And Don't Forget Your Gun

I for one am glad that Tom had a gun, anybody wish Tom had been disarmed? Is victim disarmament a policy that saves lives?

http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/rauch/rauch47.html

MY FRIEND TOM is running, possibly for his life. It is a sweet summer evening in San Jose, and he and a colleague have just left work and are walking through a dicey neighborhood when they catch the eye of some young men, as many as 20 of them, sitting around an old car in a driveway. "Hey, you fucking faggots!'' one of the young men shouts. Tom and his colleague walk past, quickly, but their persecutors rise like a flock of gulls and follow, shouting taunts and threats: "When we're done with you, they'll find your fucking bodies!'' The two pick up the pace and the men come after them. ``Run,'' says Tom, but the gang breaks into pursuit while Tom, trying to hold the pace, gropes in his backpack. The two reach a streetlight and there, where everybody can see, Tom suddenly stops, turns, and levels a semiautomatic handgun.

Oh.

At that point, the young men chasing my friend lost their enthusiasm for blood sport. Tom and his colleague left the neighborhood as fast as they could. And if there had been no gun? "There's no question in my mind,'' says Tom, "that my friend and I would have been at least very seriously beaten, and maybe killed.'' I asked how the gang reacted to the gun. Tom says their leader demanded officiously: "Have you got a permit for that?''

Tom didn't have a permit, which is bad -- but then he probably couldn't have gotten one if he had tried, which is also bad. California is among the states where, if you want permission to carry a concealed weapon, you have to prove that you are of ``good moral character'' and that you have some special reason to carry. Tom could have shown that he was of good character, but he had no special reason. Until, of course, the reason arose one summer night.

Pretty much says it all....

"liberals feel obliged to revile any proposal supported by the likes of the NRA and Grover Norquist. This is a pity, as thinking with one's knees usually is. Liberals should be on Tom's side."
Yeah? Who is that pushing for the rights of homosexuals to wed, for hate crime legislation, for tolerance? It sure as shit ain't Grover Norquist.

"We include libertarians, limited-government conservatives, moderates, and classical liberals."

Nice bunch of people you're promoting.

Funny there's no outcry over there about THIS...

"The National Rifle Association's annual convention in Reno, Nev., degenerated on Sunday into a session of gay-bashing, with one commentator referring to anti-gun talk show host Rosie O'Donnell as a "freak" for her recent admission that she's a lesbian.
During a two-hour panel discussion attacking the media for distorting the views of gun-rights proponents, all but one speaker took an opportunity to slam gays and lesbians -- including O'Donnell -- in some manner.
O'Donnell, who had a much-publicized 1999 tiff with actor Tom Selleck about his NRA support, is "not cool, she's the freak," said conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel, a frequent guest on "The Howard Stern Show" and Fox News.
Grover Norquist, an NRA national board member and columnist for the American Spectator magazine, took a shot, too. He noted that it might not be as evident to the media that most Americans favor gun rights because "we don't have annual parades for gun owners so everyone can appreciate that gun ownership is an alternative lifestyle and look at how great we are." He also insisted that the liberals "don't want you (men) to date girls."

http://www.planetout.com/news/article-print.html?2002/04/29/2

Yes, THAT Grover Norquist....

"independent Gay Forum".

A blood relation to "i(ndependent)feminists", I wonder?


The damned thing is that the philosophical basis for the GLBT-specific nattering in that article is a collective right - the right of the group in question to have, exercise and enjoy its distinct nature and existence - and the violation of that right by the failure of the society in question to protect the group and its members.

... That's okay. I didn't expect anybody to understand that.

.

Are those people who drive American Motors cars from the Early '60s?



:-)

What kind of car is that?

:-)

My mom drove one of those when I was a kid. She bought it brand new and tells me her car payment was $48 a month for 24 months.

Well, it didn't have a sunroof, and it isn't any more. It was old, '86, and it died at the end of 1999. And they stopped making them a decade earlier. Isn't it just so Lost in Space? I'd have bought a VW one to replace it, if I actually thought that spending the price of a down payment on 3 houses on a vehicle was an intelligent thing to do.

