Too long gone

YouTube Preview Image

“If we’re going to be the Christian nation many gun worshipers claim us to be, then we have to get rid of our guns.”

“I recently visited some Latin American countries that mesh with the N.R.A.’s vision of the promised land, where guards with guns grace every office lobby, storefront, A.T.M., restaurant and gas station. It has not made those countries safer or saner.”

“America has seen an astounding 11 mass shootings since a madman used a semiautomatic pistol with an extended ammunition clip to shoot me and kill six others.”

“I love guns. Grew up with ‘em. … I plan to buy more – a bunch more. In fact, who’s to say I don’t already have a veritable arsenal?”

“They are used to defend our property and our families and our faith and our freedom, and they are absolutely essential to living the way God intended for us to live.”

“I guess we need armed guards for the police. And when they start getting shot we will need armed guards for the armed guards for the police. And when they start getting shot …”

“There is no statistical correlation between the exercise of prayer, or respect for the Ten Commandments, and some immunity to mass shootings.”

“Police said the two were sitting across from each other in a booth … when the man reached into his front pants pocket and accidentally discharged a small pistol, striking his wife in the leg just above the knee.”

5 People Shot at 3 Different Gun Shows on Gun Appreciation Day

“There ought to be some big national organization out there that provides firearm safety courses.”

“A quick search on Google news for ‘shooting’ on late Saturday night, Gun Appreciation Day, offered these headlines. …”

“The true source of the NRA’s political power  – lobbying and fundraising — is the perfect demonstration of how irrelevant their cause really is.”

“So I guess it’s true that blacks wouldn’t have been slaves if they had guns, much like it’s true that blacks wouldn’t have been slaves if there was no such thing as American slavery.”

“Eventually, any conversation about gun control in America ends with someone, somewhere opposed to new gun regulations comparing the proponents to Adolf Hitler.”

“I couldn’t blow this guy away for something he could change later in life. I’m not going to decide this man’s fate.”

“According to a survey from the National Association of Evangelicals, nearly three-quarters of evangelical leaders support increasing restrictions on guns as a way to curb America’s gun violence epidemic.”

“The point is: Things change. Goliaths fall. It happens.”

“Ultimately I choose to live without guns because, a) I don’t hunt, b) I’m not a police officer, c) I choose to live gently in a violent world.”

“When Isaiah and Micah spoke of swords into plowshares they were most likely quoting an ancient song. … The song haunted these holy men.”

  • fredgiblet

    Correct, but the part that is intended for action is the second part.
    Let’s try something different.”Free discourse on government policy being of paramount importance to democracy, the right to the people of freedom of speech shall not be infringed.”Does the above mean that freedom of speech is ONLY guaranteed on the subject of government policy?  That’s neither the intent, nor what it says.

  • fredgiblet

    Insufficient information.  Too many variables to be certain.  It would certainly improve his odds though.  Lori definitely has a point as well, though if he wasn’t stupid he’d have the gun unloaded and out of his hands before the cops show up, no reason to make them tell you to do it when you know full well it’s coming.

  • fredgiblet

    To be clear, I don’t think an insurgency in America would be a cakewalk.  If one started now it would absolutely fail, if one started in a hypothetical near future where things were much worse it gets fuzzier.

    In the end it really depends on the lead-up, if the tinfoils are right and people end up getting rounded up in FEMA death camps?  I think an insurgency could have some traction.  If the tinfoils end up rebelling against gay marriage and legal weed?  Not so much.

  • Tapetum

     As an aside, I get very tired of the gun-nuts conflating having no guns with being unarmed with having no means of defense. These things are not equal. My house has no guns. We do, however, have: tonfa, batons,  staff, sai, nunchuks, paint guns, air pistols,  a katana, and a freaking broadsword! All of which I guarantee we know how to use better than someone random who breaks in. (No, I’m not that paranoid, I teach karate, my husband does paintball, we’ve both done some medieval re-enactment). As a bonus, I can also be pretty certain that neither we, our children, nor our children’s friends are going to be able to accidentally kill someone with any of it.

    Other than that, I agree with pretty much everything you say. What horrible people to have as neighbors!

  • Isabel C.

     And also…Northern Ireland? So decades of slaughter with any number of innocents caught in the crossfire is a positive example here?

  • Lori

     

    I defer to Lori, however, if I have gotten any of these wrong.  

