I think guns are evil. I have friends with guns and I give them shit for it eventhough that new Old Navy commercial made me want to kill people. Guns are horrible. I've had friends shot to death because people were fucked up and didn't know any better. I've had friends who were so self-loathing that they killed themselves with their dad's gun because they hated their lives. One of my best friend's brothers was killed because he confronted a friend about drugs. I will rephrase my initial statement. Guns aren't evil, most people who own them are.

I own four guns, all of which were given to me unsolicited (granted, I did accept them), three by my father and one by a friend who had a child and didn't want it in the house anymore. Two handguns, a rifle, and a shotgun. I have never hunted in my life although I had many chances to growing up; I did, however, grow up as Steve described, shooting skeet, beercans, paper plates. I find target shooting strangely relaxing and enjoy the diversion of it when people visit me out in the country. The first time David Grubbs ever laid hands on a firearm was in my back yard.

I suspect I'm like many Americans in that I own guns almost as an afterthought, not as any kind of adamant 2nd-amendment exercise and not even as explicit "protection" (my guns aren't loaded and I keep the ammo separate from the guns). Then again, when I was considering a cross-country trip last summer that would've involved sleeping in the bed of my truck along the way, my father instructed me to "be sure to take that 9 mm I gave you." When I asked if there weren't varied laws governing handgun possession, my old man said, "Sure. But there's a law against letting people fuck with you and steal your shit, too." I didn't take this dubious advice; I just quote it to give a sense of the attitudes about firearms that I spring from.

Perhaps I've been living in the country too long, but I have to admit that the current political climate has me relieved to be "armed." I don't believe I'm militia material yet, but never has it seemed more plausible that the government might transgress my privacy/autonomy for no good reason. Therefore, I think it's healthy (if that's the right word) that the populace has the option of arming itself, if only to give Ashcroft's ilk pause, however brief. As I understand it, that's why the amendment was created in the first place. And while I find it morally reprehensible to indulge such Bronson-esque fantasies, I know myself well enough to feel confident that, if and when I have a wife and children living with me, there are no lengths I wouldn't go to in order to protect them from harm and harrassment. Guns aren't necessarily required to do so, but I'd imagine they'd come in handy in a pinch.

Ditto for The Revolution. I say that in jest (in part), but do you all really think the Black Panthers would've had any impact whatsoever if they hadn't been armed? I know the FBI decimated them, but still...

There's no way a Citizens Militia could go up against the US army and win.

Not without a Citizens Airforce to back them up

I'll never have a gun in my home. My tubtoaster is dangerous enough.

i had a discussion with my friend about this a while ago, he hates guns and is scared of them etc etc and doesnt see why anyone in the world would ever need or want one, and i pointed out to him that to many people firearms are a hobby like any other. they collect guns and shoot them at targets like him and i collect records and listen to them. its as simple as that.
GRANTED, records dont have the ability to kill people as easily as guns, but 9 times out of 10, the people that own guns as hobbyists know how to use them correctly and exercise the requisite responsibility needed to operate them.

i agree with steve in that killing people is already illegal, and it wouldnt do any good to make it extra-super-duper illegal by killing someone with an illegal weapon. if we didnt have them, the cops and the bad guys still would, and there would probably be MORE gun killings due to government/gun runner conflicts.

something that would probably immediately downsize gun crime is to immediately downsize the war on drugs, for starters.

i own a .22 rifle, which is a glorified BB gun, and hasnt been shot in years.

n/c

wiggins wrote:GRANTED, records dont have the ability to kill people as easily as guns.

I suspect that none of the guns I own is as dangerous as the music of Billy Joel, The Eagles, or Rush. While I have had verbal altercations with drunken hillbillies on my property and never once considered getting a gun from the house to settle the situation, hearing any of the bands listed above fills me with such murderous rage that, if I'm not inclined to kill somebody, at the very least I am eager to assault anyone unfortunate enough to be within arm's length when the offending music is aired. I suspect that many of sicoety's ills can be traced to the prevalence of these bands, not to mention fucking "American Pie," a good reason to burn the flag if ever there was one.

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:

wiggins wrote:GRANTED, records dont have the ability to kill people as easily as guns.

I suspect that none of the guns I own is as dangerous as the music of Billy Joel, The Eagles, or Rush. While I have had verbal altercations with drunken hillbillies on my property and never once considered getting a gun from the house to settle the situation, hearing any of the bands listed above fills me with such murderous rage that, if I'm not inclined to kill somebody, at the very least I am eager to assault anyone unfortunate enough to be within arm's length when the offending music is aired. I suspect that many of sicoety's ills can be traced to the prevalence of these bands, not to mention fucking "American Pie," a good reason to burn the flag if ever there was one.

come to think of it, hearing 'sweet home alabama' again would probably make me pull the trigger.

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:the music of Billy Joel, The Eagles, or Rush.

In terms of irritation factor, please Rank the following items:

The combined musical output of Billy Joel, The Eagles and Rush.
The substitution of the letter "z" for the letter "s" (e.g., "anywayz").
The use of the term "law thingy" to describe the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

This Rank is very hard for me.

If they were called Da Eaglez, thiz would be much eazier for you Mezzr. Weizzenberger, methinkz.



I cannot rank theze thingz.


Fais

Bradley R. Weissenberger wrote:

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:the music of Billy Joel, The Eagles, or Rush.

In terms of irritation factor, please Rank the following items:

The combined musical output of Billy Joel, The Eagles and Rush.
The substitution of the latter "z" for the letter "s" (e.g., "anywayz").
The use of the term "law thingy" to describe the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

This Rank is very hard for me.

Bradley, you have the Rank listed correctly.

1. The combined musical output of Billy Joel, The Eagles and Rush: These are three of the worst musical acts imaginable, and each for a different reason. None of these people have done anything that, to me, even approaches tolerable, even if I'm feeling generous.

2. The substitution of the latter "z" for the letter "s" (e.g., "anywayz"): This is an incredibly abrasive thing to do, as is misspelling anything regardless of whether it's deliberate or not. It is not "cute" to butcher the English language. So much, this is to annoy me.

3. The use of the term "law thingy" to describe the constitutional right to keep and bear arms: Using the term "law thingy" is, at least to me, much less annoying than actually spelling something incorrectly. It implies that perhaps the subject that this term is being used to address is being trivialized, but for whatever reason, it doesn't faze me.

Salut, the Bradley. Salut, the RANK!