URGENT MEASURES

In the wake of any disaster in the United States, someone will take it upon himself to point out that what we consider tragedies are part of daily life in other places. Three people die in a terrorist attack in Boston (a fourth later during the manhunt) and the entire country loses its shit. Meanwhile, random bombings in places like Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and others kill a few dozen people on a daily basis.

What I infer from this is not that Americans shouldn't complain about terrorist attacks, despite the fact that they're remarkably uncommon here and, statistically speaking, we should probably worry more about every asshole in the country having access to a wide array of firearms. Instead, this underscores the fact that the United States is remarkably well prepared for a terrorist attack or (since Katrina) city-scale disaster.

Despite the appearance of chaos all week, Boston was as prepared as hell to handle what happened. The marathon planners diverted the race (as they had contingency plans developed for exactly such an event). The wounded were in hospitals within minutes, keeping the fatalities surprisingly low under the circumstances. Police secured the scene quickly and, working with federal agencies, identified the perpetrators within a day or two. Then, after the suspects ambush-killed a police officer in a patrol car, there was a moving shootout and standoff in which no one was killed despite hundreds of rounds being fired. That's because the local governments had the city on lockdown, and people obeyed the recommendations made by law enforcement. I'm sure criticism will develop as the events recede further into the past, but dang, Boston. All in all, excellent job. I'd challenge any city of nation to do better, even though I'm sure many could do equally well.

This is the point at which people start asking what we can do to prevent attacks like this in the future. The answer is clear: nothing. Sure, the errant, racist media coverage was a disaster, but that's not a matter of public policy. Short of banning public events or repealing the 4th Amendment, we're about as safe as we're ever going to be. All the metal detectors, closed-circuit cameras, armed cops, and knee-jerk proposals for new legislation won't make us one bit safer – we already have enough layers of security in place to catch the Idiot Terrorists, the only group that would be deterred by those kinds of things. When people are making backpack-sized bombs out of common household items and black powder, there really isn't much anyone can do to stop them. Yes, that's scary. That's why it's called "terrorism."

Events like this are a big part of our culture of fear, and we're encouraged to incorporate this fear into a kill-em-all worldview. But here's the thing: complete security is an illusion. If it could exist, it would horrify you to see what it looks like. What are you going to do? Refuse to leave the house? Stop attending events in cities? Stop traveling? Live in a bunker in rural Montana? We can't spend the rest of our lives scared of our shadows, either individually or as a society. There's no point in basing public policy on our inability to accept the fact that we can't be 100% safe at all times. I guess 99.99% safe will have to do. The sooner we accept that, the better off we will be.

Be Sociable, Share!

50 Responses to “URGENT MEASURES”

  1. wetcasements Says:

    "The sooner we accept that, the better off we will be."

    Or to put it another way, stop pooping your Pampers and act like a fucking adult.

    The fact that the media still portrays Republicans as somehow tough on international and military and terror issues is laughable. This is the party of scared, aggrieved white men who flinch at seeing their own shadows.

  2. ladiesbane Says:

    I heartily agree with all but one statement: "the United States is remarkably well prepared for a terrorist attack". Certain cities are beautifully prepared. Proximity to New York, city size, wealth, and relative stature of local law enforcement might be key factors. But I seriously doubt many towns would have come through the way Boston did, especially here on the west coast.

    And while I hate the culture of fear, particularly for-profit media using fear and panic for ratings and ads, pretending there is nothing to fear leads to indifferent preparation. "What would a prudent person do?" is not the same as "what will allow me to sleep comfortably at night?" — even if it should be.

  3. Sean Says:

    Too right, wetcasements! (Almost) every Conservative I know is simultaneously a Certified Tuff-Guy and scared of EVERYTHING. Right-wing talking points read like a laundry list of NOW FEAR THIS…

  4. Middle Seaman Says:

    Whatever you are taking recently Ed, it works miracles, another triple.