    No, your points are all fair. The thing I was talking about was the foreign occupier issue. There are a couple of guys who have studied insurgencies and set up a huge database of information about them, looking at all sort of factors. One of the main things they wanted to know is which ones succeed and which fail. Unsurprisingly that’s a complicated question with no simple answer, but the single best indicator of insurgent success is being able to portray the enemy as a foreign occupier. If you can convince the population, the water in which you swim to coin a phrase, that you are “them” and those you are fighting are “Other” you’ve got a far better chance of success than you do in a situation recognized as a civil war. It helps a lot if the other guys really are foreign, but if they’re not there are ways that you can make them foreign for your purposes.

    That’s a big part of the reason that the nutters want to carve out territory for themselves*, like the group that wants to build a fortress town and call it The Citadel or those people taking over the northwest corner of Montana. Whether they realize it or not, if the fight they fantasize is coming is broad (never mind nation-wide) they will get their asses kicked because it will be an obvious civil war and most people will see them as the problem. In order to have any hope of holding territory in their glorious future they have to artificially create a space were the government is a foreign occupier. That’s also obviously a big driver behind the idiotic “sovereign citizen” movement.

    *It may be unconscious. I haven’t done a lot of detailed reading about the more recent versions of this, so I don’t know how aware the leaders are or how willing they are to acknowledge the underlying logic.

  • Lori

    Trayvon Martin was a black teenage boy. George Zimmerman was perceived as white. I’m not convinced there’s much a black teenage boy can do to stay safe from the police after brandishing a gun at a white man. And if Trayvon had actually shot Zimmerman in self-defense then call me cynical, but I put his odds of surviving once the police arrived at, not zero, but a very, very low number, no matter what he did with the gun.

  • P J Evans

     The first part is NECESSARY for the second part to work.
    And your second example is from what source?
    It’s clearly describing a subsetof free speech; it ain’t the First Amendment.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    On your view, should the courts interpret a law reading “Free discourse on government policy being of paramount importance to
    democracy, the right to the people of freedom of speech shall not be
    infringed” any differently from a law reading “Free discourse being of paramount importance to
    democracy, the right to the people of freedom of speech shall not be
    infringed” or just “The right to the people of freedom of speech shall not be
    infringed” or “Free discourse being the only way to prevent Surtur’s Fire Demons from destroying our homes, our livelihood, and our very way of life, the right to the people of freedom of speech shall not be
    infringed”?

    Or ought all of those wordings be equivalent from the point of view of a court?

  • Lori

    In the end it really depends on the lead-up, if the tinfoils are right
    and people end up getting rounded up in FEMA death camps?  I think an
    insurgency could have some traction.   

    Possible, but far from certain. There have certainly been governments in modern times that rounded their people up and sent them to death camps and the record on how people respond to that is decidedly mixed. In cases where an armed insurgency gets past the talking stage the record of success vs failure is quite mixed.

    One big factor is perceived legitimacy of the government prior to when it started rounding people up. This is an area where opinions between the would-be Wolverines and the rest of us diverge quite sharply and AFAICT a lot of the Wolverines don’t get that. It’s an area where the Right’s current issues with epistemic closure are huge. For the last several decades there as been a concerted effort on the Right to portray any government with which they disagree as not simply wrong, but actually illegitimate. That started on the far fringes, with things like the sovereign citizens movement but, as is sadly the case with so much bad crap on the fringe Right, over the years it has spread toward the center. The result is idiocy about Obama’s birth certificate. The thing about stuff like that is that it’s now taken as fact by the Fox News crowd, and they no longer seem to have any idea that other people don’t believe it. I think they believe that it would be easy to portray the government as a foreign occupier, but it wouldn’t.

    One of the major questions in the event of a nutbar insurgency against a Democratic administration would be whether Fox nation is actually large enough and committed enough to sustain a shooting fight. There would seem to be enough numbers, but a lot of them are old and a lot more of them are cowards, so I don’t know how useful they’d actually be. Add in the fact that their refusal to see the government as legitimate actually strengthens the government’s perceived legitimacy for much of the rest of the population and the picture is less than rosy for the Wolverines.

