There is one thing Liberals can do to prove to the Right we mean business

[Walt Starr]

Buy guns.

Yep, buy guns. Show 'em we are not going to put up with the bullshit any more and we are arming ourselves in preparation for their coming meltdown. I don't trust the brownshirt bastards on the right who have drunk the koolaid and as their hero starts slipping further and further into uselessness with greatly reduced power, I expect them to start forming armed gangs of thugs wh will go after anybody remotely resembling somebody with a Liberal political philosophy. In response, Liberals must arm themselves and prepare for the vilence they will attempt to bring down on us.

So in conclusion, buy guns and lots of ammo. Practice practice practice.

Flame retardant on.

[...of J.Temperance]

1. I agree and I gave you a vote for your thread

I've been saying for ages that Junior is America's Ceaucescu and like Ceaucescu he's NOT going to go without violence.

So, S&W you're going to be needed more than EVER shortly.

[MisterLiberal]

398. wow

This is the most original trick ever posted trying to get us to become Repug lite but besides that, sorry, I am not going to be intimidated by the DLC, nor am I going to be naive enough to think that I am somehow the problem because I am liberal. It is the DLC and those who wish to move our party to the right who are the guests here. Perhaps they should change THEIR tune instead of asking us to change ours again.

Every time I see a post that talks about moving our party to the right I want to puke.

[gizmo1979]

2. I ain't afraid of no rethug.

never have been never will be,and I ain't be needen no gun!

[tularetom]

3. Right on right on

Everyone in my family is a big supporter of 2nd amendment including me. Only difference is the rest of 'em don't believe it applies to minorities and they think libruls are too wussy to own firearms (they don't know what to make of me). I'd love to see a big advertising campaign urging members of minority groups to buy guns.

[jackster]

4. actually, it's been this administration

that changed my views on gun ownership and the 2nd admenment. I now UNDERSTAND why it's important for civilians to be armed - to a point.

[abluelady]

7. Why the 2nd Amendment

I have come to realize the 2nd Amendment was put in there to allow citizens to protect themselves against the government. Naive, liberal, democratic me, never thought I'd have to fight my government. duh Those evil Repugs knew they could not trust government! Well, it sure is starting to make sense, but
"i'm still anti guns."

[Talismom]

27. It is so good to see this reply! I used to say that as a northeastern

liberal/progressive, I'm in a weird position since I have been considering taking shooting lessons and getting hold of a gun. My progressive husband is horrified at the thought. But my point is not that I'm afraid of petty burglars. I just grew up reading about Nazi killings of civilians and would like to think that if they came for me and my loved ones, I could pick off a few of them and make their job a little more difficult. Like you, I have recently felt that this administration has validated my worst fears. Maybe I'll get going with those plans.

[left is right]

42. Actually, you just penned

something that I have been thinking and trying to squash for sometime now. I hate the thoughts of owning a gun but I also think that as a liberal who loves the freedom that are granted by the Bill of Rights--it is time to buy a gun. If things keep going we may have to defend it.
It's ironic--I have been a single woman for over 20 years and in all of that time, I have never felt the need to buy a gun to defend my life or property. but I am wan to be prepared to defend our constitution.

[MrBenchley]

50. Yeah, they been lying their asses off about it

[elsiesummers]

229. Me too.

I never thought I'd think this way but I've gone beyond 180 because of this. Amazing to me - never thought I'd see the day...

[raccoon]

382. Same here. nt

[Batgirl]

5. I've found myself thinking along these lines lately. n/t

[C_U_L8R]

6. The only thing bullies like these understand...

are a punch in the nose and a big kick in the ass.

We need to do it first with reason, logic and irrefutable
argument to embarrass the reich on their Bullshit.
AND if that doesn't work.. then we just use bigger sticks.
Hoefully we won't need to be toting AK47s and Ammo Belts...
but if these fuckers force the issue.... bring it on assholes..
we're more than ready. Ha !

That said.... i think if unify our efforts to debunk their lies,
throw the crooks out of office... and shame these
fundie retards back to their dark caves... we won't need
to fire a single shot in this revolution.



(disclaimer: i am not advocating violence)

[MadisonProgressive]

8. I've always said I would NEVER own a gun.

But that was then, this is now - how times change!

I am still very leery of having one in my house. I think I will buy a good handgun and some ammo and lock it up in a safe deposit box - only to be brought out in the event of civil war.

Can anyone recommend a good, powerful, large-clip handgun?

[LuCifer]

15. Try a .357!

Ok, maybe that's NOT QUITE whatcher lookin fer! How about a .9 MM? Usually come with a 10-clip, and hardly any recoil, so even a wuss like DUHbya wouldn't get knocked on his ass!

Lu

[...of J.Temperance]

35. A .357 like this baby

Isn't that a pretty one? It's a 386 and it's light for what it is.

[WCGreen]

25. A shot gun and a whole lot of ammo......

[Pachamama]

29. Over - Under - lots of ammo - Check! n/t

[...of J.Temperance]

32. You could try a .460 or a .45ACP (photos included in this message)

The .460 Model XUR:



Specs: a near 9" barrel, overall length is 15", will do 5 rounds and is stainless steel with a satin finish. It's quite simply a beautiful product.

The .45ACP:



Specs: a 4" barrel, overall length is near 10", will do 6 rounds and is stainless steel with a matte finish. It's smaller than the .460, so would be easier to carry around...then again you could get BOTH the .460 and the .45ACP.

Of COURSE if you want to scare the pigs even MORE, well then any kind of sawn-off shotgun or pump action semi.

Girls like guns too and I'd recommend the .460, because AFTERALL a girl likes to get hold of the FULL 9 inches

[0007]

221. Why fuck around with pee shooters?

[...of J.Temperance]

230. Oh..My..God!..I WANT it...GIVE it to me...NOW!!

155mm.

It'll go GREAT with my Gucci shoes AND I can put some of my LSU car stickers on it.

*Sigh*

[...of J.Temperance]

266. The M59 155 Cannon

I was only kidding in the above post. I mean, WHERE would I put such a big 'un like the M59. Where would I keep it when it wasn't needed?

I'll stick with S&W.

[sendero]

78. I'm partial to the Glock..

... automatics, and so are most police departments.

[adigal]

147. I was told a shotgun is better

if someone is coming up the driveway. Or a rifle. I have a rifle I just got fixed up. I also never, ever thought I would have a gun, but I am going to start taking target practice. Just in case I have to defend my family from whatever.

[0007]

239. For short range a shot gun with a 26" barrel is great. n/t

[headin_south]

241. !!!???

are you kidding me??? a 26" barrel??? that's a long range artillery piece!!!

contrary to popular belief, a shotgun does not disgorge a cloud of lead right from the barrel. the "shot", the lead pellets in the round, are contained in a cup that keeps it one massive round until it leaves the barrel and travels some distance downrange and peels off. THEN it starts to disperse. even a sawed off pump shotgun with a 10" barrel will only leave put a 2" hole in someone at 25'...and part of that will be the shot cup!

keep in mind the legal minimum length is 18" for shotguns and 16" for rifles.

you still have to aim a shotgun, you don't just point it downrange and let fly.

[...of J.Temperance]

261. 0007 is just a

Big 'ole sweetie So he's only playing.

I must say, I'm impressed by your knowledge. Especially this particular part, which is FAB and I think Tanet should like it too

"You still have to aim a shotgun, you don't just point it downrange and let fly"

But seriously, your contribution is appreciated, you've made some good comments throughout the thread.

[Tanet]

300. Well to be honest

I think you might be right about the two inch hole, depending of course on accuracy, type of ammo. The two inch hole might be right, but 25' isn't actually that far to be honest, 25 yards is a little different though. While it seems that common belief says buck shot spreads all nice and pretty, it doesn't...though it still spreads. If you were to shoot say...a wooden sign perhaps (inside joke), it would have pretty much exactly a two inch diameter hole, but there would still be spread too it...the actual impact would be around six inches.

Or...so the wooden sign I saw that was shot looked like.

Though still...at RANGE a longer barrel will keep the spread tighter for further distance. Another point..don't know how big your house is, but a 26" barrel might be hard to manuever around a house for home defense.

[Leaning Left]

174. Theres many!

FN 5.7
1911

[headin_south]

186. Do You Have Any Experience?

if not, i'd recommend a revolver. the .357 magnum is good because you can also shoot the lower powered .38 specials through it (work your way up to a magnum). i'd also recommend at the least, a 4" barrel. it's still easy to handle but the longer barrel makes it more accurate.

have fun!

[nadinbrzezinski]

189. Hmm what is the use of it in a safe deposit box?

Also you need to PRACTICE and now how to clean it.

My recommendation either a 9 mm high penetration, low knock down power, plenty of ammo

Or a 40 cal, slightly higher caliber, better knockdown value and lower penetration.

Either way, for home defense, the best is actually a 12 gauge, but if you get a gun, learn to maintain and fire it. Otherwise it is useless

Also realize, finger on trigger, whatever you are aiming at, goes down

[...of J.Temperance]

207. Well it COULD be used in a bank robbery

If the bank robbers were to reach the safe deposit box section...I'm sure they'd WELCOME a spare firearm you know.

[...of J.Temperance]

208. I thought you might be anti-firearms

I don't know why I thought that, but I did. So obviously I'm surprised, but in a GOOD way of course.

A 12 gauge is a solid recommendation, but if they've not handled a gun previously, then I think the .357 (386 model) or the .45 (ACP) might be a better beginning.

My Grandmother has a 12 gauge, and I'm telling you, she'd use the thing at the drop of a hat...actually she has used it.

[KharmaTrain]

9. Beat Them In Elections n/t

Like that was a no-brainer?

[Stevepol]

19. You meet either destroy the voting machines or hack them ourselves?

[Nikki Stone 1]

34. Or shoot them.

THAT might be worth buying a gun for.

[Walt Starr]

39. I figure that's when they'll REALLY melt down and start going after us!n/t

[MrBenchley]

54. REALLY want to melt down the freepers, Walt?

Point out that gun control is both constitutional AND popular. They freak out and practically shit themselves when they're confronted with the truth.

[LoZoccolo]

10. April 2003 called.

They want their post back.

[billbuckhead]

11. It's stupidity like this that makes me ashamed to be American

The answer to everything in America is guns and violence. That's exactly what the fascists want, a civil war based grassroots violence. Maybe that's what this stupid nation deserves.

[Mutley]

26. Sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire.

I don't think we'd have to do a single thing with the guns. Just the symbolism alone will have an effect.

[MrBenchley]

64. Wow...what a silly post.

"I don't think we'd have to do a single thing with the guns."
So you think everybody has to run right out and buy something even you don't think we need, so we can impress somebody else.

Jeeze, talk about being a mindless thrall to corporations and groupthink....

[Mutley]

70. Wow, thanks!

Why don't you tell me how you really feel?

[MrBenchley]

71. Happy to...

[Mr_Spock]

288. Don't mind him - he's just an anti-gun blowhard.

He won't stop until he's made a hundred enemies in this post.

[headin_south]

243. Actually,

most corporations seem to favor a disarmed populace. try taking a look at halliburton's stance on firearms ownership...

[MrBenchley]

325. Actually

Corporations just love it whrn somebody is mindless enough to buy their product even though they don't need it just to impress strangers...

And let's not forget that in the gun industry, you've got some of the scummiest corporations on earth, some actually headed by criminals.

"try taking a look at halliburton's stance on firearms ownership..."
Yeah, just look at it...

[MrBenchley]

51. I'm with you, Bill...

This is an idiotic idea.

[Telly Savalas]

66. It is pretty disgusting that some DUers have this morbid fantasy.

[Mairead]

136. Is that anything like "Better live on your knees than die on your feet"?

nt

[redqueen]

401. Wow!

[headin_south]

242. NO...

what the fascists want is a civil war where only one side is armed.

[Lorien]

303. Amen billbuckhead

I have three friends who had family members who either died (both children) or were maimed by the family gun. It seems like gun lovers fantasize that they'll be heroes in their own slow motion action film if confronted with a hostile, gun bearing freeper, and the freeps all have the same fantasy. It's bloody absurd, and yes, embarrassing.

[postulater]

12. What if we took over the NRA and started a "protect yourself from

the Repubs" movement inside it?

[headin_south]

244. Sounds Good To Me!

you know, it wouldn't be that hard. the nra is a ONE ISSUE organization. they base their endorsements on how pols and officials fill out their questionaires. here in virginia, the nra supports the dem candidate for attorney general over the repugnant candidate!

howard dean got a thumbs up from the nra, didn't he (vt used to have the most pro-rkba laws in the country)?

[OnionPatch]

297. No, I think we need our own gun organization

I really do. Complete with stickers for our cars, etc. I'm through with this myth that liberals don't know anything about guns or that we're all against them. It's done nothing but harm us come election day. In a perfect world, I wouldn't have the slightest desire for a gun. But we don't live in a perfect world.

[LuCifer]

13. Damn skippy

It's odd, I'll mention to these wingnuts who flame me or try to "expose" or "debunk" me (especially since I'm a SATANIST!) that I've been pretty much a lifelong gun owner. Odd how 99% of the time, they NEVER reply AGAIN. Now if THAT does not speak VOLUMES, I don't know WHAT does...

Lu

[sproutster]

14. I agree

I have always believed in the right to bare arms. I've lived in rural Alaska for a good majority of my life. I do however have a child. My opinion has been that I should not have anything that dangeous in my home. I have also had my child trained in gun safety.

I think the time has come to purchase one. It's such a huge decision for me. But the way things are going, and the loss of rights we are seeing left and right, I may not have another chance. If this thing blows up and we do see the worst case senario, I do not wish to be unarmed.

[Toots]

16. I want a bunker bustin nuke

Whatever blows your skirt up...

[Beam Me Up]

18. "Everybody's got one, I want mine!"

Yeah. I think everyone should be armed. Just think how much more POLITE society would be if everyone wore sidearms.

Of course I'm not serious. But, then again . . .

[Pachamama]

31. I'm not an advocate of carrying sidearms, and I try to be a peacemaker,

but that said, would it surprise you that Pachamama has firepower and knows how to use it? Got them in a gunsafe away from the Pachababies and I know how to use it...used to hunt (mostly duck and fowl although I've hunted Elk) and I used to shoot a lot Skeet in my day off the back of the sail boat when I did cruising.

I don't know why the GOP has always been so successful at portraying the Dems as weak on crime and enemies of the 2nd amendment. If there is ever martial law, or rioting or even the friggin need for me to protect my family or go hunt for food for them, I know what to do....

I think Walt Starr's suggestion is right on the money....even if you never used it and just had it in a gun safe, the sheer fact that "dems" would be making arms sales go up would freak the Freepers and GOP out.

I think however that said, gun safety and how to use them is essential...practice and take classes at how to use fire arms if your going to have them....

[Beam Me Up]

57. You sound like a responsible gun owner.

In some circles that subject line is an oxymoron. My opinions (perhaps as usual) is complicated.

First, I grew up in rural America in the 1950s and 60s. Being a boy in southern Indiana meant owning a BB gun or pellet gun at a fairly early age. I think the legal age for owning a firearm is 16. Going 'squirrel hunting' (or whatever) was part of growing up.

Being sort of from another planet, I, of course, felt somewhat differently about the whole thing (as I did about most everything in the society I grew up in, much to my misfortune). My dad insisted I learn to shoot but I did not like guns. I'll say something typically me: "I've been killed by them too many times to 'like' them." Since you have a Budha avatar, I assume you'll at least not think I'm insane for saying it. I've felt this way all of my life.

But there is more. For one thing, my dad, who had hunted for food for his family when he was a boy as there were nine kids and they had very little money (born in 1903), had more of a 'tool of necessity' attitude toward his guns. He did not collect them but had a practical 22 and a shot gun which he used to hunt small game (no hand guns). He was a pretty good shot. SO, while target practicing with my father one day I was not surprised when he said, "Son, why don't you go over and stand on that stump, put the tin can on yer head and let me see if I can shoot it off."

There was a question about precisely what the subject of my father's sentence was, for me, since we weren't exactly on the best of terms. I did not like my father. He frightened me, as a matter of fact. It wouldn't be until I was an adult that I could see clearly that the man had some serious emotional problems. At the time, it was just raw emotion. I both feared and hated him--and yet I also loved him, too, because he was my father. SO, with this suggestion, I just trotted right over to the stump and put the tin can on my head and stood VERY VERY still. Sure enough, PING! I can still remember the sensation of that 22 shot whizzing just an inch or so above my skull. I don't remember how old I was but I think around 12, 13, something like that.

I didn't know for sure my dad WOULD shoot the tin can off my head, even though I felt confident that if he did, he wouldn't miss by accident. It felt something like a game of 'chicken' -- lets see if the boy trusts me enough to do this -- or something like that. Talk about a 'catalyzing' moment: It was a right of passage. At least he didn't kill me. It was at that moment I realized that my father was not to be trusted--probably the very opposite effect he'd intended.

My father was full of repressed rage and I inherited some of that. I remember in my early 20s becoming OUTRAGED by someone for some reason, I can no longer remember who or why. What I do remember vividly, however, is feeling that I sincerely wanted to KILL the MoFo. Such mentation was not unusual for me. I'd wanted to kill my father, too, and fantasized doing it, long before this William Tell episode. I'd even wanted to kill myself at times. Now I wanted to kill THIS son of a bitch and I plotted out how I'd do it, and it involved a gun. (Remind me to tell you about the on-going fantasy of joining the air force, hijacking a fighter jet and crashing it into the little town I grew up in and killing all the creepy people who lived there, including my own family sometime. It's a real 'hoot'.)

Fortunately for me, I did not own a gun. Fortunately, unlike my father, I was ultimately able to escape the confines of a dysfunctional family system and narrow-minded rural society and come to terms with a LOT of issues that were driving that rage.

I agree. It isn't guns that kill people. It is people that kill people. But that is what worries me. When do we begin to take responsibility for the pain and suffering that is not only everywhere around us, but within us as well? I'm not going to preach to you--and I hope you don't read what I'm saying that way.

