Bloomberg'$ $peech

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,485
350
near Seattle, Wa
Welcome back jocal..... although I doubt you will stick around long enough to actually engage in a discussion and instead prefer to conduct drive by shootings.

But hope springs eternal...... so since you brought up mothers likely being the key to the gun violence debate - tell me what avenue did that other group of Mothers use to change the scourge of the drunken driving epidemic? Did they:

a ) blame the booze itself as well as go after the people who made the booze, sold the booze, and drank the booze responsibly and without any negative societal effect? Or....

b ) Did they seek to change behavior of those who used booze irresponsibly, illegally sold booze to minors, sold booze to known drunks with keys in their hands, increase awareness of irresponsible booze use and encourgage people to report abusers to the police or take their keys away ebfore they could get behind the wheel?

a or b, Jocal. Simple and direct question. I'll be waiting for your answer paitiently. Thanks in advance.
Nothing but crickets from Jeff. Nothing but more unwarranted druggie slander from Boothy. Hmmm.

Jeffie, your much-repeated desire for a strictly MADD-type approach to gun control is quite limited in scope. As we speak, public health professionals are wondering WHICH guns are doing the social damage. They will seek to limit these guns; such restrictions are in accord with the actual words of Heller.

State Courts, not MADD, will rule the day. Like the California SC, which gave broad pro-gun-control interpretations of the NRA's pre-emption limits in the 1990's (Source: Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America,[SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]By Kristin A. Goss.)[/SIZE]

Since this is a thread about Bloomberg, let's take the New York SC, which set limits on your scary black weapons yesterday.

Gun sanity may follow such logic. Registration of such weapons presently existing in NY has been ordered by lawful courts--whose words explain the rationale better than I can. Enjoy.

Like the Heller II court, which applied intermediate scrutiny to firearm restrictions

similar to those at issue here, this Court finds that the burden here is akin to a time, place,

and manner restriction. As described by the Heller II court, “[R]estrictions that impose

severe burdens (because they don't leave open ample alternative channels) must be

judged under strict scrutiny, but restrictions that impose only modest burdens (because

The Second Circuit has expressed reservations about “import[ing] substantive First Amendment 13

principles wholesale into Second Amendment jurisprudence.” Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 92 (emphasis in

original).

But that admonishment is not applicable here. This Court is not applying “substantive principles”;

rather, as the Second Circuit has explicitly held, when deciding whether a law substantially burdens a

Second Amendment right, or, in deciding what level of scrutiny to apply, “it is [] appropriate to consult

principles from other areas of constitutional law, including the First Amendment.”

Decastro, 682 F.3d at 167–68 (citing Marzzarella, 614 F.3d at 89 & n.4).

Case 1:13-cv-00291-WMS Document 140 Filed 12/31/13 Page 29 of 57

("...They do leave open ample alternative channels) are judged under a mild form of

intermediate scrutiny.” 670 F.3d at 1262 (quoting Volokh, supra, at 1471) (parentheses in

original).

The court concluded that because “the prohibition of semiautomatic rifles and

large-capacity magazines does not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their

ability to defend themselves” — because, in other words, alternative channels for the

possession of substitute firearms exist — the restrictions should be judged under

intermediate scrutiny. Id.

Calling the SAFE Act’s restrictions “a ban on an entire class of firearms,” Plaintiffs

liken the SAFE Act to the ban struck down by the Supreme Court in Heller. But unlike the

handgun ban, the SAFE Act applies only to a subset of firearms with characteristics New

York State has determined to be particularly dangerous and unnecessary for self-defense;

it does not totally disarm New York’s citizens; and it does not meaningfully jeopardize their

right to self-defense…

Current owners of the now-regulated weapons may lawfully possess

them so long as they register the weapons with the State.

...But Plaintiffs later argue that the banned features increase the utility for self-defense

— which is just another way of saying that the features increase their lethality.

...There thus can be no serious dispute that the very features that increase a

weapon’s utility for self-defense also increase its dangerousness to the public at large.

Here, New York has met that burden; substantial evidence supports its judgment that the

banned features are unusually dangerous, commonly associated with military combat

situations, and are commonly found on weapons used in mass shootings.

this is only one incident. But it is nonetheless illustrative. Studies and

data support New York’s view that assault weapons are often used to devastating effect

in mass shootings. (See Koper Decl., ¶¶ 11–14; Zimring Decl. ¶¶ 15–22; Docket

P33...