    And of course there’s one other thing our would-be insurgents never seem to take into account—if the highly unlikely event that the US government were to start rounding citizens up and putting them in camps the odds are overwhelming that it would be under a GOP administration, not a Democratic one. In that case the majority of our hardcore gun owners would be more likely to help the government with the round up than fight it. IOW, our would-be Wolverines have more in common with 1930s Germany than say, 1980s Central and South America.

    Tl; dr: No matter what angle you look at it from it’s unlikely that US gun owners could ever form an even moderately successful insurgency against the government. “Not a cake walk” doesn’t even begin to cover it. That’s not to say they couldn’t get a lot of people killed by trying, but their odds of achieving anything that could reasonably be called success would be very low.

  • Lori

     

      And also…Northern Ireland? So decades of slaughter with any number of
    innocents caught in the crossfire is a positive example here? 

    Yeah, as plans go”fight a grinding, bloody war of attrition until the other guy losses the will to continue” is not exactly something to cheer about.

  • AnonymousSam

    This didn’t appear in my e-mail subscription. I wish it had. This means something to me, although I’m not sure how to articulate what.

    But I disagree with the Tin Woodman. If I had a heart, I would need to mind more than ever, lest it be a bad heart and lead me astray.

  • AnonymousSam

    Oh, FFS.

    Trigger warning: A lot of people who should know better shamelessly stroking their muzzles in public: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/22/ohio-state-board-of-education-president-compares-obama-to-hitler/

    This part in particular makes me stop and stare. From “Dr. Jim Garrow,”

    “I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new ‘litmus test’ in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. ‘The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.’ Those who will not are being removed.”

    I call shenanigans. LOUD EVIL SHENANIGANS.

  • AnonymousSam

    Oh, FFS.

    Trigger warning: A lot of people who should know better shamelessly stroking their muzzles in public: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/22/ohio-state-board-of-education-president-compares-obama-to-hitler/

    This part in particular makes me stop and stare. From “Dr. Jim Garrow,”

    “I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new ‘litmus test’ in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. ‘The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.’ Those who will not are being removed.”

    I call shenanigans. LOUD EVIL SHENANIGANS.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    It’s like they’re following this blog and trying to Xanatos-Speed-Chess their way to whooping up the right-wing tinfoil hat brigade. O_O

  • Lori

     

    I call shenanigans. LOUD EVIL SHENANIGANS.   

    As well you should.

  • Kiba

    like the group that wants to build a fortress town and call it The Citadel

    XD

    http://www.iiicitadel.com/index.html

    Then there’s Glen Beck’s bubble libertopia he wants to build somewhere in Texas (at the tune of 2 billion).

  • Lori

    The Citadel people are, I don’t even know. Just not in touch with our reality. Beck’s version is more understandable in that his motivation is obvious greed. He wants to build a really big version of Celebration, FL for wingnuts.

    The thing that shouldn’t surprise me, but does, is that The Citadel is apparently not an outright scam. AFAICT someone actually thinks they can make this thing fly. Celebration was built by Disney, a company with a huge amount of money. It’s average household income is more than twice the national average. It sits in the middle of a well-populated area, so people have access to jobs and services outside the (incredibly faux) town.

    Celebration has fewer than 8k residents. The Citadel folks are looking to build something with 5-10 times the population of Celebration, in the middle of nowhere. The county where they want to build currently has a double digit poverty rate, an unemployment rate over 10% and average income about 20% below the national average.

    The county seat, which as far as I can tell is the largest town in the county, is about the same size as the town I currently live in. Trust me when I tell you that my town doesn’t have much in it. The difference is that I live 8 miles from a larger town that at least has the basics and less than an hour from 2 cities that are on the list of the 100 largest cities in the US (Fort Wayne and Toledo, so not exactly NYC, but still). Idaho doesn’t have a single city anywhere in the state that’s in the top 100 (Boise is 101st).

    My point being, both services and employment oppertunities are in short supply in Benewah County, Idaho.  I have no idea how they think it can sustain a community of 3500-7000 new families, even assuming they can get anywhere near that many people to buy in. They figure building the town will wipe out the county’s unemployment and poverty, but I don’t think they’re thinking this through. The idea of a self-sustaining community is really appealing to a lot of people, but they don’t actually work over the long term.

