The other day, two defective 12-year-old girls decided to try to impress a fictitious Internet character called Slenderman by stabbing their friend 19 times.
It doesn’t get much worse than that, human depravity-wise. Yet, no primal scream emanating from an emotionally overwrought parent to ban or even “control” knives.
Why?
I’ve been trying to parse it. A knife (any knife) is a potentially lethal weapon that can be used to maim and kill. Most of the time, they’re used to do other things – like cut food or open a cardboard box. Just as most of the time, guns are used for other things – such as target shooting. But when a freak takes a gun and uses it to harm or kill people, there is this bizarre absolving of the culprit for his actions, concomitant with howls of outrage directed at the inanimate object used to do the dirty deed.
And yet, person knifed to death is just as dead as the person shot to death. So how come most people don’t blame knives for “knife crime” – while all too many people blame guns for “gun crime”?
Apparently, there is a psychological difference. A phobic, irrational aversion to guns.
There is a term for such people: Hoplophobes.
You may have come across it. But I take issue with it. Because these allegedly hoplophobic people are not averse to guns. If they were, their banshee keening calls to “ban” and “control” would apply universally. To include cops, for instance. They’d be just as hysterical – if they were truly hoplophobic – when a cop (or cops) recklessly handled a firearm or shot an innocent. They’d hold press conferences, they’d march. They’d wet their pants when they saw armed costumed strangers walking around the neighborhood.
But they don’t. It’s apparently ok for some people to possess guns.
Just not you people.
Former NY City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for instance, is not the least bit hoplophobic . . . as far as his armed guards are concerned.
He merely insist you not be armed.
Which might be acceptable if – somehow – the Bloombergian model could be scaled up to provide every citizen with comparable physical security. But that would end up meaning “guns everywhere” – a hoplophobic catastrophe! Instead, these very much hoplophilic personages will keep their guns – while at the same time ordering you to surrender yours. Because you are not to be trusted with the means of self defense. Which amounts to: You are to be left defenseless. A fact, not an assertion. Cops can’t be everywhere – even if we assume they can be trusted absolutely to always handle guns responsibly (as ridiculous a notion as believing cops never drive recklessly). Therefore, you are supposed to accept “taking a number” – so to speak – when faced with a violent assailant (probably not a hoplophobe) trusting/hoping that – eventually – a cop will come to your rescue.
What’s the saying?
When seconds count, a cop is just minutes away. . . .
For you, anyhow. But when it comes to the safety and security of Bloomberg, et al, cops (and other heavily armed men) are there immediately. In fact, they are there “24/7.”
Because, you see, Bloomberg, et al, value their lives very much – and value yours very little.
It’s the ages-old contempt of the elites and their Praetorians for the non-elites, nothing more.
Allowing us to possess the means of effective self defense is to concede that our lives are just as important as their lives. And that, friends, is something they will never concede.
Notice the actual and virtual state funerals thrown for elites and pr
aetorians shot by helots – never the reverse. We are disposable, irrelevant.
They are not.
The tragedy is that some of us go along with this. Cheer the elites who exist safe behind layered perimeters of heavily armed security urging that we face the world’s ugliness without perimeters of heavily armed security.
The elites have imparted a one-sided form of hoplophobia – one that does not apply to them. They’ve managed – through brilliant emotional-psychological manipulation – to convince the contemptible that it’s ok for the elites (and their praetorians) to have guns.
But no one else.
It brings to mind images of beaten wives and Patty Hearst. Of the 12-year-old who loves the 63-year-old Uncle who molested her. It is epically dysfunctional. The kind of abuse that needs years of therapy just to begin to chip away at the damage. 
The problem, though, is that this damage doesn’t just affect the damaged. It affects us all – or will, if the “battered wives” who embrace the pseudo-hoplophobic long con don’t begin using their heads. If it’s guns that are the problem, then surely it’s a problem for anyone to possess guns.
Special costumes don’t negate human foibles.
All our lives are equally valuable.
Perhaps not to Bloomberg, Feinstein or Obama. But it’s time to call them out on their hypocrisy; to make manifest the contempt in which they hold us. The utter disregard they have for our “safety.”
