What a cocksucker! Who the hell does he think he is? Fucking dumbass!
For one thing. He is in a state-protected gun-free zone. We don't need people that stupid in positions of power. He could have just left the weapon in his car.
"For one thing. He is in a state-protected gun-free zone."
Yes, this is a wonderful example of how well the "State" does at protecting you and ensuring that it is truly gun-free. In Colorado for instance, if a public building is to be made gun free, there must be guards at the entrances to insure it truly is gun free.
It is often the contention that people don't need guns because the police are there to protect them. I'm sincerely glad that this case that so thoroughly puts lie to that tiresome assertion didn't result in anyone being hurt. I found Junior's outrage at someone not being willing to depend entirely on the police for protection to be very illuminating. And quite ironic.
So you believe that the mayor was justified in scoffing at the law? Wanna bet he leaves his pistol at home from now on?
The solution is very simple. Most courthouses and many schools use metal detectors. Normally, someone such as a mayor would be considered a trusted person. Nobody wants security so foolproof that no one is trusted.
You know. This whole thing is getting a little bit too heated and too silly for me. I feel like I'm just a troll making fun of the ridiculous state of the gun culture in the U.S.A. I think I'll come back when there is something important for me to say.
No law is followed 100%, To suggest that because a law doesn't stop an infraction every time, the law is a failure, is ridiculous. Name any other law that is never broken.
True, no law is followed 100%. Its also interesting that Texas, a state everyone seems to think is allowing guns everywhere prohibits people carrying firearms, while a liberal bastion such as Minnesota, not only can't prohibit permit holders from carrying at city council meetings, they also carry in the state Capitol building. At least Colorado's law accepts the implied responsibility the government incurs when forcing you to disarm.
Anonymous, you're missing the point. Many laws are against doing actual harm. Owning and carrying guns are not fundamentally harms. We should have laws against causing genuine harms, whether everyone follows those laws or not. But laws against things that people just don't like are bad laws.
No GC you are missing the point. Guns have proven to be unintentionally deadly in general use in society (a genuine harm as you put it) and we can stop some of those unintended deaths with simple safety precautions. Manufactures of lead paint (I'm sure) never intended their product would be deadly (especially to children) but it was, so we now have laws to curb the use of that product, to save peoples lives, or from becoming seriously ill.
SS, Of course just as no law can be 100% effective, neither can a police force. But I happen to agree with Mike. To many people are arming themselves because of irrational fear and that's not a good thing.
Believe what you will, Anonymous, though you never offer your own proposals regarding gun control. The good news is that most of the country is going my way.
GC lying again. I have stated my position outright AND by my comments on particular issues. Since I know you read this blog everyday and even more than once a day, you are either lying, or stupid. I say you are lying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Anonymous, I could well conclude that you've been locked up for a while, since we had some blissfully peaceful time with no accusations of lying and so forth when you were gone. But I see you've been let out into public again--more's the pity.
Good question, "how come our police aren't doing something about it?"
ReplyDeleteWhat a cocksucker! Who the hell does he think he is? Fucking dumbass!
ReplyDeleteFor one thing. He is in a state-protected gun-free zone. We don't need people that stupid in positions of power. He could have just left the weapon in his car.
"For one thing. He is in a state-protected gun-free zone."
ReplyDeleteYes, this is a wonderful example of how well the "State" does at protecting you and ensuring that it is truly gun-free. In Colorado for instance, if a public building is to be made gun free, there must be guards at the entrances to insure it truly is gun free.
It's the States failure because criminals insist on breaking the law?
DeleteIt's the state's failure to respect the rights of its residents.
DeleteIt is often the contention that people don't need guns because the police are there to protect them. I'm sincerely glad that this case that so thoroughly puts lie to that tiresome assertion didn't result in anyone being hurt. I found Junior's outrage at someone not being willing to depend entirely on the police for protection to be very illuminating. And quite ironic.
DeleteSo you believe that the mayor was justified in scoffing at the law? Wanna bet he leaves his pistol at home from now on?
DeleteThe solution is very simple. Most courthouses and many schools use metal detectors. Normally, someone such as a mayor would be considered a trusted person. Nobody wants security so foolproof that no one is trusted.
You know. This whole thing is getting a little bit too heated and too silly for me. I feel like I'm just a troll making fun of the ridiculous state of the gun culture in the U.S.A. I think I'll come back when there is something important for me to say.
No law is followed 100%, To suggest that because a law doesn't stop an infraction every time, the law is a failure, is ridiculous. Name any other law that is never broken.
DeleteTrue, no law is followed 100%. Its also interesting that Texas, a state everyone seems to think is allowing guns everywhere prohibits people carrying firearms, while a liberal bastion such as Minnesota, not only can't prohibit permit holders from carrying at city council meetings, they also carry in the state Capitol building.
DeleteAt least Colorado's law accepts the implied responsibility the government incurs when forcing you to disarm.
Anonymous, you're missing the point. Many laws are against doing actual harm. Owning and carrying guns are not fundamentally harms. We should have laws against causing genuine harms, whether everyone follows those laws or not. But laws against things that people just don't like are bad laws.
DeleteNo GC you are missing the point. Guns have proven to be unintentionally deadly in general use in society (a genuine harm as you put it) and we can stop some of those unintended deaths with simple safety precautions. Manufactures of lead paint (I'm sure) never intended their product would be deadly (especially to children) but it was, so we now have laws to curb the use of that product, to save peoples lives, or from becoming seriously ill.
DeleteSS,
Of course just as no law can be 100% effective, neither can a police force. But I happen to agree with Mike. To many people are arming themselves because of irrational fear and that's not a good thing.
Believe what you will, Anonymous, though you never offer your own proposals regarding gun control. The good news is that most of the country is going my way.
DeleteI have but all you do is insult and never address the issue. That's your response whenever you disagree, or have no rational response, insult.
DeleteGC lying again. I have stated my position outright AND by my comments on particular issues. Since I know you read this blog everyday and even more than once a day, you are either lying, or stupid. I say you are lying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
DeleteAnonymous, I could well conclude that you've been locked up for a while, since we had some blissfully peaceful time with no accusations of lying and so forth when you were gone. But I see you've been let out into public again--more's the pity.
Delete