  • Kiba

    My point being, both services and employment oppertunities are in short supply in Benewah County, Idaho.  I have no idea how they think it can sustain a community of 3500-7000 new families, even assuming they can get anywhere near that many people to buy in.</blockquote

    Well, from the town "plans" I think they are all supposed to work at the arms factory or, maybe, the farmer's market. There's so much wrong with their plan it's not even funny. You would think with their siege mentality that they would have better thought out things like water supply, food supply and storage, medical care (no hospital at all shown) and, of course, planed something that didn't look like it was designed (poorly) for medieval warfare.

    As for Beck's thing…he wants it to have a lake the size of Disney World and he wants the entire thing enclosed in a bubble and it's supposed to be self-sustaining (all their own businesses and a theme park, but, as far I know, no mention on food production) which I don't see how. But really, he wants to enclose something larger than Disney World in a bubble…I don't think 2 billion is going to cover it.

  • Kiba

    What the hell Discuss?!? The part it chopped off:

    Well, from the town “plans” I think they are all supposed to work at the arms factory or, maybe, the farmer’s market. There’s so much wrong with their plan it’s not even funny. You would think with their siege mentality that they would have better thought out things like water supply, food supply and storage, medical care (no hospital at all shown) and, of course, planed something that didn’t look like it was designed (poorly) for medieval warfare.

    As for Beck’s thing…he wants it to have a lake the size of Disney World and he wants the entire thing enclosed in a bubble and it’s supposed to be self-sustaining (all their own businesses and a theme park, but, as far I know, no mention on food production) which I don’t see how. But really, he wants to enclose something larger than Disney World in a bubble…I don’t think 2 billion is going to cover it. 

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    If it helps, I think the Tin Man was working from a definition of “heart” that precludes that possibility.

  • AnonymousSam

    It remains an interesting thought, because in the end, the heart Oz gave him was made of velvet and sawdust, if memory serves — and while this is a land of magic we’re talking about, no implication was ever made that the heart was anything but symbolic. Despite the fact that the loss of his heart prevented him from falling in love, he is shown to be one of the most compassionate characters in the series, so the artificial heart turns out to be good enough after all.

    Makes one wonder what a heart is supposed to be after all. If my consideration is the result of constantly making myself stop and think of others, is that really inferior to someone for whom this comes naturally, but only sporadically?

  • hidden_urchin

    In my mind, it is not. I have been thinking for some time that you show more compassion, more heart, than a lot of people out there. You’re just taking a slightly different path.

  • AnonymousSam

    ^^; I don’t trust myself to write a more elaborate response, so…

    <3

  • Lori

    You would think with their siege mentality that they would have better
    thought out things like water supply, food supply and storage, medical
    care (no hospital at all shown) and, of course, planed something that
    didn’t look like it was designed (poorly) for medieval warfare. 

    I guess the Citadel folks think that 30k people can live off the land, what with all the guns and all. Someone should really mention to them that if you’re going to do the whole back to the land commune, I mean “self-sustaining community”, thing you really need a location with a longer growing season and more arable land than northern Idaho. Even if your commune is heavily armed.

    But really, he wants to enclose something larger than Disney World in a bubble…I don’t think 2 billion is going to cover it.   

    Well, he definitely wants to talk about enclosing something larger than Disney World inside a bubble, but I suspect there’s no actual intent to build it. Beck is a huckster.

  • fredgiblet

    Given the structure of the sentence by FAR the greatest weight goes to “The right to the people of freedom of speech shall not be infringed”.  If we assume the author of the law is competent then it’s very clear that the first part is descriptive, but not intended as a limiting part of the statement.

    If the law was intended to only protect freedom of speech in the case of discussion of government policy then it’s quite poorly written and a much better version would be: “Free discourse on government policy being of paramount importance to democracy, the right to the people to discuss government policy without restriction shall not be infringed”.  The wording of the original statement clearly sets no limits on the prohibition on restrictions of speech, the wording of the statement I just wrote clearly places limits.  The first part can’t be IGNORED, but it’s simultaneously clearly not integral to the “active” part of the law.

  • fredgiblet

    Very true.

    I would point out that “highly unlikely” isn’t the same as “can’t happen”.  We are talking about a government that signed the NDAA into law, just because they are better, doesn’t mean they’ll never abuse their power.

  • fredgiblet

    Who said it was positive?  The point is it was an insurgency squaring off against a government that has jets, tanks and nukes that lasted for decades.  Whether it’s GOOD or not is irrelevant to the point that jets and tanks don’t make wiping out an insurgency easy, nukes even less so.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    OK, I’ve reread your comment five or six times, and disqus assures me that it is in reply to my question, but I can’t figure out what your answer to my question is.

