« Open Thread | Main | The Disko Bay Expedition »

The precious metals of Freedom...

Gold, silver & lead. Not necessarily in that order.

As of last week, I became a proud owner of a self-defense firearm. Thus, I can make use of my CCW and carry all my rights with me when I leave my home.

Next paycheck, more ammo.

I refuse to be a defenseless victim.

My kids are getting me ammo for Christmas.

Ah yes the precious metals, brass and lead. They could actually end up being worth more than gold and silver.

Stephana, when we're forced into bartering (by a $0 dollar), silver, brass and lead will be the only practical metals.

Are you going to buy groceries with a $1,100 gold coin? Good luck getting change with that.

Whatever happens folks, remember these are for DEFENSE and only that, until something serious happens from this joke of an administration. You bring heat to rallies to protect yourself against union thugs and Acorn animals. We are the right people, we vote them out. When push will come to shove, we will be ready but in the meantime, we protect our families. Also Sylvia, I'd love to see the face on the clerk when you'll buy a pint of milk and eggs and pay with a gold coin.

If precious metals became the main currency, copper and silver would be used for smaller purchases, gold would be used for more expensive items like durable good, and vehicles (Mad Max variety, since if things got that bad you would need such a thing to evade the road gangs and guys like the Lord Humungus, Warrior of the Wasteland).

Winston...that's exactly why I didn't trade in my two Hummers for a circus clown car and a battery-assisted rice burner.

OMG! Conservative Women are so beautiful; however, Conservative Women holding firearms are Angelic. This totally makes up for the picture that was posted yesterday of the jihad-enabling spawn of satan.

Are you going to buy groceries with a $1,100 gold coin? Good luck getting change with that.

Although gold is a rather durable and politician-proof store of value, the purchasing power of gold does plummet during economic chaos. We hold gold because its value plummets far, far less than that of fiat currency, whether it be one-ply or two-ply.

If the economy collapses to the point where gold is routinely used as money, this nation will not have the material abundance it does today. Fewer goods being chased by the same amount of money (regardless of what type of money) results in higher prices.

To use an Econ 101 analogy here, it is said that a person's quantity of money does not convey purchasing power; rather, a person's share of the nation's money entitles them to that share of the nation's goods. Using this analogy, it is easy to understand why the shortages of goods produced by social catastrophe result in gold getting you less per unit weight.

Of course, under such a set of circumstances, gold will have an astronomical dollar-denominated price, not because its value has increased (it hasn't), but because the value of the dollar has plunged.

Because of this, it is best to buy goods you know you will need while those goods are abundant and relatively cheap. It makes no sense to buy scare (hoarded / subject to speculation) gold when goods are cheap, then dump that gold for scare goods when everybody else's gold is also entering the money supply.

Some of the 20th centuries biggist tyrants were gun control advocates HITLER,STALIN LENNIN,MAO,CASTRO, the rule of tyrants is disarm the public

more proof that stupid people are, in fact, stupid.

Has Obama done anything at all to make you tyhink your guns (or bibles, of course) will be taken away? Nope...

Glad to see the "BE AFRAID OF EVERYTHING!" crowd is, indeed, still afraid of everything. Some things never change.

"...and it's only a matter of time before disarming the public comes to the top of the Obamunist agenda."

Right...AFTER people have been stocking up for months and months. But I guess that does fit in perfectly well with your belief that Obama is incompetent.

Buy shares in RWP, (right wing paranoia) it is a growth industry.

Just inherited 3 Winchester rifles and a Winchester .410 shotgun. Nice addition to my collection of Ruger handguns and rifles. Heh.

Actually, I've been keeping a close eye on this segment of the economy, and firearm sales have been leveling out. Many retailers are trimming inventory for an expected sluggish holiday sales season. Ammo sales and shortages are still through the roof. GovernoRINO Ahhnold has assured continued ammo sale surges with his ammo registration scheme.

People are buying guns and ammo, not because they're "afraid of everything," but rather in preparation for the election in 2012. The riots and insurrection that will result when The One has his slam-dunk election "stolen" by the wicked conservatives will require some of us to exercise our Constitutional rights to protect ourselves and our homes.

Remember, Demorats don't lose elections - they're always stolen from them.

Good advice A. Countermoonbat. Stocking up non-perishables is the wise move now. Shelves will be empty like Katrina and you can't eat gold.

If I recall, the Skidmark-In-Chief voted in favor of all the anti-gun legislation while briefly a Senator...along with Plugs Biden. That's a tip-off.

"exercise our Constitutional rights to protect ourselves and our homes."

So... you are AFRAID that in 2012 you will need a gun to protect you from assorted invisible 'bad guys'...

Where is the part where you aren't doing this out of bizzare paranoid fear?