    100% safety doesn't even work for a family of four. Still, it's way more than a mindset. Every time we talk immigration, way too many want more money for border security, taller and longer fence, more personnel. When all TBTF banks failed in 2008, the Bush/Obama government wanted to make 100% sure that they are stable and started to transfer gifted money in the trillions to the banks. There is no money left for anything: safety net, research, infrastructure.

    The police/FBI clearly did a great job. The city was prepared. Hospitals were prepared. Some hospitals trained by Israeli physicians in large scale casualty treatment. All in all, the government did very well. Can you imagine the shortcuts if Chase would have been in charge?

  5. Glen.h Says:

    Or Middle Seaman, the parent companies of MSNBC or Fox, etc instead of Chase?

  6. hamletta Says:

    I was stalked back in the '80s before there were stalking laws. I was assaulted, my friend's dog was menaced because she wasn't home.

    There were obscene notes attached to the door with a knife. There were (expensive) unlisted phone numbers that immediately got newer, more obscene phone calls at 2 am.

    I had to force myself to live. I had to tell myself that fear could go fuck itself.

    But it was 15-20 years before I stopped feeling the adrenaline rushing through my veins at every rustle of the leaves.

  7. AB Says:

    Oh Ed…you wouldn't say this it you didn't know just how much Czechoslovak radicals were out to get you and everything you hold dear.
    http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/post/48547675807/the-definitive-people-who-thought-chechnya-was-the

  8. Arslan Says:

    Conservatives and Islamophobes are definitely cowards of the highest degree. They say things to me like: "MUSLIMS ARE TRYING TO KILL US!" I wonder if these people actually bother to find the Muslims in their city. More likely than not, they own a small tobacco shop or something similar. See if we're "at war with Islam," everything changes. You don't get up, pour some cereal, read the morning paper, and then go on the internet to comment on Facebook. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. If we were at war with them, you'd know. I go out every day and I'm surrounded not only by Muslims, but Caucasian Muslims including Chechens. To date I haven't had so much as one look at me the wrong way.

  9. c u n d gulag Says:

    To the Conservative mind, even a mole-hill requires an Oxygen tank, a Sherpa guide, a couple of pistols, and a John Wayne strut.

    If you looked at any Reich-wing site over the last few days, or the trolls on leftie ones, the comments were all, "Well, I don't care if they did lock Boston down. Me any my pals would have roamed the streets, locked and loaded, looking for these EBIL MOOZLUMZ!"

    Uhm yeah, right…
    Bubba, if this was your home town of Siblingschtupp, the only thing that would be locked would be your doors, and the only thing loaded, would be the Depends that you're wearing while cowering in your basement.

    I grew up in NY City, and all of us who lived there knew that any and every day, any and every train station, bus stop, subway, airport, ballgame, concert, park, museaum, zoo, or ANY place with a large gathering of people, was a potential terrorist target.
    Did we sit in our basements, cowering?
    No.
    We went on with our lives, and made sure that we were a cautious as we could, or needed to be – which wasn't much, because there isn't really much that you can do, except be alert to the possibility.

    My "favorite" moment, and I'm sure it was a real favorite for people who might actually be terrorists, was when I saw just how stupid, scared people can become.
    It happened right after 9/11, when I watched people flock to Home Depot's, and WalMart's, and local hardware stores, during the anthrax scare, buying up all of the plastic wrap and duct-tape.
    We had shortages of plastic wrap and duct-tape in my part of NC, where I lived at that time.

    WTF, thinks I?!?!

    I always wanted to ask one of these folks, "Ok, so you paid hundreds of dollars for plastic wrap and duct-tape, and wrapped your homes in it, to protect you and your family from anthrax attacks by terrorists…
    Uhm…
    You do realize, don't you, that if you ever actually could figure out a way to wrap everyone and everything so securely in that plastic wrap and duct-tape, that anthrax couldn't enter, then neither could Oxygen – and so, you'd have effectively suffocated yourself and your whole family, saving yourself the terror of death via anthrax attack by terrorists?"