    If you intended to answer my question, we’ve just experienced a massive failure to communicate, and I’m not quite sure how to proceed.

    If you didn’t intend to answer, then we’re fine.

  • fredgiblet

    “What we’ve got here, is failure to communcate”

    They should be treated largely the same, the difference in wording can have a minor effect on the details, but the actual command “The right to the people of freedom of speech shall not be infringed” is the same in all of them.

    The rest is useful in establishing the intent of the law for interpretation but is not actually part of the command itself and thus is ultimately far less important.  In my original example it’s clear the primary intention is to prevent restriction of speech regarding the government, however as I stated in the previous post that is clearly not the only protected form of speech and clearly is not the only part that was INTENDED to be protected, regardless of the fact that that’s the only part that’s MENTIONED.

    In a case where a specific part of speech is called out like in my first example it’s clear that that is the seen as the most important to protect, but it doesn’t mean the rest is free game.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    Cool… thanks for clarifying.

    FWIW, I disagree.

    Perhaps you’re right that the “actual command” is more important than the stated intent, but
    that still doesn’t mean that four laws with the same “actual command” and different stated intents should
    be treated largely the same, as you assert here.

    We apply laws in a cultural context. That’s why a law like “The right to the people of freedom of speech shall not be infringed” doesn’t necessarily protect the right to make fraudulent claims, the right to make threats, the right to reveal privileged or dangerous information, or a variety of other speech acts we currently make illegal. That is, we can make them illegal precisely because we adopt a legal hermeneutic where intent and precedent and cultural context are extremely important, and can have much more than a minor effect on the details.

    And on balance, I think we would lose more than we gained if we switched to the kind of “actual command” hermeneutic you’re promoting here.

    So where the law is kind enough to articulate its intent clearly, I endorse courts making decisions about how to apply that law based on that intent in more than minor ways.

  • Lori

     

    I would point out that “highly unlikely” isn’t the same as “can’t
    happen”.  We are talking about a government that signed the NDAA into
    law, just because they are better, doesn’t mean they’ll never abuse
    their power.  

    The thing that would make an insurgency necessary is highly unlikely. It’s even less likely that said insurgency could achieve success. (Note that I do not consider sustaining the killing & dying for a good long while to constitute success.) The damage we’re doing to ourselves with our current gun culture is real and increasing and unlikely to stop unless we’re willing to make some substantive changes.

    The question is, why should the considerations of the unlikely so heavily outweigh the real? Why do so many people have to die in order to keep alive the fantasy about a rebellion that’s unlikely to occur and even less likely to succeed in any meaningful way? The Wolverines! all seem to seem themselves as the next Francis Marion, destined to be the heroes of the new order. The reality is that they’d almost certainly just end up some dead guy. In the mean time we have thousands of people who are dead now, who ought to be alive now, because we can’t loosen our grip on the fantasy of salvation via the gun.

    As I’ve said many times, I don’t want to take all the  guns, but we need to have far less of them and we need to be far, far more concerned about the people dying for no good reason here & now, than about the dream of glorious martyrdom in the maybe someday & probably never.

    Here’s the thing that really bugs me—even if this insurgency became necessary there would be no success in it, because if it ever comes to a shooting war between the government and citizens who aren’t simply the violent, lunatic fringe then we failed. The whole project, everything the Founding Fathers who the patriots” claim to revere so much, worked and fought for has failed. The point of the system they created was to make political decisions without recourse to violence. We’ve already fought one really terrible war over whether or not their experiment would continue. The day we resort to that again, the day any substantial group of Americans goes full Wolverine on our own government, is the day they set fire once and for all to everything their supposed heroes hoped for. People in the patriot movement and it’s less-whackadoo relations on the Right see themselves as the keepers of the flame. I see them as dreaming about blowing it our once and for all. I just can’t get behind people who want to dig in their heels and allow our fellow citizens to continue dying for no good reason while they dream about the destruction of my home.