In all, the study found that assault weapons, high-capacity magazines,

or both were used in over half of all mass shootings.

The State points to other evidence as well. It suggests that it should come as no

surprise that assault weapons produced carnage in Aurora and Newtown, as The Bureau

of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms found that these weapons “were designed for rapid fire,

close quarter shooting at human beings” — or, as the report called it, “mass produced

mayhem.”

Here, New York has met that burden; substantial evidence supports its judgment that the

banned features are unusually dangerous, commonly associated with military combat

situations, and are commonly found on weapons used in mass shootings.

The Supreme Court has previously described the AR–15 as “the civilian version of the military's M–16

rifle.” Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 603, 114 S. Ct. 1793, 128 L. Ed. 2d 608

(1994). Indeed, there is no dispute that the AR-15 type rifle derives from a weapon

designed for fully-automatic military use on the battlefield. As Brain Siebel testified, the

military features of semiautomatic assault weapons “serve specific, combat-functional

ends” and are “designed to enhance the capacity to shoot multiple human targets rapidly.”

Bruen Decl. ¶¶ 13-26; Docket No. 66.)

The Chief of Police for the Rochester Police Department expresses similar sentiments, stating that assault weapons “are designed for one purpose — to efficiently kill numerous people.” (Shepard Decl., ¶ 14; Docket No. 72).

In other words, evidence suggests that the banned features make a deadly weapon deadlier.

And while there is not (and cannot be) a dispute that the outlawed features make

semiautomatic weapons easier to use, New York identifies purposes of these features that

are particularly unnecessary for lawful use. Of course, several of the banned features, like

a grenade launcher, bayonet mount, or a silencer, require no explanation. Indeed, Plaintiffs

do not explicitly argue that the Act’s regulation of firearms with these features violates the

Second Amendment.
Incredibly, the court quoted Gary Kleck, whose DGU conclusions are a rallying point for many: research anomalies curiously (and consistently) at odds with the broader public health community's findings.

And New York further points to evidence that AR-15 type rifles are “not generally


recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes,” nor used

frequently for self-defense. See Dep't of Treasury, Study on the Sporting Suitability of

Modified Semi-automatic Assault Rifles, 38 (1998); Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz...
Yes, Tom, the seven-round limit was not approved. That part of the ruling is being appealed.

The NY ruling is a refreshing state model for jurisdictions which don't want to follow Georgia or Florida.



 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,485
350
near Seattle, Wa
Well, you could always move again (hopefully to a property with running water this time) and run for the Supreme Court in New York.

By the way, the NYSC quoted Mother Jones investigative reports on the extremely high percentage of AW's use in mass killings.

And the haters be hatin'...

 
Last edited by a moderator:

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,485
350
near Seattle, Wa
Hi everybody. We meet again.

@ Sean, Spatial, and Flasher, you do good work. Carry on, bros.

Several leading gun violence researchers and authors (Tom Diaz particularly, but also Dr. Arthur Kellerman, Dr. Daniel Webster, Dr. David Hemenway IIRC), in their overviews, conclude that the gun foolishness is challengeable, but point out that no cohesive organization has ever come forward to offset the destructive, even evil, effects of the NRA/SAF/gun lobby.

Bloomberg could, and probably will IMO, make a difference here, especially combined with the average concerns of the typical mother and housewife. (Historically, the latter have been quite effective against gun proliferation: according to the History Channel, the nurture and outlook of the average female tamed the Wild West, not Samuel Colt.)

So go ahead and dismiss Bloomberg (as many of you have, and will). Please proceed to belittle and underestimate him, and the Demanding Mothers, too. But here we probably have a missing link towards solving this problem.

Which problem? Our U.S. gun violence problem. One which is 19.5X worse than other high-income countries. Unfortunately many in the pro-rights side think that having it settle at the present horrific rate is acceptable. WTF? With 110,000 human bullet perforations in the U.S. per year, a figure which is growing when one accounts for gun incident survivors, the damage should not be considered negligible IMO. The guns are bringing about their own demise: natural selection.

Somehow we have to roll back the pattern of the gun violence, and the cultural deterioration brought by the many who are promoting vigilante-based law and order.

