*sigh*

[anterus]

And now, not having had a real job for the last 11 months has soundly bitten me in the ass, in that I am woefully short of guns and ammo at a time like this. And, of course, now I gotta get 'em while they're hot...

Here's to hoping we weather the next 4 years without having too many of our rights trampled into unrecognizability.

Comments

[drzarron]

We can only go UP from where we're at having had our Rights raped out from under us for the last eight years...

[anterus]

Not entirely true. The Bush Administration quietly let the Clin-Ton Assault Weapons Ban (Brady Bill) die, which was a goodness. I'm worried that our Chicago Politician of a Glorious Leader President-Elect will try to push through something similar or worse, which would be to the detriment of all.

And we'll just have to see how he handles reporters who ask him interesting questions, now that he's confirmed.

[vond]

Just out of curiosity, how would it be to the detriment of non-gun-owners? (Not that I personally don't want to own any guns, I'm just not allowed to)

[anterus]

I'faith, the Brady Bill was mostly cosmetic, and primarily just made life more difficult for law abiding firearms enthusiasts to enjoy their hobby. Banning pistol grips and 'high capacity magazines' doesn't have any affect on...anything, except the prices of pre-ban, and thus legal, items. It's pointless, and just punishes gunowners for being gunowners, as opposed to doing anything to actually affect crime

[vond]

Oh, I'm not arguing with all of that stuff you said, but as you just confirmed, that legislation, though bad, wasn't to the detriment of all. I was pointing out your hyperbole, not tearing down your whole argument.

I don't think the state would have any problem with me buying guns, it's my wife having a problem with keeping them in the house, which I can forgive her for. I suppose there are ranges that let you keep your equipment on site, but only if you're a member, and I would probably not want to pay yearly membership, just the occasional trip when the mood struck me. So the whole thing is a big meh for me.

[anterus]

Well, it's not pure hyperbole. You just wouldn't see direct impact from a re-imposition of the AWB. It's stupid, pointless legislation, though. And something worse would be an indirect detriment to your safety.

Ah, yes, well, the wifely edict is somewhat more of a challenge, I guess. Unfortunate, and irrational. Even with a kid in the house, they remain inanimate tools, and can be safely disassembled and locked away when not in use. Doubt that argument would be worth it, though, I suppose.

[jazzfish]

No, you see, the only rights that matter are the Second Amendment rights. Losing other rights is totally irrelevant, because as long as we've got guns, we can take those back any time we want.

. . . man, I can't even type that bullshit with a straight face.