A gun in the first act always goes off in the third

“It’s everywhere and always been recognized: an armed society is a primitive society.”

“An Oklahoma woman arrested Monday on drug charges had a loaded handgun hidden in her vagina, according to police.”

“Not only did police canine Ivan discover a stolen handgun, he fired it too.”

“Police arrested a 61-year-old Florida woman for allegedly pointing a gun at Walmart employees, threatening them after the store refused to honor her coupon for $1 off of a purchase and later attacking authorities.”

“The Tyler Morning Telegraph has learned that a Van Independent School District employee accidentally was shot during a district-sponsored concealed handgun license class on Wednesday.”

“The school district was sponsoring the class as part of its program to arm teachers and other school employees, in response to the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre and the NRA’s call for America to arm its schools.”

“A school district in New York has put a program to put armed officers in schools on hold after a policeman’s handgun went off at Highland High School.”

“The National Rifle Association’s field representative for New York was barred from having guns after an altercation with his wife.”

“A 3-year-old boy from Manchester, Tennessee was left in critical condition over the weekend after being shot while handling a small gun that an adult left sitting on a nearby counter-top.”

“Family and friends in Michigan are mourning the death of a 4-year-old Jackson County deputy’•s son, who accidentally shot and killed himself over the weekend.”

I’m very much on the conservative side of politics, but I just saw this as one of those things that demanded the use of the authority of my office to try and change.”

I know my father is watching us on this journey … to make our community, our state, and our country a safer place.”

You folks in Chicago want me to get castrated because your families are having too many kids. It spells out exactly what is happening here. You want us to get rid of guns.”


"I invented a ham with pasta and peas in a cream sauce. I think I ..."

LBCF, No. 186: ‘Lone Gunmen’
"I try, but damn, he makes it hard sometimes."

LBCF, No. 186: ‘Lone Gunmen’
"I fried some ham slices in ghee, and I really liked the combination of flavors. ..."

LBCF, No. 186: ‘Lone Gunmen’
"I have sympathy for him, since I think he is remarkably gullible."

LBCF, No. 186: ‘Lone Gunmen’

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • misanthropy_jones

    a point i will agree with.
    but, how many of the people saying that we should arm teachers or pushing for laws mandating firearm ownership for their hometowns are sports shooters as opposed to people living out their wild west fantasy of shooting the ‘bad guys’?

  • Isabel C.

    And I have mentioned, in one of my posts that you keep ignoring, that the reason we can’t get more effective restrictions against common weapons is shit that you and the people you support have pulled.

    But you haven’t addressed that, most likely because you’re as cowardly as LaPierre and the rest of the Boys’ Overcompensation Society. 

  • Jim Roberts

    Honest question here, since I’m hearing you argue both sides of the argument – you believe that the AWB will be ineffective*.  You also believe that there’s a “very real likelihood of restrictions being passed.”

    How do you reconcile these things? If the AWB won’t keep AWs from bring sold, how do you come to think that there are restrictions that will be passed?

    * I happen to agree with you. My preference would be for mandatory, complete backgrounds checks for all firearms, paid for by the purchaser, and mandatory training.

  • Isabel C.

    What I’m getting from this thread, other than seriously annoyed at Giblets the Talking Turkey Parts, is that bears will fucking kill us all one day. 

  • SergeantHeretic

    Well we WOULD be talking about effective restrictions but the National Rednecks asociation has their monied fingers on too many Republican polititions.

  • fredgiblet

    I’m not opposed to laws that can improve safety without ridiculous levels of restriction, the problem is that most proposed laws are incapable of providing significant benefit while leveling significant restrictions.  This is the main point of contention.  People such as yourself believe that the restrictions you want are useful and minor, they are usually neither.

  • redsixwing


      Real smart hunters take every precaution to make sure that they never have to try to take out a bear with a firearm. 

    For non-residents of bear country: It doesn’t matter how many bullets
    you can fire in one minute.  If you can’t hit the exact right spots
    with one of those bullets in that minute–and there aren’t very many
    spots to choose from–then the bear will either be on top of you or
    running wounded and a danger to everyone in the area.  The smart choice
    is to prevent violent encounters with bears by practicing good

    Yes, this, exactly this. Thank you.

  • AnonymousSam

    At least one in a very high position: The executive VP of the NRA.

    As parents, we do everything we can to keep our children safe. It is now time for us to assume responsibility for their safety at school. The only way to stop a monster from killing our kids is to be personally involved and invested in a plan of absolute protection. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. [Emphasis original.]