If they can’t provide us with the same level of protection they feel entitled to, then we have every right to provide it for ourselves.
Meanwhile, spare us the faux anti-gun talk. We’ll turn ours in when they do.
Throw it in the Woods?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/lone-star-crazy-how-right-wing-extremists-took-over-texas-20140701
Hmm. Remember when Rolling Stone hired intelligent and reasoned writers instead of a Clover named Mark Binelli?
Read the comments, they rip this guy several new ones…..
The entire purpose of gun control is to erase the current possibility that a sufficiently angered mass of mundanes could destroy the State, its owners and their minion enforcers.
I remember an incident about 13 years ago where a dozen men armed with boxcutters killed thousands by crashing passenger jets into office buildings. The death toll would have been higher except a few individuals refused to accept that fate and fought back using adrenaline, hot coffee and dinner plates. They crashed at a reclaimed strip mine site instead the intended target.
Fear of guns, indeed. Be afraid of crazy people. I’ll take “Crazy Free Zones” over “No Gun Zones” any day.
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it. I sure as hell wouldn’t want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.”
— William S. Burroughs, icon of the Beat Generation, one of the most politically trenchant, culturally influential, and innovative artists of the 20th century
Yup, ‘gun-controllers’ indeed have an irrational love/hate mindset toward guns (as EP describes above) — but they can not see the blatant contradiction in their beliefs. (Guns Fer Us–Not U)
Emotion triumphs… as it often does in human attitudes & behavior.
The primary belief of gun-controllers is that the mere ‘presence’ of guns “causes” violence in human societies, that would not otherwise occur. Therefore, minimizing or eliminating guns in society “will” absolutely reduce violence.
{very simple logical assertion, though grossly incorrect}
Their corollary belief (rarely stated openly) is that the presence of ‘government’ guns in a society does NOT cause violence and therefore is not a problem.
(no matter the number/types of government weapons present in society)
That corollary belief obviously contradicts the primary belief of gun-controllers. But that is not a problem when emotion trumps reason and logic.
____
Why are government-guns good … but private guns bad ?
What exactly makes guns safe & acceptable when possessed by humans with government titles & costumes, but not so with other humans ?
Where did government humans get special legal right to carry & use guns (?)
Were they born with it or did other humans somehow give them that special right(?); if so, where did these other humans get the legal right to confer these special gun rights to government humans only (??)
Gun-controllers can not rationally answer these questions, nor do they care.
Fundamental issues of government are soooo 18th Century.
Um yeah, only those trained in firearms get to use them. However I noted I said I see no problem with private individual undergo training before acquiring firearms. An incompetent person with a gun will harm innocent people. Strange how the Swiss get this but not Americans.
However you by your reasoning bleated the answer: the gun is one of the Pareto optimal way of hurting and killing others. Hence few to none are arguing for knife control let alone assume a woman can easily fend off a large man with a knife.
“…only those trained in firearms get to use them.”
Clover, your arrogance is quite something. You stand on high issuing your decrees. Who appointed you boss of anyone?
And, once more: A right is not conditional on “training” (as defined arbitrarily by someone such as you). You either have the right – or you do not.
You take the position that individual people do not have the right to defend themselves; that it is a conditional privilege.
Which is vile nonsense.
If a person hasn’t got the right to defend himself, then he has no rights at all.
And, let’s turn your fallacious argument around for the side view, shall we? If there is no individual right to possess guns, then government – its individual agents – have no right to possess them, either.
If they do, then so do we.
If they don’t, then neither do they.
You’re a hypocrite – or just confused. Because you’re ok with them possessing guns. Just not us.
Apparently, you feel safe when organized and “trained” cohorts such as the NKVD or Gestapo have guns. But not their victims.
Nope a gun is too dangerous for someone to own one without the training to go with it just like driving a car. No I do not assume owning a gun without qualification is an automatic right. Heck, even the 2A uses “well-regulated” when Libertarians want to be pretended it’s “non-regulated”.
