For laughs
12 Responses to “For laughs”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
June 11th, 2004 at 1:00 pm
If only the people in the WTC had pistols, they may have been able to shoot down those planes before they hit the towers… 😉
June 11th, 2004 at 1:04 pm
Yes tom, that’s what I’m saying.
June 11th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
No, what you seem to be saying is that the government ought to be telling people to arm themselves to protect themselves against terrorists — a move that’s almost as likely to be useful as stocking up on duct tape and plastic wrap.
June 11th, 2004 at 2:53 pm
Tom, tell that to the law students in West Virginia who survived a shooting spree because one of their own had a firearm.
Not every terrorist attack will be on the scale of 9-11. In fact, going by global statistics, that was the exception, rather than the rule. Far more common is the small scale attack, and those can certainly be defeated through paying close attention to events around you, and having the capability and willingness to act.
That’s not even considering the collateral effects of a major attack, with the resulting breakdown in local order. I need only point to the various LA riots.
9-11 was a major motivator in my decision to arm myself, not because I expect I’ll need to shoot an airliner out of the sky, but because I may need to defend my self from smaller terrorist acts ie suicide bombers, gunners, etc.
That’s why the fact that firearms aren’t even mentioned in the Homeland Security help pages is ridiculous.
June 11th, 2004 at 4:23 pm
Rich:
What’s funny is that I agree that the homeland security pages are ridiculous. I just don’t think the omission of firearms from the page is anywhere near the most egregious problem.
June 11th, 2004 at 4:26 pm
I didn’t say it was egregious. I just found it funny. If the shit hits the fan, I’ll be glad to have a gun handy. Now, where’d i put that duct tape?
June 11th, 2004 at 6:24 pm
I think it is egregious. But then I just recently read John Lott’s book on gun bias, where he mentions cases where terrorists in Israel were stopped by armed citizens.
Yeah, it’s also sorta funny, especially the result you get when you search for “pistol”.
And, if citizens were allowed to possess 20mm AA batteries …
June 11th, 2004 at 9:02 pm
Tom, the difference in emphasis comes, I think, from a difference in perspective. I believe that the ultimate responsibility for the well being and defense of my family and myself rests with me, not the state. I believe that is the standard the founders had in mind when they created a limited federal government. As such, any federal policy that doesn’t recognize that belief is, again in my opinion, fatally flawed.
You, on the other hand, appear to believe (I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, and correct me if I’m wrong) that the primary responsibility for your security rests with the federal government. From that perspective, the omission of any mention of personal self defense would seem relatively minor.
June 11th, 2004 at 11:04 pm
Actually if the passengers aboard aircraft weren’t prohibited from exercisng their Right to arms, then yes, a pistol could have prevented the attacks of Spetember the 11th.
Todd Beamer would be a national hero if he’d have been able to yank out a pistol instead of trying to use a sevice cart. The towers would still be standing & the “war on terror” wouldn’t have been as pressing since we’d have contained it.
Pistols aren’t that helpful against suicide/homocide bombers, but that hasn’t been tried here. Mass shootings (most often in gun free zones) & hijackings with edged weapons have.
& whether you like it or not, a well armed populace is a much more effective deterent against a foreign invasion than a standing military is. The Japanese decided against landing in Cali back during WW2 because they didn’t want to mess with all those gun owning californians. (luckily Cali was much different back then). They held our military in contempt – but they feared our armed citizenry.
No, it’s not likely than anyone will try to invade us anytime soon. But the deterent value of a well armed populace shouldn’t be underestimated.
June 12th, 2004 at 2:08 am
What, do they keep adding new content? What am I missing?
June 12th, 2004 at 8:34 am
Not that i can see.
June 14th, 2004 at 4:09 pm
You, on the other hand, appear to believe (I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, and correct me if I’m wrong) that the primary responsibility for your security rests with the federal government.
I do believe that (sort of — not always the feds), although I’m not happy about it. The fact is that no amount of personally weaponry would make me capable of defending myself and my family from, say, air strikes. So I have to rely on the government to protect me from such things.
As for more day-to-day stuff, that’s mostly the responsibility of state and local governments. Of course, neither they nor I can provide 100% protection. If somebody in a car decides he wants to run me down while I’m walking down the street, there’s little chance that my possession of a pistol would do me one lick of good.
Publicola:
Actually if the passengers aboard aircraft weren’t prohibited from exercisng their Right to arms, then yes, a pistol could have prevented the attacks of Spetember the 11th.
I’m afraid that’s largely wishful thinking. If the passengers were allowed to carry pistols, the terrorists would have been allowed to do so as well. And al-Qaeda is notorious for detailed planning. If armed passengers and/or crew were a realistic possibility, the 9/11 attackers would almost certainly have been prepared for it.
You also have to remember that the world was a different place before that attack. Even armed passengers would have likely stayed in their seats and bided their time, waiting to land and negotiate. Nobody on the first three planes even knew that they had been hijacked for a suicide mission, so none of the passengers would have been likely to act.
It was only on the fourth plane, when word of what had happened to the other planes got to the passengers, that the passengers rebelled. And that was the plane over Pennsylvania. The towers would almost certainly still be gone, and 3,000 people almost certainly would still be dead, and the handguns wouldn’t have done a damn bit of good, for all of your wishful thinking.