patrick.net

I believe that *I* should be allowed to own anything I want, because *I* will only use those weapons responsibly. However, I don't want lots of *you* to have access to so much as a butter knife.

Therein lies the problem with this debate.

calling the folks that jump the Rio Grande “wets” was not my idea, but due to it’s historical value I tend to use it.

Bap is apparently right. At least according to some definitions in the urban dictionary.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wetback

However, that term is slightly out-dated I would say.

I believe that *I* should be allowed to own anything I want, because *I* will only use those weapons responsibly. However, I don’t want lots of *you* to have access to so much as a butter knife.

If I am allowed to have all the food I want, I will weigh 300-lb by the next blog party.

However, I don’t want lots of *you* to have access to so much as a butter knife.

Another problem is that those who cannot be entrusted with butter knives will try to obtain illegal full-autos if they can.

The best "solution" is to uninvent all weapons. It is as good a "solution" as buying a house now at a *reasonable* price. :)

Bap33

I don't approve of "Realtwhores" either, and you'll notice that I and many others never use that term. I don't complain about it because real estate is the specific focus of this blog, but truth be I'd be happier if people didn't use it at all. I think when a newcomer picks up on the bubble and comes by here for their first visit, they judge the maturity of the blog by its civility. If they happen to catch a bunch of realtwhore this and realtwhore that, the new reader couldn't be blamed if they concluded reading here wasn't worth their time.

I don’t approve of “Realtwhores” either, and you’ll notice that I and many others never use that term.

I hated that word.

Prices have fallen. I can get you a full auto McMansion in a nice area tomorrow, if you can qualify for the financing.

I love steaks that can be cut with butter knives. :)

I don't mind the term F@cked Buyer, FB, or any derivative. The reason is because a FB is a specific state or condition which is not related to any kind of racial, religious, or ethnic bias. It is also not pejorative in the same way that "realtwhore" is. My logic is:

Not all buyers are FBs. A buyer becomes a FB when they are in a condition of being F'd, meaning hopelessly unable to salvage their financial circumstance without resorting to failure. This doesn't even necessarily confer whether the buyer became a FB by their own choice, ignorance, or perhaps through no fault of their own. I can easily see some buyers just have damned bad luck, and become FBs.

By the same token, a bunch of soldiers in a foxhole can become F'd soldiers. Or a bunch of dot-com companies can become F'd Companies.

But calling someone a "realtwhore" does not follow. It carries a distinctly gender bias, and suggests salaciousness without adding any particular value. We don't call used car salesmen "saleswhores".

There is ZERO argument for limiting the size, design, make or modle of any personal arms. ZERO.

If that's the case, then why are you wasting your breath here. If no one has any counter arguments, then it's all fait accompli, and you can move on to other more important things in life.

I don’t mind the term F@cked Buyer, FB, or any derivative. The reason is that I can always think of Focaccia Bread.

Randy, most FBs do not even know they were F'd.

Hey, I see I can register F-ckedbuyer.net or F-ckedHomeBuyer.com. Hmmm.

There is ZERO argument for limiting the size, design, make or modle of any personal arms. ZERO.

The keyword is "personal." It cannot be easily defined. Most would agree that a pistol or a rifle is a personal firearm though.

They knew an armed population is all that would keep a man free from foe and/or gov.

Right, so a gun keeps the creditors and the govt away... I see how it works now... You guys don't know which way to point them, that's the only problem...

Hey, I see I can register F-ckedbuyer.net or F-ckedHomeBuyer.com. Hmmm.

With the U or not?

The guys that wrote the founding docs did not have the cloud of lib in thier [sic] eyes.

I think they had the cloud of renewed British attack in their eyes, such as in the 1812 British-American war coming from Canada...

They knew an armed population is all that would keep a man free from foe and/or gov.

Just covered that one. Doesn't seem to help with bankruptcy or getting to work in peah hour traffic... And road rage incidents are an added danger...

There is ZERO argument for limiting the size, design, make or modle of any personal arms. ZERO.

hmm, except when people go loopy and open up fire on innocent people in malls, as often seems to happen. plus columbine etc. the more capability of the weapon, the more people are hurt, it seems.

Murder is already a crime, and the murder rate goes down wherever good people KEEP ARMS.

well, actually, it's up, the murder and suicide rate by firearms is much higher in the US than any other country's murder rates without them. mostly though, firearms are used for suicides and there are lots of accidental discharges in the home by children. then there's gang warfare, whereas in countries where they're banned gangs find it hard to get guns.

Everyone has the RIGHT to KEEP and BARE (or bear) arms is what it says. Too simple for a lawyer to screw up.

see war of independence note above... you bare arms at the beach (and do people pack firearms in their speedos for self-defence, or are they just happy to be there?)...

Arms should be an elective in HS just like wood shop.

perhaps if you were surrounded by larger, hostile, sabre-rattling countries on your doorstep it might be expedient. pointing them at each other was not really the intent of the 2nd amendment tho. and you seem to be the world's largest manufacturer of armaments these days and quite eager to use them wherever possible in the world theatre, thus sidestepping the boring, slow process of diplomacy and detente which just doesn't make the same exciting whooshing or banging noises...