On the other hand, as a general rule most government workers don’t carry a gun as part of their job. Rather the members of the police and military get firearm training before they are issued guns. But once again your being fallacious in saying I want to disarm the public when all I said is that individuals get gun training before they can get to own a gun.
Jesus H. Christ!
How many times are gun banners going to try to make the 2A mean the opposite of what it does?
Don’t they get tired? I know I’m tire of rebutting their patent nonsense.
For starters, the modifier “well regulated” does not even refer to “arms.” It refers to the “militia.”
Also, “well regulated” has nothing to do with legal regulations. It means “well disciplined.”
Again, links for people who care about truth and facts. “Gil” need not apply.
http://jneilschulman.rationalreview.com/2010/05/j-neil-schulmans-stopping-power-english-usage-expert-interprets-2nd-amendment/
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
Clover, “too dangerous” is nothing more than an emotional outburst.
I have guns in my house; had ’em for decades. No one’s ever been harmed in any way. Most of my neighbors in this rural county are also in possession of guns. “Gun crime” is almost nonexistent. The fact that there is “gun crime” in inner cities in no way imputes that guns are the problem. And your solution – disarming those who are not the problem – is tired, specious and won’t sell anymore.
As regards “training.”
Cops – “trained” cops – routinely prove they can’t shoot straight, handle their firearms recklessly, even murderously.
So much for “training.”
Besides which, a right is not conditional on being “trained.” As I explained previously.
The fact that you are uncomfortable with others being armed without “approval” and “training” derives from your contempt for others, whom you assume to be presumptively irresponsible and whom you therefore wish to presumptively restrain and control.
But who made you the Wise Dear Leader?
What makes you qualified to judge anyone else presumptively? To simply decree that their rights are subject to your conditions?
Here’s the thing, Clover: A right is something we all possess equally and which no one else may rescind, diminish or restrict – as that would be asserting the right to violate a right.
Which would be nonsensical on the face of it.
PS: Not that it directly bears on the issues discussed above, but the fact is most ordinary citizens who carry a gun are better shots than the typical “trained” cop. And – as a matter of statistical fact – far less apt to use their gun recklessly or criminally than a “trained” government goon.
Dear Eric,
It’s ironic. Clover demands “training” as a mandatory precondition for the exercise of 2A rights (natural rights described by the 2A).
But if “training” in logic, grammar, spelling, syntax was a mandatory precondition for the exercise of 1A rights, clover would surely fail to qualify!
This just in:
http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/06/11/ok-hero-unleashes-lead-teen-couple-messing-around/
“Trained” hero in action….
Then why are the USPS, NOAA and Social Security Admistration ordering M16’s and Glocks’?
Data and statistics from various sources clearly show that the combined purchases of bullets by the dozens of secret and not-so-secret federal agencies has more than doubled from the Bush administration to the Obama administration. As far back as August 2012, we at Whiteout Press documented that debate with the article, ‘History of DHS claimed publicly their ammunition purchases’ …with 70,000 armed DHS agents on the force, that comes to 70 million rounds per year…
it seems Homeland Security officials reversed those claims when called to testify under oath before a Congressional Committee. Last week, federal officials confirmed an Associated Press report showing that the Dept of Homeland Security was planning to purchase 1.2 billion rounds of hollow-point bullets, just for its sub-agency alone.
As detailed by Associated Press and RT News, that’s a far cry from the 70 million rounds the DHS notified the General Accounting Office of just four months ago. Not only that, the DHS official told Congress that the Department now had an army of 100,000 armed domestic soldiers. That’s 30,000 more than DHS admitted to in the same GAO documentation. When asked what DHS planned to do with all that ammunition, officials refused to say other than insist it was for training.
P.S. Clover – No one trains with hollow point bullets. Much too expensive & not necessary.
Garysco, I have heard that they train with the ammo they’ll use in the field. Cost is no object when you are spending other people’s money…
@Inconsistencies – Uncle Sam can buy very satisfactory reloads and/or ball/FMJ ammo for a fraction of factory hollow-points.
If that is true then they have knuckleheads doing the training. It is hard on the weapon (wears out springs, barrels and all moving parts quicker then necessary) and the shooter with no tactical advantage.