  • Consumer Unit 5012
  • fredgiblet

    We may have had another failure to communicate.  I’m not against any and all gun laws, but I believe that when we’re dealing with basic rights any laws must be A:  A lost resort after other fixes have been tried and failed and B: Carefully crafted to provide the most benefit with the least restriction (not a bad idea for any law for that matter).
    The current attempts at a ban fail on both counts.  Whenever a shooting occurs gun bans are the first and usually only things brought up and it’s usually a revival of the Assault Weapons Ban which is horribly designed and doomed to be utterly ineffective while simultaneously showing little concern for the rights of gun owners.For example if you look at the current ban proposal what you’ll see on the chopping block is a very large percentage of the most popular sport shooting guns, what you won’t see is any of the most popular handguns, despite the fact that reducing handgun violence by 10% would yield a better effect than eliminating rifle violence entirely.  The new AWB is a significant infringement on rights for a minimal gain and ANY law like that should be resisted.

  • fredgiblet

    If you want substantive changes can I assume you oppose the “Assault Weapons” Ban?  Because that’s not what you’re looking for.  The statistics are very clear as to where the deaths are coming from and it’s not rifles, if you’re looking for significant benefits you need to be looking at pistols.

    Better yet look at gangs and drugs, use the threat of gun laws as leverage to move the conservatives on poverty, race relations, drugs laws and gang prevention measures, those will provide MUCH better RoI then a new AWB.  Or you can go after sport shooters and spend a great deal of time and effort gaining nothing.  Your choice.

  • Lori

    I’m pretty sure that I already mentioned once that you aren’t talking to a straw man. I guess you’re just going to let that sail on by and continue to assign to me views which I have not expressed because you have a talking point that you think makes a good come back for them. To which I say a hearty, “whatever”. Enjoy talking to yourself.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     It’s hard to say if we’re having a failure to communicate; it seems to me you just changed the subject completely.

    But regardless:
    - I agree that maximizing benefit while minimizing restriction is a good guideline for legal interventions in general.
    - I don’t agree that legal interventions must be a last resort after everything else has been tried and failed, even when dealing with basic rights, but I do agree that non-legal interventions that have a reasonable chance of working ought to be tried first.
    - I agree that laws passed in the wake of a traumatic event are often bad laws, for predictable reasons; I would far prefer that we make decisions about regulation in a less trauma-driven state of mind. That said, nobody seems willing to do that. The choices on the table seem to be to make decisions about regulation in a trauma-driven state, or to not make them at all.
    - I am not a particular supporter of the AWB compared to other potential legal interventions.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Apparently Disqus choked on several of my emails from the 21st and is only now telling me. What I meant to say at the time:

    Define ‘military’ and ‘civilian’. I always understood the word ‘militia’
    as meaning ‘civilians who can be called up for military service at
    need’, which today would be the Reserves and National Guard.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Belated comment is belated because belated email delivery failure notif is belated:

    So it’s never occurred to them that, with respect to the country’s
    population as a whole (weighted by age, since military folk are pretty
    much either career or an-enlistment-or-two and the latter demographic is
    quite young), the military is heavily skewed towards poor men of color?
    Not a demographic that has much love for Republicans. Especially the
    young ones, and I refer you to my parenthetical.

  • Water_Bear

    Basically, but remember, the majority of actually American “troops” in any given battle of the revolutionary war (I’ve seen figures of up to 2/3rds) were local people without any formal training or organization who heard a battle was going on and came out en masse to fight. Less “minutemen” and more “posse.”

    Granted, they were useless for the kind of war Washington and the other British-trained Continental Army officers were trying to fight (it’s hard to stay in formation while under fire even for trained soldiers) and tended to get sidelined in pitched battles. Still, they were invaluable as partisans and scouts, and gave the illusion of numerical superiority when the Continental Army often actually had fewer trained soldiers.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Conversation’s moved on while Disqus was trying to deliver this email, but…

    if he wasn’t stupid he’d have the gun unloaded and out of his hands
    before the cops show up, no reason to make them tell you to do it when
    you know full well it’s coming.

    So our hypothetical
    armed Trayvon should unload and set down the gun that is
    all that is keeping him from being shot by the
    other guy with a gun, who is
    not unloading and setting down his gun because he
    (unlike Trayvon) looks convincingly enough white to
    know the cops won’t shoot him first to break the
    standoff.

    Even if I accept all your other premises (including the one that
    puts a concealed-carry license in the hands of a
    minor, please tell me that’s not actually legal),
    that sounds like bullshit.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X