My take: Bloomberg is committing to a key role here. Good on him.
Welcome back jocal..... although I doubt you will stick around long enough to actually engage in a discussion and instead prefer to conduct drive by shootings.

But hope springs eternal...... so since you brought up mothers likely being the key to the gun violence debate - tell me what avenue did that other group of Mothers use to change the scourge of the drunken driving epidemic? Did they:

a ) blame the booze itself as well as go after the people who made the booze, sold the booze, and drank the booze responsibly and without any negative societal effect? Or....

b ) Did they seek to change behavior of those who used booze irresponsibly, illegally sold booze to minors, sold booze to known drunks with keys in their hands, increase awareness of irresponsible booze use and encourgage people to report abusers to the police or take their keys away ebfore they could get behind the wheel?

a or b, Jocal. Simple and direct question. I'll be waiting for your answer paitiently. Thanks in advance.
Asked and answered, Jeff. See above.

Ar least your response was not douchebag, cunt, yoo hoo, blah blah blah, or other abusive bits.

It was no response after your polite request for engagement. Your vacation may have played into it.

I find it amusing and myopic (as well as convenient) that you think MADD's approach is a sole, one-size-fits-all paradigm for the problem of gun safety in the USA.

The approach and reasoning of public health officials, and the outline for their future actions, was posted on these forums by myself in a breakdown of the 2013 CDC overview. It took me ten hours to sort it for y'all--I did it carefully, with your supposed intellectual curiosity and your obsession with MADD particularly in mind.

Here it is again. See page 2.

FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE AS A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE

The public health field focuses on problems that are associated with significant levels of morbidity and mortality. The complexity and frequency of firearm-related violence combined with its impact on the health and safety of the nation’s residents make it a topic of considerable public health importance and suggest that a public health approach should be incorporated into the strategies used to prevent future harm and injuries. A public health approach involves three elements: (1) a focus on prevention, (2) a focus on scientific methodology to identify risk and patterns, and (3) multidisciplinary collaboration to address the issue.

Public health strategies are designed to interrupt the connection between three essential elements: (1) the “agent” (the source of injury [weapon or perpetrator]), (2) the “host” (the injured person), and (3) the “environment” (the conditions under which the injury occurred). This public health approach has produced successes in reduction of tobacco use, unintentional poisoning, and motor vehicle fatalities.
 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,485
350
near Seattle, Wa
Some of this is a good post, showing some thought, Rick. Thanks. I have long suspected that you have a fine mind, and a caring heart. In fact, I heard it from an anarchist who has met you, but I was virulently, repeatedly called a liar when I passed on the compliment. Let's talk.

Until the enormous U.S. gun violence problem is significantly diminished, gun safety legislation will continue. Laws are symbols of the desired direction of the future; they speak to a philosophy which guides the judges of our courts. The NRA is a maestro of that concept, and is being challenged for very good reasons.

I kept my gun because I didn't want to hear your braying and alpha dominance BS in the aftermath of giving it up.

Secondly, because I have loved and have enjoyed guns, and even became a decent shooter at one point.

Thirdly, because on the day of a Seattle gun buyback, in the very act of loading my gun into my ride, I reacted to the sustained attack of an empty bully. That bully, of course, was yourself.

I hear braying, and lots of huffing and puffing. It seems my gun ownership is quite an annoyance to you. Please lay out the "hypocrisy" you mention (repeatedly). I have never proposed that all humans turn over all guns (beyond repeating another poster's amusing image of a helicopter dangling an electromagnet to magically make the problem go away). I want battle weaponry and gun ownership to be pretty tightly regulated, however, because human behavior on a global level is evidently requiring that.

The second amendment hooey in the USA is another matter. The machine which generated the imaginary problem (and solution) will eventually have to answer for it in the public mind. (It is foolish enough on its face that that day will come, IMO.) Did you know the SAF was founded in 1973, four years before certain "patriots" re-charted the NRA into this bogus philosophy? FYI Richard Booth, the SAF founder and many others have become quite rich manipulating your fears, WHILE DESTROYING LIVES, AMIGO.

You have a beef that I am a lifelong gunowner? That I love guns in my own way? Well, too bad. What I see is that gun owners such as myself have been the problem, in that we remained silent too long in not criticizing the extreme elements of the "guns for everyone, everywhere" era of the NRA. (Of course, you and other sailors present fit this latter category.) You see, many studies show, well, that such gun enthusiasts represent a dangerous, extremist fringe element within the broader gun-owning demographic. Further, that you extremists are materially mucking things up.