    The whole point of terrorism, is to scare people – terrify them.
    And terrified people do stupid things, like give away rights, for some small measure of security – or think wrapping eveything in plastic wrap and duct-tape could protect them from anthrax.

    And I've got some news for all of the armed Bubba's and Bubbette's out there in small town, or rural, Sisterschtupp:
    The terrorist aren't coming to get YOU!

    When they do come, they're coming to terrorize big cities, like NY, Boston, Chicago, DC, LA, etc.
    Ya wanna know why?
    'Cause people who live there, ain't fraidy-scared!

    Why bother with terrorizing YOU, with your cache of assault weapons, Bubba and Bubbette, in Sisterschtupp?
    Hell, you're ALREADY terrified!!!!!

  10. Freeportguy Says:

    As a majority, those requesting the most protection from authorities and government against terrorists and bad guys are the very same doing their best to gut local/state/federal government…

  11. bb in GA Says:

    Not to be a 'tuff guy' poser, but wasn't anyone offended how the people of the Boston area submitted to being imprisoned in their own homes by the authorities because of just 2 (two) bad guys. Really? What are the odds of out of hundreds of thousands of people that they are gonna do you harm?

    I think it is sad that no one there is raising hell….

    //bb

  12. c u n d gulag Says:

    bb,
    I said the same thing on Friday morning, when I woke up and heard that they'd just locked-down the city of Boston, and the sorrounding towns.

    Really?
    You lock-down the other cradle of American democracy for some 19 year-old who might still have pressure-cooker bombs?

    But I think it was because they used bombs.
    If they had walked around, firing AR-15's into the crowd near the finish line, and got away, I wonder if they'd have locked-down Boston then?
    And, I'm gonna say, I don't think so.

    And as I wrote on a couple of sites then – we'll sooner have mandatory background checks, registration, insurance, and limits on the purchases, of pressure-cookers, than on assault weapons.

    Or, we will have, unless there's a NPCA – National Pressure-Cooker Association – and they lobby our Senators and Congresscritters with enough money and power.

  13. bb in GA Says:

    @cund

    The sticking point is always that US Constitution. There is no direct mention of pressure cookers therein….

    If the Left thinks it is time to change the Constitution, then 'cowboy up' and do the required evangelizing and educating required to make that happen.

    Stop the bullshit lawyer/politician tricks of corroding the Constitution by end run passage of laws that you really know in your heart are not Constitutional. This requires millions of dollars and years in the judicial system to correct (i.e. Heller)

    Amend the Constitution and then see what me and Bubba will do. If we do wrong then strike us down. You will have a legitimate basis to do so then.

    //bb

  14. Dookie Says:

    Wow…Couldn't agree more. I have been using many of those same arguments and reasoning in relation to the Sandy Hook shootings and against the knee-jerk proposals for new legislation that followed that tragic event.

  15. Well, mostly Says:

    Damn! I miss George Carlin.

  16. Nick-B Says:

    @BB Wait, it is the LEFT that is eroding the constitutional rights with blatantly anti-constitutional laws (Patriot Act), warrantless wiretapping, and secret CIA kill lists? It was my understanding that all this started under Bush (and was, sadly, continued to some extremes under Obama.

    About this attack, though, is something that amuses me greatly. Since we find out that it probably was a naturalized citizen foreigner that did it, now some people are freaking out and demanding we do better to prevent any alien from becoming a citizen if they will later become a "terrorist". And I just stop and think… How many immigrants that spend long enough time here to become a citizen have we had commit such "terrorist" acts compared to the overall number of immigrants overall?

    Do we really need to treat every immigrant as a potential terrorist because of the actions of not even .001% of them?

  17. Jon Says:

    I'd prefer five nines.

  18. Jon Says:

    Also, as point of fact, the term lockdown is a misnomer. I live in Waltham, the city that shares a direct border with Watertown. The governor *requested* we all stay indoors. And we did. Because we pay professionals to do this sort of thing for us.

    All your histrionics about liberty blah blah blah is falling on deaf ears as we witness the projection of your insecurities.