  • Isabel C.

    Define “ridiculous.”

    Now define “ridiculous” in a way that doesn’t involve the need to “defend our country” from phantom enemies, “defend yourself” from the Terminator, or pump enough lead into a game animal to render it inedible.
    I’ll be waiting. Right here. Doing my nails, making a little coffee, translating the Odyssey from the original Greek…

  • SergeantHeretic

    fredgiblit the National Rednecks assiciation won’t allow the U.S. Congress or any other regulatory group do anything meaningful or concret about this very problem and the National reactionary association makes SURE that the laws we have are sporadically enforced and or as toothless as possible!

  • Daughter

    Gun ownership, if you mean the numbers of people who own guns, is at an all-time low. However, among the fewer numbers of people who own guns, they own a lot more than ever, resulting in the numbers of guns owned in the U.S. being at an all-time high.

    So you could argue that: 1) crime rates are down because would-be-criminals are cowed by the smaller numbers of people with more guns; or 2) crime rates are down because fewer people who might potentially use them have them.

  • AnonymousSam

    Maybe we can compromise with them. Will the GOP block the appointment of an ursine secretary of defense?

  • SergeantHeretic

    misanthropy _Jones, my favorite is Sherriff Joe Arpaio and his brave posse of serial child rapists going into Arizona schools alongside fatassed Steven Seagal.

  • Jim Roberts
  • Isabel C.

    Dude, Defense Secretary Bear would get swept into office. And then we would once again be the mightiest force in any hemisphere you named. 

  • fredgiblet

    NEED?  Very few people have a NEED for them, however at the same time the number of crimes committed with them is far lower than those committed with weapons that are NOT “military-grade” so the idea that they should be singled out indicates that it’s not crime that being considered.  I’ve said before in other threads, if you want to reduce crime and you’re going after long-guns you’re doing it wrong.

    If there was a ban on “military-grade” weapons being pushed AFTER handgun violence dropped to even let’s say quadruple the level of rifle violence then I might be able to respect it, as it stands it’s clear that the laws are being pushed by fear, not fact.  Going after popular sport shooting weapons instead of popular crime weapons is not a position I can support.

  • Lori

    “Would Trayvon Martin have been alive the following morning if he had
    been armed?  Would Matthew Shepherd?”  (I’d choose more names, but those
    are the ones that would be most likely to be recognized.)  

    I don’t know about Matthew Shepherd, but I’d bet money I can’t afford to lose that Trayvon Marting would be just as dead if he’d had a gun. I’ve said it before and I stand by it, if Trayvon had had a gun if George Martin hadn’t killed him the first cop on the scene in response to the 911 call would have. Young AA man with a gun + cop is not a tale that tends to end well for the young AA man. Guns are not a panacea and cloaking gun issues in concern, either genuine or faux, for minority crime victims is at best a dubious tactic. 

    Speaking more broadly, minorities living in high crime areas have a great deal more need for better policing than they do for more guns. If for example, the response time to 911 calls was the same in South Central that it is in Beverly Hills I think a lot fewer people would feel the need for a personal firearm.

  • The_L1985

     A-fucking-men.  I am happy that my grandfather owns his hunting rifles, because his purpose for having them is to hunt deer.  They are kept locked in fine wooden cases with small windows in them–you can see the guns, but it would be damn near impossible to get them out by just breaking the glass because of how the windows are situated.  He told me and my cousins from an early age why he has those guns, that they are dangerous, and that the gun cabinet is locked because they are off-limits to us.

    My father owns a .22 revolver, and has since before I was born.  He says it is for defense, which is ludicrous in itself as the gun is kept locked away and I didn’t even know he had it until I was an adult and he got it out to show it to me.  He has not been to a shooting range in at least 20 years, and probably longer.  He also claims that the ONLY reason he doesn’t go on a shooting spree is the carrot-and-stick of Heaven and Hell.  Add to that a hair-trigger temper, and I am terrified by the fact that my father owns a gun.

  • Fusina

     I’m pretty sure the constitution, at least the thing itself and the first–ten, wasn’t it?–amendments were written well before the middle of the the nineteenth century. So this statement of yours does not apply, yes?

  • fredgiblet

    I will support laws aimed at the root causes of crime.  If those fail then I will support laws aimed at the most popular tools of crime as long as they respect the rights of law-abiding citizens.

    Few proposed laws do either of these things.

