276 Comments

Yes, I know. But it's way more important than the point you were trying to make.

Expand full comment

Bullshit. Maybe, just maybe, sometimes for cops, & people in rural areas where cougars, bears & other predators are common, but otherwise, no, there are no legitimate reasons for civilians to have guns.

Expand full comment

"Hence, they would de facto ban firearms sales through a back door."Too bad that tactic seems to be working fine for the Anti-Choice shitheads. :/

Expand full comment

Now I'm picturing you swaggering (or more likely staggering) around with a Dobie & a Malamute holstered on each hip. ;)

Expand full comment

And to those of us who had to wait to find out if our child was one of them. Thank Zeus she wasn't.

Expand full comment

I actively support strong gun control legislation and have never owned a gun, as I just don't believe it serves any purpose. I think the idea of holding the manufacturer of a legally produced product liable for its abuse or misuse is preposterous. Unless there is evidence of negligence in its manufacture or violatioin of laws pertaining to its sale and distribution, there is no logical explanation as to why a company would be responsible for the actions of an individual who owns its product.One lawmaker made the poor analogy to the bartender who continues to pour drinks for a person who is onoticeably drunk. The real analogy would be suing the liquor manufacturer, -- which would be absurd on the face of it.Gun manufacturers are not entitled to any more of a break than any other company that makes products. But they should not be targeted out of our frustration with corrupt lawmakers and or America's insatiably insane gun culture. I would rather put effort into curbing the power of the gun lobby in out states' and nation's capitals.

Expand full comment

With undetboobs and big bleached hair. It is the south!

Expand full comment

I'm no fan of UBRs (ugly black rifles). I abhor the NRA.

But I'm rather fond of Constitutional Rights... even those I have no interest or ability to practice myself. In fact, those are the ones I'm most interested in protecting. Rights are only rights when we defend uses of them with which we disagree.

Even the now wonderfully-dead Justice Scalia wrote in the Heller ruling that the Second Amendment allows restrictions on gun ownership, including banning the private ownership of entire categories of firearms. And there have been such restrictions since before the Constitution.

If the people can find a majority-approved, new, legal and more accurate way to ban UBRs, I'd be fine with that. But since I know the history of the anti-gun movement, and remember when Reagan banned "open carry" to disarm the Black Panthers (just before the government took to murdering them), I do not trust them anymore than I trust the NRA.

Expand full comment

I don't think you'll find that anything I wrote is inaccurate, but if you do, please let me know.

Here's my take on the "gun control" issue.

We live in an oligarchy (specifically, a plutocracy). You may have seen that reported last year when a university study showed that the public (and voters in particular) have a statistically ZERO influence on legislation that matters to us.

So, if The Powers That Be wanted "sensible gun control laws," we'd have them. Remember when, after the Sandy Hook tragedy, polls showed that even the majority of NRA members supported truly universal background checks? But still, we don't get them.

To me, it is obvious that TPTB are happy to see us divided over "guns, gods and gays," and if not anxious, at least willing to accept the 30,000 or so annual casualties that are the result of their failing to effectively regulate "gun control."

Expand full comment

ps. Would my analogy between the Constitutional right of gun ownership and safe abortions work better if I referred to instances in which anti-abortion groups sued women's health providers who also perform abortions?

Because, that tactic is used by the absurdly-named "pro-life" group also.

Expand full comment

There's a case before the Supreme Court right now that will rule on whether States can pass these laws that make safe abortions inaccessible. With Scalia thankfully gone, it could result in a tied vote, which would overturn such laws.

BTW: I see the anti-abortion fanatics as the most successful terrorist group in the US, perhaps since the KKK. During the (last) Clinton Administration, these terrorists drove so many abortion providers out of the field that safe, legal abortions were not available in 80% of US counties by 2000.

That figure remained unchanged throughout the Bush II Administration, but since Obama's election, it's gone up to more than 85% of all counties. De facto abolition of a right.

The failure of the Clinton Administration to stand up for a woman's right to choose is one of the reasons I refused to support them in 1996, and since.

Expand full comment

I would never have thought over the counter drugs would require ID. But you do live next door to Walter White. Also. Heroin. The new scary drug. Got to keep those DEA assholes employed.

Expand full comment

I see dead cats on my street constantly. What kind of asshole lets their pet run free?? Look in a mirror.

Expand full comment

Fuck the second amendment. You have no valid reason for anyone owning a fucking gun.

Expand full comment

W was not elected. Scotus is totally responsible for everything that piece of shit did. Fortunately that fucking scalia is now six feet under. There is no reason to elect another clinton. The first one fucked us over by getting rid of control over the banks and wall street. The cunt loves wall street. She sucks jamie dimons ass.

Expand full comment

Many types of guns used to be illegal. Silencers were illegal. Large capacity cartridges were once illegal. Your argument is vapid and remarkably stupid. Anyone arguing in favor of the second amendment is a fucking idiot. There is absolutely no justification for gun ownership.

Expand full comment