You own a gun, no big deal. What concerns me, really, are weapons of mass destruction in the hands of people who have lost touch with any sense of morality--and at times seem to be out of touch with their own humanity. I'm appalled by such people whatever their affiliation or agenda.

None of us can say what they would or would not do in what was experienced as a life or death situation. If my life was in immediate danger from someone with a gun, what would I do?

Well, you see, here's the really weird thing: I believe ALL OUR LIVES ARE IN IMANANT DANGER. There are mad-men running the show and their hands are bloody. 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, New Orleans--just a few recent examples. Tomorrow it could be me, or you, or any one of hundreds of millions if not billions of people. Our lives are literally in their hands.

So, what do we do?

We do what we are doing, I guess. We try and wake people up. We take up arms as we need to to protect ourselves. We try to make the system work rather than resort to civil war. We try and keep our eyes on the many 'balls' that are in play. Right now, it is in the Bush administration's court.

[elsiesummers]

231. Democratic gun ownership mvmt would FREAK Repubs out...n/t

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

17. the key point is practice

I've said this again and again-there is no point in buying a gun unless you know how to use it. In fact, having a gun in the house and NOT knowing how to use it is more dangerous than not having a gun at all. Another point: if you buy a gun, you must be aware of what will happen if you do use it. If you get a gun for hunting, you must be aware that killing an animal will not look like it does in cartoons-there is blood and gore and you have a certain amount of responsibility to get the animal skinned and the meat preserved in a quick and efficient manner.

If, for some reason you feel that you may need to shoot a person, you must consider the consequence of THAT action as well. In the coming times, it might be a good idea to have other weapons than firearms at the ready. I speak from experience. About ten years ago, my husband and I were involved in actions against forest destruction by corporations, who were aided and abetted by the Forest Service. Some drunk locals came by our house with loaded weapons, looking to kill or injure someone. My husband talked to them-and, believe it or not, talked some sense into them, and they left.

BTW, he knows how to use his firearms, and would if need be. But he sees their use as a very last resort. Have more than firepower in your arsonal when bad times come.

[Matariki]

20. this would go a long way to expand the democratic base

i'm down with the 2nd ammendment. however - anyone who thinks that gun ownership is going to protect them from a corrupt government isn't thinking it through very well.

[femrap]

22. I just signed up for a 12 hour class that goes over and beyond

what is necessary for a concealed weapon permit. I am looking at this 'gun thing' like this: Being able to handle a firearm is a skill. I hope I never have to use that skill....but you never know what the future holds. I want to feel confident that I know have to handle a gun and the variety of situations that a gun may be necessary.

So I advise everyone to sign up for a class...not just a 2 hour class but a 2 day class...I am going to rent a gun for the class.

Hey, target practice might be fun....get rid of some stress.

[Mutley]

24. I think he means it will help in a more symbolic way.

No one thinks they'll be able to fight off tanks and heavy artillery with a .38 special. But if liberals are buying guns in large quantities, the symbolism alone will be worth it.

[MrBenchley]

53. Yeah, that's what we need...trigger-happy buffoons

ready to have a shooting war. </sarcasm>

[liberaltrucker]

72. Give it a rest, Mr B

Nobody in this thread has advocated a shooting war. The point is to be ready "just in case". And I believe the symbolism of liberals buying weapons en masse would have a huge effect on the RW's view of liberals. By the way, I own a S&W .357 revolver and a Glock 17 9 mm. I've have police firearms training, and renew my certification annually.

[MrBenchley]

75. Not a chance, pal....

"The point is to be ready "just in case". "
In case there's a need to compete in a "Who's stupidest and most paranoid" crown with the Aryan Nation?

" By the way, I own a S&W .357 revolver and a Glock 17 9 mm."
And you can't get by with two guns? Jeeze, that's pathetic.

[...of J.Temperance]

83. Two guns

But it's sensible to keep at least ONE shotgun in the house as well. Not that anybody is advocating going around just shooting people. But in today's climate one needs to be protected and be prepared.

[MrBenchley]

88. Yeah, you guys are rootin' tootin' terrors, all righty....

"Not that anybody is advocating going around just shooting people."
Rubbish. This entire thread is nothing but a bunch of buckaroos daydreaming about having a shootout.

[...of J.Temperance]

97. This ISN'T Gunfight At The O-K Corral!

You have to admit that the asshat that IS Wayne LaPierre would have a COMPLETE fit during elections, if WE could say: "Gun ownership is up 80% amongst the Democratic Party members."

Heck, I remember during the Louisiana Governor's race, the NRA was all in a mess because the then Lieutenant-Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco during one of the debates produced her NRA membership card for the TV cameras...it was a GREAT moment.

[MrBenchley]

99. Yippee, cowboy, bang bang....

"You have to admit that the asshat that IS Wayne LaPierre would have a COMPLETE fit during elections, if WE could say: "Gun ownership is up 80% amongst the Democratic Party members.""
Actually, since he pimps for gun sales, he wouldn't do a fucking thing but cheer. What gives that fuckwit and his gang the wim-wams is that most Americans, including most gun owners, want gun control...

"I remember during the Louisiana Governor's race, the NRA was all in a mess"
Ought to be easy to produce the NRA press release that shows that, then. After all, they put out hysterical press releases anytime anything threatens their corrupt little fantasies.

[...of J.Temperance]

103. I also support gun control and responsible gun ownership

I also support waiting periods to buy a gun and background checks.

The NRA got so confused, they ended up endorsing Blanco AND her opponent the idiot Bobby Jindal. Actually, it wasn't her NRA membership card she waved around, it was her hunting permit that she waved around during the debate. It's all in this article below:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050905&s=starr090705

Pretty good article all around. I love Governor Blanco, she's fab.

[MrBenchley]

106. If you want to see something really funny...

Toward the end of his disgraceful term as NRA president, Charlton Heston flew to Alabama and endorsed the WRONG gubernatorial candidate because he was in a feeble-minded daze....

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0%...

"I also support waiting periods to buy a gun and background checks."
That sort of talk upsets and scares the freepers a lot more than this trigger happy gibberish does.

[...of J.Temperance]

111. Oh hell, WHAT a complete asshat!

I'm comfortable saying that I HATE Charlton Heston. What he said about Al Gore in 2000, should have gotten the old goat arrested, when he said that because Gore had called for more gun control, Heston said he should be lynched...it was DEFINATELY something VERY near that comment.

Well what's MORE scary to these freaks than a Democrat, who owns firearms AND supports responsible gun ownership? That scares the crap out of them, Governor Blanco proved it in 2003 and SO did Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and they BOTH won their races.

On Edit: I notice that by directly clicking on that tnr article about Blanco they make you subscribe. BUT if you go to www.google.com and type in Kathleen Blanco + gun ownership then the FULL article will appear without subscription, I think it's the fourth article listed and it's titled "Southern Steel".

[MrBenchley]

113. Bear in mind

that John Kerry was a war hero and hunter...and he wasn't pro-gun enough for the screwlooses...

"That scares the crap out of them"
EVERY fucking thing scares the crap out of them. They seem to spend their lives shrieking like castrati that their guns are going to be grabbed. Hilariously, they also alternate between claiming that they need .50 caliber howitzers, assault weapons and pistol permits because they don't trust their fellow citizens, and crying in the next breath that for some mysterious reason nobody trusts THEM.

Meanwhile, if there's a better example of corporate and GOP corruption than the gun lobby and its rotten actions, I yet to see it.

[...of J.Temperance]

118. This is what makes US different from THEM

That they want NO checks OR limits to ANY kind of firearm, why would anyone need a bazooka for instance? But the Repuke nutjobs want one. And my entire family were against repealing the Assault Weapons ban.

It's funny that Senator Kerry has been almost a lifelong hunter, and he looked really good in those pictures out there shooting...and YET the nutjobs STILL backed Junior, who I don't think has EVER been photographed shooting...oh except in "Fahrenheit 911", but THEN again we NEVER got to see if he really was shooting, that's probably because if he was, he missed the intended target.

I'm quite complex on this issue, because I don't agree with hunting animals to kill them, it's cruel and unnecessary. Would I ban it? Probably not, because it'd be almost impossible to enforce that sort of law.

[MrBenchley]

121. Actually, I used to post a photo of Chimpy with a gun

looking utterly clueless...and there's a recorded instance of him wondering out in a field during done hunting season in Texas and shooting an endangered killdeer instead...

And let's not forget Deadheart Dick Cheney shooting 400 penned pheasants last winter...or duck hunting with Fat Tony Scalia at an oil executive's private hunting lodge just before Scalia ruled favorably on Cheney's secret energy policy.

Worth noting that Chimpy and the gOP had to pay lip service to gun control...when they put assault weapons back in the stores, they had to hide behind procedural bullshit to do so. But then if they'd have come right out and opposed gun control, they'd have been left with just the Randy Weaver wannabe vote.

[...of J.Temperance]

129. Only Junior could be so dumb to

Shoot something endangered by accident.

I forgot about the Cheney and Fat Tony hunting trip, unfortunately I think that took place in Louisiana

To be honest, the way Junior's going, he's ONLY going to be left WITH the Randy Weaver wannabe vote...oh and the Holy Rollers, they're not going to abandon him.

I need to be off to my bed now, I need my pillows and blankets. My brain is starting to shut down.

[MrBenchley]

141. It's no coincidence that the hard core gun loonies

are also the theocracy crowd...

Take a look at the members of the Congressional Second Amendment Caucus...

[...of J.Temperance]

146. You do have an

Excellant point there, and it's a very scary one.

This is another reason why we need a Moderate Liberal Second Amendment Caucus...because the nutjobs are giving RESPONSIBLE gun ownership a BAD name.

[MrBenchley]

151. Actually, we need no such thing....

this "gun rights" is nothing but ordinary racist right wing fringe nonsense hiding under a new sheet and giggling that nobvody can guess that it's ordinary racist right wing fringe nonsense.

Actually "gun ownership" is what is giving gun ownership a bad name. A glance at any online gun loony forum finds nothing but dittohead nonsense and outright bigotry expressed aloud, with nary a word of protest from moderates OR liberals...just as there's no visible sign that there's any gun owner anywhere even the least upset that a racist turd like Ted Nugent is a member of the NRA board.

[...of J.Temperance]

155. Well

Again you make some good points.

But the people here, all seem very responsible, so there's nothing for anybody to worry about.

And I think we all personally hate that pig fucker Nugent. It's hilarious, but at ONE point he was actually thinking of running in Michigan against Governor Jennifer Granholm...like AS IF people would VOTE for him!

[MrBenchley]

156. "the people here, all seem very responsible"

(sigh) No comment.

"there's nothing for anybody to worry about"
Unless you actually look at the gun issue and who's getting shot in America and why and stuff like that...

"And I think we all personally hate that pig fucker Nugent."
Feel free to show me any gun owner anywhere on any gun owner's forum saying so. Because I've been over a lot of those forums and I can tell you I've never seen any such posts, although racist and bigoted gibberish is commonplace.

[...of J.Temperance]

157. I've

Never shot anyone, so I think I'm being responsible. Oh yes, AND you know it

Well I've never visited one of those gun forums, so I can't answer your question.

I was commenting that people I know with guns, they hate Nugent and I think if you were to take a poll of people who've posted to this thread, then they'd all say that they hate Nugent too.

I'm not doubting that at the nutjob gun forums, they're all probably going to be pro-Nugent because they're braindead morons like he is.

[MrBenchley]

161. Thank heavens for small favors...

[...of J.Temperance]

162. Re. "Thank heavens for small favors..."...Yes...lets :)

[Name removed]

295. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

304. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[...of J.Temperance]

82. Glock 17 9mm

One of my Uncle's has a Glock 30 .45 auto, it's almost the perfect little revolver.

Glock and S&W you can't go wrong with. I personally love the S&W .357 386, but my adoration goes to the S&W .460 XUR.

The more people on our side that we can convince to purchase a firearm, the better. At least we'd neuter the GOP wedge issue of Democrats being against gun rights and gun owners.

[MrBenchley]

89. That would be neoNazi sugar daddy Gaston Glock's toy....

There's a great way to fight fascism, lads...send some money to a guy who bankrolls actual fascists...

[...of J.Temperance]

93. But

Nearly EVERY restaurant I love, nearly EVERY product I love, they give money unfortunately to the Repukes...so what am I supposed to do? Stop going to restaurants that I love, stop buying products that I love?

What about Hugo Boss, what about the International Red Cross, during WWII they LITERALLY gave money and helped fucking Hitler...so do we tell people to boycott them too?

I'm not dreaming of a shootout, I just think it's sensible to be prepared for various scenarios, this can include an intruder on or in your property.

Oh I'm not a lad, I'm a girl. As I pointed out earlier up in this thread, girls like guns too. And I'd say I'm a pretty good shot, my Grandfather and some of my Uncles taught me how to shoot when I was 10 years-old.

[MrBenchley]

95. Well that IS rich....

"so what am I supposed to do?"
Evidently you've decided that waving around your popgun and pouting is the ticket. Myself, I wonder why somebody would decide the answer was to support Gaston Glock, who actually funds the neoNazi movement.

"I'm not dreaming of a shootout"
Surrrrrrrrrre....it shows (snicker)

[...of J.Temperance]

100. Waving around my popgun and pouting

Aw but honey pie, you know that IF you were on the spot with me, you'd find that cute.

I don't own a Glock, my Uncle Travis does, I'll tell him about Gaston Glock and see what he says.

And, no, seriously I'm NOT dreaming of a shootout. But if someone threatens my life...well then, they're at the LEAST going to get their kneecaps blown off.

[MrBenchley]

101. I don't find much about the trigger happy cute in any way...

So when you slugged post 82 "Glock 17 9mm" that was an ad for scummy old Gaston's toys? You weren't trying to give your fellow gunslingers the impression you owned that gun?

"And, no, seriously I'm NOT dreaming of a shootout."
And then in the very next sentence, you fantasize aloud with delight about a kneecapping. Funny, I don't find your denial very convincing.

[...of J.Temperance]

107. Well

No I wasn't, because in post 82, I pointed out that my Uncle owns a Glock, I said that I prefer the S&W .460 XUR, which I posted a picture of in my post number 32.

The kneecapping of someone who might threaten my life wasn't a fantasy, it was the truth. Because if I happened to EVER be in that sort of situation, then I'd have to protect my life by hurting the would-be attacker. Heck, they could recover from the kneecapping couldn't they? It's not like I'd shoot them in the head or chest.

A firearm can be a very sexual thing too, the feel of that cold steel on your bare skin is very nice. My ex-boyfriend had a Colt .45 with a Mother of Pearl grip, it was lovely

Kind of like this, except this is an antique one. This is so pretty:

[MrBenchley]

110. Do you read what you post BEFORE you post it?

"A firearm can be a very sexual thing too, the feel of that cold steel on your bare skin is very nice."
I think "trigger happy" is a pretty kind and understated description of you, all in all....

[...of J.Temperance]

115. Yes

And of course, the trigger lock is on, so I don't think I'm trigger-happy. It's NO different than having ice-cubes on your bare skin.

[MrBenchley]

117. HO-kay....

"It's NO different than having ice-cubes on your bare skin."
Except that I don't daydream about kneecapping someone with that ice cube.

[...of J.Temperance]

119. Heck :)

Obviously I CAN see the point you're making there

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

166. Eeek.

Firearms as "sexual things?" "Nice feeling?" I don't think that's healthy. Just saying.

[MrBenchley]

168. Another "responsible" gun owner....

Jee-zus.

[...of J.Temperance]

172. You're getting

FAR too big for your breeches now! I'm just tellin' ya!

[MrBenchley]

175. Jeeze, you volunteered that peculiar bit of irresponsibility

Don't cry to me because you did so....

[...of J.Temperance]

179. Oh okay

You're correct...I give in, I'm surrendering...I'm looking this VERY second for my white flag

[...of J.Temperance]

173. You're entitled to your

Opinion and I respect it.

Suffice to say, I think anything is healthy, as long as it's mutually okay and nobody is getting physically hurt or psychologically hurt.

Gosh, you're from Brazil, how exotic.

[Silverhair]

201. I hope you aren't serious about the kneecapping bit.

That's a beautiful Colt SAA. Is it an original 1873 model?

Deliberate kneecapping, even in self defense is:
1. Very bad tactics that may get you killed.
2. Illegal
3. Immoral

If you ever have to shoot in self defense the ONLY place to aim that is Legal, Moral, and Good Tactics is CENTER OF TARGET.

If you would like to know why, PM me.

[...of J.Temperance]

206. The kneecapping would be stage one

If that didn't do it...well...stage two would be called for

That Colt .45, I believe it is. Do you want to see a larger picture of it, it's GORGEOUS, around about 6k we're talking about:



Here's some VERY pretty antique rifles, as a bonus.

The Winchester 1886:



The 1884 Springfield Trapdoor:



The 1841 Mississippi Rifle (brass patchbox):




Beautiful stuff, works of art.

[Silverhair]

216. Those rifles are fascinating.

When I was a kid, an adult cousin had a civil war rifle. It was longer than I was tall. I stand in awe of the courage of those guys to march shoulder to shoulder into enemy fire.

In civil war tactics, the defender would fire the first volley, the attackers would have to absorb the fire, continue to march with the defenders reloaded, and then fire their volley just before the defenders reloaded. I would not have had that kind of courage. If I lived through the first battle, I would have vanished to another country for the duration.

That Colt is a work of art.

[...of J.Temperance]

232. They're nice aren't they?

My Grandfather had a civil war rifle, my Grandmother still has it in her possession, she's got it in a glass and mahogany case. It's a wonderful piece, and a nice piece of history to own.

You're correct, they were very brave in the Civil War times. If you lived through the first battle you would have vanished to another country for the duration...Hell, I'd just have vanished PRE-battle

The Colt sure is a work of art, a lot of love and care went into making that beauty. I bet there's some history with that particular gun...which shall probably remain a mystery.