  19. bb in GA Says:

    @Nick-b

    ADHD?

    I am not here to defend the stupidity of the Bush admin with the anti-Constitutional stuff they helped pass.

    The focus here was cund's desire to do away with THIS particular right that is specifically mentioned in our Constitution. And yes, it is the Left that wants the change.

    Go for it! Honest, straight up…amend the Constitution..delete or change the 2A, if that's what you want.

    //bb

  20. c u n d gulag Says:

    bb,
    The only way to stop a bad guy with a pressure-cooker, is a good guy with a pressure-cooker!

    How about Amendment 2(a):
    'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear pressure-cookers shall not be infringed.'

    Oh, and bb, I'm going to ask you what I ask other gun lovers – "What well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of your free state, do you belong to?"

  21. John Doheny Says:

    I was living in Canada when 9/11 happened. Our upstairs neighbors were Brits who'd lived through numerous IRA bombings in London, and they were vastly amused by what weenies Americans were. As they put it, "a couple of planes fly into buildings and you immediately llock yourself in the loo and wipe your arses with your own constitution" lol.

    "statistically speaking, we should probably worry more about every asshole in the country having access to a wide array of firearms."

    Damn straight. Just yesterday, three guys were shot just five blocks from my home here in New Orleans. The perpetrators, presumably armed, are still at large, yet the city isn't "locked down," in fact it's barely a topic of conversation at the bar next door. Just the daily slaughter we take for granted in this country.

  22. c u n d gulag Says:

    bb,
    We also have the 1st Amendment Right to free speech.

    But we can still charge a person for creating a panic by screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

    I might want to test that 1st Amendment Right by walking into a crowded gun shop, and screaming "HAND'S UP – THIS IS A STICK-UP!!!" -but I use some self-restraint.

    In other words, even Constitutional rights have some limits.
    And sometimes, we need to show some restraint.

    And for those who don't, or can't, show some restraint, there could/should be some consequences, or ways to insure some level of restraint.

    No one is trying to take away a simple handgun or two to protect a person's home. Or a shotgun.
    Or a rifle or two, to hunt with.

    But, unless you are part of a well regulated militia, defending your state by holding off the enemies of freedom, or charging the hilltop position of the enemies of freedom, there really is no reason to have any assault weapon – let alone dozens.

    And something tells me, that if any of the wannabe "patriots" out there in this country want to test which will win in the case of Assault Weapon Wielding Patriot v. US Government Drone, the movie we'll be watching about them, will more likely be called "Red Mist," or, "Red Missed," than "Red Dawn."

  23. John Doheny Says:

    @BB In GA

    "Stop the bullshit lawyer/politician tricks of corroding the Constitution by end run passage of laws that you really know in your heart are not Constitutional."

    Huh? I hate to break this to you, but there are already numerous laws in place restricting the type and number of weapons civilians may own in this country, and even the current right-leaning supreme court shows no inclination to strike them down. If restricting your right to "bear arms" in the form of bazookas, shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missiles, and tactical nukes is somehow "unconstitutional," I'm afraid the ship has already sailed.

  24. John Doheny Says:

    @BB in GA,

    "Not to be a 'tuff guy' poser, but wasn't anyone offended how the people of the Boston area submitted to being imprisoned in their own homes by the authorities because of just 2 (two) bad guys. Really? What are the odds of out of hundreds of thousands of people that they are gonna do you harm?

    I think it is sad that no one there is raising hell…."

    My understanding from friends in Boston is there was no hell to raise. Martial law was not declared, what happened was that the mayor and the BPD strongly urged people, particularly people in the Waterton area, to stay indoors and not to answer the door to anyone not showing a badge. This seems prudent to me, as there was an active police chase going on in the area and since the suspects had thrown explosive devices out of their getaway car there was concern about unexploded ordinance along their route.

    In any case, people were not "ordered" to stay inside, in fact my friends who had to go to work, did. Others went down to the corner bar and the Dunkin Donuts, all of which remained open.