Saw lots of these things in England. (And in the Azores, little baby ones, maybe Suzukis. Of course, I'd kill to have my '83 - pre-Samurai - Suzuki back, too.) Can you still get them? Will you send me one if I pay the postage?

Well I was all set to say nope, not available but then i went and checked and.....



I'll send one to you in the way Radar sent the jeep home on M*A*S*H*... but it could take a while :)

That's a beast!

Harry Humvee says: stop, drop and roll!

Without wishing to sound repetitive... what are those two called?

Sucker for Astons and Jags myself..



DB4 Zagato

and



E-Type


Will never own one though...

Looking at those things, I'd say somebody just left himself open for an awful lot of "compensation" commentary.

;)

:)

A now extinct breed...

Chrysler bought American Motors in 1987, and turned it into their Jeep-Eagle division. They later dropped the Eagle line, so Jeep is all that's left.

or were they independent...

I thought the Studebakers were the coolest looking cars when I was a kid...

And disappeared completely in 1967.

As is the DeSoto and the Hudson...

When i first saw one of these on the street I couldn't believe anyone could seriously put it on the track.

These people on the radical right only respect force.

The Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment too!

"The Bill of Rights includes the Second Amendment too!"
And the Second Amendment refers to state militias of the sort that evolved into the National Guard.. as the courts have said time and time and time again.

"And the Second Amendment refers to state militias of the sort that evolved into the National Guard.. as the courts have said time and time and time again."

I have to respectfully disagree. The 2nd amendment was made law in 1791 and the National guard was created by an act of Congress around 1916, way over a hundred years later. In 1791, the patriots could hardly have envisioned a "national gaurd" where by the only people allowed to bear arms were those in that unit, especially after just winning a hard fought battle against tyranny from the king of tyrants.

Today, any so called judges that rule otherwise are wrong.

"any so called judges that rule otherwise are wrong"
So-called judges? You mean you think the judges are just posing as judges? That's too fucking funny....

"winning a hard fought battle against tyranny from the king of tyrants."
Wow....

Well, you'll be happy to know AssKKKroft agrees with you....but then he's a dishonest piece of shit.

Those "patriots" could hardly have envisaged Nashes, either, eh?

Imagine what they would have thought of a proposal to tax The People for clearing snow off the roads ...

And just imagine their horror if someone had suggested requiring gas stations to provide indoor privies!

.

The Founding Fathers clearly wanted their descendants to poop in the park, er, shoot each other with mind-numbing regularity, er, have guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns guns! As my friend Bob Boudelang says, if they meant well-regulated state militias, they would of put something like that in....

Right. History speaks for itself, in spite of revisionist liars.

And that's why the courts rule as they do, and AshKKKroft lies his stinking ass off....

The BoR does indeed protect the ownership of firearms. It says so clearly. John ashcroft, whatever his failures and succeses, had nothing to do with the creation of the constitution.

The 2nd amendment was put in place so that the power to keep the government within its constitutional limitations would always be held with the people. As in government by and for the people. The problem we face today is ignorance of the people. That, and the belief in the media, that is, whatever they show us, has to be true.

It's really simple. The government is clearly out of control, and people, like you and me, are the ones responsible for its return to control. If that has to involve guns, then that's what has to happen. If not, and I hope it's not, then we have to get the worthless, self indulgent politicians out, and return this country to the constitutional republic it once was. Regardless of nonsensical posturing that only divides us more.

With all due respect.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=49341

"The government is clearly out of control, and people, like you and me, are the ones responsible for its return to control. If that has to involve guns, then that's what has to happen."
Amazing--it seems like every one of our "responsible law-abiding gun owners" has this "I need my popgun for the glorious revolution" fantasy rattling around in their heads...and it's never far from the front.

The sad part is, every once in a while, one of you darlings forgets it IS a fantasy and shoots the postman, or blows up a Federal building with a daycare center....just to get the "worthless, self indulgent politicians out, and return this country to the blah blah blah" and never for anything as low as just plain sadism.

how far back in time does "Today" go in this context? In other words, how many courts of "so-called judges" are you dismissing out of hand? How far back in American history would we have to go before you'd be willing to accept a Supreme Court case (or a superior court case which was not overturned) saying that the Second Amendment does NOT provide for unrestricted private ownership of firearms? Give me a date, please.