Murder is wrong, but using a gun to defend life or property is not murder. I guess libs would be happier if home-invading gangsters beat everyone to death with a ballbat instead of shooting them??

tends not to happen too much in other countries. especially given that baseball is not a national sport elsewhere. then there is the problem of inadvertent escalation when everyone is packing heat, which causes injuries and fatalities also...

note: the ACLU is an anti-American commie group that should be disbanded and all of the lawyers it has should be jailed and all of the tax-payer fundes it has collected should be returned

the implied society bearing those sorts of powers where that is just one instance of the carriage of 'justice' would be a very interesting place to live indeed...

Randy,

Good point. There are lots of good used house salespeople around who provide value to their clients. I shouldn't resort to name calling.

I need to remember to make a donation to ACLU. Your discussion reminds me about why they're so relevant, especially in the current political environment. (Sorry, Doctors Without Borders).

not only guns, but Health care system broken, Clinton says in a recent SF speech...

There is ZERO argument for limiting the size, design, make or modle of any personal arms. ZERO.

hmm, except when people go loopy and open up fire on innocent people in malls, as often seems to happen. plus columbine etc. the more capability of the weapon, the more people are hurt, it seems.

You know, I'm not a gun nut. I don't even own a gun. But if everybody in Columbine had been packing heat, that siege would have lasted 10 seconds. I live in Colorado, I know the reports. Kids huddled under tables in the library, as the gunmen walked around and shot each of them in turn, at their leisure.

And you know what? There are gun laws here. Gun laws didn't stop Columbine. Because those killers got the guns illegally, and built their own pipe bombs, and planned a murder spree.

Arms should be an elective in HS just like wood shop.

perhaps if you were surrounded by larger, hostile, sabre-rattling countries on your doorstep it might be expedient. pointing them at each other was not really the intent of the 2nd amendment tho.

First off, the second amendment is meant to protect the American people from their own government. In the history of the world, there is lots of precedent for governments rolling over their own unarmed citizens. And worldwide you can say that same story hasn't played itself out in the timespan of the United States of America (which apparently in liberal Australia constitutes the entire history of the civilized world?!?). Our forefathers were conscious of the possiblity that a despot would come to power even in a Republic. Indeed, the U.S. Republic was modeled heavily off Greece and Rome, and that very event happened in Rome when emperors got out of hand.

Second of all, the world is flat at this point. China, India, Russia, Africa, the Middle East and South America are all a few hours away by plane. You can argue that Canada and Mexico aren't going to invade today, but what about 30 years from now? Hell, Canada and Spain almost came to blows over a speedboat getting blown up in the 90's! Governments fall, law and order collapse, and countries must be prepared to defend against unstable neighbors. There is a certain foresight to never diluting the personal right to bear arms, because by the time you know the citizens need the guns, it's already too late.

Hm, odd. The italics didn't take. I will try again:

There is ZERO argument for limiting the size, design, make or modle of any personal arms. ZERO.

hmm, except when people go loopy and open up fire on innocent people in malls, as often seems to happen. plus columbine etc. the more capability of the weapon, the more people are hurt, it seems.

You know, I'm not a gun nut. I don't even own a gun. But if everybody in Columbine had been packing heat, that siege would have lasted 10 seconds. I live in Colorado, I know the reports. Kids huddled under tables in the library, as the gunmen walked around and shot each of them in turn, at their leisure.

And you know what? There are gun laws here. Gun laws didn't stop Columbine. Because those killers got the guns illegally, and built their own pipe bombs, and planned a murder spree.

Arms should be an elective in HS just like wood shop.

perhaps if you were surrounded by larger, hostile, sabre-rattling countries on your doorstep it might be expedient. pointing them at each other was not really the intent of the 2nd amendment tho.

First off, the second amendment is meant to protect the American people from their own government. In the history of the world, there is lots of precedent for governments rolling over their own unarmed citizens. And worldwide you can say that same story hasn't played itself out in the timespan of the United States of America (which apparently in liberal Australia constitutes the entire history of the civilized world?!?). Our forefathers were conscious of the possiblity that a despot would come to power even in a Republic. Indeed, the U.S. Republic was modeled heavily off Greece and Rome, and that very event happened in Rome when emperors got out of hand.

Second of all, the world is flat at this point. China, India, Russia, Africa, the Middle East and South America are all a few hours away by plane. You can argue that Canada and Mexico aren't going to invade today, but what about 30 years from now? Hell, Canada and Spain almost came to blows over a speedboat getting blown up in the 90's! Governments fall, law and order collapse, and countries must be prepared to defend against unstable neighbors. There is a certain foresight to never diluting the personal right to bear arms, because by the time you know the citizens need the guns, it's already too late.

theotherside - do you have the link to the paper that gave you those percentages, please post link...