[Tanet]

222. In my book you are allowed

to enjoy what you want .

Though I will agree that you should be aiming for center mass. I think that aiming for smaller portions of the body run the risk of missing, and missing means you don't know where the bullet goes.

As for your taste in guns, well I just prefer semi-auto's.

[...of J.Temperance]

233. You

Work from the same book as I do then?

Okay, I'm with the program, I've got it covered: Aim for center mass. Check.

Do you own a gun like the one pictured? That's an awesome looking rod there.

[Tanet]

302. Me

Yes I own that firearm, which is a Walther P99. It's my carry weapon, and I'm very pleased with it. Actually took it out for its first time at the range today and am beyond pleased with it.

[...of J.Temperance]

305. How many

Rounds does it's magazine hold?

It's beautiful...I think I might want one...Dammit, you HAD to go and post that picture didn't you?

[Tanet]

310. All Depends

on which one you get. Comes in two different calibers and several different models. The mags hold 12 for 9mm and 10 for .40s&w. You can get the higher capacity mags for them, but sometimes hard to find.

[...of J.Temperance]

360. Would

You recommend that particular gun, how heavy is it and what's the barrel length?

I was thinking of getting a Vector CP-1 at one point, I don't know if you're aware of them, they're South African. The magazine will hold 13 rounds or the compact magazine will hold 12 rounds. But I never got one, even though I wanted one. At the time I was going to get a Vector CP-1 there was some big noise about something and a bunch of them got recalled by the manufacturer or the importer...can't remember which.

Are you ex-military or in law enforcement in some capacity? ACTUALLY I think you're a secret agent of some sort...don't think I didn't notice that strategically placed passport in your picture.

My powers of observation have won me awards and medals globally.




















Not really...I was only kidding about that last part.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

312. self delete

self delete

[Tanet]

224. Glock Revolver?

Sorry, had to point that out...not your fault think you got caught up.

I personally think you should own a firearm only if you are willing to use it in a safe and trained manner. Don't do it because you want to prove the GOP wrong on an issue. Do it if your willing to respect the firearm for what it is.

Though I won't argue that it is nice to remind everyone that just because your a liberal doesn't mean you can't enjoy guns or back the 2nd.

Also it seems to remind other liberals of that too.

[...of J.Temperance]

234. That's okay

I probably got caught up!

I have firearms and I would only use them in a safe and trained manner...although obviously I've got to rethink my kneecapping concept!

I think in my post that you were refering to, I was trying to get across the point that if we could encourage more people to buy a firearm, then that'd freak the nutjob reactionary freaks out. Although, as you point out, those people would have to undergo a lot of practice with the firearm.

Yes, our side have JUST a much right to be pro-2nd...the OTHER side doesn't OWN the 2nd Amendment and we should set them straight on this.

I see you joined today, so welcome

[headin_south]

245. Sweet Jeebus!!!

i hope that went without saying!!! don't buy a firearm unless you're willing to learn how to use it/store it safely!

[...of J.Temperance]

259. Tanet just

Got a little caught up, like I did.

Everything's fine, everyone's down with the situation. So, you know, there you have it

[Tanet]

299. Well not to get Mr. B in a knot

But sometimes it seems to go without saying. Unfortunetely...

I just wanted to state that here were perhaps some might be convinced to purchase a gun without experience or any idea of safety.

[zanne]

149. I know. I thought the original post was a joke....

Has everybody taken leave of their senses? You're talking about a WAR? Please everybody reading this who still retains some sanity; speak your mind about this and don't let a bunch of gun-toting, shoot 'em up cowboys give freepers more talking points. This isn't the Old West and somebody always has a bigger and better gun than you. Work for election reform and let's get the rightwing out of our government before more people go nuts.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

84. Think about the Iraqi insurgents, though

They are have much less weaponry than the US military and yet are keeping us fighting pretty damn hard.

[MrBenchley]

91. Yeah, who doesn't want to have Baghdad over here?

Geeze, it's appalling to see what the trigger-happy daydream about.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

94. Who said anything about wanting it to happen here?

I was just answering the above poster's comment about small arms not being able to keep the US military at bay.

P.S. I am not by any means "trigger happy" I own one gun that is occasionally used for bird hunting and that's it.

[MrBenchley]

98. You sure seemed to be delighted at the possibility

"I was just answering the above poster's comment about small arms not being able to keep the US military at bay. "
Yeah, and look what a paradise Iraq is, too....

[undergroundpanther]

21. Guns are ok

but alot of us are not allowed to have them,a mental disgnosis(like depression) forbids you acess to a gun.

Also have you heard about the crowd control weapons?

http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/archives/030605-c...
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2250176420

http://silverback.gnn.tv/headlines/4674/New_tech_to_New...

guns might be useless against some of these weapons.
We need to think what can we do to counteract or disable the high tech gasses, microwaves, sounds and energies these crowd control devices use.

[Mutley]

23. An added benefit of this plan:

They won't be able to accuse us of being anti-gun anymore.

[Pachamama]

28. Yep, that and also stop having the DEMs make Gun Control a platform issue

I know so many people (like my father) who are proud card-carrying members of the NRA and hunters and they are sick of the GOP fascists, but they wouldn't vote for a Democrat just because they think that they are going to take their guns away.

Hell...there may very well be a civil war in this country, so the Dems might as well be ready and stop being their own worst enemy....

Guess what? You can be a card-carrying member of the ACLU *AND* the NRA! The two aren't exclusive.... In fact, I believe they have more of a connection than they realize....

[converted_democrat]

30. No flames here. K&R.n/t

[mzmolly]

33. I won't be buying any guns, but I'll be happy if a few of you Dems do.

[Blue_Roses]

36. LOL!

that actually might be a good campaign header

[DarkTirade]

37. I've been meaning to get a weapons permit for some time

Not necessarily for guns. I used to carry a small knife and a manrikigusai chain with me when I had to walk home from work at 2 or 3 in the morning. Now that I have a car that isn't so much of an issue, but still. I'd like to be able to carry something without worrying about being arrested.

[DarkTirade]

38. Or course the knife

was more for opening boxes at work than for self-defense... but the manrikigusai... all self defense.
And for scaring my employees.

[...of J.Temperance]

204. I was going to say days ago...a KNIFE is really bad self-defense

It just IS and with a knife, well you have the added danger that whoever you're trying to protect yourself from COULD overpower you and end up stabbing YOU.

UNLESS of course, you HAPPEN to be a professional knife thrower artiste with a circus

[RPM]

40. agreed - its a good thing some wise liberals of the late 1700's had guns

i dont like singing god save the queen...

[DarkTirade]

46. I like Eddie Izzard's take on that song...

The queen lives in a castle, surrounded by a huge wall, with guards everywhere. That's one effing saved queen already, she doesn't need any more saving.

[MrBenchley]

52. Learn some history, why doncha?

Those wise liberals of the late 1700's had collectively owned guns...

[Mairead]

135. Check your facts, why don'cha?

They had personal rifles. The 'collectively owned guns' were cannons and muskets.

[MrBenchley]

153. I checked my facts, chief.......

But it's hilarious of you to pretend that collectively purchased and owned muskets (such as made up 99% of revolutionary armaments) somehow aren't guns....



For an added giggle, you might recall that the first shot of the war (the shot heard round the world) was fired when General Gage sent 700 Redcoats to try to seize the collective arsenal in Concord...Tell us, if he'd been faced with individually owned guns, like you claim, why didn't he go from house to house to round them up?

[Mairead]

182. You checked your facts? Then you're being very selective.

The arsenal held smoothbore muskets, cannons, barrels of powder, and shot.

The colonists' personal weapons were rifles, which were of much higher quality and far more accurate than muskets, but had a much lower rate of fire. Rifles were just right for hunting (and sniping), but of little use in mass confrontations. The redcoats didn't generally confiscate them for precisely that reason: to them, war was a matter of rigid discipline and withering volleys of fire by whole companies at once--a sort of human machine-gun. Their notion of how to do war definitely did not include being picked off one by one from behind trees fifty yards beyond their musket range as happened to them on the way back to Boston. They had managed to kill several of Capt. Parker's company at Lexington, who were standing grouped, ready to exchange insults but not expecting actual attack, by volleying at short range. That was their methodology. What they got when they marched back to Boston was the farmers'.

[MrBenchley]

210. No, I'm being accurate....

The Revolutionary war, like every war since, was fought with our collective arms...

[Mairead]

238. I've offered evidence. You've offered nothing but empty assertions.

Why should anyone with an open mind believe you?

[MrBenchley]

252. Suit yourself...

If you want to pretend that our military is armed with whatever they scrape up from home and not collectively owned armaments, don't let me stop you.

If you want to pretend John AshKKKroft's lies about the Second Amendmet are gospel, be my guest.

[Mairead]

271. How about re-reading what I've said, this time for comprehension

rather than ammunition. If you then still believe that I'm saying
"our military is armed with whatever they scrape up from home and not collectively owned armaments", please quote my actual words, with link.

If you can't do that--and you can't, because I would never say anything so ridiculous!--then I believe you owe everyone a public acknowledgement of your error.

[MrBenchley]

273. It didn't get any fresher or less full of hooey....

And if you have no problem with the Second Amendment referring to our collectively owned armaments, as the Founding Fathers said, and as the courts and the ACLU say today, then its hard to see what you ARE bitching about.

[Mairead]

275. In other words, you know you haven't a leg to stand on, but you can't

bear to own up. DU would be a better place if that kind of behavior had consequences.

[MrBenchley]

278. Want a bullet to bite on, kid?

I feel your pain.

And don't get me started on what would make DU a "better place"...not posting right wing revisionist history and NRA horseshit would be up near the top of MY list.

[Tanet]

309. Your Right...

No you aren't, just kidding

Your so much entertainment. I think its wonderful how everytime someone quotes ACTUAL facts and history, you call it right wing revisionist history or RKBA/NRA. Why is that? Did the NRA go back in time and change history...or are you one of those guys who is so extreme that you have closed your mind to every possible thing that might go against your beliefs and throw away logic and reason as someone not being Left/Liberal?

[MrBenchley]

317. It's revisionist history, no matter how much you want to piss and moan...

"Did the NRA go back in time and change history..."
No, they just lie about it in the present day.

[Tanet]

326. Well then I stand corrected

Though...I did notice you got in this arguement once before on this thread, and when brought to the same point you don't try to back up anything besides saying: (I shall paraphrase)
A. The ACLU said it so it must be true
B. That is revisionist/NRA history

Yet, in my personal belief, both people you were discussing this with brought up valid points and counterpoints that you brush off so simply as Right Wing propaganda instead of discussing it with them.

You know its interesting, if you take what your saying and replace "Right Wing" with "Left Wing" you sound like a hell of alot of the conservative media. Just an idea...maybe you should be more open to these discussions and try to state your point in a non-insulting manner and actually try to back your arguments up with good debate, instead of pissing and moaning yourself about how everyone is gun nuts and those of us liberals supporting our view of the second ammendment are really just supporting Right Wing propaganda. Hell...YOUR making them look good.

Edit: lack of thought transfer
Yet I'm sure that most of the people here would tell me that asking you to do that would be about as good as pissing in the wind.

[Name removed]

335. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

355. That's because you HAVE been corrected....

If you want to cry because the ACLU has credibility or because the NRA's revisionist history doesn't,do it to somebody else.

"Yet, in my personal belief, both people you were discussing this with brought up valid points and counterpoints that you brush off so simply as Right Wing propaganda instead of discussing it with them."
What's to discuss? One person wants to pretend that John AshKKKroft's lies about the Second Amendment aren't lies, and the other one wanted to make an absurd distinction between rifles and muskets for whatever bizarre reason.

"Just an idea...maybe you should be more open to these discussions and try to state your point in a non-insulting manner"
Let's recap the discussion, then. "We" have to buy guns because Walt Starr doesn't think freepers think he "means business".

Somebody else thought we ought to buy guns even though we don't need guns, because guns will impress other people. (Sounds like the sales pitch for the Hummer, don't it?)

A bunch of other people jumped in to point out they already HAVE guns (but despite that the freepers don't think "we" mean business. Go figure.).

Some people parroted John AshKKKroft's lies about the Second Amendment.

Some people tried to deny that the thread wasn't a disgraceful fantasy about shooting other people and getting away with it, even as they were fantasizing about shooting other people and getting away with it.

One person jumped in to announce he was going to buy a gun, although it turned out he had made earlier posts in which he already claimed to have guns, in among his rants about "pussies" and paranoid fantasy.

Hilariously, it turned out that on a gun loony forum, armed fuckwits were chortling over this thread and boasting that they were coming over to DU to troll. Nobody over there had the least trepidation about DUers with guns, and several actually were looking forward avidly to the carnage. (And one person here tried to imply that the trolls weren't trolling, for whatever bizarre reason).

edited to add: And several people mentioned that we need guns and gun owners to protect us from tyrants, although it turned out that gun owners had not only invited the tyrannical Dick Cheney to their klavern last year, they made him the guest of honor and GAVE him a gun.

Meanwhile it's worth noting that about the only thing that could salvage the GOP's plummeting poll numbers would be armed leftists shooting folks. It's worth noting that Larry Mattlage did exactly what Walt and some others here are advocating, and all he did was show what an asshole he was. And it's worth noting that it's no coincidence that the lousiest administration in history is also the most gun crazy in history.

"those of us liberals supporting our view of the second ammendment are really just supporting Right Wing propaganda."


Let the eagle soar-r-r-r-r-r-r-r....

[Mairead]

198. Oh, and it turns out that my information was incomplete: people did

own their own muskets, too, and evidently often more than one, since it was thought worthwhile to send people around to buy the spare ones for the use of the Army as this excerpt from the historical record (Documents of the Colonial History of New York, vol. 15, p. 103) of 1776 attests:

Ordered, that Captain John Titus in the Township of Bushwick Capt. Ferdinandus Sydam and Capt. Barent Johnson in the Township of Brooklyn, Capt. Cornelius Vanderveer in the Township of Flat Bush, Capt. Jeremiah Vanderbilt in the Township of Flat Lands, Captain Aaron Van Brunt in New Utright and Capt. ... in Gravesend be respectively authorized in the respective Townships and Districts in which they respectively reside to proceed from House to House thro' their respective districts and purchase at the cheapest Rate they can be obtained for ready money all such good musketts and firelocks fit for the use of Soldiers, as can be spared by the Inhabitants of the Townships -- That those Gentlemen respectively be requested not only to purchase arms as cheap as they reasonably can, but in no case to exceed the price of four pounds for any one Gun Muskett or Firelock -- That those Gentlement respectively as soon as they can conveniently send those arms to Colo. Curtenius in New York and transmit the account of the price of the Arms so purchased to this Congress or to the Auditors thereby appointed that the same together with a reasonable reward for the Trouble of purchasing them may be paid.

And ordered that Colonel McDougall be requested to send such proper Officers or persons to assist the Gentlement above named in the purchase aforesaid, as are acquainted with good arms. -- And it is hereby recommended to the Inhabitants of the said Townships to sell such musketts or firelocks as they can spare retaining arms for their own use.

Ordered, that Colo. Ritzema send such prudent Officer as he shall think proper to Westchester County to apply to the Chairman of the County Committee and to the respective Subcommittees in that County for such good Arms fit for soldiers use as they may have collected by disarming disaffected persons in that County. -- And the respective Committees are hereby requested to deliver such of those Arms as are fit for the Army to such officer taking and preserving his receipts for the same. ... And such Officer as Colonel Ritzema shall send to collect those Arms is hereby directed to deliver all such Arms as he shall so receive to Colo. Curtenius, that they may be repaired where it may be necessary.

So it looks like your fact-checking didn't go anywhere near far enough.

[MrBenchley]

211. Peddle it to someone who loves revisionist history...

RKBA types seem to know nothing else but.

[Mairead]

237. You seem to be the main one who wants to revise history on this subject

Why is that?

[headin_south]

246. Looks Like...

mrbenchley has been pwn3d!

[MrBenchley]

256. No, it's just more tedious revisionist history

of the sort RKBA enthusiasts peddle

[MrBenchley]

251. After Pearl Harbor, FDR urged gun owners to grab their flintlocks and.....

The only revisionist history is yours...and you're the one that wanted to pretend muskets aren't guns for some bizarre reason.

[Mairead]

272. "you're the one that wanted to pretend muskets aren't guns"

Stop trying to foist your personal reality on the rest of us. If I really said anything of the kind--which I didn't--you will have no trouble quoting my exact words with link

[MrBenchley]

274. Don't cry to me

You were the one who wanted to make some absurd division between rifles and muskets in a discussion on present day gun policy, because you wanted to pretend that the bulk of the fighting in the Revolutionary War wasn't done with collectively owned muskets, as if that has any bearing on anything.

[Mairead]

276. Shuck and jive all you want. The bottom line is that I didn't say what

you claimed I said and don't hold the position you claim I hold, and you can't bear to own up to that personal insult. DU would be a better place if that kind of behavior had consequences.

[MrBenchley]

279. Tee hee hee....

[Mr_Spock]

333. That certain behavior makes certain people very undesirable

Well, we can only TRY to be reasonable, then we get sucked into the childish games of the anti-gun one-note hundred posts in one thread person. It sucks.

[Mr_Spock]

290. Because the person is mindlessly anti-gun

You mine as well talk to a stone wall.

[MrBenchley]

316. "You mine as well"

(hahahahha)

[Mr_Spock]

336. Can't fathom an argument, make fun of the poster

You are not a nice person and I will never ever respect one of your posts again. I don't like you.

[MrBenchley]

349. What's not to make fun of....

"You are not a nice person" sez Mr. Spock, who has been dribbling out lame insults....

[Mr_Spock]

351. Yeah, my insults are lame.

And they will remain lame - I don't see any reason for this to get out-of-control, do you?

[Lexingtonian]

41. Oh well.

Apparently Republicans haven't fully cornered the market in stupidity just yet.