...about telling other people what to think.

...and extrapolating their morale into a political point is an old propaganda tactic. There are many more anecdotes that would have a better ending than they do if the villain in them (or the accidental victim) had a harder time getting a gun than they did.

we wouldn't have quite as many Americans shot every fucking day....

And that's why its idiotic to let a corrupt industry pandering to the lowest element in society set public policy.

Maybe California should allow gun permits just for gays.

Seriously, who's more likely to have a gun, somebody like Tom or somebody like the guys who were chasing him? How is this scenario going to work in the real world nine times out of ten, thanks to guns?

Seriously, who's more likely to have a gun, somebody like Tom or somebody like the guys who were chasing him? How is this scenario going to work in the real world nine times out of ten, thanks to guns?

Who's more likely to carry a gun without a permit? Who's more likely to get a permit?

These are the meaningful questions.

We know criminals are more likely to carry guns in California, where it is largely impossible to get a permit to carry one legally.

than humane and decent people. Because every motive that a humane and decent person would have to buy a gun (and I concede that there are some) a vicious and hateful person would also have - but the vicious and hateful person would have a whole laundry list of additional motives that a humane and decent person would not have. So, other things being equal, humane and decent people like Tom would be less likely to own guns than the kind of people who were chasing him, as an everyday matter of reality. That assumes that this whole "Tom" story isn't a work of fiction, and I'm far from convinced that it isn't.

But you didn't answer the question. Who is more likely to get a permit to legally carry a handgun? That is all we can really debate. Those who carry illegally without permits when permits are available will carry illegally without permits when permits are not available. (That's easy for me to say. :)) We can lock them up either way.

Tom was the one who was carrying without a permit.

What difference does the permit make? If a thug with a gun shoots Tom dead, is he any less dead if the thug had a permit? What good does it do the Toms of the world to allow haters and homophobes to carry guns legally?

The problem is civilian ownership of firearms. If it were not allowed, there would be nothing for the thugs to carry, permit or no permit. Yes, there are a lot of guns in society now, but that's largely the fault of the RKBA crowd. When you say guns can never be removed from society, what you're essentially saying is that because the problem can't be solved quickly and easily, it shouldn't ever be solved at all.

is that all of this is inconvenience to millions of citizens for the privilege of a neurotic few....

This is a partial list of the sort of person who applied in Minnesota last year...as you read this, keep in mind: some of these charmers could not be prevented from getting their permits.

--Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
--Has fled from any state to avoid prosecution for a crime or to avoid giving testimony in any criminal proceedings.
--Is an unlawful user of any controlled substance as defined in Chapter 152.
--Has been committed to a treatment facility in Minnesota or elsewhere as a "mentally ill," "mentally retarded," or "mentally ill and dangerous to the public" person as defined in Minnesota Statute § 253B.02.
--Has been convicted of a gross misdemeanor for the crime of assault motivated by bias (609.255).
--Danger to self or others.
--Marijuana conviction in Texas.
--Crim. History states "disqualified for Firearms".
--Warrant out of another state (ND).
--Applicant lied regarding current address.
--Reckless discharge of firearms.
--Several law enforcement contacts for mental health issues. Two commitments by county and one self commitment.
--Pending case involving a loaded uncased handgun in a motor vehicle. Found during a traffic stop on a driving complaint.
--Charged in WI with Carrying a ConcealedWeapon, pled to Transporting a Loaded/Uncased Firearm. Involved a traffic stop, had 2 handguns in vehicle, one loaded under the driver's seat, the other unloaded in the glove box. Subject had a large knife on self and another one
located in the driver's side door pocket.
--Continued assaultive behavior pattern with alcohol use.
--Arrested & placed in treatment.
--Arrested for 2nd degree assault, domestic assault and animal cruelty
--Interviews with people that know the applicant revealed explosive temper and brought illegal weapons to work place.
--Charged and investigated for CSC with the use of a firearm.
--Investigated and arrested for terroristic threats.
--Convicted for possession of a pistol without a permit, threatened wife and child during incident.
--Applicant divulged he had shot a person in the past.
--Convicted for multiple DWI and history of assaultive behavior.
--Threatened mother with a rifle.
--Convicted for domestic assault.
--Threatened Co-worker.
--History of suicidal thoughts and threats.
--Multiple DWI convictions and history of assaultive behavior.
--Suspected gang member, arrested and charged for firearms violations.
--GM theft conviction as armed security.
--Multiple alcohol related offenses.
--Suicide attempt, conviction for criminal damage to property and auto theft arrests.
--History of assaultive behavior, and burglary arrests and convictions.
--Conviction for GM possession of a firearm and assault.
--Arrests for firing gun in city limits, suspected gang member.
--Incidents of threatening behavior, history of alcohol abuse.
--Assault 5 conviction, felony theft arrest.
--Incident involving terroristic threats with the use of a firearm.
--Multiple DWI arrests
--Terroristic threats arrest.
--Suspected gang member, domestic assault arrest.
--Arrest for assault 1, criminal vehicular injury related DWI conviction.
--Unauthorized use of a motor vehicle conviction and arrest for robbery.
--Gross misdemeanor theft conviction and numerous pending investigations.
--Six DWI convictions.
--Disorderly conduct conviction, arrest for domestic assault.
--Conviction for reckless discharge of a firearm and threatened suicide with a firearm.
--Convicted for possession of a pistol without a permit.
--Domestic related arrest, felony burglary conviction.
--Convicted possession of a pistol without a permit, attempted burglary and assault arrest.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=42711