Clover – Training before a person is “allowed” to exercise a right means nothing more than registration. Registration is the precursor to confiscation. The 2nd Amendment is there specifically to prevent the government from infringing The Right, as in interfering with our right to keep and bear arms in any way, shape or form. If you understood any of the basis for the inclusion of that specific right, then you would understand it is to keep the government afraid of the populace (actually I suspect you already know that) and then you have Liberty. But if the public has to fear the government you have tyranny, which is specifically what the framers attempted to prevent with the 2A.
You give away your hand by proposing these “reasonable” measures. And to do what exactly? Keep us safer? Bullshit. Unarmed we are helpless against any predator, government or civilian. Armed we are much less attractive targets, I assure you. You want the people disarmed so you don’t have to worry about the day of reckoning, because we have every reason to believe you are an officious tax-feeder who will more than willingly put your boot on the throat of any of us that disagree with you. You don’t want to take the risk of attempting to stomp on an armed man do you? Or have you already and now you fear reprisal? If so, good.
You need to study up on April 19, 1775 (I’ll bet you already have though). That arms confiscation effort by the central gun-vernment of the day didn’t pan out too well for them or their cannon fodder did it. I’ll bet that lesson wasn’t lost on you, or Lenin, or Stalin, or Mao, or Castro, or Pol Pot or Hitler either, now was it? They all disarmed their subjects. We have plenty of historical evidence to prove the devestating results of civilian disarmament; 170,000,000+ unarmed dead civilians at the hands of government in the 20th century alone.
Your penchant for incremental disarmament through “reasonable” means, such as mandatory training, universal background checks, licensing and registration puts you squarely in the blood thirsty tyrannts’ camp. You’ve proven yourself to be a thug with this line of thought clover. In response to your previous posts, I sent the NRA and GOA money and by extension flipped the bird to your buddy Bloomberg. I can afford to send some more and I assure you that after reading your latest brain droppings I definitely will. Let’s see how Mr. Bloomberg’s $50 million committed to strip us of our rights and steal our property holds up against 5 million “bitter clingers” with $25 each. See what you’ve done? Thanks for the inspiration clover.
Dear Clayton,
“Why are government-guns good … but private guns bad ?”
The short answer:
“The State calls its own violence law, but that of the individual, crime.”
– Max Stirner
The liberal problem with guns is in large part a matter of psychological projection. Their impulse is to approach everyone and everything with the initiation of force: through the mechanism of the state if they are “sophisticated” and through that of a street mugging if they are not. Force, not voluntarism, is their default option. When a liberal says that she’s afraid of her neighbor having a gun, she means that if *she* were the armed neighbor, *she’d* be a danger to others. It’s not a reflection of what her neighbor has done with the gun, but of what her ideology permits her to do with it. She can’t trust herself, so she trusts no one else. Every single one of these anti-gunners is a totalitarian at heart. There is no human being on the planet whom they see as a sovereign individual, existing to do something other than serve as the means to their ends. There is no whim they will not satisfy by resorting to force. As a gang anti-gunners need to fear the independent men who will fight back. As an individual an anti-gunner is more afraid of what she would do with that gun, than what her neighbor might, because force is her first resort.
Thanks for that comment, Paula. It helps me to understand some people I know, just a bit better. I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense.
Dear Paula,
Nicely put.
I lived in SoCal for nearly 15 years, during which I was a workshop junkie. I did everything from Actualizations to Zen.
Among the many verbal therapies I did was Jungian dream analysis. As the Jungians will tell you, an individual’s “shadow” (“dark side” in Star Wars Speak) is revealed in two ways: dreams and emotional reactivity.
What you just explained so nicely was the latter. The emotional reactivity that gun prohibitionists feel so intensely is their own unacceptable shadow. It is incompatible with their ego level self-image. Therefore it must be “disowned” as “Not me!”
How is this done? It is “projected” in an utterly clueless manner onto other individuals, in this case, gun rights champions, almost exactly the way an movie or LCD projector projects images onto a wall screen.
It also gets projected onto the guns themselves. I once watched in amazement as one gun prohibitionist literally freaked out when I showed her friend a “black rifle” I had at the time. Her heart was racing, her hands were sweating and shaking.