You know what would really drive them up the wall and scare them? Saying "I could care less about guns, whatever you or I do with them is irrelevant to the outcome."

No matter what we do, some people simply will engage in murder/suicide behavior when Times Change and they are psychologically unable to cope. That's Japanese commanders in caves on Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Nazi snipers in French and Russian villages. In American history they tend to be psychiatrically diagnosable fruitcakes who slipped past the social nets- David Koresh, Jim Jones, Timothy McVeigh.

Arming up with guns is useless against these people, probably totally counterproductive even. Look at how fervent the 'militias' became that the ATF teams sent out to confiscate their massive caches of military weaponry were a conspiracy to enslave and kill them. ("They hate us for our freedom." Obviously.)

What worked against the 'militias' in the mid-Nineties was mainstream society deciding they were near-homocidal jerks and idiots and racists and criminal/psychopathic organizations unless they proved otherwise. McVeigh put the burden of proof on them to show otherwise and they couldn't. Their wives, parents, kids, and coworkers told them they were being ridiculous- if they just wanted to tote guns and shoot up stuff in the woods and get drunk together, they could do that without the wacko political crap. If the political crap was serious, they were talking criminality and mayhem at odds with being the moral high ground and Real Americans, and they should just join a political party and put up websites and such.

The 'militias' mostly just vanished during the late Clinton years of their own accord. Most the membership just walked away. A lot probably joined normal gun clubs or paintball fighting clubs. A bunch became this whole diffuse Internet webpage white supremacy thang.

[FreedomAngel82]

43. I'm not going to buy a gun

Sorry. I don't believe in owning a gun because I don't need to own a gun. But if someone else wants to own a guy I support their rights since it is in the Constitution. I'm with Paul Hackett on this issue.

[crispini]

160. Own a guy?

I'm all for that! Where do I sign up?

[...of J.Temperance]

163. It's in the Constitution that it's someones right to own a guy?

I never knew that So you want Paul Hackett AND Patrick Fitzgerald...it's ONE guy in the Constitution, so I'm afraid it looks like you're going to have to choose!

[marions ghost]

44. buy guns and prepare for violence...

= bad advice for many people.

Those who feel safer with guns will buy them, but it's neither a practical nor safe solution for the majority of people who cannot effectively use one. People advocating guns never think about this. They think everybody should just go out and buy one, like a vacuum cleaner. People think that guns will save them from needing other forms of self-defense and home security. Not true. It's only an illusion of security. Accidental gun deaths and suicides are usually the way that guns get used for what they are designed for.

Guns are not going to solve our problems. We're going to have to have a lot more going for us than primitive killing tools could ever provide.

[MrBenchley]

65. Still a pretty penny is made by some

peddling just this sort of "you need a gun for the glorious revolution" rhetoric at gun shows and the like. And every once in a while one of these charmers gets overheated and blows up a day care center or guns down a postman...

"People advocating guns never think about this. "
Nor do they ever think about why it's the lousiest administration in US history that's pushing the "guns guns guns" crap. AshKKKroft was so gun crazy, he wouldn't let the FBI check to see if terrorists had bought any.

[spanone]

45. Shirley, you jest.

[headin_south]

247. "Don't...

call me shirley!"

[Jara sang]

47. I agree whole heartedly.

Got a 30.06 and a baseball bat with nails driven into the barrel for when I run out of ammo.

[BamaBecky]

48. Are you guys completely serious?

or is this a big joke?
Bama

[MrBenchley]

49. Jeeze, why not send the money to the GOP and cut out the middleman?

"In response, Liberals must arm themselves and prepare for the vilence"
(snicker)Yeah, that's what we want to be...just like the Aryan Nation.

[Jara sang]

60. I can get around that. Just buy Kalishnikovs.

[NuttyFluffers]

62. incredibly reliable...

and there's plenty of weapon manufacturers from all over the world. none of the companies though are ran by peaceniks, though. i know, i know, there's always a catch.

that's why i advocate... tranq guns! and blow darts! nothing like flying opiates to grab someone's attention... and render it to goo. honestly what's the worst lil' bobby can do with a tranq gun?

[MrBenchley]

63. Of course, about the only thing that could save Chimpy's poll numbers

Armed leftists threatening violence...

And it was noticeable that last year when Limbaugh and Hannity called DU a "left wing hate site" that the boards bloomed with mindless "we gotta getta gun for the glorious revolution" threads like this...

I'm old and cynical enough to know trigger happy folks never get tired of looking and sounding childish and silly. But don't you guys pretending to be "progressive" EVER get tired of pimping for the furthest and looniest fringe of the right wing?

[Dora]

55. We don't have guns yet.

Yet.

[ultraist]

56. If you buy a gun and have children, PLEASE make sure you have a lock

ON the gun and keep it locked with the ammo locked up seperately.

[BlueIris]

58. YES. nt

[tomreedtoon]

59. I won't, but I won't complain if you do.

About ten years ago I was held up in my own apartment by a couple of thugs in the middle of the night. Took my car, my TV, most of the good things I own, and left me tied up with duct tape. Sure enough, the police didn't prosecute (they were teenagers and couldn't be arrested) and deliberately tried to claim I paid them to have sex with me, and they robbed me instead. The whole thing left me with massive distrust of law enforcement and a case of post-traumatic stress disorder that I'll have until I die.

However...

In my closet, at the time of the robbery, I had a little Ruger pistol my father had given me for "self defense." I had never shot it. And I realized that, if the thugs had found it, they'd have probably killed me. (The older of the teens was high on something stronger than pot, illiterate, and might have gotten a thrill out of killing a "white oppressor.")

I realized that I didn't want the gun and would be very troubled by using it. So I gave it to a lady I knew who thought she was being stalked.

In all honesty, I'm not sure I'd be able to use the gun effectively, or live comfortably with myself if I did use it effectively. So I own no guns myself. To quote the gun-toting "Dirty" Harry Callahan, a man's got to know his own limitations. I do, and I'm happy with them.

[NuttyFluffers]

61. why can't we all just use automatic tranquilizer guns?

for all wars, all disputes, all worries of criminality, all revolutions. just heavy, repeating tranquilizer guns. and he with the most resistance to narcotics wins! ... well, actually with that many opiates flying around we all win, but you get the idea.

perhaps i'm just a star-eyed hippie, but why hurt each other when you can get high?

[Q]

67. Your idea would actually prove them right...

...with their 'might makes right', survival of the fittest mentality.

True Christians and Humanitarians have always known that love and peace is the only way that the human race can survive.

Besides...it's silly to suggest that guns will be any kind of real defense or offense against a government working outside the Constitution or under martial law.

[sufrommich]

68. That defense

of gun rights (we need them to fight a rogue army) has always cracked me up. Fire away at those tanks,boys!That being said,I'm not against the right to bear arms.

[Mairead]

184. If it cracks you up, I can only suppose you're unclear on the concept

In 1960 I briefly worked with someone who'd been in the '56 uprising in Hungary. All they had against Soviet tanks and infantry were cobblestones, antique (pre-WW1) single-shot rifles, and Molotov cocktails. He was very clear about his belief that it would have made an enormous, perhaps crucial diffference to have had even semi-auto rifles and pistols widely available.

Much the same as the Lebanese against the IDF invader/occupiers (Uri Avnery wrote about it) and the Iraqis against the USUK (pron. 'you suck') invader/occupiers today: what the Arabs had/have mightn't be much, but it's better and more effective than what the poor Hungarians had.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

85. See post #84 (nt)

[meti57b]

69. I have my hot glue gun at the ready! Lock and load!

[-..__...]

73. Well...

I got mine and you can get yours, but you better get'em while they're hot.

If some here had their way you'd be arming yourself with a table leg or harsh language.

[MrBenchley]

77. Gee, that is funny....

"a table leg or harsh language"
Guess that's the only alternative for the trigger happy, who avoid facts, principle, sanity or intelligence...

[DanCa]

74. You seriously want to see me armed? The safest place too stand is where

shoot. Of course can you imagine a sniper with parkinson's no one will be safe

[sendero]

76. I've been doing exactly that..

.... for 4 years now. I have a gun for every conceivable purpose.

And don't forget the ammo. A couple thousand rounds at least.

[MrBenchley]

79. And look at how the freepers cry out in panic at your arsenal!

Er...well, actually they don't give a shit.

On the other hand, mention that gun control is both popular and perfectly legal (which it is) and watch them wail and scream in panic....

[sendero]

80. And look how I give a rat's ass..

.... about your decidedly stupid-ass opinion! I don't! Go away and stroke your lucky bunny foot!

[MrBenchley]

90. Be sure and wave your gun around while you pout...

You and the freepers can go and have a good cry together about how little I respect gun owners...

[-..__...]

81. OMFG !!!

<SBrady> That's an arsenal!!!!! </SBrady>

[Cleita]

86. You seem to think we are going to have a civil war.

Are we? I'm wondering if that's where this is heading.

[MrBenchley]

92. It's truly appalling how many gun nuts have this fantasy

about plugging their fellow citizens and getting away with it because of some glorious revolution...

"Are we?"
Not likely.

[Ksec]

87. 17 recommends means many also believe in the power

of an armed opponent.
I look at both sides. One side believes in peaceful non violence.

I also believe in peaceful non violent solutions. The guns are for extreme situations we hope never materialize but if they do were prepared.

[MojoXN]

104. Make that 18...

Hey there MrBenchley! I'll give you this, you're a man of conviction, if nothing else! If only all DU'ers were so passionate about their beliefs, perhaps * wouldn't have been able to steal TWO elections...

MojoXN

[MrBenchley]

109. Hey, there, mojoXN

I wonder how actually fiscally supporting the right wing's most extreme fringe is supposed to be sending a message to them that "we mean business" unless you guys mean "we mean to do business with you".

It ought to make you stop and think, but then I'm too old and cynical to even pretend that it does.

Still on the off chance that somebody is sincere about the issue, I'm happy to repeat something I posted recently about what a right wing puddle of pus "guns" are......

Let's start with the gun industry itself, made up of folks like
--tax evader and right wing cult leader Sun Myung Moon;
--neoNazi sugar daddy Gaston glock
--convicted stick-up artist J.J. Minder of S&W (forced to step down as chairman, he remains on the gun makers board of directors)
--GOP fundraiser Richard Dyke of Bushmaster.

Then let's go to the "gun rights" movement and its spokespeople:
--Larry Pratt of the Gun Owners of America is a racist so virulent that even Pat Buchanan had to flee his company
--NRA board member Ted Nugent is synonymous with racism
--NRA board member Grover "drown government in a bathtub" Norquist is a right wing crazy
--NRA board member Jeff Cooper calls black people "Orang-outangs"
--NRA board member Robert K. Brown publishes the disgraceful "Soldier of Fortune" magazine, a stroke book for would be mercenaries and hit men
--NRA board members Harry Thomas, T.J. Johnston, Leroy Pyle, and Neal Knox all have ties to white supremacist paramilitary groups
--NRA board member Roy Innis has long had ties to right wing groups and often functions as a conservative token
--NRA keynote speakers in recent years have been Zell Miller, Jeb Bush, Trent Lott, Tom Delay and Dick Cheney
--the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms were both started by the right wing Young Americans for Freedom and are little more than GOP front organizations
--Second Amendment Foundation and CCRKBA head Alan Gottleib is a Republican fundraiser who has been convicted of tax fraud. He also looms large in the anti-environment movement.
--The Second Amendment Caucus in Congress consists of some of the most right wing members in the GOP, including such racist dimwits as Marilyn Musgrave and Tom Tancredo
--The Pink Pistols, the astroturf "gay gun owners" group, endorses anti-gay political candidates and tried to disrupt a peaceful gay rights march in Ohio last year. Its enemies list includes liberals such as Barney Frank but DOES NOT include right wing gay haters such as Fred Phelps or James Dobson. Until recently, it had a link on its site to the right wing think tank Northbridge which created them, that in turn had an essay chortling what a "good trick" the group was "on"liberals."
--Doctors for Reponsible Gun Ownership is an astroturf committee of 1,000 gun nuts (most of whom are not doctors) created by the right wing Claremont Institute to spread disinformation on the public health questions.
--the Law Enforcement Association of America is an astroturf group created by the NRA to pretend that police officers oppose gun control.
--the "Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership" is another astroturf group that routinely promotes neoConfederate and racist gibberish.

[MojoXN]

114. Hey, for what it's worth...

I don't support any of these individuals or groups. That having been said, I still remain a strong supporter of the Second Amendment as Rightists interpret it... Seemingly contradictory, I know, but that's just the way it is. Anyway, I hope that you'll remember that our similarities far outweigh our differences. May peace be with you, my friend.

P.S. Notice I haven't weighed in on the thread's topic one way or the other. I'm ambivalent toward WaltStarr's plan. First of all, how the hell would the Freeps know that we were arming ourselves? Second, those crazy assholes usually have an arsenal and a half, so what good would a paltry amount of small arms do?

MojoXN

[MrBenchley]

116. But they're what the issue is about, ultimately...

"I still remain a strong supporter of the Second Amendment as Rightists interpret it..."
You ought to study the issue more closely. It's worth noting that no court anywhere has ever interpreted the Second Amendment as granting anything but a collective right for states to have well-regulated militias of the sort that have evolved into today's National Guard.
The closest the gun lobby's got to getting its dishonest interpretation into law was the Emerson case, in which the most backward right wing court in the country shoehorned a bunch of revisionist history into a decision that concluded 1) the Seocnd Amendment didn't really apply to the Emerson case, and 2) Emerson ought to have his guns taken away.
The Federalist Papers never discuss the issue except in the context of a state militia.

"First of all, how the hell would the Freeps know that we were arming ourselves? Second, those crazy assholes usually have an arsenal and a half, so what good would a paltry amount of small arms do?"
Good points. Here's a third: a lot of those asswipes have wet dreams about having shootouts with "liberals" (That's the plot of The Turner Diaries, Tim McVeigh's stroke book) ...and you'll notice in both these disgraceful sets of fantasies, the "good guys" never lose and the words "innocent bystanders" are never heard.

[MojoXN]

120. Ah, the Turner Diaries...

I have family near Mill Point, WV, where Turner eventually relocated. You should have seen the crazy assholes who frequented that little burg. People like these shouldn't be permitted to live, let alone spread their hateful doctrine. Anyway, would you argue that firearms should be prohibited, or just restricted? I must say, you've piqued my interest...

MojoXN

[MrBenchley]

122. Restricted...

And I don't think there's a better public argument for gun control to be made than just pointing to the sort of loonies running around heeled and the sort of screwloose rhetoric they favor...

[MojoXN]

123. Fair enough...

I've met many a loon in my day. And I must say, they certainly give me pause. Just the same, I firmly believe that if the responsible individuals of a society are armed, said society is safer in the long run. I think that we both could agree that the essential problem with the American system of firearm ownership is that there is no screening process, other than felony conviction/mental deficiency, in place to determine eligibility. Sp,ewhat problematic, to say the least. Thoughts?

MojoXN

[MrBenchley]

125. I don't think society is even one bit safer

if people want to indulge in a gun hobby...and as things are now, society is decidedly less safe because they do.

I think guns should be registered and gun owners licensed...with gun owners required to produce their licenses to be recorded when ammunition is purchased and subject to proficiency exams and periodic re-testing. I think gun owners ought to be required to account for their guns periodically.

I think many more restrictions should be put on gun manufacturers and sellers, including mandatory written inventories (currently not required), spot inpections and audits by BATF agents, and an end to so-called "collectors sales". I see no reason a three-day waiting period should not be required. I think the BATF should be allowed to release to the public the names of gun sellers whose guns turn up in crimes. I think neither assault weapons nor .50 caliber weapons belong on the market. Last time I looked, about 40% of Americans thought handguns should not be on the market and I could be persuaded to go along with that.

I'd like to see a Congressional investigation into gun industry practices and the gun industry's ties to white supremacist and extremist groups...and I'd like to have their "get away with murder" lawsuit exemption rescinded.

[MojoXN]

126. Wow, you've goven me a lot to chew on...

Registration? Already in place, at least among law-abiing folks. Proficiency exams upon purchase? Sure, I have no problem with that. Waiting period? GREAT idea. There's no better way to prevent crimes of passion, as far as I'm concerned. "I think the BATF should be allowed to release to the public the names of gun sellers whose guns turn up in crimes." I agree, but only if there are intelligent regulations with respect to this potentiality. As far as "assault weapons" go, how do YOU define an assault weapon? Very important distinction, in my opinion. As far as Congressional investigations, I'm not sure that that is appropriate... After all, the products (guns) DO work as they're supposed to: pull the trigger, and a bullet exits at high velocity. Not a defective product, dangerous, sure, but not defective.

Yearly inventory and BATF spot checks? That's where I draw the line. The spirit of the 2nd Amendment would be unalterably undermined by these provisions. The whole idea is that if Uncle Sam's present, or potential future iteration descends into tyranny, we as civilians will be nominally able to defend ourselves. Registration would make it too easy to identify we dissenters. I'm sure you have an informed rebuttal... So lay it on me, amigo!

P.S. I apologize for my hubris during our last debate. I was so blinded by ideology and my (incorrect) belief that I was right that I didn't consider that I was woefully uninformed. My bad.

MojoXN

[MrBenchley]

140. There's no registration in place...

""I think the BATF should be allowed to release to the public the names of gun sellers whose guns turn up in crimes." I agree, but only if there are intelligent regulations"
The current regulation is that the BATF is forbidden from revealing the names of gun stores who sell guns used in crime, even under subpoena. That was the GOP response to the NAACP lawsuit against the gun industry, which found that just 120 gun sellers supplied one in every seven guns used in crimes throughout the US; fewer than 40 of those gun sellers had ever been inspected by the BATF, but three quarters of those that had been inspected were in violation of the law.