If you're looking for good quality, weaponry, check out Larue Tactical - these guys are awesome and are known to attend TEA Party events if asked.

Has Obama done anything at all to make you tyhink your guns (or bibles, of course) will be taken away? Nope...

Re-instatement of the AWB and mandatory nationwide licensing (a/k/a Blair Holt) were two of his campaign promises listed under the "Urban Agenda" of his website.

Obama worked tirelessly to ban guns in Illinois. He has stated his open disagreement with Heller. He has surrounded himself with people who believe the Second Amendment is obstructionist to their agenda to eliminate as many guns as possible. He has appointed judges who believe that the Second Amendment is the only fundamental right in the Bill of Rights not worthy of incorporation.

The gun control moonbats even lauded him as the best candidate in history as far as their agenda was concerned.

His platform is openly anti-gun, and has been ever since he was politically active.

He has made two statements that are frequently cited for him not being anti-gun. Those statements are, to the effect of:

1. He does not want to "take guns away", which is true. The form of the statement contains an implied "all", since the policy is essentially bifurcated between guns and no guns. His stated goal is to take certain guns away, with the remainder being available only after an odious licensing process that turns a right into a hard-to-reach privilege.

2. There is no discussion of re-instating the AWB, which is true. His statement spoke of a "discussion" to re-instate it, which refers to any pending bills. There are no pending bills, because he is addressing health care and cap-and-trade first. Obama has stated his desire to re-instate it, as have his handlers, his supporters, and the rest of the far left. He never said there would not be a discussion of a new AWB, only that there wasn't a viable, active discussion during his campaign.

Haha, it looks like the trolls are jumping up and down squeaking "hey! hey!" and they're being utterly ignored.

Obama has also ordered the defense department to no longer sell expended brass for recycling to ammunition makers. This drives up the cost of ammunition, consistent with their stealth anti-gun policies.

His cronies are also repeating the phony talking point that 90% of guns used in Mexico's drug wars come from American gun dealers.

Believe me, by 2012 even the zombies and goblins who voted for the Skidmark-In-Chief will have come to regret being fooled in 2008.

Wait until all this bogus legislation kicks in five and six years from now. THAT'S when the revolution begins. You'll not recognize the place. Sadly.

Hey annonopussy. We are using our GOD given rights to protect ourselves. Your magic negro president and the government can not protect you.
I was attacked by a certain minority this summer trying to carjack my Dakota with me in it. I was able to defuse the situation by placing a .45 barrel into the perps face. Where were the cops? they were supposed to stop this crime before it happened. yeah right. Where were the courts when this perp did the same thing two times before. Oh he was such a good boy we will let him go. The libtard way.

Good advice A. Countermoonbat. Stocking up non-perishables is the wise move now.

Ammo is a non-perishable item highly sensitive to commodity inflation and potential future taxes. Stocking up on it now makes good economic sense, given the crisis, even if Obama were an ally of the Second Amendment.

While nobody should put ammo before food, if you have the money to spare, buying ammo now before metal prices skyrocket (again) and the Feds increase the ammo taxes (as is currently in committee) saves you money on what you would be paying to shoot in the future anyway.

One big exception would be if your marginal cost of funds is high due to unsecured consumer debt, but I would expect the vast majority of the type of people who stock up on ammo to be adverse to detrimental debt to begin with.

"exercise our Constitutional rights to protect ourselves and our homes."

So... you are AFRAID that in 2012 you will need a gun to protect you from assorted invisible 'bad guys'...

Where is the part where you aren't doing this out of bizzare paranoid fear?

Posted by: Anonymous at November 18, 2009 9:03 AM

As with most things, better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it

Speaking of bogus legislation, I PROMISE you that buried within the thousands of pages of unread legislation passed and soon-to-be passed are gun bans, ammunition controls, new registration laws, draconian restrictions, and unconstitutional provisions for "Emergency" arms searches and seizures in private homes across the country.

Sadly, all will be revealed some day.

I was able to defuse the situation by placing a .45 barrel into the perps face.

Posted by: Stephana at November 18, 2009 9:13 AM

Awesome! I hope you laughed too when he soiled his britches. :)

"Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it"

AMEN Nunya.

"Rotate your food expiration dates"

AMEN Glenn Beck.

Nunya, I didn't laugh at the time, he had a gun, but dropped it. I sure laughed my ass off after the cops captured him and were arguing who was going to take him to the station since he stunk to high heaven from a drawer load. I changed out from the .45 colt to a Dan Wesson .44 mag for the truck gun, it is way scarier. The colt is now my CCW piece in cold weather.

Can you effectively double tap with a .44 mag? I gave up my 10mm for carry. Despite the round's effectiveness, you have to be ready to make an instant follow-up.