Excellent point: The corollary of anti-gunners’ psychological projection is a primitive, animist belief in the power of inanimate objects. It’s a natural fit with their rejection of personal responsibility: drugs make you take them, booze makes you drink it, casinos make you gamble, guns make you pull the trigger.
Dear Paula,
Notice how “Gil” provides us with living proof of the utterly oblivious psychological projection we were talking about, almost on cue?
As Jung noted so aptly, “The trouble with the unconscious, is that it’s unconscious.”
What he meant of course, was that when one is clueless, one is also clueless to the fact that one is clueless! One assumes one “knows it all” and continues laying down the law for others.
Living proof, right on schedule. So predictable. So obvious in his contempt for others, so willing to assume control of them. The desire to control others is a confession of impotence. The efficacious man wishes only to be left alone.
Why necessarily stop at guns? Would you be happy your neighbour is stockpiling dynamite? It’s his 2A right then again the old sticks are probably bleeding nitro-glycerine and one spark means you’re toast. But no harm has come yet right?
Actually, farmers and rural people generally used to buy dynamite over the counter as a matter of routine. It was used for a variety of purposes, such as getting rid of stumps. Problems occurred from mishandling, but – as with firearms – they were the exception rather than the rule.
Once again, Clover, you reveal your contempt for everyone else, whom you assume to be as reckless and irresponsible as you apparently believe yourself to be.
Dad got tasked with blowing up some captured Nazi munitions in WW-II because he grew up in a rural area and had experience using dynamite in removing stumps.
I’ve also noticed the increasing use of knives being used by psychopaths in their murderous binges. A knife, like a gun, is merely an inanimate tool which is controlled by the user; what we really need to do is find a way to ban the psychos but it seems like Amerika has an abundant supply of them, almost as many as there are clovers who swallow their master’s propaganda of guns are bad unless wielded by a costumed thug with the State’s badge/blessing.
“a knife, like a gun…”, like a gov….
The Declaration of Independence states we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Other than a gun how else can a 100 lb woman protect her life against a 220 lb thug who wants to take that life? Any restriction on the carrying/owning of a defensive weapon is a violation of the Declaration, the Constitution, and a man’s natural rights.
Note that a government can also attempt to illegally deprive a man of his life and in this case a basic firearm may not be enough firepower, thus the Constitution also protects heavy weapons like cannons, machine guns, and their modern day equivalents.
I’m always amazed at those who attempt to define “arms” as any specific thing. The 2nd Amendment allows the citizens of this country to possess “arms”, no mention of guns or anything else. I opt for my own nukes with delivery system. This would give me parity with those who use a badge or uniform to deprive me of my rights. We see the mass media, ad nauseum, repeat the old govt. mantra till we’re puking our guts up listening to bullshit about “legal weapons” when the 2nd obviously makes no distinction. Nowhere does it say “musket”, “handgun”, etc.
Notice the MSM continually regurgitates Clover type eructations involving “arms” the “Govt.” says only rogue nations attempt to produce(nukes). As soon as those same nations have a good arsenal of same weapons, they become our allies or at the worst, a nation we don’t fuck with. Nothing like being the only bully on the block.
So why can’t the Clover types realize something as mundane as a projectile device powered by burnt powder is quite literally, the genie that’s been out of the bottle for hundreds of years? Sorry dipshits, you can’t remove KNOWLEDGE into the unknown.
“The 2nd Amendment allows the citizens of this country”
Now eight…. YOU know better than this. The constitution doesn’t “allow” people to do anything. It was an attempt to constrain the central government a few people foolishly formed – and which many others then accepted.