"As far as "assault weapons" go, how do YOU define an assault weapon?"
I'm quite happy to go with the definition in the bill John Kerry co-sponsored last year. It's worth noting gun nuts only think there's a mystery as to what assault weapons are when the question of public safety arises; they don't have any doubt when gun sellers peddle them.

"After all, the products (guns) DO work as they're supposed to: pull the trigger, and a bullet exits at high velocity. Not a defective product, dangerous, sure, but not defective."
So what? If a bartender serves underage patrons, it doesn't matter if the alcohol does what it's designed to do. If a car seat has parts that can be pulled off and choke a child, it doesn't matter that the car seat works as a car seat.

The notion that a gun manufacturer can advertise how much fun it is to shoot somebody, that a gun show operator can set up a gun show so the industry can avoid background checks, that a gun seller can avoid giving a background check to the crook he sells it to by going to a gun show and announcing he's a "priivate collector" and that they all should be given a pass from civil liability laws if the gun kills my grandmother because that's what the gun was meant to do is sophistry, not law.

Here's a perfect example of the reason the gun industry wants to head off these lawsuits.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1027/p09s01-coop.html

"The spirit of the 2nd Amendment would be unalterably undermined by these provisions."
Not so. Tell us, where is there any mention of gun sellers in the amendment?

"The whole idea is that if Uncle Sam's present, or potential future iteration descends into tyranny, we as civilians will be nominally able to defend ourselves."
With a well regulated state militia.

[puerco-bellies]

96. Way ahead of you.. M-1911 MIL SPEC 45 CAL

And good ol' Navy training to utilize it properly.

[HEyHEY]

102. And let's shoot a couple of them so they know we're not fucking around

[MrBenchley]

105. Perhaps one reason the right doesn't think our gunslingers "mean business"

is that they swallow this right wing "gotta getta gun" garbage so gullibly...

[HEyHEY]

108. Could be

I don't know why the answer is always violence for so many. Especially when it certainly isn't needed. And the idea of having two separate factions, armed and making each other nervous...ain't so good.

[MrBenchley]

112. As I said, about the only thing that could save Chimpy and the GOP

would be armed "leftists" shooting up citizens...

Ever hear of "Tommy the Traveler" Tongyai and cointelpro?

By the way, I love that graphic! Especially the penguin passerby with the handbag...

[chknltl]

137. Can you help me find some handgun stats? (and I added a rant)

I wish to learn more about the statistics of handguns. The first stat I would like to learn about is how many home invasions are actually prevented yearly by civilian handgun owners using their handguns. The next stat I would be interested in is how many accidental injuries and deaths are attributed to handguns yearly. (If you could refer me to a link that would suffice). I am of the opinion that if one were to compare these two stats one would find that there are an appalling number of accidents compared to preventions of home invasions. I would love some stats to bolster my belief. For instance if for every home invasion prevented there are 100 accidents then this is absolutely unacceptable. On the other hand if the stats show that for every accident 100 home invasions were prevented then that.... well I just don't see how anyone outside of rush limbaugh or bill o'rielly could come up with a stat like that.

A fellow DUer posted earlier in this thread that our guns would not stop a tank. (Regarding our "right to bear arms" as a check against an out of control military). I make that same point from a different perspective: An RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade) might stop SOME tanks. It has been put to good use by the "insurgents" over in Iraq against our troops and their tanks. So exactly how many accidental deaths here in America can we attribute to RPGs. How about home invasions or preventions? I believe that the answer is ZERO. Why? Because they are illegal! So should we pass legislation relaxing that problem so that we might better defend ourselves from our own military should the need arise? If we did then what do you suppose the number of accidents will go up to?

I take no issue here with hunting rifles or shotguns. I take no issue with the police or the military using handguns for my protection. I do take issue with the accidental injuries and deaths which happen due to handguns. I have heard that "education" is the key to safe ownership. I have also heard that abstinence education will prevent unwanted pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. I believe that there is a difference between what works and what one wants to work because of ones self interest.

I am not a betting man. If the odds are that a handgun in my home has a fifty-fifty chance of either preventing a home invasion or causing an accidental injury then that is unacceptable to me. I understand that odds are that this gun will not ever be used outside of familiarization. Just the knowing that IF it gets used those are my odds is enough for me to NOT want this in my home. I suspect that the odds are much worse than fifty-fifty.

[MrBenchley]

143. Unfortunately

thanks to the muscle of the gun lobby, such numbers are hard to come by...for example he CDC has been prohibited from collecting such things since 1998 (one of the earliest examples of GOP faith-based science)...

The best and still the most reliable study is that published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which showed a gun in the home is 44 times more likely to perforate the gun owner, his family, or his friends than it is to shoot a criminal in furtherance of a crime. Similar studies have produced similar numbers.

A character named Gary Kleck published an outrageously preposterous figure for the number of "defensive gun uses" each year; in order for his number to be true, there'd have to be twice as many burglars shot and killed each year than the total number of gun deaths reported. Even Kleck has disavowed the study. The numbers dwindle away to almost nothing if survey participants are asked "were you potentially the victim of a crime last year?" BEFORE they're asked if they used their popguns. And when Johns Hopkins researchers looked at Kleck's study they discovered reports like "I heard a noise in the street and so I fired my gun at whatever it was" were being counted as "defensive gun use."

FBI stats show the number of justifiable homicides each year to be in the 150-200 incident range; and almost all of those are law enforcement personnel protecting themselves against armed criminals.

Worth noting that the only study producing positive results for the gun lobby are the numbers published by racist pseudocientist John Lott, who is synonymous with academic fraud.

"An RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade) might stop SOME tanks. It has been put to good use by the "insurgents" over in Iraq against our troops and their tanks. So exactly how many accidental deaths here in America can we attribute to RPGs. How about home invasions or preventions? I believe that the answer is ZERO. Why? Because they are illegal! So should we pass legislation relaxing that problem so that we might better defend ourselves from our own military should the need arise? If we did then what do you suppose the number of accidents will go up to? "
Exactly so. The notion that we should stand around digging our toe in the sand waiting for a crime to be committed or an accident to occur before outlawing such things is absurd almost to the point of psychosis.
.50 caliber weapons such as the ones put out by Barrett (marketed as "toys for big boys", and no, I'm not kidding) can put armor piercing and incendiary rounds through armor plating. Two years ago an enthusiast in Kansas with one of these "toys" set fire to his own home and shot at responding firefighters, paramedics and cops THROUGH their vehicles. Last year, a loony tune in Colorado welded one to a bulldozer, covered the result in plating, and tried to blow up a town's natural gas tank. Barrett itself sold its "toys" to Osama Bin Laden; when the VPC discovered that, the company first tried to deny that it had done so, then claimed the CIA told it to.

[chknltl]

181. I am bookmarking this thread because of your good advice.

Thank You sir.

[PeterBrady]

170. What's an accidental shooting.

There's no such thing as an "accidental" shooting. There are negligent shootings. Accident implies no on was at fault but when someone is shot someone pulled the trigger and that's no accident. Age makes no difference.

If some moron parent left their gun laying around and junior picked it up and shot his 3 year old buddy, then the parent is negligent. And that folks is no accident.

Frame your argument properly. Maybe you are speaking of negligent shootings and are concerned with the unnecessary loss of life. But using your logic and only being concerned with unnecessary loss of life means we should ban anything that has and will cause unnecessary loss of life.
That list will be awfully long.

[MrBenchley]

176. You really think that's a mystery?

I will snap my fingers and say the words "innocent bystander" and you will awake refreshed and enlightened...

"using your logic and only being concerned with unnecessary loss of life means we should ban anything that has and will cause unnecessary loss of life."
Ah, gun lovers' logic....more like pathology than anything else.

[PeterBrady]

190. Wow

So you're argument is that I am wrong because I use what you call "gun lovers logic"? Obviously you have no point and you call me pathological.





Rock and roll baby!!!

[...of J.Temperance]

205. That S&W you have there

That's a pretty awesome piece, congratulations!

[PeterBrady]

219. IBTL!!!! n/t

[MrBenchley]

209. Actually, my argument was that your analogy was silly...

which it is...

The gun porn, though, verges on pathological...

So thanks for confirming that "what is an accidental shooting" jazz was just vain sophistry...

[PeterBrady]

218. Oh My "Gun Porn"

You still don't have a point. If my argument/analogy is silly, counter it.

[MrBenchley]

255. Been there, done that....

And let me mention that it's hilarious to see how many of those who are crying hysterically in this thread that "WE" have to get popguns to get right wingers to know we "mean business" not only already have popguns themselves, but have started spouting right wing propaganda...

[PeterBrady]

354. Not Yet

Actually you haven't. I think it would be helpful if you would put aside your biases, not that any of us can completely do that, and seek out more sources for your information regarding the 2nd amendment.

The US Constitution is neiter right nor left. It is what it is. People continue to try an twist its meaning to fit their own agenda.

[chknltl]

180. Accidents: Car... No one is at fault?

Um.... odd logic there PeterBrady.
I am not a gun enthusiast. I do not know the legal terms. Do I need a degree in law in order to post my thoughts on ANY topic here in DU?
Negligent shooting and accidental shooting, exactly what percentage of the general population do you suppose is aware of the difference?
I was not. So if you are among the minority who understands the difference is it safe to believe that you were perfectly aware of which I was referring to? Tell you what, ONLY for you and those few who may have been confused I'll change "accidental" shooting to negligent shooting. Does this mean all car accidents are really car "negligents" or some such?

As to unnecessary loss of life...however long the list may be, each item deserves to be worked with the hopes of reducing the tally. This stat seems fairly logical to me: Remove all automobiles and there will be no more deaths due to automobiles. Of course we can not remove all automobiles, they are a necessity for our society at this point. Handguns outside of the military and law enforcement on the other hand are NOT a necessity. The same logic again applies: remove the unnecessary handguns and "negligent" shootings will be reduced. PERIOD. (Same logic I used with R.P.Gs earlier)

btw welcome to DU. You are my fellow DUer. You are NOT my enemy. We may disagree on topics but please understand that I see you as a fellow American. I look forward to reading your thoughts here in the DU. It kinda sucks that we started off with a disagreement on handguns. I know that I am in a minority with my views.
Here is a toast to further discourse:

[PeterBrady]

188. Accidents/negligence

Actually the vast majority of automobile "accidents" are a result of negligence. Why do you think someone is ticketed and why do you think there are so many lawsuits involving automobile "accidents"?

Driving is a privledge not a right. Firearm ownership is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. You may argue that the 2nd does not apply to individuls but up until this point in time it does apply to individuals.

Something form the US Supreme Court in one of the few cases that potentially involved the 2nd amendment:

"The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendme...

So the difference between you and me is that I have no problem with regulating privledges but I do have a problem with denying someone their right(s) regardless of the negative consequences. I certainly take no joy in seeing or hearing about an innocent person being killed by gunshot. Just as I take no joy in seeing a child molester let out of jail/prison on a legal technicallity. But I also take no joy in seeing the US Constitution or our rights trampled. So their are times when someones rights are violated and the guilty go free (negative consequence).

Reading the above quote by the USSC clearly shows that at this point in our history handguns are in common use by the military and therefore should be available to individual "civilians" as civilians are clearly named as the "primary" members of the milita.

It is also important to note that the NFA of 1934 was enacted to raise revenue for the US Government and was originally enforced by the Treasury Department. It had nothing to do with "for the common good" of man. It is also important to note that the only case that has been a test of the NFA was originally overturned in the Miller case in US District court. However The US Gov't appealed to the USSC. Since the defendants were poor, their right (our rights) were not represented in the appeal so the USSC decision was based solely on the US Gov'ts arguments.

The Miller case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=...

The important phrase in this decision was, "In the absence of any evidence...". I am hopeful that one day we may have this issue decided once and for all.

[MrBenchley]

212. Not even close to true...

"Firearm ownership is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution."
Only in John AshKKKroft's wet dream. Here on earth...

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47 "

http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm...

And your misreading of Miller is grotesque, to be charitable.

"The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said. 

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue."

[PeterBrady]

217. More Than Close

Did you even bother reading the links I posted?

Since you seem to think the ACLU knows what they are talking about I give you a little excerpt of one of the links I provided:

"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."

The ACLU chooses to ignore the fact that the court said the militia is/are "civilians primarily". The reason there was no evidence showing a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia is that no one represented the defendants in Miller.

Also the ACLU choose to ignore the fact that the court said the militia is made up of "civilians primarily". Which you are also obviously ignoring.

The court also wrote, "Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7"

In truth the military was at this time using short barreled shotguns. But again no one was there to point this out to the court and the Govt conveniently "forgot" to inform the court of this fact.

Why don't you take the time and read the links I provided? Your ACLU buddies are wrong. They are not providing you with all the facts. Hmm, maybe they have some agenda to promote and rely on the uninformed to spread their propaganda. But you did prove my point by showing that the ACLU agrees that the militia does have a right to bear arms which consist primarily of civilians. Re: individuals.

And while we are at it, the second also speaks to the point that, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. I would assume you and the ACLU view the people as the US Military services and the militia which only consists of "soldiers".

But and examination of our constitution speaks many times of the people or persons and it is clear that what is meant is the civilians or citizen of the US not the military.

Who do you think our forefathers were speaking of when they mention the people in the US Constitution?

The Bill Of Rights

Article the third

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Article the fourth <4>

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article the fifth

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Article the ninth

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So the next time you want to pop-off about my "misreading" of Miller maybe you should examine more than one biased source.

[Tanet]

223. Hoorah Peter

Good job on that one. Glad to see someone on their toes on this issues. Goes to show you don't have to be a Republican to back the 2nd.

[PeterBrady]

225. Hehe, your post was .223 hehe. n/t

[Tanet]

298. Nice catch...actually was playing with some of those today. n/t

[PeterBrady]

228. Fooled you once...

And another point. This is the actual quote in the opinion of the USSC

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Clearly the USSC is speaking of a short barreled shotgun and nothing else. But the ACLU frames their policy with the following quote:

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."

The portion in bold is inserted to fool the uninformed into believing that this portion of their (ACLU) policy is also the ruling of the USSC. Read the ruling and see if you can find that statement contained anywhere within the USSC ruling or opinion.

[MrBenchley]

258. Between you and the ACLU, guess which one I think is uninformed?

[PeterBrady]

338. You're ignoring the facts once again

Read the opinion and you tell me. But for the sake of argument I'll pick you.

[MrBenchley]

356. Read the opinion many times...

And between you and the ACLU, I'll take the ACLU. They actually have credibility.

[MrBenchley]

250. Between you and the ACLU, I'll take the ACLU...

"The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."
Gee, be sure and tell Congress and pResident Fucko they're doing it wrong, because we sure as shit have a standing army now. I'll wait right here, snickering.

[PeterBrady]

344. Intentionally trying to mislead?

Post the quote in its entirety.

" The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they <307 U.S. 174, 179> were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."

Obviously what the USSC was talking about was a states right to police themsleves and if called upon to defend the nation with "civilians primarily" from foreign invasion. It has nothing to do with whether or not a standing army was vital for the security of the nation from foreign intervention. Or whether or not the US had a standing army.

And were you able to find the misleading protion of the ACLU's quote in the ruling or opinion of the USSC in the Miller case?

Snicker all you want just be sure to clear the sand out of your mouth before inhailing.

[MrBenchley]

357. Intentionally misleading seems to be what you're trying to do...

"Snicker all you want "
I plan to.

[chknltl]

235. So? The militia can furnish itself with rifles.

I accept the consequences of amending this right, you accept the consequences of not amending this right. The consequences of NOT amending this right is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable to me. Further argument here is pointless. I do not wish to change your views and you will never convince me to accept that all the maiming and killings and etc. associated with handguns as being worth that right to own them. I value my fellow human MORE than that "right" to own a handgun. If you actually valued your fellow human as much as I then we would not be having this discussion.

[PeterBrady]

353. The Moral Authoritarian

Ahh, the moral authority argument. However, I applaud your courage to admit that firearm (handgun) ownership is an individual right. And I would be willing to see if an amendement to repeal the 2nd Amendment would ever be ratified by the states.

With your line of reasoning we should abolish abortion, along with quite a long list of other things, considering you place such a higher value on human life than I.

So save your holier than thou attitude because I value the US Constitution more than anything.

[chknltl]

378. Wrong again PB I made myself quite plain.

My line of reasoning is balancing out the (selfish) need to own a handgun with all the pain and misery handguns are known to cause.
Even a freeper coulda figured that one out. Let me state this one last time in simple terms: Take a balance scale, on one side put the benefits to society on the other put the pain and suffering to society. Nothing "holier than thou" about reality here. Just a simple measurement and observation. The outcome of that simple measurement has not been disputed by ANYONE here. I argue that pain and misery outweighs any benefits you may suggest. I have made that quite clear. Boil it down: Do you feel that handgun ownership is worth all that pain and misery? It is VERY clear that I do not.

This same line of reasoning applied to abortion: Place pain and suffering to society on one side of the scale and put benefits to society on the other side. Until I can clearly see the pain and misery stats caused by abortions outweighing the benefits to society from abortions I will support this law as it is. This goes for everything else on your "long list".

I have given you the honor of my 1000th post. I am not your enemy, nor are you mine. You are a fellow human, my fellow American and my fellow DUer. I know this about you and the 90% who disagree with my views in this thread: If my home was on fire you would rescue those whom I love from that fire, you are an American and Americans are like that. If you saw me involved in an accident out on the freeway, I know that given the chance you would render aid, it's another one of those American things. If you and your handgun was all that was between me and someone looking to harm me or those I love, you would be there to do the right thing and I thank you for that too. We Americans are like that.

Know this about me: Even with what I feel about handguns, if the circumstances called for it, I would use one to defend you too. I may not be as quick or accurate with one and as a vet, I would rather use an M-16. My point here: I understand that you feel the need to defend your rights, we Americans have that luxury and hand guns have helped create that. I feel that the era of private ownership of handguns will eventually come to a close because it will become plain to most Americans that the negatives outweigh the positives. Perhaps a life saved when this comes about is one near and dear to you. See I actually DO have your better interest in mind, and we Americans are like that.

