Jay Tea, do you approve of me owning live hand grenades? How about bunker-busting missiles? How about a nuclear fucking warhead? Or maybe weaponized anthrax?

Why do I need these things? Why, because I fucking feel like it!

I’d like to know where the line is, and why it is where it is.

Your examples are extreme, are meant to provoke, are very close to off topic, and illustrate a basic ignorance of American history.

I’m not interested in discussing things with someone, anyone, who doesn’t converse honestly. I also don’t suffer idiots. I can have civil discussions with conservatives, both here on this blog and elsewhere. Witness above my conversation with JT.

You, on the other hand… you’re either an idiot or you’re a lying sack of shit. Probably both. I clearly did not set up a strawman argument. It’s plain as day. So either you know this, and you’re lying about it now, or you’re a fucking moron and you cannot comprehend simple, straightforward English.

So which is it?

If you want to have a legit discussion, let’s do that. If you want to engage in stupid and false attacks, while disregarding the points that others make, while simultaneously making stupid and unfounded claims of your own… well, then have at it. Just don’t expect me not to call you an ignorant fucktard.

As to grenades I believe the common script for this argument usually devolves into a “what about tanks or nucular missles” type of thing. I would imagine I may have less of an aversion to grenades than the typical reader here but I suspect this is a bit of a red herring so to speak.

J.

Do you even know what a strawman is?

You’re a fucking imbecile. Why don’t you go away so that people who want to engage in actual conversation can do so without having to deal with your idiocy? All you are is a hopeless, pathetic troll. Enjoy your life. Idiot.

Oh Jay, you are the LAST person I want defending my honor. You hypocritical douche-bag.

(And since I’m a woman, it’s not sexist to use that term.)

No, they get to keep the guns they already have or are interested in buying.

Better yet, I hear Mogadishu is nice this time of year.
Wanna go Galt? Go Somalia!

THERE’S a tourism slogan if I ever heard one.

So do I, generally.

Au contraire. My military experience, and the times when I had it, give me a perspective on current events that you apparently lack.

Were you “defending the Constitution” from Bush’s warrentless wiretaps? Before we invaded Iraq, did you demand that Congress issue the declaration of war that the Constitution requires before such adventures? Or used to?

I think I understand the Constitution. Now, do you think you should be able to buy a grenade?

They get to own a gun, Einstein.

And I’m all for responsible gun ownership. Keep the weapons registered, and don’t allow people access to machine guns and assault rifles. If you can’t defend your home with a semi-automatic handgun, you probably shouldn’t own one in the first place.

If you want gun owners to be part of the National Guard, then it’s a two-way street. Let them keep and bear the arms that they will be expected to use should they be called up.

I’ll spare asking you to buy them for them, though — I’ve never been a fan of the argument that “what good is a right if you can’t afford to exercise it?”

It’s the TANSTAAFL principle here. If you want gun owners to be a part of the National Guard, then there should be something in it for them. Some kind of compensation or recognition of their worth and potential sacrifice.

Now you go and hide under the bed and be afraid of the big, scary, law-abiding gun owners. I’ll save my worrying for those who have already demonstrated that they have no respect for the law AND have guns.

J.

Nobody said anything about giving out RPG’s or .50 cal’s because, um, it’s stupid for individual citizens to have these since they aren’t practical for home defense and they threaten the safety of the neighbors.

But please, run back over to NRA.com and get some more talking points, sparky.

You lose.

Yes, PRECISELY like slavery.

Slavery was enshrined in the Constitution — see Article I, Section 2 and Article IV, Section 2. That is why it took a civil war and three separate Amendments to get rid of it and get around the “takings” clause of the Fifth Amendment.

You wanna revoke the 2nd Amendment? Then you better be willing to do the work to get at least one Amendment passed. This nickel and dime bullshit — the “assault weapons” (alias “the scary-looking guns”) ban, ammunition control, “gun-free zones,” and all the half-assed measures won’t cut it.

J.

I propose that any and all gun owners be required to sign up or at least be on record with their state’s National Guard, to be called upon to defend their state in the event of invasion and/or armed insurrection by enemies either foreign or domestic.

So, how’d you feel about all those Tea Party people signing up with the National Guard and, as a logical extension, having the right to keep and bear full military grade hardware? Assault rifles (NOT “assault weapons” — a made-up term that has no military meaning), fully automatic weapons, grenades and grenade launchers, mortars, man-portable missiles (anti-tank and anti-aircraft), and the like? After all, if they’re an extension of the Guard, like the original militia, then they ought to be equipped with the same grade of weaponry as the military — just like the original militia.

Even I’m not calling for that. Just the status quo will be all right with me.

You wanna increase the penalties for using guns in crimes? I’m right there with you. Fuck, how about just ENFORCING the existing laws? Massachusetts has a law called Bartley-Fox that mandates adding years in prison for crimes committed with a gun. It’s a great law. IT’S NEVER USED.

You wanna pass laws based on the idea that someone MIGHT do something bad if given the choice or opportunity? You wanna pass laws to outlaw temptation?

Bad move.

J.

Huh. This is a brilliant idea.