But yes, that “gun control” ship sailed a long, long time ago – right over the edge. Individuals will always find a way to arm themselves if they value their freedom. If too few of them value that, unfortunately, the whole damned species may die out. It’s getting close to time to cut bait or fish… but I don’t think there is any possibility in hell of disarming us first.
adjustable rate mortgages are where i draw the line…nobody should have access to such destructive force. ☻
Eight – I have to back MamaLiberty up on that one. Rights are inherent in the individual. The Constitution itself atempted to convey limited power to the central government, but convey power it did. The Bill of Rights was an effort to ameliorate that exercise in vertical fornication by ensuring all of our virtually unlimited rights were secured; especially by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments (which are most particularly ignored by the PTB). So in essense you are correct: If the government has the right to cannon, MRAPs, nerve gas and thermo-nuclear missiles then so do we. And if we do not have that right as individuals, then neither do they as a group. There was a time when that cannon in the town square was more than an ornament too. But that’s inconsistent with what the plantation owners want for us, I assure you. They’d have one helluva hard time getting the local SWAT team to go out in their MRAPs if some of the neighbors at least had RPGs and Stinger missiles, now wouldn’t they?
Of course the flip side is that some short sighted ass-hat with a nuke, like clover, would have already toasted the rest of us while he was having a hissy fit over who was going to mow the median in his gated community. So it’s probably better that we don’t have our own personal nukes (at least not unless you alone could actually build it from scratch, which would put you in such a small percentage of the world’s population it wouldn’t matter). In fact, that’s the only way government officials should be allowed to have them as well; that would take care of nuclear proliferation. I’m really surprised that some arrogant officious bonehead in government hasn’t already pushed the red button. No, wait…Truman did…my bad.
Whenever someone wants to “talk” about gun control, I always bring up one of the best episodes of the Simpson’s ever written. Its one of the halloween specials, the one where Lisa talks everybody into giving up their guns. She uses emotion instead of facts, as all gun control proponents do. Of course the aliens move in and enslave the earth. That is, until Moe figures out how to run the aliens off, by chasing the alien “ahhh, he has a board with a nail in it, run Kudos, run”.
Whether or not the Simpson’s writers intended it to, it a great argument for the sheer stupidity of gun control, only banning some “dangerous” item instead of all of them. Cars and knives are just as dangerous if used by criminals or just the plain stupid. Guns are just as necessary as tools for many millions of people as well as cars and knives.
It’s far fetched to think that aliens would invade us, but gun control is just as ridiculous if you think about a little.
Its also telling how the places with the most gun control are also the most dangerous places in the US. Just look at the south & west sides of Chicago. There are zero legal places to buy a gun in Chicago, but there are still many guns, all in the hands of criminals.
Exactly, Rich.
The Simpsons was smart TV. A cartoon with more thoughtful satire than 95 percent of “real” TeeVee shows.
{Poke}
Eric,
Please remember, we are BEING invaded by aliens… Mostly Latino, but also Iraqi, Iranian, Mulsim, Chinese, Japanese, Lithuanian, etc, etc, etc. 😉
We still don’t have secure borders…
So ANYONE can walk across. And they’re not all Cesar Milan…. Nor even Pablo the Pizza Guy.
Some are al Qaeda (Whom “we” are now supporting, whether we wish or not, through our government – who wishes to disarm US, clover, but sends the Muslim Brotherhood, Mexican Drug Lords, and Al Qaeda weapons from OUR COUNTRY’S stores.)
all earthlings are equal, but some earthlings are more equal than others. ~ napoleon pig(in a {poke}).*
*The idioms pig in a poke and sell a pup (or buy a pup) refer to a confidence trick originating in the Late Middle Ages, when meat was scarce, but cats and dogs (puppies) were not…The scheme entailed the sale of a suckling pig in a poke (bag). The bag would actually contain a cat or dog (substantially less valuable as a source of meat), which was sold to the victim in an unopened bag.
defending the bag, jean (the poke, the nationstate “borders”) is a status quo ni”m”by thing to do, make that a cumulonimbyus (huge vapor cloud) thing to do. there is no your, let alone “OUR” inside the nationstate poke.
remember good ol’ tony joe white? vocal chords in a barrel, that was down a well, located in a black hole. no way i can write-justice his grunts, you’ll just have to go listen; here he does what he did with johnny cash:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRPO9qXCyyg
American Pokeweed (Phytolacca americana) is a large semi-succulent herbaceous perennial plant… It is also known as Virginia poke,[1][2] American nightshade, cancer jalap, coakum, garget,[2] inkberry, pigeon berry,[1][2] pocan,[2] pokeroot,[1] pokeweed,[1] pokeberry,[1] redweed, scoke,[2] red ink plant and chui xu shang lu (in Chinese medicine).[1] Sometimes the plant is also referred to as poke sallet[3] (or polk salad).[4] Parts of this plant are highly toxic to livestock and humans, and it is considered a major pest by farmers. Nonetheless, some parts can be used as food, medicine, or poison if properly prepared.