My last perspective: If this were the wild west of the 1800s then I too would be arguing FOR private handgun ownership. Hell if I had an extra and you didn't I'd offer you up a Colt Peacemaker. We "liberal" Americans were like that. Anyone suggesting then that the negatives of handgun ownership outweighed the benefits would have been branded an idiot by the majority. Likely been tarred and feathered and run outta town. That was then and there, this is now and the west has been tamed. That ballance has shifted. I forsee a future where that ballance shifts even further and my views will become that of the majority of Americans. Until then, like bush's Iraq, the human toll will continue to mount, sadly we Americans are like that...

[Silverhair]

226. There is much information available on that.

Naturally, that info will be from sites that support the RKBA. The NEJM study that shows 44 to 1 ration against the gunowners is extremely biased with bad methodology. If you display a gun and the attacker runs away without any shots fired, it is a successful defensive gun use, but the NEJM doesn't count it. Here are some sites:

This one is a liberal Democrat:
http://www.paxtonquigley.com /

Here is a table of several older studies:
http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

Here is a study from the National Institute of Justice, part of the Department of Justice, 1994 study during the Clinton years.

http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf

The Clinton Dept of Justice estimated 1.5 MILLION defensive gun uses per year for Americans. For those that don't like that number, their argument is with the Clinton DOJ, not with me.

Here are some other useful sites:

Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (They hate Bush.)
http://www.jpfo.org/index.htm

Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment
http://www.aware.org /

Second Amendment Sisters
http://www.2asisters.org /

Armed Females of America (These women are radical RKBA)
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com /

Pink Pistols (Armed Gays Don't Get Bashed)
http://www.pinkpistols.org /

Women Against Gun Control (Guns are a girl's best friend)
Quote form their site: Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.
http://www.wagc.com /

Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws
http://www.dsgl.org /

Liberty Belles (Women must not depend upon the protection of man, she must be taught to defend herself. Susan B Anthony 1871)
http://www.libertybelles.org /

Feminists 4 Firearms
http://www.feminists4firearms.com /

Gun Facts:
http://www.gunfacts.info /

And here are some traditional RKBA sites:
http://www.saf.org /
http://www.gunowners.org /
http://www.keepandbeararms.com /

[MrBenchley]

260. The NIJ study is especially delightful...

Showing as it does that just one quarter of Americans own guns, and that a big chunk of the reported instances of "defensive gun use" are the result of "substance abuse, mental illness, or simply less-than-accurate memories." And the study said that the 1.5 million number is horseshit.

By the way, both SAF and keepandbeararms.com are run by a right wing fundraiser who's been convicted of tax fraud. But then RKBA types have just the NICEST friends.

[Silverhair]

384. I listed more sites than just SAF & KABA.

1. You are merely attempting to disregard what the sites say because you don't like them, instead of arguing facts.

2. I also listed many more sites that just the two that you decided to single out.

3. On what page does the report disagree with it's own research, regarding the 1.5 Million number of DGU's annually.

[MrBenchley]

393. The "Second Amendment Sisters" actually boast aloud about being freepers

and their first public appearance was at a Clinton Impeachment rally...all 12 of them....

The "Pink Pistols" I already dealt with...that phony bunch of loonies endorse anti-gay candidates and haven't got a single harsh word to say about fuckwits like Fred Phelps or James Dobson. Nor have they got anything bad to say about the rampant bigotry common in the gun rights movement.

"Debbie Schlussel, a frequent guest on The Howard Stern Show and an avid supporter of the NRA referred to O'Donnell when she said, "She's not cool. She's a freak." Schlussel went on to bash actor Jude Law who recently admitted in an interview that he hesitated to handle a gun in the filming of his latest movie fearing it would contribute to people thinking guns were cool. Schlussel referred to the heterosexual Law as a "girly-man".
Kelly Anne Conway, a conservative pollster, droned on for some time about how the "liberal" media has forced changes in the public school curriculum that put gay and lesbian tolerance ahead of the basic studies of math, English and History. "They're so worried now about how many mommies Heather has that (the teachers) run out of time" Conway went on to state venomously that gay and lesbian issues aren't important to "real" Americans.
Grover Norquist, an NRA Board Member and columnist for American Spectator Magazine, not to be outdone, put forth the barb; "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 quipped that liberal Americans "don't want (men) to date women." "

http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/events/050102ev.h...

Guess which of the people named in that story ended up on the Pink Pistols' enemies list? Here's a hint, it's the only gay person.

The Armed Fuckwits Females of America used to feature the writings of such notable women as John Stossel, Thomas Crane, Mike Straw, Ted Lang, and Dieter Dahmen. It also used to have a delightful anti-Mexican screed called "Got Rope."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

JPFO regularly posts neoConfederate gibberish and features the demented scribblings of Sarah Thompson, the "righter" (sic) who actually boasts that her ambition is to make it onto the SPLC hate list alongside David Duke...

Women Against Gun Control is basically right wing loonyette Janette Tobias of Utah....Here she is trading smoochies with the Freepers...

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Vr18-vll3NgJ:www.f...

libertybelles.org actually LINKS to the imbeciles over at Free Republic, as well as right wing token Walt Williams.

http://www.libertybelles.org/links-info.htm

Feminists 4 Firearms appears to consist of 2 dimwits with a blog. (And as an additional laugh, they seem to have no statistics at all)

DSGL is an astroturf group created by a bunch of gun loonies....you'll notice one of the founders has his e-mail addresss at KABA.com, and KABA is basically right wing loony and Sierra Times columnist Angel Shamaya...

...and here's the Freepers actually promoting Shamaya...

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Tz3ZBHGn1s8J:www.f...

Here's that "liberal" Paxton Quigley snuggling up to the freepers...

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:GOxu4NH_SvsJ:freer...

Here she is peddling her imbecilic book to WorldNutDaily "readers"...alongside such "informative" tomes as "Hand of Providence: The Strong and Quiet Faith of Ronald Reagan," "Hillary's Secret War," and "Ron Brown's Body: How One Man's Death Saved the Clinton Presidency and Hillary's Future"

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=1775

The wonder isn't that this gun crap is such feeble minded right wing horseshit but that it's such transparently feeble minded right wing horseshit.

[Silverhair]

394. You are most illogical.

If a freeper posts about her, even favorably, that does not make her a freeper. It simply means that a particular freeper likes her on that particular subject. It does not translate into a wholesale endorsement of her.

It also says absolutely nothing that World Net Daily is the publisher of her book. Usually, an author shops among publishers, (Or rather his/her agent does.)and finds the publisher that will get them the most money. There is not reason to believe otherwise with her latest book. She is NOT advising readers to buy any other book. And the titles that you listed are NOT on the web page you linked.

I don't feel like taking to time to look closely at you other links. They will likely be as flimsy as your accusation were on this one.

[MrBenchley]

395. In other words, it's Freeper horseshit...

and you got busted pimping Freeper horseshit...so now you want to sulk about it.

"It also says absolutely nothing that World Net Daily is the publisher of her book."
It says that the right wing shitheads who run WorldNutDaily thought they could peddle that gibberish to the right wing imbeciles who are dumb enough to believe what WorldNutDaily ladles out.

"And the titles that you listed are NOT on the web page you linked."
Geeze, if only there was a button on that page that said "book store" so that someone could see what other right wing horseshit WorldNutDaily was peddling to pinheads....

"They will likely be as flimsy as your accusation were on this one."
Hahahahahahahaha....

[Silverhair]

397. so anybody that disagrees with you is a freeper?

Ms. Quigley is responsible only for what she says. She is not required to accept responsibility for what other books a publisher may also chose to print.

[Tanet]

307. The stats...in truth

The stats will be what YOU want them to be. If you want to find the middle, you will find exactly that. Many different studies...many different results, I try to look both sides of the story and shoot for the middle. If your looking to find information against it, you will find it against. If your looking for information in favor, you will find it in favor.

Look, I'm just going to say as a Liberal who is also a "Gun Lover" the best bet is to keep an open mind...something I have always thought our party did well.

You don't like guns, don't buy them. Think you can't keep a firearm out of the hands of someone who will use it in an irresponsible manner, by all means don't.

If your interested, then go do some truth searching like i did and see what you come up with.

[...of J.Temperance]

130. I LOVE your picture

I ADORE penguins, they're SO cute...if I could I'd get some penguins as pets, as well as some Koala bears.

The Dallas World Aquarium has a FAB penguin display, along with an equally FAB seahorse display, both are the nicest displays I've ever seen.

[goodboy]

124. done, check it out walt, this is my XD-9>>>>>

<>

[...of J.Temperance]

128. Heck, you're packing a BIG one ;)

I hesitated about posting a large picture of the S&W .460, model XVR, so I posted the smaller picture. But considering you've posted a large picture, I'll post a large picture too.

The S&W .460, model XVR...it's a beautiful thing, a 15" baby no less:

[DanCa]

127. Can I have those really cool dynamite arrows from dukes of hazzard?

[kick_them_hard]

131. Locked and loaded

GOOD KITTY!

[...of J.Temperance]

132. NOOOOOO!!!!

Leave the baby kitten alone! You big bully you!

[kywildcat]

133. Remember, do not join the NRA

Who can provide the gov't a list of the fringe who own guns? The NRA. If it came down to confiscating weapons, they have a ready made list of who and where provided by none other than the NRA. The biggest threat to this mal-administration is an armed citizenry, that threat is diminished if the gov't knows where and who the gun owners are.
If you do not plan on purchasing a gun, muck up the system by at least starting a purchase in order for the federal gun check to go through. Puts the system in a pinch, and noone knows for certain if you have one or not.

[0007]

134. I'm gonna buy three 105mm and one 155mm long tom.

Think this will draw any heat?

[PeterBrady]

169. Good Luck

First, hope you can afford it. Second, hope you can maintain it. Third, hope you can find ammo for it. Fourth, hope you can afford the ammo for it. Fifth, hope you know how to operate it. Good Luck.

[KitchenWitch]

138. You know, there was a time I would have blasted you for this...

After what has happened in New Orleans, and other shit, I am now thinking the same thing.

I may be moving to southern California in the next few years...I will get a gun when I do move. Not very close to fault line, but close enough that an earthquake could adversely affect my life. Getting a generator and a gun...dammit.

[blindpig]

139. Guns may protect us from yahoos

but would be futile against the overwhelming firepower of the government, something the wingers seem to ignore. I question whether the American military would be willing to go medieval on the US populace. The fall of the USSR gives me hope in that respect.

Much better would be a General Strike, but the people aren't hurting enough yet to get off their asses.

That said, our household is armed.

[headin_south]

191. I Was Gonna Say...

tell that to the islamo-fascists when they fought the russians but we pretty much crushed them...well, tell it to the viet cong then. if you try to fight them bullet to bullet, you're gonna die but get close to them, grab onto their belts, get the people on your side, and you can beat any dictator.

[blindpig]

197. big difference.

Charlie had a bit of help, weapons and material from the Russians and Chinese, expertise and personnel in the form of Mr Charles. SKSs and AR15 clones aren't going to cut it against tanks, helicopters and a plethora of high tech gadgets. Now, if the wackiod fringe of the NRA had their way and Stinger missiles and mini guns were available at the sporting goods store, then maybe.

I wouldn't wish that kind of horror on this country. All that is necessary is for the people to be thoroughly fed up, ala the USSR. Therein is the problem, by all rights we should be there by now. But the American people are the most effectively propagandized in the history of humankind. From the bogus excuse for history taught in schools to hate radio, advertising and most of all TV, the people are kept passive and befuddled. I believe that if one could shut down all of the TV screens for a while(maybe forever!) we'd be on our way. Otherwise we'll just have to wait until the grid breaks down or Nature has her way with us. Then comes the night.

[sweetheart]

142. Defeat them by living well

and loving your children.

And leave my 100 megatonne nuclear bunker alone.
because messing with weapons is politically radioactive.
prescient for force of armed resistance as such,
bullyed on by the hopes and dreams of our forefathers who
created the nation by an armed rebellion against being taxed
by an empire for colonial wars elsewhere.
Leaving us wondering who the conservatives are if the
rest of us want an armed rebellion?
And where is hiphop in all of this? Are we
encouraging people to wear their jeans even lower,
around their knees, so paedophiles can get in to the
clubs, or should they all be armed with guns, ammo, nukes even
to protect their right to dress poorly.
Yet surely the solution is to use chips, rather
than bar codes, and people can then be shipped
around like cattle, and in this case, cattle with guns;
stampeding about like nutters, raving at their schemes
for global domination. But for that, would they need
our nuclear bunkers, so keep yours safe.

Indeed.

[MrBenchley]

144. By the way, just as a big goof....

notice how many of those in this thread claiming we gotta getta gun already have popguns to play with....and yet are wailing that the right doesn't think "they mean business."

So because they feel impotent despite their phallic toy, YOU gotta run down to the gun store...

[...of J.Temperance]

145. Hey you, is MY popgun a

Phallic toy, huh?

[MrBenchley]

150. Jeeze, you were boasting about USING IT AS an actual sex aid!

Or did you forget that post?

Better make sure the lid is screwed on tight on the gun cleaning solvent or something....

[...of J.Temperance]

152. No, I said that I liked my ex-b/f sliding his steel rod across my bare

Skin...so in a way that was and is a sexual aid...but you know not "THAT" type of sexual aid!

Oh yeah, the lid is ALWAYS screwed on tightly...

[MrBenchley]

154. I rest my case...(snicker)

[...of J.Temperance]

158. Okay honey, I think you better...(Ahem)

[lonestarnot]

148. EWWW Breaking... Walt Starr has lost his mind. LOL

[Tsiyu]

159. We are

[TriMetFan]

164. I agree with you.

About a year ago my spouse wanted for me to get rid of my guns and I said no way in hell I was. I told her that we might need them to protect the kids from the neo-cons. She told me I was drinking to much of the kool-aide from the left. Will its been one year later and now she is the one that is learning how to shoot a gun. I can see the neo-cons trying to start a war in our Nation and if they don't then I will not have to worry about shooting a fellow American. But I still think the Neo-cons want a second civil war.

[mtnsnake]

165. How about using our minds instead of losing them?

So Walt, I guess if we can't out think them, we can always out shoot them. LMFAO!!

Hey, maybe you should tell the people who can't afford new cars to use their guns to rob a bank while they're at it!

[adigal]

167. Well, Freepers are not worried about us buying guns

"To: Checkers

If there is no filibuster the libs are going to be very angry. That is what they are counting on. Then, when the Republicans go nuclear they want the Dims to use procedural tactics to shutdown the government. Talking of taking to the streets and even buying guns.
Nothing to be afraid of folks. Most Libs don't have money to buy guns. They send all their extra cash to candidates like Kerry. Those that do buy guns will probably shoot themselves in the foot, if they remember to buy ammo for them."

From Sociopathville aka: Freeperville

[whirlingdervish]

171. Good plan, but we have a lot of catching up to do

The NRA types have been stockpiling guns since forever, so we are way behind in this arms race.

My aunt is a cop and she recommends the .314 "Pi Special." Representatives from Glock always come around her department and try to get them to upgrade, and I think most departments are going to switch to this one. The only trouble is, the loony gun nuts will probably lap up as many Pies as they can once the folks at Glock offer it to the public, so try and find out when your local gun shop will start carrying them.

[MrBenchley]

177. Good thing you trigger-happy types have Judge Alito on your side....

He, like that notable progressive (snicker) Alan Keyes, think gun nuts ought to be able to get their sweaty, shaky hands on machine guns...

[enfield collector]

178. I'm on it!

[Loonman]

183. There are plenty pro fire arms liberals

Not enough, but not as few as the Right would have you believe.

[MrBenchley]

213. And they're mute as stones

except on liberal boards...mysteriously, they never have anything liberal to say on the gun loony forums, where dittohead nonsense makes up the entire bill of fare.

[Tanet]

220. Not quite so mute on those forums...

In fact I'm more obliged to remain silent here, since your lurking about with your "Facts". I do find it interesting that several times you have been wrong, and then crawled back with a slight whimper about that person being "Trigger Happy" or a "Gun Lover".

I'm not quite sure where your fear of guns has come from, maybe in your dreams firearms crawl from the places they have been put and shoot family members and the like.

I notice you like to point out gun control. Though I just can't shake the feeling you wish to BAN all guns. You said that society isn't a bit safer with people wanting to indulge in a gun hobby, yet with training and discipline that comes with it only makes it safer.

You mentioned .50 caliber rifles and "Assualt Weapons". I find it interesting that you want to BAN .50 caliber rifles because not many people own them or can afford such an expensive rifle plus ammunition. Yet on the same token they have to be banned because the terrorist can shoot down a plane,punch through an armored vehicle, or some such non-sense. I know of 2 incidents that involved .50 caliber rifles, and only one that it was used. As for assualt weapons, well I just don't have the space or time to go into that discussion, but you know as well as I do that its as misguided as banning the terrible yet amazing .50 caliber rifle that can shoot down a plane at a mile and a half range and every terrorist is purchasing them around the globe at 6-10k dollars per.

Just wanted to share my perspective on just a small bit of what you have been posting. Though I'm left wondering WHY you have such a dislike of "Gun Lovers"?

So why don't I post against Republicans on the "Gun Looney" forums, cause I can't argue with people who base their knowledge from fact.

[MrBenchley]

249. hell gun nuts even boast about trolling DU on THEIR forums

Meanwhile the majority of the country, pretty much every prominent Democrat except Zell Miller, and every moderate and liberal pundit or columnist supports gun control.

"I do find it interesting that several times you have been wrong"
Not hardly.

"You said that society isn't a bit safer with people wanting to indulge in a gun hobby"
And I'm absolutely correct. Meanwhile, it's hilarious to note how many ofd those whining that freepers don't think they "mean business" ALREADY have popguns. But then perhaps right wingers might actually think you "gun enthusiasts" meant business if you didn't swallow their lies and peddle the same propaganda they do.