Life threatening situations don't give you the time to shoot, assess, and shoot again if needed. That second and/or third shot must be reflexive, since you don't immediately know if the first has hit, or if it has, if the threat has stopped.

Criminals on crack or meth can only be taken down by overwhelming physical trauma. The mental shock of a misplaced shot simply doesn't register with these perps.

Stocked up on ammunition last year, a few thousand rounds of various caliber, mostly military. Been getting my freeze-dried food lined up, as well as some necessities like soap, toothpaste, etc. Shopping for a diesel generator, think I have my selection. Closing in on having what we need for some rough times. Although with the brass and copper-jacketed lead I could pretty much have whatever else I wanted, that's not how I roll, but don't expect to take any of mine.

The Dan Wesson is a large .44 mag revolver, with a 9 1/2" barrel and is mag ported. I am a little long in tooth to do a real double tap, but I can get back on target in a second or 2 to hit them again. I was taught to fire until the threat has stopped. Since the .44 is just the truck gun, I still practice more with my main carry weapon the colt .45. I changed to the .44 for the truck after a little test with the .45 in the truck. That ejecting case could be deadly at close range. Revolver means no ejecting case.

Don't forget what Sargent Sweet told me long ago,
"Dead men don't tell lies"

Totally off-topic but ay yi yi, I've always loved that picture of Ann.

Whew!

necessities like soap, toothpaste

Posted by: Mr Evilwrench at November 18, 2009 10:01 AM

Well you're definitely NOT a moonbat ;)

"His stated goal is to take certain guns away, with the remainder being available only after an odious licensing process that turns a right into a hard-to-reach privilege."

Spoken like someone who has never been to one of those places where the "city-folks" live. Gun control in places like Chicago is damned important. I like the idea of making it nigh unto impossible to get a gun, and prohibitively expensive to get ammo. Just makes sense... if a bullet is $500... whaddya bet we see drastically fewer innocent-bystander casualties? And as fas as assault weapons... how many deer do you run into that have body armor? Those weapons on the streets are scary as all hell, and serve no functional purpose in our society... but I forgot, things like "making sense" or "thinking through the options" have never been high points in the 'conservative' universe.

The 2nd amendment was never intended to make certain that the mentally unstable and America's criminals are guaranteed to get a gun. Whine about licensing all you like, but if you are clean, you will be allowed to get a gun. Not gonna pass your background check? You don't get a gun. Simple as that.

Smart people will be aware of the distinctuion between a licensed gun used for legal purposes and illegal guns used by criminals. Less smart people will just yell "they took our guns!" and vote for the first retard that promises to assign assault weapons to infants for no reason.

What anonydumbass doesn't realize is that criminals don't get their guns and ammo LEGALLY. Dumbass.

annymous is just the typical libturd. Build up your straw man argument, then bust it down.

To purchase a gun you have to pass a federal government background check. I bet you that no gun toting criminal has taken a background check since they do not follow laws.

What a Douchnozzle.

Is this the part where i point out that if there were NOT guns all over the damn place it would be far harder for those criminals to get guns?

Your (stupid) argument presupposes that there are guns all over the place and that will never change. But more rational people capable of thinking through a train of logic can see a possible outcome where guns are, in fact, far harder to obtain. Remove every possible gun from the population, and see how it goes.

Sure, there will be people that get guns from foreign sources, and all that... but it is far more difficult to get your hands on a gun if they aren't sold over the counter at Walmart to any dumbass yahoo that can see over the counter. I like the thought of some stupid-ass stickup artist trying to figure out how to contact China to get himself a gun without anyone noticing...

I know it involves thinking about something that is in the future, and that such is not the strong suit of these members of the shallow end of the gene pool.. but it is a possible outcome.

Imagine "thinking about possibilities" like that... any of you care to try?

Yes, if you make bullets $500 in Chicago, the Chicagoans just take a jaunt over the border to where they're $0.50. You'd have to make them $500 everywhere, but then you just get into theft and reloading. But that's illegal! So? So's whatever else these people are doing, that doesn't seem to stop them. Leftards.

(or are you going to default to the standard "YOU CAN'T HAVE MY GUN! I bet I know the answer...)

Again... if you make a bullet $500 everywhere, and people have to deal with that... everybody wins (except the gun nuts, and we don't care what they think). The mental image of that same stickup guy trying to hand-reload his one bullet is just as funny as the idea of that guy trying to contact China secretly to get himself an illegal gun.

So follow me here: think about possible outcomes wherein there are fewer guns everywhere. Think of possibilities involving fewer random casualties, fewer unstable people with guns, and fewer violent crimes in general.

How do we get there from where we are now?

Obama, and his team, are clearly thinking about possible answers to that question, while the flat-earth-society just sticks their fingers in their ears and assumes that nothing can ever change.