“food, medicine, or poison…oy…sounds like pufferfish/blowfish*, or s.a.{n}d. (standard american {nationalist} diet), don’t it?
*The family includes many familiar species, which are variously called pufferfish, puffers, balloonfish, blowfish, bubblefish, globefish, swellfish, toadfish, toadies, honey toads, sugar toads, and sea squab… Pufferfish are generally believed to be the second-most poisonous vertebrates in the world, after the golden poison frog…nevertheless, the meat of some species is considered a delicacy in Japan (as 河豚, pronounced as fugu), Korea (as 복 bok or 복어 bogeo ), and China (as 河豚 hétún) when prepared by specially trained chefs who know which part is safe to eat and in what quantity.
look at all those grate fishy names…lol.
I know you’ve deceived me, now here’s a surprise
I know that you have ’cause there’s magic in my eyes
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles
Oh yeah
If you think that I don’t know about the little tricks you’ve played
And never see you when deliberately you put things in my way
Well, here’s a poke at you
You’re gonna choke on it too
You’re gonna lose that smile
Beacuse all the while
I can see for miles and miles
I can see for miles and miles
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles
Oh yeah
~ the who
Whoville appears to have an incredibly thick cloud layer that can only be pierced by an equally incredible amount of sound; namely, Horton talking with a raised voice, or every single Who directing a large amount of sound at a single point on this barrier…. but who’s on first?
Costello: Now, when the guy at bat bunts the ball–me being a good catcher–I want to throw the guy out at first base, so I pick up the ball and throw it to who?
Abbott: Now, that’s the first thing you’ve said right.
Costello: I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT!
Abbott: Don’t get excited. Take it easy.
Costello: I throw the ball to first base, whoever it is grabs the ball, so the guy runs to second. Who picks up the ball and throws it to what. What throws it to I don’t know. I don’t know throws it back to tomorrow–a triple play.
Abbott: Yeah, it could be.
Costello: Another guy gets up and it’s a long ball to center.
Abbott: Because.
Costello: Why? I don’t know. And I don’t care.
Abbott: What was that?
Costello: I said, I DON’T CARE!
Abbott: Oh, that’s our shortstop!
jimmy, billy & jerry cover the bases:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0Jg7pvVzKk
pokem(eric)ons moe, larry, curly, shemp:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxg716xgTcI
aye spy. is robert culp(able)? Is the coz bill(able)? how are your eyes? do you see what I see? ☻
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOwQWDSzjYw
Nope. Gun control should like car control: you don’t get to own a gun until you can prove you’re competent in using it just as with a car.
Clover, rights are not subject to “proving you’re competent.” You, for instance, are under no obligation to prove you have any idea what you’re talking about before you open your trap. Why? Because you you have a right to speak (and write) freely. Period. The same applies to the right to armed self defense.
Perhaps, Clover, you should be legally forbidden to comment on a topic until you’ve proved you’re competent to do so. After all, “we” mustn’t allow potentially dangerous falsehoods and misrepresentations to be disseminated. Your eructations might agitate someone. Who knows what could happen? Think of the harm it might cause “our” children.
Satire, Clover – but it makes a serious, an important, point. *
Rescinding an individual right (or limiting the right) without the individual having done something to justify it is an affront, an outrage – an act of aggression.
And aggression is always wrong, Clover.
Unlike my possessing a gun for defensive purposes. Or your being at liberty to express your views.
* And – sadly – it’s not satire. There is talk of restricting journalism to “legitimate” (as defined by government) journalists. And of forcing opinion publishers to also publish the contrary views of their adversaries. The same pattern underlies all of this, Clover. The urge of you and yours to control others, not because they’ve harmed you – but because you do not agree with or like what they do (or say).