  25. Bazinga! Says:

    BB – what a shock, somebody on the internet saying that people cooperating with the police is somehow an indication of Martial Law or some authoritarian statist thing or how we're all submitting to the gubbermint or something or other. Blah… effing… blah. So tired of you guys.

    What happened in Watertown was an amazing example of people working WITH their government. Just the night before the older brother was lobbing GRENADES at cops. GRENADES. But yeah, let's not consider that extraordinary. Let's just say "hey, it hardly ever happens, so whatever dude. LIBERTY!!!"

    A day of inconvenience to help catch a couple of assholes who detonated explosives a major public event? Guys who had left other devices around the city. Guys who had homemade grenades. And people "submitted" to the cops to help find them?!?! Yeah, we're practically living in Stalinism, dude.

  26. draftmama Says:

    Hey – we love it out here in rural (semi) Montana. No one bothers us.

  27. bb in GA Says:

    @john

    great to know. thanks about the restrictions. What about the 4A violations of ordering people out of their homes while the PoPo and military searched. Did that happen?

    Re: 2A – We are not talking about military grade weapons here (some of which could be classified as artillery or ordnance) I know technology has blurred the edges about what is a 'bear-able' arm, but we both know where the Left (e.g. Sen Feinstein, our Pres, and many others) wants to go.

    The Sen has stated publicly she wants an end to private ownership of any firearms…period. That's the driving wheel on the discussion. The goal – zero private ownership.

    The end of the 2A, which many on the Left want desperately.

    Fine, make a straight ahead effort to change it. Bazookas are not what I'm talking about and I think Liberals who bring that up are changing the subject.

    @cund

    We have remedies at law (after the fact) for violations of others' rights using the 1A. But they are NOT built around 'prior restraint' like the limiters of the 2A propose.

    Why not vigorously enforce the existing gun laws for a few years before we add to the list? Check out Mr. Holder's 'vigorous' enforcement at the Federal level.

    The SCOTUS has wiped out the militia argument for the 2A. It is an individual right.

    Rights don't guarantee success or desired outcomes. You are right, my having an AK or AR is pissin' in the wind against a drone, but it doesn't change my Right.

    //bb

  28. Xynzee Says:

    @bb: "The SCOTUS has wiped out the militia argument for the 2A. It is an individual right."

    Shall we now talk "cheap lawyer tactics"? Hmmm?

    That argument undermines your oft taken position that the Founding Fathers made a distinction between x and y. Eg ordinance.

    The obvious question is why did they explicitly state in the 2A "well regulated militia"?

    Was that a typo? Or something that they hadn't erased perhaps? So if its implied that ordinance and artillery are off the table as far as the 2A is concerned, then why is what is explicitly stated is treated as optional?

  29. c u n d gulag Says:

    bb,
    Let's not pretend that our SCOTUS never made any stupid, ignorant, racist, misogynist, xenophobic, or homophobic, decisions.

    Dred Scott, and Citizens United, are particularly egregious, for someone like me.

    But, then, there are those out there (not you), who might think Brown V. Board of Education, and/or Roe, are particularly egregious.

  30. Alan C Says:

    Wecasements–of course conservatives are scared of their own shadows. If you haven't noticed, those shadows are black.

  31. Elle Says:

    These entitled straight, non-disabled, white men who demand that liberties be sacrificed for their reassurance aren't the same crew who routinely howl down people who talk about how they're not safe in public ever? Who don't mind a culture that tolerates street harassment of women and disabled people, gay bashing, or racist policing?

    How marvellous it must be to have your irrational fears pandered to under the aegis of 'security' while trivialising and dismissing the rational fears of everyone else.

  32. N Says:

    ladiesbane is right–compare the Chris Dorner reaction to the Boston reaction. Despite most calling it terrorism from the start, motives weren't known at the time of the "voluntary" Watertown lockdown.

    The searches of some homes do not appear to have been voluntary:

  33. sluggo Says:

    @ N

    I figured this was happening in Watertown. It is pretty sick. The militarization of the police is something to really worry about.