"I find it interesting that you want to BAN .50 caliber rifles because not many people own them or can afford such an expensive rifle plus ammunition. "
Good thing that guy Osama's not a billionaire, or anyth--oops!

"I know of 2 incidents that involved .50 caliber rifles, and only one that it was used."
Since I mentioned two where the "toys for big boys" was used, it's not my fault that you're underinformed.

"Though I'm left wondering WHY you have such a dislike of "Gun Lovers"?"
Guess.

"So why don't I post against Republicans on the "Gun Looney" forums, cause I can't argue with people who base their knowledge from fact."
Hahahahahahahaha.....

[Tanet]

308. So, how do you know they are trolling here?

but no really, I mean if you really want to have a discussion about this I'm all for it. Remind you, I'm sure I can't convince you that your wrong...it seems thats obvious...even when your wrong.

"Not Hardly"
That convinces me.

"And I'm absolutely correct. Meanwhile, it's hilarious to note how many ofd those whining that freepers don't think they "mean business" ALREADY have popguns. But then perhaps right wingers might actually think you "gun enthusiasts" meant business if you didn't swallow their lies and peddle the same propaganda they do."
Well actually I have a feeling more of us are armed than you think. As for lying and peddling propaganda, I see the most ridiculous stuff on the gun issue come out of our own party, not the right wing.

"Good thing that guy Osama's not a billionaire, or anyth--oops!"
Good thing you have no clue about guns, cause everybody who has even the SLIGHTEST knowledge of guns right now is laughing. I'll just keep you in the dark on it...

"Since I mentioned two where the "toys for big boys" was used, it's not my fault that you're underinformed."
I must have missed that post, I'm sure it was riveting and filled with factual information in the correct context, and not information that was shifted out of context, if you would link me though...I'll catch up on my reading.

"Guess."
Ummm...you've never so much as touched a gun? You think guns get up in the middle of the night and kill someone in the household...cause as we all know 50% of households with a gun have "Accidents"? Some tragic event in your life turned you against firearms? Could it be your of the mind that you shouldn't have a gun because guns turn good people bad and that the minute they get angry they open fire...because really your just projecting your own rage difficulties on them and in truth YOU shouldn't own a gun. Or perhaps you just decided one day that since your in the Democratic party and the extreme left side hates guns because they are guns...you should join them. I don't know...you tell me.

"Hahahahahahahaha....."
You should stop laughing like that, or someone might think your cra...oops!

[MrBenchley]

318. What an excellent question....NOT

How could anybody know that the people who are bragging about trolling here are trolling here? Call out the Hardy boys...or Nancy Drew! Or read post #193. Of course, since you responded to the subthread yourself, I wonder why the fuck it seems like a mystery to you.

"Well actually I have a feeling more of us are armed than you think. "
And yet you gun "enthusiasts" started a whole thread to whine that freepers don't think you mean business...and you're right. In fact, as we see from the gun loony cesspool, right wing shitheads are laughing their asses off at you....almost as much as I am.

"I must have missed that post, I'm sure it was riveting and filled with factual information in the correct context"
Yes it was. Now go cry about it to someone who gives a shit.

[Tanet]

324. Awww

Well its seems you have gotten a little upset over this and well...I could care less.

"How could anybody know that the people who are bragging about trolling here are trolling here? Call out the Hardy boys...or Nancy Drew! Or read post #193. Of course, since you responded to the subthread yourself, I wonder why the fuck it seems like a mystery to you."
Well I was just pointing out that since someone from these forums was obviously on their forums, pointing out that they do and not that we do is rather one sided...which is status quo it seems with you. I'm sure a bright individual yourself figured that out on your own though. Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys indeed.

"And yet you gun "enthusiasts" started a whole thread to whine that freepers don't think you mean business...and you're right. In fact, as we see from the gun loony cesspool, right wing shitheads are laughing their asses off at you....almost as much as I am."
Actually it strikes me that you have NO idea what they are laughing about. Your knowledge of this subject is exactly the thing that they laugh about, so saying that they are laughing at the knowledgable Dems on this board in itself is quite laughable indeed. Hope you enjoy your chuckle.

"Yes it was. Now go cry about it to someone who gives a shit."
I'll get right on that.

[MrBenchley]

327. Yup, right wing loonies troll on here pimping guns...

"Hope you enjoy your chuckle."
I certainly did. And I posted some of the richer comments for others to laugh about too.

[...of J.Temperance]

379. Gentlemen TIME OUT...The anti-gun crowd SHOULD remember this:

This is what anti-gun people should remember, and it's quite simple:

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

Everyone on this thread who owns a firearm or firearms, we're ALL responsible people and we ALL have firearms for legitimate reasons. We're NOT a bunch of shoot 'em up homicidal maniacs. So the people here who are anti-gun and anti-2nd Amendment need to try and get their heads around that. But I'm going to point out again, that IF someone who I think is a threat and is actually acting in a threatening way comes within TEN FEET of me, then I'm GOING to deal with them and it'd be odds-on that that person is going to be hurting BADLY.

It's beyond ridiculas to compare the people here with someone like Randy Weaver, as that bizarre comparison WAS used earlier in this thread, and there was an equally bizarre comparison with Bo Gritz.

I myself am sick and tired of the Republicans claiming to OWN the gun issue and them claiming to be the ONLY party that can speak for and defend 2nd Amendment rights. They have NO RIGHT to have some lock on these issues...and the way I see it, we should just go right in there and get in their faces and steal these issues off them. And we CAN do this in a responsible, adult and sensible way.

Al Gore lost many votes in the South because people THOUGHT he was going to take their gun off them. So we need OUR people out and about in communities, talking to other gun owners about how we're NOT going to take their guns away from them.

We also need to wrestle control of the NRA away from the reactionary element. Many NRA members are already Democrats...you know, in 2002 when Senator Mary Landrieu was running for re-election, there were HUGE numbers of people with NRA bumber stickers and NRA hats that we saw at Senator Landrieu's rallies. They voted for her because they KNEW she wasn't going to ban their guns. So the way I see it, being pro-gun is a winning issue for us.

So I'm going to have a nap now, but so many people have their panties in a wad over this issue, and it shouldn't be that way.

MrBenchley, darlin', try and understand our point of view JUST a tad

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

[MrBenchley]

380. Geeze, what a sorry melange...

I hate to criticize you, but in this thread alone we've got a bunch of people who are openly fantasizing happily about shooting other Americans, we've got a guy who rants about "pussies" (and tried to pretend the arguments here suddenly fetched him when it turned out he already owns guns), and the like...If that's "responsible people," I hate to think what you'd consider irresponsible.

"It's beyond ridiculas to compare the people here with someone like Randy Weaver"
Really? Why do YOU suppose he's hiding where he got that dreary fantasy?

I doubt there's a pro-gun word in this entire thread that Randy Weaver and those like him would disagree with. And Randy himself obsessed over that sort of survivalist crap, sure that any moment society was going to break down due to savages and he was going to be Bwana Dick....

"I myself am sick and tired of the Republicans claiming to OWN the gun issue and them claiming to be the ONLY party that can speak for and defend 2nd Amendment rights. "
Actually, it's noticeable that the GOP only does that between elections. When election time rolls around they pay lip service to gun control. You might recall that Chimpy claimed to support the assault weapons ban, and that even a scummy little fuckwit like Tom Delay had to hide behind procedural bullshit when he put assault weapons back in stores.

"Al Gore lost many votes in the South because people THOUGHT he was going to take their gun off them."
It's funny...the news stories that say so ALWAYS quote NRA spokespeople and GOP spokesmen, but when Democrats are on the record they give other reasons. Those reports are of a piece with the new stories that were planted throughout the election claiming Democrats "didn't want" Al Gore as a candidate.

By the way, if you pretend that's true, what a crappy job you pistol packing Democrats did about getting the word out to gun owners about the facts. Hang your heads in shame.

"We also need to wrestle control of the NRA away from the reactionary element."
Feel free to start. It's not like there's a shortage of websites for gun aficionados where you can make that argument. But it's funny there's nobody already doing that, isn't it?

[...of J.Temperance]

383. I just needed to

Say my piece mon amie.

[headin_south]

185. Yeah!

i said this months ago down in the sports (knuckledragger ) forum. civil rights protesters who armed themselves in the sixties never ran into problems they couldn't handle, malcolm x advocated using your second amendment right to protect yourself and fight .gov injustice, and eleanor roosevelt said she never travelled in the south without packing a piece.

[nadinbrzezinski]

187. We already did

and I go to the range every so often

[ProudDad]

192. Sicko alert

Some really sick stuff in this thread...

[headin_south]

194. Like What?

you can't make a blanket statement and walk away, y'know!

[headin_south]

193. Wow...

looks like someone got all stirred up from their tv dinner!!!

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=404552

[MrBenchley]

284. Wow, that really is a hilarious find.....

And just look at how those right wing shitheads quake in fear due to Walt's suggestion....er

"I'm gonna hop on there and advocate it. I wanna get the IL contingent all frothed up so they call Gov. Blowmebitch tomorrow and demand CCW in IL!...Arming up to show the right wing (us) that they mean business. All I can tell them is, "BRING IT ON, MOTHERFUCKERS!"...Sure, the Left can BUY guns, but 99% of them will shoot gangsta style and with their eyes closed....Truth be told, if even one or two of them can be swayed to the dark side, so much the better....Someone get on there and recommend all the best weapons. You know, Hi-point carbines, lorcin pistols, anything by Hesse and special weapons...(from the freepster no less!)...I had know (sic) idea that DU was so full of blazing intellectuals. But seriously, I fell sic like a frickin' genius...Oh good God. Those inept effeminate idiots are going to wipe themselves out!...Is anyone else struck on how ghey their avatars are over at the DU?...We should go over there and sell them some guns."

(italics mine)...

[Greyhound]

311. If you haven't seen this one you should definitely check it out

it is (mostly) hilarious!!

BTW in case any of them actually have the 'courage' to come onto an anonymous board, .25's and .32's are both really lousy rounds.

[Tanet]

313. But....

Hi-point carbines, lorcin pistols, Hesse and Special Weapons REALLY ARE Great Buys! I'm not sure why they would try to mislead us?!?!?!?!

[Czolgosz]

195. Isn't it enough that I watch NASCAR and read the Bible? I need a gun, too?

[NoSheep]

196. Been discussing it for some time. Never thought I would.

[AZBlue]

199. This is a joke, right?

Lighten up on the kool-aid, people.

[headin_south]

240. No, It's Not...

a lot of us think it's better to be prepared...you know, "it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it"!

we're not just talking revolution or civil war; there's also self-defense and catastrophic situations like katrina.

we also need to start attacking repugnants at their base, take away their issues. this is a major issue for many of them.

[Mr_Spock]

254. No, it's our duty as citizens to defend our nation against tyranny...

If this ain't tyranny, I don't know what is...

[MrBenchley]

262. And that's why gun owners had the tyrant Cheney as honored guest

at their klavern last year...

"Tom Mauser, whose son Daniel was killed with an assault weapon in the Littleton, Colorado, killings five years ago Tuesday, said continuing the ban is common sense.
Assault weapons "are the weapons of gangs, drug lords and sick people," Mauser said before his three-block march to the convention, which runs through Sunday. "It is a weapon of war and we don't want this war on our streets."
...Some attendees of the convention were heard yelling "Get a life" and "Vote for Bush" when Mr Mauser was eventually turned away from the convention. "

http://www.atsnn.com/story/44402.html

Hilariously, the gun owners were run through metal detectors before they got near Cheney....but then he knows what those folks are really like...

Just look at the terror on the face of that tyrant as he faces gun owners...

[Mr_Spock]

267. Irrelevant what those retard Rambo morons are doing. Walk softly...

and carry a BIG stick. It's my motto. I would never EVER brag about owning a gun. I'm hardly a gun enthusiast. I AM however an very pragmatic person and I am sure that this is a good idea. I also beleive that it is our duty as citizens to protect the average person from the tyranny of the government.

[MrBenchley]

269. The trigger happy side of this gets sillier and sillier...

"I would never EVER brag about owning a gun."
But the whole point of this silly thread was that "we" (hahahaha) are supposed to go buy guns AND brag about it...because "we" (snicker) have to show the freepers "we (teeheehee) mean business."

"it is our duty as citizens to protect the average person from the tyranny of the government."
And what a good fucking job you gun owners are doing at that too....Cheney sure must think you guys "mean business." Just look at how frightened he is with the power of the gun! (snicker)

[AZBlue]

200. dupe/deleted

sorry

[Kilroy003]

202. Who's seen the web video of the apache in Iraq?

It shows two Iraqi's being gunned down by a helicopter from a mile away. Those poor suckers never even heard the shots.

If you were gonna try to take on the US government, I'm not so sure a shotgun would suffice.

I think Walt is mistaken. Violence will not solve anything, it can only beget more of the same.

"vilence" Walt, is that really you?

[htuttle]

203. Useless. Try this instead: STOP COOPERATING WITH THEM!

Got nothing for or against gun ownership, but simply owning a gun isn't going to change the country.

You want to change things? Do what has been done in every revolution that ever happened. Stop cooperating. Stop working for them. Stop paying taxes. Go into the streets, and shut the whole thing down. Guns are unnecessarily provocative in actions like this, and they don't end up helping much in the long run. If it comes to a point where guns are needed, guns will be available -- as they always have been in times like that. But until then, just try not cooperating with them and start shutting the damned thing down. Works wonders.

[headin_south]

248. Preach It...

brother!!!

[tamtam]

214. There was a point in my life

There was a point in my life where the thought of owning a gun disgusted me. I don't have that luxury anymore. It has little to do with what the neo-cons are doing now; even though I know they are dangerous. These idiots proved to me that they will kill you no questions asked. If you have brown skin the better for them. I'm not trying to turn this into a race thing because I have no doubt they would shoot a white person who might disagree with them.

I agree with you post. I think liberals need to take a stance on personal safety. I understand that some don't want guns but please do not take their madness for granted. They are dangerous and they feel empowered. They know, the rest of the world knows, we know, what they have done. The scary thing is, with all the knowing of their crimes most of them are not ashamed or sorry for what they support. As Mike Malloy says "watch your backs".

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

215. Funny, but this idea had also occurred to me.

I've never owned a gun, never even held one.

But I have thought how the neocon rethugs etc do not take us seriously and this might catch their attention.

What would be a good "starter" weapon and where to buy?

[Blue_Tires]

227. up until recently i never would have thought of it

now i'm giving it second thoughts

[zebrahater]

236. US vs THEM

is a bad reason to buy a gun. In all likelihood you will never have to defend yourself against a law abiding gun owner, right wing or other. I think Katrina has made one thing abundantly clear; in an emergency situation the government cannot protect you.

Local law enforcement cannot prevent you from being a victim of a crime, violent or otherwise, 99% of the time. What they, hopefully, can do is investigate and prosecute the perpetrator. While better than nothing, it is not enough for me. I would prefer to have the ability to protect myself, my family, and lastly my property should the need arise.

The argument that the 2nd does not protect the individual right to own "arms" could not be more wrong in my opinion. If you take an honest look at it, it clearly makes three separate, but equally important points. Let examine:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

1. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

2. The people have the right to keep AND bear arms.

3. Lastly, the above two rights shall not be infringed.

This protection of rights was so important to our founding fathers that they made this the second in a list of many very important rights.

I understand many people fear what they do not understand; after reading this thread I believe many here do not understand guns, responsible ownership or laws. Restrictive laws simply strip law abiding citizens the right to protect themselves. Criminals could care less what constitutes legal and illegal.

Finally, if you do buy a firearm, and I recommend you do, please seek professional training and be safe.

[Mr_Spock]

253. I'm going to be buying a good rifle & handgun.

These people are insane and are forcing us to do our duty as citizens to protect our democracy from tyranny...

[MrBenchley]

268. But YOU already have guns

You sure seemed to earlier this year...
(#124 in this thread)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Of course, last year, you were ranting that you had a gun AND were surrounded by "latent homosexual right-wing pussies" AND that "only pussies in the city have guns"...
(#162 in this thread)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

In this one, hilariously, you talked about how much "fun" it was to hunker down with a gun at the ass end of yokelville waiting to shoot it out with armed invaders...
(#58 in this thread)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Hard to see what help somebody who can't remember whether or not he's got a gun is going to be when we start a feudin' with them there freepers (like Snuffy Smith used to do with the Revenooers). Ol' Snuffy was never confused about whether or not he had a shootin' arn.

Head for them hills, Maw!!

[Mr_Spock]

281. Well, you seem to have a problem with anyone who has a gun

You're an anti-gun avenger from what I can determine on this thread. There will be no appeasing you. I'll never respond to somebody who will not be rational on an issue where even Dems can and should have a reasonable discussion. I don't need to do any research on you to see your irrational stand on guns. Sionarra - I'm done with you.

[MrBenchley]

285. "sionarra" Mr. Spock (chortle)

"somebody who will not be rational on an issue"
Tell it to the "pussies"

[Mr_Spock]

291. You're a cat?

Meow. Making enemies faster than you can shoot 'em huh?

[MrBenchley]

320. Guess "sionarra" means something else on Vulcan than "sayonara" on Earth

Either that or your goodbye was as full of hooey as everything else you've said. And who would want a friend like that?

[Mr_Spock]

359. I changed my mind

I'm sticking up for Dems who want to be able to mute this as an issue in the upcoming elections.

Show a reason why Dems should give up this huge block of votes to Repukes.

And show me how the story of one persons survival in a country that turned to anarchy is political.

[MrBenchley]

364. No shit?

"Dems who want to be able to mute this as an issue"
Why the fuck would any Democrat want to mute an issue on which the overwhelming majority of voters SUPPORT the Democrats? Even a majority of gun owners support gun control.

[Mr_Spock]

367. We're not talking about gun control - I support that.

You are once again mixing issues to suit your needs. Even with gun control, gun are still legal and I don't see why they shouldn't be at this point. This is an issue where we lose many thousands of votes - and for what?