You have a better solution? Let's hear it. Reminder: "Whining" is not a plan...

My guess is that anondumbass doesn't know the meaning of "illegal" is and somehow thinks that criminals get their weapons the same way citizens get theirs. MIT must be awfully proud of you anon.

"Remove every possible gun from the population, and see how it goes."

Hitler did it, remember how that went?

You obviously only know what you've been told by anti-gun groups, and pay absolutely no attention to proven factual statistics and history.

Stephana,

PLEASE tell me that your story had a happy ending, i.e, carjacker with a new asshole popped in his forehead.

Anon what's the murder rate in Chicago? Or how about (until a recent SC ruling) DC? The cities with the strictest gun control have the HIGHEST murder rate. Now do you get the point that criminals don't use legal means in order to obtain guns and ammo?

Anonthinker also doesn't realize that a single person wouldn't have to "secretly call China" to buy a gun or ammo illegally, the same illegal arms dealers in the US right now will just continue on with business as usual.

You are all proving my point - just because guns are everywhere NOW, does not mean we give up on the idea of STOPPING that in the future. You know, by actually thinking about options and changing the status quo?

You have no solutions beyond 'have everyone, everywhere, carry a gun at all times'... which is just raw stupid. DC/Chi/etc have high crime rates, but with new more restrictive laws that mandate horrible penalties for owning illegal guns (caning? drawing and quartering?), combined with a massive decrease in available guns in general... we might actually improve things.

Not that any of you care about decreasing things like gun violence... as long as you have an assault rifle to hunt those radioactive super-deer (or whatever it is you think you need those for).

Don't you ever get tired of reinforcing the portrayal of yourselves as the backward-ass neanderthals you are? "Nothing can ever improve, so let's all spout conspiracy theories and shoot things!"

I was able to defuse the situation by placing a .45 barrel into the perps face.

Posted by: Stephana at November 18, 2009 9:13 AM

I was in a similar situation myself once, but the perp only brought a tire iron to the gun fight. I didn't even have to pull my Glock 21 out of the holster, I just put my hand on it, he saw it, and ran off. I should have pulled it out, because he had gotten pretty close, but it's good that I didn't need to.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 18, 2009 11:21 AM

Sorry, that was me.

anondumbass we are simply standing up for our 2nd admendment rights. Now who's the neanderthal who hasn't read the Constitution? That would be you. Of course I'm sure you believe the Constitution is a living document,right?

Gunny,
I didn't fire a shot. I had my colt mounted under the dash on a powerful magnet, cocked and locked.
Perp bashed in the side window showering me with glass particles. I grabbed gun, and tried to clear the safety muzzle pointing at him. He dropped his gun and ran off. I didn't get the safety cleared before he ran off. Needed more practice with gun removing from stored point in vehicle.

Now if I listened to annopussy, I probably would be dead. He thinks that the government will save his sorry ass. I hate to burst his bubble but the only thing cops are good for is cleaning up after the fact. Oh by the way, I was in a good part of town, picking my wife up at the hospital, minding my own business.

We are not backward ass neanderthals, like you spout. Just Normal self reliant Americans. Take you pansy ass and keep sticking your head past your sphincter since you seem to enjoy it so much. Look at England, they banned guns, now only the crooks have them. Same every place that banned them.

Posted by: Anonymous at November 18, 2009 11:14 AM

I don't even know why we're bothering to respond to you. All you're doing is dragging out all of the same outdated, disproven, bigoted stereotypes pushed by the left, and we can see through that. Ridicule, demean, marginalize, and not give people any credit for knowing anything if they don't agree with your twisted view of reality. Typical.

All of those "great ideas" you've parroted have been tried before, every time with disastrous consequences.

"You know, by actually thinking about options and changing the status quo?"

There are some options out there that involve total gun bans - like England and Wash. DC. Works great in those locations. No gun violence at all.

Farmer -

Of course it is a living document. Pretending that the Founders were infallible and capable of seeing the future is just plain stupid. They themselves were aware of that fact (and therefore set up the amendment process, in case you are unclear about how that works). Current population densities alone are beyond the wildest dreams of the Framers. Not to mention things like information flows with these newfangled "interwebs"... they are, like, a series of tubes, you know... But clearly the Founders knew about that too, huh? Talk about foresight...

So, you think that something written before the Industrial age rose to ascendancy is now completely relevant, and in no way anachronistic in the latter days of the Information Age?

Spoken like a true Luddite. The Framers knew better... as evidenced by the amendment process. If it was supposed to be static, why exactly did they build in a method to change it as necessary?

Are we not supposed to notice that? Stupidity and blind sheeple-ness are the hallmarks of your team, not ours...

If the Constitution only means whatever a liberal judge says it means, then it doesn't mean anything.

