Sunday, January 14, 2007

Somewhat Serious Question for NRA Types

What, other than trying to prevent carnage in our homes and on our streets, does it take to piss you people off?

If I type "Ban all handguns now", I can count on a series of websites to echo my blasphemy and arrange a well-regulated electronic militia to come here and correct my misguided notion that life is more precious than a warm gun, because a well-armed citizenry is the last bulwark against tyranny.

My question today, though, is what will it take to get you guys off your couches and protecting us?

The FBI is gathering our bank records.

The NSA is listening to our phone calls.

Bush is reading our mail.

The ballot box is being replaced by paperless, tamper-friendly computers controlled by corporations.

The president is on the news calling the majority of Americans who disagree with his Iraq escalation "irresponsible."

He can lock you away in Guantanamo or in former Soviet-bloc prisons without charges or recourse.


My understanding is that you guys think we should accept the occasional hot-headed murder or too-easy teen suicide or family member blown away by mistake because you guys are going to protect us from our government.

I'm starting to wonder what it's going to take for you guys to get pissed off. Other than people like me questioning why you need assault rifles.


Anonymous travelingal said...

I am not a NRA type although I do have a rifle in the closet which I am thinking of trading in for a

But, I saw the headlines about Bush checking bank records and it did give me pause except I recall that it has been law (or policy??) forever that any transaction over a certain amount..I think $9-10,000 is AUTOMATICALLY reported to somebody in the government. Scuse me for not knowing what's behind all this .. hoping somebody can explain.

1/14/2007 10:14 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Welcome back, travelingal! It's been a while since you've commented (I know, it's probably been a while since I've posted anything interesting enough to comment upon). Anyhow, I think the law you are referring to is for cash transactions. But, still . . .

1/14/2007 3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Actually, the $10,000 threshold applies to ANY deposit, check or cash. You will be asked what the source of the funds were and about the intended use. At the bank's discretion, they may choose to give you incremental availability to the funds over a specified period of time that must be disclosed to you.

Banks are being required to conduct this enhanced due diligence as a result of Sarbanes-Oxley legislation and anti-trerrorist, anti-money-laundering legislation.

Kiss your anonymity and your privacy goodbye.

You can't spend ANY money without the government knowing WHO you are, WHAT you are buying, WHERE you got the money to buy it, WHAT you plan to do with it after you buy it, and WHO you sell it to after you get bored with it.

C'mon, NRA! Where the fuck are ya? Drop yer cocks and grab yer Glocks! You been talkin' the talk. Time to start walkin' the walk. Ever see "Red Dawn"?

Too busy making Bambi-Jerky with your cherished 2nd Amendment, Communist-manufactured, deer-killing AK-47s?

Guess you really are the all-talk, no-action, limp-dicked pussies we always suspected you were.

Seems that beating your wife, attending NASCAR races, hanging Confederate flags in your garage, making meth in your basement and working on your car in your driveway at 11:00 at night takes a lot of time away from defending the Constitution.

I think we should take your guns away from you just for owning them under false pretences. Punk-ass bitches.

1/14/2007 6:44 PM  
Anonymous travelingal said...

Thanks XO for your detailed splanation.

Dan, well I don't know too much about Missouri politics so haven't had much to say on your posts but your guy sounds like a winner to me.

By the way, did anybody watch 24 last nite? I'm sure you're all fans. lol

1/15/2007 1:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In my minds eye, I don't want my rights to carry a gun to be taken away because of personal protection. Not so much overthrowing the government, but protecting myself from looters ie. Katrina. I want it here for myself and the protection of my family. Logically gun control effects the average person not the criminal. It won't stop them, they are probably not getting their guns legally in the first place. What gun control does is stop me, a law abiding citizen from protecting myself if need be.
As far as the rhetoric that our country is violating my God, lefties hasn't the drum been beat long enough. What are you guys gonna do about it? You attack yet you offer no solution. Where is your theoretical gun. Shit or get off the pot. If you are so offended then why not get off of your dead ass and do something about these violations.

1/15/2007 4:02 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Travelingal - I love 24, and I'm watching it now.

Anonymous - I've never argued that I could pull off a revolution with a deer rifle. That's the position of the gun nuts. My way of fighting the erosion of our liberties is to vote and seek to persuade.

Also, one of my problems with you having a gun is that so many of you are so stupid and lax with your security. A friend and neighbor delivered his guns into Kansas City criminal world by leaving them in his closet when he went on vacation.

1/15/2007 8:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your blaming a law abiding citizen because his guns are stolen from his house. Check your fire, maybe that criminal should have been gotten rid of a long time ago. Ten percent of criminals are committing ninety percent of the crimes.
Regarding the alleged or real intrusions of the Government, your right its time the Government went back to Governing. No more welfare, corporate, farming, mining, industrial, ranching or personal. No more socialism period.
Regarding the guns, the second ammendment says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". That spells things out pretty clearly. No U.S. Government is authorized to restrict your access or right to carry them. Maybe private landowners can put up a sign if they don't want you carrying on their property.
As far as the revolution is concerned I'm sure we're overdue, but who do "we" target? Party leaders? Uniformed Government employees? Mail carriers? The military? I have dozens of guns. You lead the way and I'll join in after you fire the first shot.

1/16/2007 12:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous Me said...

Dan -

I'll leave it to the NRA to characterize the position of the NRA. NOT you. But it is most certainly not the position of the NRA, or its supporters, that one could "pull of a revolution with a deer rifle." That is your intentional mischaracterization. And you know better; you're not that stupid.

You hit it yourself. There's a lot to complain about, and a lot that's wrong (there's a lot more that's right, BTW). But as long as one can effect change by voting, speaking, writing, etc., it is most certainly NOT the time to use force, whether the "deer rifle" could lead a revolution or not.

However, remember that all governments, including our own, ultimately govern by force. At base, when push comes to shove, it IS the point of a gun that matters. We hope it doesn't come to that, of course, and usually it doesn't. The iron fist of the state is wrapped in the velvet of elections, courts, infrastructure, subsidies, and bureaucracy. 80 million gun owners do provide an ultimate check on that state, however; a check you benefit from even as you condemn. That's OK, it's your right. I hope it never comes to that; if it does, the check has failed. However, you'll forgive me if I note the 3,000+ year history of man and his governments do not give me complete confidence in the State's benevolence.

The part of gun control that you don't understand, of course, is that the only people who abide by gun control laws are the ones who are not a threat in the first place. I'll surrender my weapons when you can guarantee that everyone (including government; hell, ESPECIALLY government) surrenders theirs. Until that time, you're welcome to join me at the range.

I'll give XO's foaming rant (and XO himself) the attention it - and he - deserves: none.

1/17/2007 11:37 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous Me said...

BTW, Dan:

I know you've had issues with getting back on line (and glad to see ya back). FYI, you page has formatting issues for me that never existed before the interruption. Don't know if it's your provider, something on my end, or what. I'm hardly a technogeek. But though you might like to know.

1/17/2007 11:53 AM  
Blogger Purple Avenger said...

Nobody NEEDS an SUV. Ban'em all.

2/02/2007 10:54 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home