearm in defense, God forbid, I'd hate to have that used against me. I can hear the prosecuting attorney now:

"All you have to do to establish intent is examine this man's wardrobe. Every day was a frustrated, unsuccessful hunt for the defendant. His desire to shoot and kill consumed him every time he left his home."

On the other hand, legit self-defense cases can still wipe out an honest person's finances. As for me, I wouldn't hold it against somebody who had taken this precautionary step. Others might not see it that way.

Sort of like wearing a hoodie?

but out in public it could be suspicious, depending on the weather. Awareness and maybe an over-large dose of caution prevent a lot of crimes, whether you've got a gun or not.

I've watched people on campus stumbling about plugged into their I-Pods, texting, yapping on their cell phones, they're totally oblivious to everything around them. There have been sexual assaults and muggings associated with lack of situational awareness.

iPod plugged in, thumbs working furiously, and they march right into the path of traffic, oblivious to their surroundings.
Can't believe so many people wander around in Condition Whiter-then-White...

the same could be said of auto insurance

"um, were you expecting to run into someone soon?"

why would have a future in insurance?
You just don't like the analogy, but can't refute it either so you try to deflect.
This OP is nothing but flame bait designed to try to smear gun owners.

Especially when said analogies effectively show the silliness of their arguments.

"Tell us again, Mr. X, why REGULAR bullets weren't deadly enough for you. Why, sir, did you negligently/willfully and wantonly load your death-spewing killing machine with EXTRA DEADLY BULLETS!!!?!1/!!??!!?"

and carry what your local LE uses. The DA then is faced arguing you are using the EXTRA DEADLY BULLETS, just like the bailiff has in his gun

for exactly that reason.

P.S. I am an attorney, and made this choice at least partly for legal reasons.

Pro-gunners have handled that one many times already.

"Yes, sir. Hollow points greatly increase the probability of stopping the agressor with one shot, thereby making follow-up shots less likely. The fewer times a person is shot the better their chances of surviiving is. So by using those bullets I was giving us both a better chance of living. As it turned out he was hit in the heart and any load would have been fatal."

Racist cartoon notwithstanding...

Their common analogy of gun ownership is with car ownership... you need a license, you need to have your property registered, and you need insurance for any actions (intentional or otherwise) that might cause personal or property damage.


So along comes the NRA with insurance for any action you take with your gun that might cause personal or property damage... and the insurance is a license to kill! What is the NRA, nuts???


Like the Republicans... they browbeat Obama into giving them what they want, then mock him for doing so.

I'd also bet that one exclusion is if and when you were found guilty of a committing a crime with your gun, the insurance is rendered null and void.

That pretty much puts the whole "It's a license to kill!!1!" issue to bed, but when did a fact like that ever matter at Kneejerk Underground?

Just another example of the lying pro-restrictionists and their forked tongues, peeking out from their reality distortion field.

Last edited Thu Jun 14, 2012, 09:15 AM - Edit history (1)

any time I need it. When I recently purchased the 20acres bordering mine they were a great help. And the retainer was all the payment needed.
The firm is available to me on a 24hour basis. Fees are lowered by the use of the retainer contract.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

People are so convinced that members of my profession are just out to screw them over. Now that I am a practicing professional, I will never again bitch about the rates that most (obviously there are people who over-value themselves in any occupation) professionals charge.

I came to this attitude when someone told me I was charging them "all this money" ($60/hr for an attorney is damn cheap, I thought) to do "easy" work.

I responded that if he wanted to spend 7 years in college, take on the concomitant financial burden, and sit through the mind-fuck that is the bar exam he was welcome to put the effort into becoming his own licensed attorney, and until then those of us who already have will continue to charge for our services.

Once you consider the work and study these people put in, $125/hr for an attorney, $250 for an M.D. seems damn reasonable. (If these rates seem low to you, note that I live in the middle of nowhere, where people are generally not members of higher social classes, so services come pretty cheap.)

At least the 2 or 3 times I've hired on that's been my experience.

and lots of lawyers may be willing. Don't be afraid to ask your local solo practitioner, the answer may surprise you, especially in these days of lots of work, with few clients who actually pay their bills on time.

I have never seen one of those. I even googled and can't find one. If you do have a single shot bolt action shotgun then you have a very rare gun that is worth a lot of money as a collector's item.

Further, rattlesnakes don't go after chickens. Rattlers eat mice, rats and other small rodents. A chicken is waaaay too big for the snake to eat.

I saw and killed lots of rattlers while growing up.

It is true that they sometimes don't rattle.

All the single shot shotguns that I have ever seen were break-open actions.

Simple matter of natural selection - the ones that rattle get killed. The ones that don't have a better chance of surviving and breeding, so we're seeing a greater percentage of quiet rattlesnakes. Not good for us...

at shooting matches....I'm thinking they were "goose" guns.


Looks like Marlin and Tossberg both made them, but I don't know if they're single shot or not.

That first panel just NAILS the condition of my desk.

Last edited Fri Jun 15, 2012, 02:34 AM - Edit history (1)

maybe someone can link to it.

Wasn't there a call by several pro-controllers here who said that anyone who wanted to carry in public should have insurance?

Now finding that such insurance is available, their tune has changed...

Edit- here are some (not the one I was thinking of, but several in the same vein)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002535026#post2
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8080918&mesg_id=8080980
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117219026#post9
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=22379

Common ground!

should we schedule an ice cream social?

The idea that we should have legal representation after a self-defense shooting is anathema to them.

or would that just show a person plans to be careless...

the media may look at it different, but it would only be the jury I would be concerned with.

sorry to put you on the spot and and I know this is an off-topic question but, I have been wondering how people in GC&RKBA think about this and since you brought it up I thought that this was a good a time as any to ask.

I have thought of this. While a judge will have a better understanding of the law, you would only have one person with their own beliefs and prejudices. A jury has twelve different backgrounds deciding the case.

I would work with my attorney but be strongly leaning towards a jury trial.

... only "may intend to burgle", then WTF is he doing in my living room at 3AM?

My renters insurance covers liability. I asked my agent if that extended to legal costs for me shooting an uninvited visitor. It does.

Still, I'm considering taking on this insurance. Even though Castle Doctrine is supposed to protect me from civil action, that won't stop some former clown's family from taking a stab at it.