Sure it's nice to be able to own guns to hunt...but that's not what the second amendment is about. It's about the people being able to overthrow a tyrannical government like our founding fathers had just done! That's why "assault weapon" bans are totally unacceptable!

I have a CC permit and have been stocking up on ammo, it's the responsible thing to do for the safety of me and my family.

Seeing what is happening in the UK is a sad, sad thing...first they lost their guns, now the rest of their liberties are falling as well. And they certainly aren't safer being unarmed with their streets filled with hostile immigrants!

Anon twisting the core foundations that built this great country is what you buttholes are all about. That's the reason you think it's a living document. The constitution can be ammended as you said but to try and rearrange it's core beliefs and addmendments would lead to the fall of this great nation. How can people be assured of their rights when you libtards want to change those rights on a whim. You are right about one thing, the founding fathers knew how to set the cornerstones to build a great nation. You libtards are the ones trying to tear it down to fit your ideal "utopia".

Of course it is a living document. Pretending that the Founders were infallible and capable of seeing the future is just plain stupid.

The implementation may change, but the principles it stands for do not.

That is why certain truths were held to be self-evident, even if it took a long while for the principles enshrined in those documents to finally break through the parochial interests in conflict with them.

So, you think that something written before the Industrial age rose to ascendancy is now completely relevant, and in no way anachronistic in the latter days of the Information Age?

I don't think the necessity and desire for freedom has changed any since humans first became aware of their condition. Freedom works. Tyranny doesn't.

We have a Constitution because we believe that individuals have inalienable rights; that among those rights, individuals shall be free to think, to speak, to worship, to assemble, to defend themselves, to own property, to engage in commerce with others, to be tried and treated fairly, to be subject to orderly due process, and to retain all rights that haven't explicitly been allocated to government.

Those principles haven't changed. The only difference is that judges must now defend websites and blogs instead of just handbills and postings. They must defend citizens from new forms of government encroachment on liberty and due process. They must respond to new and larger forms of bureaucracy. They must respond to property rights with a greater emphasis on the intangible.

Nothing about human nature has changed such to invalidate the natural right of people to provide for their own security by owning tools that eliminate much of the disparity of force between the average citizen and a well-trained, well-built, highly motivated aggressor. The need for the frail and infirm to be on equal footing with a crazed intruder still exists.

The good news is that guns can be a good investment. More at www.thenothingstore.com

"So... you are AFRAID that in 2012 you will need a gun to protect you from assorted invisible 'bad guys'..."
Had you actually read teh post, you'd know who he is talking about. Ultra- liberals are extremely poor losers when it comes to elections ("WAAAH! WAAAH! ELECTION FRAUD! WAAAAAH!"), and it was widely believed that had Obama lost in 2008, his fanatical followers would start rioting. So, he was saying that if Obama loses in 2012 and the liberals all start rioting while screaming "Election fraud," it would be nice to own a gun for protection then.

Annon wears the T-shirt reading IM STUPID SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK HYUK,HYUK,HYUK

"How can people be assured of their rights when you libtards want to change those rights on a whim."

Is this the part where I call you stupid for forgetting that a plain-text reading of the constitution values a "negro as 3/5ths of a man"? Seriously... the 'rights' in that document have changed before, and must continue to change as time passes. As well you should know. Or are you pining for the days of slavery? Jackass.

But seriously, is the king of england really coming to get you? (Or, for that matter, NATO, the UN, Obama's grandmother, or whatever other tinfoil-hat conspiracy Beck has most recently spouted)... Nope. But remember: "BE AFRAID!"

See how time passing changes how relevant things are? The Framers knew, built in the process to keep up with time... and don't care if you personally don't like it.

Anonnumbmuts,
I do believe I addressed the addmendment process before. You obviously missed the point. Civil rights were granted and added to the Constitution after a long bitter struggle. You libtards want to change the Constitution to fit your every whim. Now if you can't see the difference you are truly lost.

Heh, this cookie-cutter leftist Anonymous can't even get his arguments straight.

Has Obama done anything at all to make you tyhink your guns (or bibles, of course) will be taken away? Nope...

So, after assuring us that we're just being paranoid, that King Barry I and his fellow Marxists have no intention whatsoever to take people's guns away, he writes this gem:

I like the idea of making it nigh unto impossible to get a gun, and prohibitively expensive to get ammo. Just makes sense... if a bullet is $500... whaddya bet we see drastically fewer innocent-bystander casualties?

What we're left with is someone who would be perfectly fine with taking people's guns, with making it "nigh unto impossible" to get one and requiring a second mortgage to get in a little range practice. But we shouldn't fear that the leader of this little socialist twit's party wants to do the same thing... that's just paranoid.

Frikkin' liberals... they don't even know what they believe.