[MrBenchley]

369. It shows (snicker)

"This is an issue where we lose many thousands of votes - and for what?"
Many thousands of votes want to have an armed shootout? Uh-HUH.

[Mr_Spock]

372. You're snickering is meaningless. I am pro gun-control

Gun control does NOT take guns away from law-abiding citizens!!!

Can't you get that through your thick head?? Damn it!

We are losing votes for absolutely no reason. This is just not an important issue to me any more now that I live in the country. I can target shoot on my property and not bother anyone.

[Mr_Spock]

283. You have no idea what I own...

Unless you believe everything you read on them internets. Silly, silly person. I actually do have a rifle, but I don't consider it to be an acceptable form of self-defense. I am using the article below to help me decide what sort of arms would be useful in my situation if there was ever the need for me to defend my family or property. technically, it's none of your business, but I do think that more liberals should be considering having the ability to defend oneself against the threat posed by these RW nut jobs who have commandeered our government...

[MrBenchley]

286. Neither, it seems, do you....

"Unless you believe everything you read on them internets."
No, I've noticed gun enthusiasts pull facts out of their asses as needed.

"technically, it's none of your business"
Now, I didn't put a gun to your head and make you post gibberish about shooting "pussies"...

[Mr_Spock]

292. Hehe - you're really ratcheting up the rhetoric concerning another

post I made in a different time and on a different subject and mood. Why do you want to keep playing this angry game with me?

[MrBenchley]

315. Hahahahaha....

"Why do you want to keep playing this angry game with me?"
Because I'm not angry--I'm having a big old laugh.

[Mr_Spock]

362. "I'm having a big old laugh" - yep, you don't take this issue seriously

You are a fake - just poking fun of people who may have good reasons behind their desire to not be afraid of guns. So you're anti-gun - big deal. I am anti-gun for city folks and see no issue for people in the country - what do you think of that idea?

[MrBenchley]

365. How could anyone take this dreary trigger happy crap seriously....

"people who may have good reasons behind their desire to not be afraid of guns"
He says, in a thread where people with popguns are demanding that the rest of us buy popguns, because the people with popguns are afraid of freepers with popguns.

This entire thread is like hearing from Bob Boudelang that the rest of us have to take Viagra because he can't get it up...

[Mr_Spock]

370. Nope, you're still missing the point.

The point is that we can have our guns and we don't have to hide from the issue. I may never tell a Freeper that I have a gun because I'm not a braggart, but it should be known generally that liberals are just as likely to have guns as conservatives. This is only a negative issue for the Dems due to non-gun owning Dems speaking for all Dems. I'm not a big gun person obviously, but I have no issue talking about this subject and stating that I'm not generally against people who have guns and our hobbyists. And I think handguns should be banned from cities and when I argue this point with the gun-nuts they cannot generally win the arguemnt because I lived in the city (most of the gun nuts never have) and I own a gun. "Know thy enemy" works for the idiots here who watch Faux "news" but not those of us who are not afraid of guns? I don't think so...

[MrBenchley]

375. Wow, what a tedious and silly point...

"it should be known generally that liberals are just as likely to have guns as conservatives"
Why? It's a cheesy fucking hobby that's more public menace than anything else.

"This is only a negative issue for the Dems due to non-gun owning Dems speaking for all Dems."
So gun owners are such paranoid imbeciles that they fear people who don't own guns? Jeeze louise, what a malignant and pathetic bunch of jerkoffs...

[Mr_Spock]

293. You wanna start playing the "do research" on other DU'ers game buddy?

I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here?

[MrBenchley]

319. Tee hee hee....let 'er rip....

[Mr_Spock]

347. Later.

Got better things to do today.

[Mr_Spock]

257. PLEASE READ: Here's what happens when society breaks down...

In Argentina they had a societal breakdown due to economic collapse. This article is written by someone who has had to adapt to this type of living condition. Very good points are made about types of guns that are useful and when and how to use them. Gave me pause after I read it - and I am by no means a survivalist nut job, believe me. Just remember who's in the WH...

____________________________________________________________________


My brother visited Argentina a few weeks ago. He’s been living in Spain for a few years now. Within the first week, he go sick, some kind of strong flu, even though climate isn’t that cold and he took care of himself. Without a doubt he got sick because there are lots of new viruses in my country that can’t be found in 1st world countries. The misery and famine lead us to a situation where, even though you have food, shelter and health care, most of others don’t, and therefore they get sick and spread the diseases all over the region.

What got me started on this post is the fact that I actually saw this coming, and posted on the subject here at Frugal’s, months before the new viruses spread over the country and the news started talking about this new, health emergency, which proves that talking, thinking and sharing ideas with like minded people (you guys), does help to see things coming and prepare for them with enough time. So I started thinking about several issues, what I learned (either the hard way or thanks to this forum) after all these years of living in a collapsed country that is trying to get out an economical disaster and everything that comes along with it. Though my English is limited, I hope I’m able to transmit the main ideas and concepts, giving you a better image of what you may have to deal with some day, if the economy collapses in your country. Here is what I have so far:

URBAN OR COUNTRY?

Someone once asked me how did those that live in the country fare. If they were better off than city dwellers. As always there are no simple answers. Wish I could say country good, city bad, but I can’t, because if I have to be completely honest, and I intend to be so, there are some issues that have to be analyzed, especially security. Of course that those that live in the country and have some land and animals were better prepared food-wise. No need to have several acres full of crops. A few fruit trees, some animals, such as chickens, cows and rabbits, and a small orchard was enough to be light years ahead of those in the cities. Chickens, eggs and rabbits would provide the proteins, a cow or two for milk and cheese, some vegetables and fruit plants covered the vegetable diet, and some eggs or a rabbit could be traded for flower to make bread and pasta or sugar and salt.

Of course that there are exceptions, for example, some provinces up north have desert climate, and it almost never rains. It is almost impossible to live of the land, and animals require food and water you have to buy. Those guys had it bad; no wonder the northern provinces suffer the most in my country. Those that live in cities, well they have to manage as they can. Since food prices went up about 200%-300%. People would cut expenses wherever they could so they could buy food. Some ate whatever they could; they hunted birds or ate street dogs and cats, others starved. When it comes to food, cities suck in a crisis. It is usually the lack of food or the impossibility to acquire it that starts the rioting and looting when TSHTF.

When it comes to security things get even more complicated. Forget about shooting those that mean you harm from 300 yards away with your MBR. Leave that notion to armchair commandos and 12 year old kids that pretend to be grown ups on the internet.

Some facts:

1) Those that want to harm you/steal from you don’t come with a pirate flag waving over their heads.

2) Neither do they start shooting at you 200 yards away.

3) They won’t come riding loud bikes or dressed with their orange, convict just escaped from prison jump suits, so that you can identify them the better. Nor do they all wear chains around their necks and leather jackets. If I had a dollar for each time a person that got robbed told me “They looked like NORMAL people, dressed better than we are”, honestly, I would have enough money for a nice gun. There are exceptions, but don’t expect them to dress like in the movies.

4) A man with a wife and two or three kids can’t set up a watch. I don’t care if you are SEAL, SWAT or John Freaking Rambo, no 6th sense is going to tell you that there is a guy pointing a gun at your back when you are trying to fix the water pump that just broke, or carrying a big heavy bag of dried beans you bought that morning.

The best alarm system anyone can have in a farm are dogs. But dogs can get killed and poisoned. A friend of mine had all four dogs poisoned on his farm one night, they all died. After all these years I learned that even though the person that lives out in the country is safer when it comes to small time robberies, that same person is more exposed to extremely violent home robberies. Criminals know that they are isolated and their feeling of invulnerability is boosted. When they assault a country home or farm, they will usually stay there for hours or days torturing the owners. I heard it all: women and children getting raped, people tied to the beds and tortured with electricity, beatings, burned with acetylene torches. Big cities aren’t much safer for the survivalist that decides to stay in the city. He will have to face express kidnappings, robberies, and pretty much risking getting shot for what’s in his pockets or even his clothes.

So, where to go? The concrete jungle is dangerous and so is living away from it all, on your own. The solution is to stay away from the cities but in groups, either by living in a small town-community or sub division, or if you have friends or family that think as you do, form your own small community. Some may think that having neighbors within “shouting” distance means loosing your privacy and freedom, but it’s a price that you have to pay if you want to have someone to help you if you ever need it. To those that believe that they will never need help from anyone because they will always have their rifle at hand, checking the horizon with their scope every five minutes and a first aid kit on their back packs at all times…. Grow up.

SERVICES

What ever sort of scenario you are dealing with, services are more than likely to either suffer in quality or disappear all together. Think ahead of time; analyze possible SHTF scenarios and which service should be affected by it in your area. Think about the most likely scenario but also think outside the box. What’s more likely? A tornado? But a terrorist attack isn’t as crazy as you though it would be a few years ago, isn’t it?
Also analyze the consequences of those services going down. If there is no power then you need to do something about all that meat you have in the fridge, you can dry it or can it. Think about the supplies you would need for these tasks before you actually need them. You have a complete guide on how to prepare the meat on you computer… how will you get it out of there if there is no power? Print everything that you consider important.

WATER

No one can last too long without water. The urban survivalist may find that the water is of poor quality, in which case he can make good use of a water filter, or that there is no water available at all. When this happens, a large city were millions live will run out of bottled water within minutes. In my case, tap water isn’t very good. I can see black little particles and some other stuff that looks like dead algae. Taste isn’t that bad. Not good but I know that there are parts of the country where it is much worse. To be honest, a high percentage of the country has no potable water at all.

If you can build a well, do so, set it as your top of the list priority as a survivalist.
Water comes before firearms, medicines and even food. Save as much water as you can. Use plastic bottles, refill soda bottles and place them in a cool place, preferably inside a black garbage bag to protect it from sun light. The water will pick some plastic taste after a few months, but water that tastes a little like plastic is far way better than no water at all. What ever the kind of SHTF scenario you are dealing with, water will suffer. In my case the economical crash created problems with the water company, that reduces the maintenance and quality in order to reduce costs and keep their income in spite of the high prices they have to pay for supplies and equipment, most of which comes from abroad, and after the 2001 crash, costs 3 times more. As always, the little guy gets to pay for it. Same would go for floods or chemical or biological attacks. Water requires delicate care and it will suffer when TSHTF in one way or another. In this case, when you still have tap water, a quality filter is in order, as well as a pump if you can have one. A manual pump would be ideal as well if possible. Estimate that you need a approximately a gallon per person per day. Try to have at least two-four weeks worth of water. More would be preferable.

POWER

I spent WAY to much time without power for my own taste. Power has always been a problem in my country, even before the 2001 crisis. The real problem starts when you spend more than just a few hours without light. Just after the SHTF in 2001 half the country went without power for 3 days. Buenos Aires was one big dark grave. People got caught on elevators, food rots; hospitals that only had a few hours worth of fuel for their generators ran out of power. Without power, days get to be a lot shorter. Once the sun sets there is not much you can do. I read under candle light and flashlight light and your head starts to hurt after a while. You can work around the house a little bit but only as long as you don’t need power tools. Crime also increases once the lights go out, so whenever you have to go somewhere in a black out, carry the flashlight on one hand and a handgun on the other.

Summarizing, being in a city without light turn to be depressing after a while. I spent my share of nights, alone, listening to the radio, eating canned food and cleaning my guns under the light of my LED head lamp. Then I got married, had a son, and found out that when you have loved ones around you black outs are not as bad. The point is that family helps morale on these situations.

A note on flashlights. Have two or three head LED lights. They are not expensive and are worth their weight in gold. A powerful flashlight is necessary, something like a big Maglite or better yet a SureFire, especially when you have to check your property for intruders. But for more mundane stuff like preparing food, going to the toilet or doing stuff around the house, the LED headlamp is priceless. Try washing the dishes on the dark while holding a 60 lumen flashlight on one hand and you’ll know what I mean. LEDs also have the advantage of lasting for almost an entire week of continuous use and the light bulb lasts forever. Rechargeable batteries are a must or else you’ll end up broke if lights go out often. Have a healthy amount of spare quality batteries and try to standardize as much as you can. I have 12 Samsung NM 2500Mh AA and 8 AAA 800mh for the headlamps. I use D cell plastic adaptors in order to use AA batteries on my 3 D cell Maglite. This turned out to work quite well, better than I expected.
I also keep about 2 or 3 packs of regular, Duracell batteries just in case. These are supposed to expire around 2012, so I can forget about them until I need them.
Rechargeable NM batteries have the disadvantage of loosing power after a period of time, so keep regular batteries as well and check the rechargeable ones every once in a while.

After all these years of problems with power, what two items I would love to have?

1) The obvious. A generator. I carried my fridge food to my parents house way to many times on the past. Too bad I can’t afford one right now.

2) A battery charger that has both solar panel and a small crank. They are not available here. I saw that they are relatively inexpensive in USA. Do yourself a favor and get one or two of these. Even if they don’t charge as well as regular ones, I’m sure it will put out enough power to charge batteries for LED lamps at least.

GAS

Gas has decreased in quality as well, there is little gas. Try to have an electric oven in case you have to do without it. If both electricity and gas go down, one of those camping stoves can work as well, if you keep a good supply of gas cans. The ones that work with liquid fuel seem to be better on the long run, since they can use different types of fuel.
You can only store a limited amount of compressed gas and once you ran out of it, you are on your own if stores are closed of they sold them out. Anyway, a city that goes without gas and light for more than two weeks is a death trap, get out of there before it’s too late.

A DIFFERENT MENTALITY.

I was watching the People & Art channel with my wife the other night. It was a show where they film a couple for a given period of time and some people vote on who is the one with the worst habits, the one they find more annoying. We were in our bed, and this is when I usually fall asleep but since the guy was a firearms police instructor I was interested and managed to stay awake. At one point the guy’s wife said that she found annoying that her husband spent 500 dollars a month on beauty products for himself. 500 USD on facial cream, special shampoo and conditioner, as well as having his nails polished! If you are that guy and happen to be reading this, or if you know him, I’m sorry, but what an idiot!! “500 USD, that’s a small generator or a gun and a few boxes of ammo” I told my wife. “That’s two months worth of food” she said. We were each thinking of a practical use for that money, the money this guy was practically throwing away. Once the SHTF, money is no longer measured in money, but you start seeing it as the necessary goods it can buy. Stuff like food, medicine, gas, or the private medical service bill. To me, spending 500 dollars on beauty products, and to make it worse, on a guy? That’s simply not acceptable. The way I see it, someone with that mentality can’t survive a week without a credit card, no use in even considering a SHTF scenario.
And this guy is a firearms instructor?… probably the kind of guy that will say that a handgun is only used to fight his way to his rifle… and his facial night cream…

Once you experience the lack of stuff you took for granted, like food , medicines, your set of priorities change all of a sudden. For example, I had two wisdom tooth removed last year. On both occasions I was prescribed with antibiotics and strong Ibuprofen for the pain. I took the antibiotics( though I did buy two boxes with the same recipe just to keep one box just in case) but I didn’t use the Ibuprofen, I added it to my pile of medicines. Why? because medicines are not always available and I’m not sure if they will be available in the future. Sure, it hurt like hell, but pain alone isn’t going to kill you, so I sucked it up. Good for building up character if you ask me .

Make sacrifices so as to ensure a better future, that’s the mentality you should have if you want to be prepared. There’s stuff that is “nice to have” that has to be sacrificed to get the indispensable stuff. There’s stuff that is not “basic need stuff” but it’s also important in one way or another. My wife goes to the hairdresser once every month or two. It’s not life or death, but it does make her feel better and it boosts her morale.
I buy a game for the Xbox or a movie to watch with my wife every once in awhile, just to relax. 7 or 10 dollars a month are not going to burn a hole in my pocket. Addictions such as alcohol, drugs or even cigarettes should be avoided by the survivalist. They are bad for your health, cost a lot of money that could be much better spent, and create an addiction to something that may not be available in the future. Who will have to tolerate your grouchy mood when your brand of smokes is no longer imported after TSHTF?

FerFAL


PART II

GRAY/BLACK MARKET

Once the SHTF the black/gray market will take no time to appear all around you.
In my country, gray markets were even accepted in the end. At first it was all about trading skills or craft products for food. Districts and towns would form their own barter markets, and created their own tickets, similar to money, that was used to trade.
This didn’t last long. Those tickets were easy to make on your home computer, there was no control and eventually people went back to paper money.

These markets were usually placed on warehouses or empty land, and were managed by some wise guy and a few thugs or hired security. Anyone can go rent a kiosk inside these markets for about 50-100 pesos (about 20-30 dollars) a day and sell his goods and services. Peace within these markets is usually respected… lets just say that these managers don’t call the police if someone tries anything funny, like stealing, fighting or taking advantage of women. That’s not good for their business and anyone that tries to mess with their business finds out how much pain the human body can actually experiment or gets a free ticket to meet the Lord. Sometimes even uniformed cops manage security on these markets, for a small fee of course. As always, you still have to be careful. They may still try to pick your pockets or even attack you once you leave the market. Once you leave the market, you are on your own, as always.

These markets evolved and now a lot of different products are available. Today I visited my local market, a warehouse that is fairly well set up and cleanly managed. They had problems for selling stolen merchandise and fake Brand name clothes a few days ago.
What can be found at a local markets? Mostly food and clothing. Some have more variety than others but cheese, canned food, spices, honey, eggs, fruits, vegetables, beer, wine and cured meat are generally available, same as bakery products and pasta. These are less expensive than those found at supermarkets. Fresh fish is sometimes available but not always, people don’t trust much products that need refrigeration, and they get those at supermarkets instead.

Clothes are also popular and you can find copies of brand name clothes, imitations, or even original stolen new clothes, the same goes for shoes and snickers. Children clothes, underwear, socks, sheets and towels are all very popular. Some sell toys, but they are always China made, mostly poor quality though there are some few