The situation has the makings of good discussion. Carry on, big guy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
Hey jocal.... congrats. I just joined the NRA today. Seriously, I paid for a 3 year membership based almost entirely on a backlash to people like you. Best $75 I've ever spent. I really never had much love for the NRA, but honestly - and I AM NOT being sarcastic - you made me see the climate this country has become. And I will be damned if assnuts like you are going to take my rights away.

You seriously call ME the problem when I am the model gunowner you should be holding up as an example of what to do right. I am avid about safety, about responsibility, about logical and sane discourse, about compromise on some gun legislation, etc. And you STILL want to label ME as the problem??? Well, go fuck yourself. My gun ownership and my views DO NOT have any bearing or impact on the urban youth you pick up a gun everyday and shoot their rival drug dealer. My gun ownership and views do NOT have any bearing on the 18 year old loser sociopath who plays violent video games all fucking day long and while drugged out on Ativan, Paxil or Xanax and decides to go shoot a Congresswoman in the face.

And the fact that you think the NRA has anything to do with those urban youth picking up guns everyday and gunning down their rival drug dealers and gangmembers over turf is fucking comical. Who do you think they are being influenced by more.....a middle-aged white cracker like me and the NRA or Snooop Dog and Jay-Z?

So anyway jojo..... Wayne LaPierre thanks you for the donation. You should feel good about that. I was resisting giving them money for a long time. But seriously, you pushed me over the edge with your fucked up concepts of crime and justice. It became clear to me that LenP was correct. This fucked thinking needs to be vigorously opposed at every turn. There will be no more talk of compromise and common sense when the other side of the argument has zero interest in that. So again... congrats. You made me a convert.

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,485
350
near Seattle, Wa
Hey jocal.... congrats. I just joined the NRA today. Seriously, I paid for a 3 year membership based almost entirely on a backlash to people like you. Best $75 I've ever spent. I really never had much love for the NRA, but honestly - and I AM NOT being sarcastic - you made me see the climate this country has become. And I will be damned if assnuts like you are going to take my rights away.

You seriously call ME the problem when I am the model gunowner you should be holding up as an example of what to do right. I am avid about safety, about responsibility, about logical and sane discourse, about compromise on some gun legislation, etc. And you STILL want to label ME as the problem??? Well, go fuck yourself. My gun ownership and my views DO NOT have any bearing or impact on the urban youth you pick up a gun everyday and shoot their rival drug dealer.

And the fact that you think the NRA has anything to do with those urban youth picking up guns everyday and gunning down their rival drug dealers and gangmembers over turf is fucking comical. Who do you think they are being influenced by more.....a middle-aged white cracker like me and the NRA or Snooop Dog and Jay-Z?

So anyway jojo..... Wayne LaPierre thanks you for the donation. You should feel good about that. I was resisting giving them money for a long time. But seriously, you pushed me over the edge with your fucked up concepts of crime and justice. It became clear to me that LenP was correct. This fucked thinking needs to be vigorously opposed at every turn. There will be no more talk of compromise and common sense when the other side of the argument has zero interest in that. So again... congrats. You made me a convert.
Slow down, calm down, buddy. Somehow I am not sensing calm brain waves, I may have missed your post-vacation peacefulness. But Jeff, I can relate to the anger part.

(From our last chapter in this thread, you owe me an advancement on your understanding for the reasons why Everytown will not emulate MADD.

BTW, I spent several hours researching the eloquence and reasoning of public health experts and the superior courts for ya. But we can get back to that later.)

the urban youth you pick up a gun everyday and shoot their rival drug dealer,,,
shooting... gangmembers over turf
You bring up your concern about black street gangs A LOT. This post mentions them multiple times. It speaks to Spatial's premise that you lack equanimity wrt race relations.

Please remember I lived among black street gangs and patrolled their territories at night for seven years, unarmed, between 1970-'78, all over North America.

I guess I need to remind you that the guns in U.S. houses, used between persons who know each other, do more damage than black drug dealers.

Jeff, you may be neither "the model gunowner", nor the "reasonable" person you think you are.

Just as one example, you support the open sale of fifty caliber battle weapons.