I have the feeling this anonymous twit is just having fun trolling, but I'll take the bait. I've been looking for a new chew toy.

You are all proving my point - just because guns are everywhere NOW, does not mean we give up on the idea of STOPPING that in the future.

"We?" Who is this "we?" In case it hasn't penetrated that inert mass of gray goo you laughably call your brain, we're against you on this. As is a large majority of this country. The national Democratic party has almost given up on gun control as an issue (not to say they wouldn't love to ban guns, just that they know it's a losing issue).

You know, by actually thinking about options and changing the status quo?

You assume much. You assume that you have actual solutions, You assume they would work. You assume that we'd just let you "change the status quo." Like most leftists, you've come to believe that you've somehow worked out magical solutions to problems that have plagued the human race for much, much longer than you've been alive. And, as usual, your solutions to problems are something I'd expect to hear from someone who's been drinking bong water.

You have no solutions beyond 'have everyone, everywhere, carry a gun at all times'...

No. Our solution is "have everyone who is a law-abiding legal citizen of this country carry a gun everywhere at all times."

which is just raw stupid. DC/Chi/etc have high crime rates, but with new more restrictive laws

The solution to a leftist is always "more." People ignoring the already ridiculously strict and unconstitutional laws in those cities? Why the solution is EVEN MORE RESTRICTIVE LAWS!!!

that mandate horrible penalties for owning illegal guns (caning? drawing and quartering?),

Look, doofus, I know you've never actually read the Constitution, but the 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." We don't CANE people, and we stopped drawing and quartering (do you even know what that is?) around the time we stopped using leeches as a cure-all. So your solution is to: hang people until almost dead, then disembowel and emasculate them and burn their genitals in front of them, then behead them and divide their body into four parts.

For owning an illegal gun.

Nice.

Let's see... there are millions upon millions of gun owners in this country, myself included. If required to give up my guns, I would refuse, thus making those guns illegal. And for that (even though I've never fired a gun in anger or even self-defense) I'd be caned or EXECUTED HORRIBLY.

Congratulations, nameless wonder... you're a fascist. A real, honest-to-God fucking FASCIST.

Oh, and don't pretend you're joking. You're advocating "horrible penalties," so if you aren't in favor of those, then what would you propose?

combined with a massive decrease in available guns in general...

Which will be easier once the gun owners are tortured and/or executed. Horribly.

we might actually improve things.

For who?

Not that any of you care about decreasing things like gun violence...

Oh, of course we don't. We LOVE gun violence, and are fully aware that your solutions are the only possible ones.

I'll get my cane. You are going to have to do the disemboweling, though... I'm a little squeamish when it comes to gutting another human being and try to do it as little as possible.

as long as you have an assault rifle

Ohh, "assault rifle." Scary. Even more scary for idiots like you who don't know anything about them.

to hunt those radioactive super-deer (or whatever it is you think you need those for).

It's not for hunting. It's for keeping people like you out of power so you can't torture and execute people.

Don't you ever get tired of reinforcing the portrayal of yourselves as the backward-ass neanderthals you are?

The day I care what a simpering, unthinking little drone like you thinks is the day...

Wait, that won't ever happen.

I'd actually feel ashamed if someone like you agreed with me. So if you think of us as "backward-ass neanderthals," as far as I'm concerned it's a compliment.

"Nothing can ever improve, so let's all spout conspiracy theories and shoot things!",

Your entire effort in this thread has shown that there are reasons to be paranoid. You yourself have proven us right.

Μολὼν λαβέ.

Can I give you some advice, anonymous drone? Don't argue things you don't know about!. I mean, sheesh, at this point you are just embarrassing yourself.

Is this the part where I call you stupid for forgetting that a plain-text reading of the constitution values a "negro as 3/5ths of a man"?

Hmm. No.

A "plain-text" reading of the Constitution says no such thing. Here's what it said:

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

No mention of Negroes. And the "three fifths" was a calculation during the census for purposes of figuring out representation and taxation, not a statement that the Founders felt that a black person was actually 3/5 of a human. Oh, and that rule was superseded by the 13th Amendment, meaning it is no longer a law and hasn't been for almost a century and a half.

And if you're interested (you're not, but your history teachers failed you so I feel obligated to teach you), the reason for that compromise was that the northern states (which didn't have slavery) wanted slaves treated as zero for representation and the southern states (which held blacks in slavery) wanted them counted as ONE. This is because counting slaves would have increased southern representation and power during elections, making it more difficult to prevent the spread of slavery.

Reading, gutless anonymous moonbat... it's an important skill to have. And if you are ignorant on a subject, shut up about it. When you write blatantly wrong things like that you come across as an even bigger fool than you are.

Seriously... the 'rights' in that document have changed before, and must continue to change as time passes.