    If we give up our 4th amendment rights, don't you by default, give up your 2nd amendment rights ??

  34. Larkspur Says:

    I'm going to digress from the Constitutional aspects here in order to think about those things that Boston did right. First, a big, well-attended event had been properly organized. The crowd barriers were a problem, so we might want to consider barriers that are more easily moved.

    The medical tent was staffed. People who were being treated for sprains and dehydration immediately removed themselves so that the injured could be treated. Umpteen dozen unofficial first responders sprang into action. Some runners kept on going to the hospital to donate blood. Some of the first victims to get to the hospital were brought by other civilians, despite the crowds and the uproar. People cooperated in getting photos and vids to authorities. During the search, people mostly sat tight and didn't complicate the scene.

    One of the things this tells me is that a lot more of us should attend Red Cross emergency classes, that businesses as well as private households should have well-stocked basic first aid packs, and that we should all have at least a three day supply of basics on hand in case we can't get out to shop, or if the power's out. We need to stash emergency items in our cars, too.

    We all need to be more aware of our neighbors, specifically who is elderly or disabled and may need special help in an emergency. We need to have radios and batteries and flashlights in good working order. We also need to be aware of alternate routes to and from home and work, and which hospitals are designated trauma sites.

    These are basic disaster preparations that we should all be doing already, that most of us don't do, and that others do but let slide. (My hand-crank radio was stolen out of my car months ago and I haven't replaced it, and I haven't rotated the bottled drinking water in a while.) None of this involves either shock or awe, but disasters are going to happen, and the better prepared we are, the less inclined we will be to panic.

    Peoples' lives got saved in Boston specifically because of near-instantaneous civilian first aid efforts. More of us need to be ready. In a sense, we kind of need to stop thinking about terror and start thinking about what we *can* do in advance.

  35. Bonnie Says:

    I lived in a rural town in NC (pop.800) when the Twin Twers went down. I was amazed at how frightened people were there. " Do you think we're in any danger?" people would ask me….to which my standard response was always " You're kidding, right."

    But if you think about it, poisoning the water supply of a dozen poorly guarded rural towns here and there about the country would cause REAL consternation. Lets say people in East Jesus, Montana, woke up to the news that half the population ( the ones who got up early) had died over their cups of morning coffee and that the same thing had happened in Bumfuck, Kansas, and Lemon Grove, Mississippi, as well as in Shiverford, Maine and no place, Tennessee. Now THAT would be terrorism of a sophisticated sort, because it would mean that no one was safe anywhere.
    The guy who smugly commented that "nobody bothers us in Montana" would have to rethink his position. I

  36. Major Kong Says:

    @bb

    We've had very strict federal regulation of automatic weapons since the late 1930s. Quite effectively I might add. Nobody has shot up a bank with a Thompson or a B.A.R. since anyone can remember.

    It's tough to argue that a Thompson SMG counts as "ordnance" when it fires a .45 ACP handgun round, yet those are highly (and presumably constitutionally) regulated.

    If the feds are within at constitutional rights to regulate something that fires 700 rounds per minute (cyclic) I don't see why regulating 70 rounds per minute is out of constitutional bounds.

  37. Bernard Says:

    so sad to see the same mindset of "my guns means Protection". such idiocy. the Right can't ever seem to realize how idiotic such weapons are against the Military/Police. the very same Military, ie. "love it or leave it, i support the Troops" bs coming from the last refuge of scoundrels.

    it is so sad,yet true to form to watch the Right repeat the same old "fear" talking points.

    i guess the stupid white guys really do have to die off. obviously breathing doesn't not afford the capacity to think or reason as well.

  38. DJ Says:

    Hey, if 99.99% is good enough for condoms, it's good enough for me.

  39. Robert Says:

    I remember the morning of 9/11. I was on my way to work at a Federal agency. It honestly didn't occur to me that I had any reason not to go in that day. I am still baffled by the wave of Ohshitohshitohshitwereallgonnadie that swept the country. I am more concerned about how my son is going to do at school today than terrorism.