  • misanthropy_jones

    that makes my point perfectly.

    his entire answer to the question is to turn a school into an armed camp because, ‘wooie!  we gotta shoot us the bad guys!’

    there are many things that can stop a bad guy with a gun other than a good guy with a gun.  adequate security systems, improved law enforcement, better mental health care, sane restrictions on the purchase of guns and ammunition are all examples.

    but, to the NRA, every problem looks like a target…

  • misanthropy_jones

    yeah, i would feel so much safer if my kids were under such capable protection…

  • Isabel C.

    And you see the “rights of law-abiding citizens” as including the right to fire thirty bullets at a time, from a military-style assault weapon, because…why?

    I also support laws aimed at the root causes of crime. I can support those and support gun laws. I am large and contain multitudes, to misquote Walt Whitman.If you can only attack a problem from one angle at a time, I pity you. And kind of want to play a game of Risk with you, because you might be the only person I can beat. 

  • AnonymousSam

    The argument is that the assault weapons ban is pointless because very few crimes take place using anything which can be construed as an assault weapon. Gun rights advocates assume that all liberals care about is banning the scary weapons because they’re too fearful of phantom gun massacres waiting around every corner and too ignorant to know the difference.

    It says much that few gun rights advocates seem to favor banning handguns, though.

  • If it said “the right of the people to keep and bear muskets…” you’d have a point. 

  • fredgiblet

    The AWB would prevent new rifles from being SOLD, but they make up a tiny proportion of the crime rate AND they aren’t going to simply disappear.  Even a complete elimination of ALL longarm murders would make up less than 10% of the FIREARM homicides, and even less of the total homicide rate.  The proposed restrictions will do far less than that.

    The AWB would do a great deal to inconvenience sport shooters, but the difference on crime will negligible.
    And with that I need to get to work.

  • Unfortunately, as posted previously, barring a repeal of the 2nd amendment (HA), a handgun ban has exactly 0 legs.

  • Madhabmatics

    In other news from Alabama:


    You see, in our GREAT STATE it has been decided that the proper response to suggestions about a gun registry is to go and get rid of just about every useful limit we already had, including the ability of property owners to disallow guns on their property (this is going to have a huge impact on churches in the state), the ability of sheriffs to deny concealed carry permits, the ability to charge people trying to intimidate others with guns with disorderly conduct, etc. Any sheriff who arrests, fines, etc someone doing these things gets hit with a bigger, $10,000 fine.

    My family used to go to a church that mainly ministered to people that the many Alabama churches wouldn’t allow inside their building. As a result, they had a rather large amount of people attending that had mental illnesses. One woman was convinced that a member of the church was an FBI plant that broke into her house every night and rearranged her things. One night she brought her legally owned pistol to the church and threatened a church member with it. The pastor banned guns after that – if someone came to the church with a gun, he could call the sheriff and have them escorted off the property.

    If these laws pass, a sheriff escorting that person off the property would get them fired and fined $10,000.

    but this is all about reasonable self defense ya’ll honest


  • Isabel C.


    See previous post on this subject.Also, your arguments have gone from “but what if Chinese mutant zombies invaded us” to “but this doesn’t really work because of policies that organizations I support advocate” to “people’s hobbies might become slightly harder in order to keep only a couple hundred people from being killed every year!”

    Please pick one shitty argument and stick with it. I’m getting seasick. 

  • Random_Lurker

    Since noone has actually posted the FULL TEXT of the 2nd Amendment, here it is.  It doesn’t say what most people think it does.

    “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

  • SergeantHeretic

    fredgiblit I will support any reason for owing a gun that does NOT involve some variation of “I want it so I can kill people”.

    As to the roots of crime being adressed well sorry but you’re out of luck your friends i nthe Republican party have too many friends in the National Rednecks association and too much interest in supporting the privatized prison system.

    (Can someone explain to me why we created a private industry with a vested capital interest in throwing as many people in prison as possible?)

  • Lori

     Bears are after all “soulless, godless, rampaging killing machines”.*

    *This is a Stephen Colbert joke, not my actual opinion about bears.

  • Madhabmatics

    how DARE someone say they don’t want me waving a gun in people’s faces on their property WHAT ABOUT MY RIGHTS

  • Madhabmatics

    “if I can’t show up to an NAACP meeting carrying a big ass rifle so they know how white I am then the government is fascist” -responsible gun owners in alabama responding to a registry

  • Lori

     You do realize that violent crimes is at a multi-decade low right now, right?