Through the amendment process. Not because the courts decide that something is a right, or because you socialist morons wake up and decide something is a right. Or decide something like gun ownership suddenly isn't a right anymore.

As well you should know. Or are you pining for the days of slavery? Jackass.

Oh, good argument. Seriously. (sarcasm) Yes we're totally pining for slavery. (/sarcasm)

But seriously, is the king of england really coming to get you? (Or, for that matter, NATO, the UN, Obama's grandmother, or whatever other tinfoil-hat conspiracy Beck has most recently spouted)... Nope.

This coming from someone who wants to make gun ownership virtually impossible, make it too expensive to fire one, and torture or execute people for owning illegal guns.

If you leftist twits thought you could get away with it, you'd be after the guns inside of five minutes. How do I know? Because that's your history. It's what you are. Like the old story of the scorpion, it's who you are. You are fascists, and you can't take any opposition to your plans.

So, right now, no, nobody is coming to get us. You twits have tried in the past, and failed. We're planning on keeping it that way.

But remember: "BE AFRAID!"

We don't have to be afraid of you. We have guns. Come and take them.

See how time passing changes how relevant things are? The Framers knew, built in the process to keep up with time...

So amend the Constitution to ban guns. If you don't like people owning them, get some of your bong water drinking buddies together and give it a shot (so to speak). What's that? You know it won't work? Ah, well, too bad for you then. Life is full of disappointments.

You are one of them.

and don't care if you personally don't like it.

You seem to have a great deal of respect for the Framers. I mean, that is, for someone who clearly hasn't ever read the Constitution, who stands in direct opposition to everything they stood for, and would piss all over the document they crafted. Aside from that.

Those framers wanted EVERYONE to have guns. They understood that it was necessary for the maintenance of freedom. If you really feel that guns should be banned, and yet you respect the Constitution, then amend it. Until you do, piss off.

Wow, Otto, in just two posts, you completely and utterly PWNED Anonytroll! Way to go!

ANONYMOUS;
What do you propose to do about criminals who STEAL GUNS from the POLICE AND MILITARY? There was a case in Florida back in the mid sixtys where some crooks not only stole handguns and rifles from a National Guard armory, but they stole MACHINEGUNS and RECOILESS CANNONS.

What LAW do you propose would stop that sort of thing? Oh wait, we ALREADY have laws against that sort of thing!

Posted by: Anonymist Communist at November 18, 2009 10:22 AM- "Spoken like someone who has never been to one of those places where the "city-folks" live. Gun control in places like Chicago is damned important."

Places like Chicago are a living, breathing example of the failure of "progressive" social and economic ideology. With such a demonstrated appalling record, how can "liberal" views on firearms be expected to be exempt from failure? In any event, felony type crime is not relevant.

QUOTE
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military." (William S. Burroughs)
END QUOTE

Posted by: Anonymist Communist at November 18, 2009 10:22 AM- "I like the idea of making it nigh unto impossible to get a gun, and prohibitively expensive to get ammo. Just makes sense..."

Of course it makes sense to you. Naturally you like the idea. You are a communist.

QUOTE
"A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie." (V.Lenin)
END QUOTE

Posted by: Anonymist Communist at November 18, 2009 10:22 AM- "The 2nd amendment was never intended to make certain that the mentally unstable and America's criminals are guaranteed to get a gun. Whine about licensing all you like, but if you are clean, you will be allowed to get a gun. Not gonna pass your background check? You don't get a gun. Simple as that... Smart people will be aware of the distinctuion between a licensed gun used for legal purposes and illegal guns used by criminals. "

History has demonstrated the selective parsing of the population, in regards to classifications like, "mentally unstable" and "criminal", by Communists. I believe any socialist (like Hussein Soetoro) who declares that they won't be taking away ALL guns- Just certain ones.

QUOTE
"One of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the arming of the workers and the disarming of the bourgeoisie." (V.Lenin)
END QUOTE

Posted by: Anonymist Communist at November 18, 2009 11:14 AM- "You are all proving my point - just because guns are everywhere NOW, does not mean we give up on the idea of STOPPING that in the future. You know, by actually thinking about options and changing the status quo?"

The options and changes, that you have have in mind, are obvious.

QUOTE
"The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them." (V.Lenin)
END QUOTE

Posted by: Anonymist Communist at November 18, 2009 11:14 AM- "Of course it is a living document."

But of course. Until communists can manage to replace it with an Internationalist Socialist Charter, it simply just HAS to be a "living document". How else can the comrades get ANYTHING done otherwise? Something has to be first "living", before you can kill it, right?

Posted by: Anonymist Communist at November 18, 2009 11:14 AM- "Pretending that the Founders were infallible and capable of seeing the future is just plain stupid. They themselves were aware of that fact (and therefore set up the amendment process, in case you are unclear about how that works)."