  40. Bitter Scribe Says:

    …here was a moving shootout and standoff in which no one was killed…

    Wasn't the older brother killed in the shootout? Or are you basing this on how he might have died from being run over by his brother during the getaway?

  41. lless Says:

    By definition we can't have absolute security when the Supreme Court embraces an individual right to sew insurrection in the guise of the Second Amendment.

  42. Nunya Says:

    Everyone, give BB a break. He is a regular reader and commenter on ginandtacos and he brings a different perspective that we may not have. I have debated him several times and he is decidedly not a troll. Be respectful, be polite and realize than there are a great many people who see the world in an entirely different way than you do and that geography plays an important part in that equation.

    BB, I am appreciative of your commentary and admire your courage and persistence in reading a blog that offends you on a daily basis. You have brought forth the Southern perspective time and again against fierce criticism. That takes balls and I commend you for doing it. Well played, Sir.

  43. c u n d gulag Says:

    What Nunya said!

    bb, hopefully you didn't think I was disrespectful of you.
    I didn't think I was, but let me know, and I'll try to make sure that it doesn't happen again.
    I also appreciate you take on things, and your willingness to have repectrul discussions with us. Otherwise, we're in our own echo-chamber – and it's always important to hear from other folks.

  44. Bonnie Says:

    I was born in the south of intensely Southern parents. I went to college in the south. I chose to live in the Carolina's for eight years thereafter.

    I have NO. Respect, NONE, for the point of view adopted by a lot of Southerners. I have grown up and put away childish things.

    Relativism is not the answer. Some things are just absolutely wrong.

  45. Xynzee Says:

    With Nunya. I do give him a break and will even back him up on occasions.

    BB: still will shout you a beer when you get down here.

  46. Jak the Yak Says:

    Best thing I've read here, and that is saying a LOT.

  47. bb in GA Says:

    Thanks for the many kind comments. A hard time from regular posters is to be expected here – just don't talk about my momma :-)

    @cundgulag – see above – the only thing I find unseemly (not in you) is personal vitriol. It is the ideas that you want to test – not the person's character or personal worth.

    @major kong

    your logic is irresistible. If 700 rounds/min why not a single shot? But what about the part that says 'shall not be infringed'?'

    And, of course, just because something is (can you say, back in the day, racial segregation?) doesn't mean that it is right.

    //bb

  48. bb in GA Says:

    @xynzee

    "Shall we now talk "cheap lawyer tactics"? Hmmm?"

    You (when you lived here) and I are the militia, always have been, always will..

    Are you saying that Mr Heller, in defense of what he believed is his Right under the 2A to OWN a freakin' handgun (while living in DC) and the McDonald case in Chicago, which nailed it for the States constitutes "cheap lawyer tricks?"

    I think of CLTs as being politicians who want to make ammo be a federal registered item because it contains 'explosives' that the criminal/terrorist could extract, one round at a time, to make a bomb.

    That is CLT thinking to me…

    //bb

  49. bb in GA Says:

    RE: The well 'regulated' militia

    In 1789, regulated did not mean controlled like it means today.

    It meant similar to the word 'regular' about your intestinal function. You don't control it directly but when you are 'regular' life is better.

    A well working militia is the desired outcome when the people are familiar with and comfortable with firearms, so their right to possess and bear arms is important. You might argue that since we have professionalized the 'militia' in the NG and the State Police in the various states that we no longer need the 2A.

    Again, I say fine. Do the hard work of educating and persuading the citizens that it is time for an Amendment change. So far, your side has failed to do that and has tried to shortcut the process with Chicken Sh-t Lawyer/Politician Tricks

    The deeper reading of the Constitution writers shows they very much believed in personal defense and also the bearing of arms to resist government tyranny in the end. Others have pointed out that you would have a near zero chance of prevailing in resisting the US gov. "Resistance is futile. Lay down your arms."

    Naaaah

    //bb