The story is, you need a license to engage in (professional) DRIVING: IE, a taxi or limo.
For personal operation? No license required.
But because THEY come after US armed for bear, ready and free to kill? We play this kabuki theater.
And if we were to reverse it in any way, Clover, you’d be there cheering us, saying, “I always told you I believed in the second Amendment!” (Or whatever.)
You are a collaborator, licking the boots of whomever has power.
Some things (human propensity for being part of the herd) never change.
Gil, maybe you should show us your “toilet licence” or “chew-gum-and-walk permit” before you prove by your very utterances you already have a “foot-in-mouth warrant”. Thanks for puking.
division of labor; rhymes with weber, as in max. you will divide. to & per the qualified. the specia-lied.
watched “still mine” last night. milling “your own lumber”, building on “your own property” (guffaw), not guns, but still the same story. heinlein’s insects almost got the protagonist, just not quite…don’t let the survivorship biasbugs bite.
ozymandias,
Thank you for pointing this film out. It was beautiful and heartwarming.
I enjoyed it.
i left out the beautiful & heartwarming aspects. ☺ but it has those, too. welcome; glad you liked.
Dear Oz,
“Still Mine”
Looks good!
I’m going to watch it.
If you have a lot of time to kill, ‘Under The Dome’ wasn’t bad.
Imho, even the average ordinary guy is going to walk away from that with a greater understanding of fascism and what it means. …Maybe.
Dear helot,
I watched Season 1 after Tor recommended it.
Being Stephen King, it was of course worth it. But it wasn’t his best work.
Dean Norris, the actor who played the DEA agent in Breaking Bad, plays another clover personality in Under the Dome. Sometimes you have to wonder whether these guys are playing themselves.
King does indeed point to the dangers of clover “security concerns.”
Cops, firemen (persons?), and paramedics are always second responders. No matter how warm and fuzzy the 911 button on your phone makes you feel.
“If they can’t provide us with the same level of protection they feel entitled to”
This is by no means desirable, even if it were possible. It could not even be done by putting everyone alive into a small cage or a straight jacket.
The police, even the ideal “peace officer,” has zero responsibility or liability for our individual safety. These days, of course, they bear no liability even for their own acts of terrorism and sadistic pleasure.
“They” don’t need any more excuses to disarm us, actually. They have plenty of those, just not any serious prospects of being able to carry it out. They are outnumbered by a significant margin, and their “troops” understand that any attempt at wholesale confiscation will not be in their best interests…
When the wheels fall off this wagon, there will be millions of gun owners around, at least 3% ready to do whatever it takes to defend themselves.
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/
The Doctrine of the Three Percent.
The Three Percent are the folks the Founders counted on to save the Republic when everyone else abandoned it.
And we will.
There will be no more free Wacos and no more free Katrinas.
For we are the Three Percent.
We will not disarm.
You cannot convince us.
You cannot intimidate us.
You can try to kill us, if you think you can.
But remember, we’ll shoot back .
We are not going away.
We are not backing up another inch.
And there are THREE MILLION OF US.
Your move, Mr. Wannabe Tyrant.
Your move.
“We are disposable, irrelevant.”
The term coined by Will Grigg fits best, I think:
Mundanes.
One thing to add to your article is the amount of homocide victims that are not really victims. After witnessing many homocides it became very apparent most “victims” are not a real victims. Most “victims” of a homocide almost always stole, cheated or as in my most recent federal testimony ……he was murdered by family of someone he mudered. A good guess at these kinds of victims?………90% earned or worked for their demise. Add that into the government figures and the gun catagory for real victims almost takes a complete dive. They know this but when the wheels fall off this country they’ll need an excuse to disarm you and “protecting the children” warms the sheeple like none other.
Even more so with child abductions. Maybe one in one thousand is a legitimate kidnapping. All the rest are family disputes and runaways. The South of the border crowd kidnaps as a regular part of family squabbles, usually to get even with the female half. But Brother wants you to live in fear so you will need him.