And you compete with a sniper rifle at a distance of 5/8 of a mile.

For a third example, I found the post where you claimed your AW was once kept under your bed (and I can cite it) which you denied later.

Lastly, you propose an AW as a beneficial weapon for home self-defense, and name it as your personal preference based on skillset.

You can't have it both ways. You may be believing that you and your extreme element of the gun mentality is the new normal. It isn't.

And your post shows polarization and antagonism, neither of which are workable, meaningful or logical approaches. Your post includes offensive namecalling and insults, supporting Wofsey's general observations of your particular behavior when trapped.

But let's talk anyway. I have felt anger and been a jerk here, too, at times. my friend.

Remember when you advised me that I was entirely out of my element discussing gun safety? Those days are gone.

Remember when Tom Ray gave be the double "BEGONE" and thought it would do the trick? It didn't.

Remember when I thought the world had crashed because of the flimsy, devastating reversal included in Heller? Among other, finer minds, I have found a dozen ways to proceed effectively within the present interpretation of the second amendment.

I am more or less prepared to present a workable middle ground, and we need one. It involves a national overview of emerging firearms law and policy, and being based on reality: it is all about practical compromise. So yeah, calm down.

Mr. Jeff, congrats on your conduit to the NRA. BTW Tom Diaz, perhaps the most virulent fighter of gunslingers in the USA, advised ALL gun safety advocates to join the NRA. I would have already, except that many sailors here lay out such reasoning and emotion for me. Plus, Boothy turned me on to Thetruthaboutguns.com, and Figaro is a click above our very unique Tom Ray. Dude, I am working hard to understand your elk.

And I care for you all, as well as for the reasonable possession of firearms in the USA.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
G

Guest

Guest
I guess I need to remind you that the guns in U.S. houses, used between persons who know each other, do more damage than black drug dealers.
Then I will apparently need to remind you that you are full of shit...

Gun-related homicide is most prevalent among gangs and during the commission of felony crimes. In 1980, the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during arguments was about the same as from gang involvement (about 70 percent), but by 1993, nearly all gang-related homicides involved guns (95 percent), whereas the percentage of gun homicides related to arguments remained relatively constant. The percentage of gang-related homicides caused by guns fell slightly to 92 percent in 2008, but the percentage of homicides caused by firearms during the commission of a felony rose from about 60 percent to about 74 percent from 1980 to 2005.[5]

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/Pages/welcome.aspx#note5
LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!!! You are entitled to your own opinions. But not your own facts.

 
G

Guest

Guest
I originally was going to respond en masse to all your stuff at once, but thought I might have a better chance of you actually addressing my points if I break it up into easier to digest posts. I'm not holding my breath......

You seriously call ME the problem when I am the model gunowner you should be holding up as an example of what to do right. I am avid about safety, about responsibility, about logical and sane discourse, about compromise on some gun legislation, etc. And you STILL want to label ME as the problem??? Well, go fuck yourself. My gun ownership and my views DO NOT have any bearing or impact on the urban youth you pick up a gun everyday and shoot their rival drug dealer.
Jeff, you may be neither "the model gunowner", nor the "reasonable" person you think you are.
Just as one example, you support the open sale of fifty caliber battle weapons.
Yeah, so? How many .50 cal rifles have been used in the commission of a crime in the US? Why do you have such a hard-on for .50 Barrett rifles? I've asked you this question MANY times and not once have you answered me. I don't really expect this time to be any different. Are they just too scary looking for you?

 
G

Guest

Guest
jocal505, on 18 May 2014 - 19:52, said:

And you compete with a sniper rifle at a distance of 5/8 of a mile.

Again, so what? Does my long range shooting escapades and adventures have an impact on what a gang-banger does in Chicago or a domestic abuser in Bakersfield do? Do you think Jamal in Oakland or De'Shane in Chicago is avidly following JBSF on sailing anarchy and anxiously waiting for the next pic of my rifle or me posing next to a steel plate with splatters of copper and lead after a day at the range? And then that suddenly inspires them to pic up their Tec-9 and go sun down the drug dealer encroaching on their street corner business? Really?

And btw - I don't own a "sniper rifle". A sniper rifle is a military spec rifle used by military or LE trained "snipers". My rifle is MORE accurate than a mil-spec sniper rifle (which only has to be 1 MOA accurate) and there is FAR more to being a sniper than just shooting @ long ranges. I do not possess that training. I am simply a long range precision rifle shooter. But I guess that doesn't sound as scary as "sniper".