progressives are learning that victim disarmament is not a policy that saves lives.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0025/features-berger.shtml

"We" meaning this Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender-friendly shooting group, brought together by an organization called Cease Fear. After brunch at the Rosebud Café on Capitol Hill, the group found its way across the big bad lake for one of its periodic target shoots--a low-key affair for mostly novice shooters. The difference, of course, is that this is turf where the NRA meets Gay Pride. Oh yes, and some people wear hot-pink headsets.

CEASE FEAR BEGAN, appropriately enough in the Silicon Forest, as an online idea. Gun owner discussion groups became a great way for some of the newer and younger of the "gun community" to meet each other. Some, like Ray Carter, a former cochair of Pride's Freedom Day Committee, were longtime gun enthusiasts who happened to be gay. Others were gun-owning liberals or libertarians, such as Don Baldwin, a Redmond straight guy and cofounder of a fledgling group called Democrats for the Second Amendment. Most seem to have high-tech jobs and are interested in guns for recreation, like competing in shooting tournaments that sound like off-line versions of video games.

* * * * * * *
From the Tuesday, February 27, 2001 The Patriot Ledger (Boston area, MASS.)
LOCAL NEWS
Gays Take Aim: Pink Pistols gun club members seek safety from attackers, and camaraderie

Their motto: "Pick on someone your own caliber."


"Whether it's politically correct or not, guns keep people safe," said Paul Kempley of Hyde Park, who helped form the Boston chapter, the nation's first. "People need to realize that gun ownership and homosexuality aren't mutually exclusive."


"People have a right to defend themselves," said Kempley, a bisexual, who helped Rostcheck teach gun safety to the group. ‘‘The only real requirement (for joining), aside from a pulse, is an open mind and a respect for the Second Amendment."

Here we go again.

Fact is, the rancid "gun rights" movement only has a handful of these dishonest arguments to run through...so of course we're going to see this phony crap once again...

...could you explain that please? There's nothing phoney I can see about the bill of rights. On the first topic of this thread, do you feel you'd rather have had the guy without a gun and see him possibly beaten or killed? He didn't even have to fire a shot.

It's better to lay down and take your whuppin'. That way, everyone at your funeral will know what a morally upright individual you were...right up until the part where you died.

Remember, just dial 911, cower in the corner, and ask the bad man (very politely of course) to not hurt your or your family. That way, when the police arrive they can take your statement and file it away with all of the other unsolved robberies, assaults, rapes, and the like.

:boring:

to the right wing "think tank" North Bridge that whistled them out of thin air...and boasted what a "good trick" they were on liberals.