  • SergeantHeretic

    My favorite link in the list is to the politician in the Illinois state legislature who directly compared a limitaion on gun ownership to himself being castrated.

    Thank you sir for telling us exactly where your head is at on this issue, thank you for telling us what your personal firearm means to you and why you feel the need to own it.

    Personally, I think a viagra perscription would have been cheaper and less trouble, but hey what the fuck, right?

  • Lori


    Gun ownership, if you mean the numbers of people who own guns, is
    at an all-time low. However, among the fewer numbers of people who own
    guns, they own a lot more than ever, resulting in the numbers of guns owned in the U.S. being at an all-time high.   

    This is one of the main drivers of the completely unhinged rhetoric that we’re getting from the NRA these days. The NRA is little more than a lobbying group for gun manufacturers, so they say what’s in the best interests of the gun makers. The pool of potential customers for guns has shrunk, leaving gun makers trying to sell almost exclusively to people who already own at least one gun. What motivates those folks to put their money down on gun# 1+ X (with X often being a really high number), is paranoia and racism. The NRA uses it because it works on the target audience (no pun intended) and they really don’t care what the rest of us think.

  • SergeantHeretic

    Random lurker, i nthat case I have no problem with legal personal weapons being limited to the available weapons technology in 1791.

    EIther that or create a regulated citizen militia directly tasked to defend he nation from attack, oh, wait we have that, it’s called the U.S. MILITARY!

  • Fusina

     Yeah. Right. Since what they had were muskets, they didn’t feel the need to add the precise definition of what they were talking about. Too bad, as then we would not have to listen to people whining about how if we outlaw guns then only outlaws would have guns.

    People who want to play the constitution game should at least read the damn thing.

  • P J Evans

     is that the same VP of NRA that just got busted for threatening his wife after she got a restraining order, and they took away all of his 39 firearms?

  • EllieMurasaki

    EIther that or create a regulated citizen militia directly tasked to defend he nation from attack, oh, wait we have that, it’s called the U.S. MILITARY!

    Bzzt. Wrong answer. The US military is a standing army, which is something the Founders and Framers did not want, no way no how. (I think they were fine with the Navy and Coast Guard. Dunno about Air Force. Marines…probably not.)

    The National Guard, now, that’s nearer what they meant by ‘militia’.

  • LoneWolf343

    “The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle. ”

    Ahem, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

  • SergeantHeretic

    Lori, that’s it in a nutshell pardon the pun. with fewer and fewer people actually feeling the need to own a gun, the gun makers have to depend on bigots anarchists and Red Dawn fantasists to buy more guns MORE GUNS MOAR GUNZZZZZZZ

    “Cuz they haffta pertect their things frum tha ebbil muslim comunazi in tha white house durkadur durkadur.”

  • Lori


      Could you possibly be more ignorant? The NRA has been teaching firearm
    safety since its inception. I haven’t noticed any of its opponents
    spending time and effort to do so.   

    1. What percentage of the NRA’s annual budget is spent on sponsoring gun safety classes? AFAICT it’s a lot less than the percentage spent on lobbying.

    2. There are groups other than the NRA which run gun safety classes.

    As it currently exists, the NRA is a gun manufacturers lobbying group that uses gun owners and gun safety classes as camouflage.

  • P J Evans

     Written back when we weren’t going to have a standing army, so all the able-bodied men between 16 and 45 were liable for militia training – it was like the National Guard, really. (Hence some of the questions on the early censuses.)

  • Like, say, supreme court justices? Naw, I’m sure you understand it better than they do.

    EDIT: Just so you know, I tend to fall on the “more gun control is good” side, but saying “People who want to play the constitution game should at least read the damn thing.” comes off a lot like “LOL JUST READ THE CONSTITUTION DUMBASS”, when it’s pretty clear that, as we like to say around here, It’s More Complicated Than That.

  • SergeantHeretic

    Exactly, contrary to the teabaggers wetdreaming on the way to the next gun show it’s not ACTUALY 1776 anymore.

  • P J Evans

     And even if you had one, it wouldn’t necessarily protect you.
    I would like to refer Alex B and fred the turkey innards to my great-great-grandfather, who had with him in the field where he was working a musket (probably rifled, definitely muzzle-loading), and was killed by Confederate raiders.

  • SergeantHeretic

    Exactly, P.J. exactly in the real world a civilian with a gun is dogmeat versus a trained soldier with a gun.

  • I’m not sure what your point is?