BTW2 - I often shoot further than 5/8th of a mile.

 
G

Guest

Guest
jocal505, on 18 May 2014 - 19:52, said:

For a third example, I found the post where you claimed your AW was once kept under your bed (and I can cite it) which you denied later.
yeah So? I didn't have kids in the house and it went back in the safe before I went to work in the morning. And I didn't actually keep it "under the bed". I have a German Shepard and there is far too much dog hair under the bed to lay a rifle down on the carpet under the bed. I stood it up in the corner near the bed. Is there some problem with having a gun out of the safe and accessible while home?

 
G

Guest

Guest
jocal505, on 18 May 2014 - 19:52, said:

Lastly, you propose an AW as a beneficial weapon for home self-defense, and name it as your personal preference based on skillset.
Again, so? Small caliber, short, lightweight carbines like the AR-15 are actually far better suited for home defense than even a pistol, shotgun or baseball bat. I've detailed why that is in numerous posts and most home defense experts and LE agree with that assessment. Are you saying that LE is wrong in the weapons they choose for selected tasks? If you don't believe me, go look it up.

And again, that decision is not based entirely on "skillset". Its a combo of skillset, preference, comfort with the weapon, safety, and utility. If it was strictly based on "skillset", I would use my bolt action "sniper rifle". But that would be hugely unsuitable for the home defense environment. Unless I suddenly found myself living in a 5/8th of a mile long house..... ;)

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
63,527
2,138
Punta Gorda FL
I don't think it's bad. This anonymous person obviously feels strongly about this issue. There are other fun things to do with a six figure sum of money. I'd probably buy boats and maybe aircraft. This person decided to try to change some laws instead. I don't support the changes he or she wants to see, but I support the right of people to participate in the political process anonymously. Don't you, Sean uhh... what was that last name again? ;)

Sincerely,

Publius

 
G

Guest

Guest
Publius, I think you're conflating anonymity because of the fear you might hang for speaking out against the King with spending money to support a political cause. Given we have laws that enshrine your right to free speech as a direct result of that previous fear - I think the need for anonymity is less of a concern. If you're concerned that your political views might harm your business then tough shit - I think that goes with the territory.

What I think the problem with anonymous $$ is that that money buys direct access to politicians that you and I don't get. A rich guy with a big checkbook gets a seat at ______ Senator/Congressman's/Presidents table and allows him to whisper directly in his or her ear. If that's happening, then I, as WE THE PEOPLE, want to know exactly who is influencing that process and WHY so I can determine through my future votes for that person if I agree with it or not. The WHY is often tied directly to the WHO. If we don't know the WHO its very hard to determine if its a good thing for the country or not.

Now if you want to anonymously want to buy a bunch of TV ads, billboards, mailers, etc because you believe in a cause - then have a nut. But the moment that money buys you a seat at the table - I FUCKING WANT TO KNOW WHO'S SITTING THERE influencing policy.

See the distinction, Publius?

 

jocal505

moderate, informed, ex-gunowner
14,485
350
near Seattle, Wa
jocal505, on 18 May 2014 - 19:52, said:

For a third example, I found the post where you claimed your AW was once kept under your bed (and I can cite it) which you denied later.
yeah So? I didn't have kids in the house and it went back in the safe before I went to work in the morning. And I didn't actually keep it "under the bed". I have a German Shepard and there is far too much dog hair under the bed to lay a rifle down on the carpet under the bed. I stood it up in the corner near the bed. Is there some problem with having a gun out of the safe and accessible while home?
Man up. A studly male specimen such as yourself should work in a few Barrett .50 cals into that home regimen.

At one point, back in the day, you offered that your battlefield-engineered weapon was under your bed. That's a little creepy IMO. So is the ritual of carrying it to and from the gun safe. So is having an AW leazning against the wall, IMO. Same for " having a gun out of the safe and accessible while home". I suppose the upside is that it gives you much joy, besides all that "security".

Creepy, creepy, and creepy in your own domicile, NTTAWWT.

And... that's not enough. Tom and others are pressing for such creepiness to be extended into public spaces.

Sorry. This whole degenerate/barbarian bit just doesn't seem too healthy, in several ways.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top