When Out And About Tomorrow

Comments

7 responses to “When Out And About Tomorrow”

1. 

   Prince of Darkness_666

   October 24, 2016

   I still cant believe they get away with calling themselves non partisan

2. 

   Penigma

   October 24, 2016

   Well, given you call them “pro-criminal”, I guess we understand you’re a long way from non-partisan.

   So, Mitch, perhaps you’re advocates can argue how a ban on large cap weapons and/or assault rifles is unconstitutional, given the dicta from McDonald v. Chicago, authored by Scalia iirc,

   But, thanks for letting me know about this. It’s not far from home, maybe I’ll show up and open up a can of whoop-ass on the pro-nukes-in-the-hands-of-crazies crowd.

   Or, I will show up and simply say to my fellow citizens, whom I respect but with whom I disagree, that limiting the types of weapons citizens may own isn’t unconstitutional and IS part of de-mystifying guns as a solution to all ill.s

3. 

   Mitch Berg

   October 24, 2016

   Pen,

   Well, given you call them “pro-criminal”, I guess we understand you’re a long way from non-partisan.

   Anyone who thinks I’m “non-partisan” on the Second Amendment needs medication.

   I’m a partisan for freedom. A militant for the founding father’s definition of “citizen” – which included “having the means to hand to see to the protection of one’s self, family, property and community”, without having to ask the government to come by and see to it first, because a citizen governs him or herself. Disarm the citizen, and he or she is not a citizen anymore, but a subject. Someone whose safety, liberty, and life itself exists only with the permission of the ruler.

   Anyone who’s not a ‘partisan’ for that, I’ve got no time for.

   So, Mitch, perhaps you’re advocates can argue how a ban on large cap weapons and/or assault rifles is unconstitutional, given the dicta from McDonald v. Chicago, authored by Scalia iirc,

   a) They’re not “large-capacity” magazines. They’re magazines.

   b) It was Scalia’s dicta from Heller, and you’ve been misreading those for eight years. He said that some prudent restrictions were constitutional – and, as any good conservative would say – best left to legislatures and courts rather than ruled from the bench. But they had to meet a test of upholding the fundamental right of the people. And that fundamental right is to protect themselves, their families, their property and their community without having that protection rationed out by Big Brother, as you’d seem to prefer.

   But, thanks for letting me know about this. It’s not far from home, maybe I’ll show up and open up a can of whoop-ass on the pro-nukes-in-the-hands-of-crazies crowd.

   a) Again with the strawman. Who’s asking for nukes?

   b) Neither you nor I can open a can of anything; all questions are to be submitted in advance. It’s a shame – I was hoping to make Nancy Nord Bence cry in public.

   c) And b is a good thing for you, because Bryan Strawser and Sarah Cade would gut you like a deer, rhetorically speaking. They don’t even need me to do it.

   limiting the types of weapons citizens may own isn’t unconstitutional

   Well, it possibly is – and at any rate, it’s pointless and ineffective. We tried it for ten years, it failed. Today, ten times as many people are killed with fists and feet, and dozens of times as many by knives and baseball bats, than by guns with “large magazines”.

   The actual data don’t bear out any reason for concern about so-called “assault weapons”, much less legislation. The only reason to ban them is to maintain some arbitrary sense of hierarchy.

   and IS part of de-mystifying guns as a solution to all ill

   Again with the strawmen. You really really need to read about logical fallacies“, since you clearly have not, and so much of your rhetoric, Pen, relies on them. Seriously – read the link. .

   The only people to whom guns are “mystical” are the grabbers. To the rest of us, they’re just tools.

   Dont’ project!

4. 

   DMA

   October 24, 2016

   My Republican mother went to a League of Women Voters meeting in the late 60s. Took her about 5 minutes to realize she was in the wrong room.

5. 

   Deplorable Swiftee

   October 25, 2016

   “Maybe I’ll show up and open a can of whoop-ass”

   Baahahahahahahahaaaa!

   Teh peeve, you pathetic little bug, James OKeefe has outed you! The left can’t count on their effeminate, beta males, so they hire Union thugs and public school valedictorians to do the dirty work.

   That’s why I always carry bug spray with me when ever there is a chance I might encounter leftist cockroaches. One squirt in between the antennae, and I’ve got a solid 5 minutes of come to Jesus time with them.

   You stay home and get that kitchen cleaned up.

6. 

   bikebubba

   October 25, 2016

   Regarding nukes, the phrase is “keep and bear arms”, and quite frankly I don’t know that too many people are going to get near enough that 12-25kG of plutonium (plus tritium, plus high explosive, etc..) to carry it. But that said, people used to own private artillery–the Mormons had a couple of cannon they pulled west, and ships used to have a few to put the fear of God into small time pirates.

   And really, I don’t think it would be a big deal if someone owned a working tank or jet fighter. If the owner decides to make big problems with it, you simply appeal to people who have the ability to take that item out of commission–starting with the supplier of fuel, to be blunt about the matter.

   Another perspective; the owners of the thousands of commercial airliners and millions of trucks and railroad cars have about the same opportunity to do damage as do the owners of tanks and jet fighters. Let’s not forget the Pareto Principle, and that it wasn’t an F-15 or B-2 that brought down the World Trade Center.

7. 

   bosshoss429

   October 25, 2016

   Wow! At Schneider theater. Anti gun crowd has apparently mustered their forces. Already about 25 here.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.