It is straight forward, and not open to "interpretation" or "alteration".

QUOTE
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America)
END QUOTE

Posted by: Anonymist Communist at November 18, 2009 11:14 AM- "Current population densities alone are beyond the wildest dreams of the Framers."

Irrelevant.

Posted by: Anonymist Communist at November 18, 2009 11:14 AM- "Not to mention things like information flows with these newfangled "interwebs"... they are, like, a series of tubes, you know... But clearly the Founders knew about that too, huh? Talk about foresight..."

What does the internet have to do with the 2nd Amendment? What is it about the internet, and the decline of the old media, that disturbs socialists so?

QUOTE
"Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty." (V.Lenin)
END QUOTE

Posted by: Anonymist Communist at November 18, 2009 11:14 AM- "So, you think that something written before the Industrial age rose to ascendancy is now completely relevant, and in no way anachronistic in the latter days of the Information Age?"

No. Any "unforeseen changes" have been taken into account, by the wording of the 2nd A. Once again, why is the "Information Age" so very frightening for you?

Posted by: Anonymist Communist at November 18, 2009 11:14 AM- "The Framers knew better... as evidenced by the amendment process. If it was supposed to be static, why exactly did they build in a method to change it as necessary?"

The 2nd Amendment was not meant to be changed. Ever. This is self evident- Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.

QUOTE
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." – James Madison
END QUOTE

Posted by: Anonymist Communist at November 18, 2009 10:22 AM- "And as fas as assault weapons... how many deer do you run into that have body armor?"

Deer have nothing to do with the need for "assault weapons", as you call them. This means semi-auto and automatic rifles, SMG's/machine pistols, and LMG machine guns, at the very least.

Posted by: Anonymist Communist at November 18, 2009 10:22 AM- "Those weapons on the streets are scary as all hell"

They are meant to be. They need to be. Communist, Government and International tyranny won't be impressed by possum poppers and duck guns.

Posted by: Anonymist Communist at November 18, 2009 10:22 AM- "and serve no functional purpose in our society..."

They serve the most important function. The 2nd Amendment was not, and is not, meant to provide for hunting or specifically even for self-defence from felony criminals. It is to provide the people the means to WAGE WAR against the forces of Government tyranny, foreign invaders and domestic enemies. AT any time, IN any time. Not just the late 18th century. An armed populace must therefore be able to equip itself with, at least, the standard infantry arms of the time, to field a well regulated militia. The founders knew full well, that opposing the Crown's forces, with farm implements and "licensed only" swords, would have been futile. The same applies today. The founders ensured this by not including limitations. A well regulated militia was intended to be a light infantry force, capable of rapid assembly and deployment, able to challenge and defeat any enemy field unit, in the future. The standard infantry squad of today is, or can be, equipped with semi-auto or auto combat rifles, SMG's and LMG's. They are what is required for an effective militia. Whether, as a communist, you like it, or not.

Posted by: Anonymist Communist at November 18, 2009 11:14 AM- "Not that any of you care about decreasing things like gun violence... as long as you have an assault rifle to hunt those radioactive super-deer (or whatever it is you think you need those for)."

Not deer. Communists.

You know, what's funny is that, if the Anonymous Communist had read all of the amendments, he would've seen that most of them recognize or expand the rights of The People and that still applies even if you don't count the Bill of Rights for some reason.

The 13th abolishes slavery.
The 15th enfranchises blacks.
The 17th, like it or not, lets the People choose Senators.
The 19th enfranchises women.
The 21st undoes Prohibition.
The 22nd prevents another "president for life" like FDR.
The 23rd, like it or not, gives DC representation in the Electoral College.
The 24th outlaws poll taxes.

Really, the only 2 bonafide stinkers are the 16th (income tax) and 18th (prohibition) and the latter of those was repealed long ago. SO the very idea of using the amendment process to _take_away_ rights and freedoms is ludicrus moonbattery at best.

So

Uh huh, outlaw firearms and throw those in the trash heap along with illegal drugs. Guess what, that makes everyone that has a gun or has drugs a criminal. This war on drugs is workin' out real good ain't it. But I know you think it would be different with guns.
Dumbass leftists.

Nuts with guns. Always a dangerous combination.

Thanks for that scintillating, witty commentary, Gary. You've demonstrated the stupidity and shallowness of the left in only two sentences.

@Evil Otto:

Now we know how Obama got elected.

Actually, "Gary", 'nut with guns' is precisely why people like Otto and myself arm ourselves in the first place. It's the narrow-minded authoritarians in positions of power and street thugs that compel us to do so. We're the good guys that would wind up protecting the schlubs that hate guns in the first place.

Ironic, no?