Imus was fired by CBS and MSNBC, not through any government actions. It's just capitalism at work.

Not that it really matters, Rush, Michael Savage and other hate mongers are still on air.

Brand,

More guns or less guns, I'm agnostic.

However, we really should have a national gun policy rather than a state by state gun policy. I also think national gun registration and licensing would be good for everyone.

bap33,

She's a propagator of some stupid racial stereotypes. If they're stupid enough to get her off the air, I won't shed a tear for her.

By the way, I'm not calling for shutting down Michael Savage and company. They're on the air, selling their world views to millions of people (who think just like them), because there's a market for that kind of view. I support the right of the shows to be on air, however dispicable those views may be to me. I don't want to drive them underground.

Ideally, I want to convert people who harbor illogical hatred for other people, but as I grow older, I'm recognizing the impossibility of accomplishing this.

Thus, I have become more pessimistic about humanity's long term survival.

Bap33,

Imus is a commercial entity. Once his corporate masters decided he's not profitable, they can let him go just like Lucent can downsize an unprofitable employee. Civil Liberties doesn't come into play for that kind of employment contract. ACLU has no grounds to enter into the fracas.

Let's be honest, what kind of a world would it be, where you would not be angry?

Bap33,

Sexual preference usually doesn't affect job performance, why should people be fired merely because other people think their private life is icky? Sexual preference in those instances is not associated with job performance but with unreasonable prejudice. Comparing those situations to Imus is like comparing Apples to a box of Crayola.

You can call the ACLU anything you like. I'm still going to write them that check. (And I can tell you any number of Republican acts of hypocrisy and callousness, but you'll still vote for them). :)

I think the Center for Consumer Freedom serves more support. :)

We need to defend our food liberties against vegans and other food polices.

Bap33: The ACLU does not draw any lines in their interpretation of constitutional freedoms. That is the )(*&%*(&^'ing point! They are not saying that it's okay to send a gay scoutmaster into the woods with a bunch of 12 year olds. They are saying that they will challenge every single case where prejudice and preference are shown, so that society makes an informed choice. You know what? A lot of stuff in our society gets decided by default. If the ACLU constantly challenges the default ruling when things even remotely smell suspicious, it doesn't mean that the ruling gets overturned. But it DOES mean that the ruling is more precisely considered, and that citizens are made aware of the various hidden factors.

Again. I am a moderate conservative and usually vote Republican. But I am not willing to take the endless number of defaults on laws because a lazy society decides (existentially) to go passive on its own freedoms. The founding fathers were smart; most Americans (and Britons and Australians and Asians) are myopic and foolish.

John Philpot Curran wasn't kidding: the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Eternal. Not immediate. Once the creeping infringement is knocking on your door, it's already too late.

I think there are many companies that keep sexual diviant dead weight employed because they are afraid of the ACLU.

Anyone watched The Closet (French movie)? :)

Perhaps employers should have more groups representing them.

Bap33

You are one of the more frustrating folks around here to argue with. It's not because you don't raise some points that need to be discussed. It is because every statement you make is absolutist, with your opinion being declared undeniable, divine truth which is unquestionable by any of us. So why do you bother with us? You're not particularly interested in debating. If you were you'd have listened to those who pointed out to you that the ACLU, commies under the bed, or "libs" had nothing to do with Imus. It was a free-market capitalistic corporation which fired him because of pressure from their advertisers, who themselves are also free market capitalist organizations interested in selling the most products to the most people.

So either (a) your original point is at least partially wrong or (b) "Americans" who are "RIGHT" and in your own image hate free market capitalism.

So, which is it?

Bap33,

Please go back and read what I wrote. Imus was fired for issues related to his job performance, those gay scoutmasters were not. Imus didn't have a civil liberties issue that ACLU could intervene in, just like ACLU has no business when LA Times fired Robert Scheerer (both of which happened) for holding opinions that went against the LA Times management.

Peter P,

Answering your earlier question. With the "U".

Freedom fighting is best left to corporations. In order to defend and expand markets, corporations have huge incentive to protect our liberties. Combined with anti-trust laws, we can count on business entities to ensure our freedom of choice.

Answering your earlier question. With the “U”.

Quick, grab them before they are gone forever! They are not making any more domains!

lol

Peter P.: They may not be making any more domains, but are they making more serfs? :o

Bap33,

I'm still interested in what your perfect world would be. Would deporting illegal aliens be enough? Do you want to deport non-white people? Would ending welfare be enough or do you want something more drastic? What do you want to do with all the "libs" who disagree with you?

(Be careful what you wish for, if all your enemies are vanquished, you may find yourself in the unenviable position of being a "moderate"amongst people who hold even more extreme positions)

Peter P

Thus my ongoing, evolving theory that a frightening number of Americans -- in fact I now believe *most* Americans -- don't like Capitalism or Free Markets. Both the "left" and "right" continually do their best to destroy what we have left of it. I'm not as optimistic as you, I'm afraid.