« Casualties by Richard Sale | Main | It's the "Sequester," stupid! »

02 January 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I suspect, Tyler, that you may have some trouble passing the civics test required to obtain a US citizenship. A good argument can be made that the government, most that is not based in DC, is doing too much in some areas but another argument can be made that they do not do enough in others.

It would be nice, however, that if they decide to do something, they pay for it. When it comes to roads, they actually do, even if the results are at times somewhat uneven.

But if you like that small government and abhor the much larger one, I suggest you spend some time in places like Somalia. There you would have an opportunity to practice what you preach.


So if someone were to commit a crime there would be one more statue to charge him/her with violating, otherwise nothing is going to happen? Just who is that going to deter?



Tyler is a former combat infantryman who served in Iraq and Afghanistan and now on the Mexican border in ICE. Think about how pompous you sound. pl



You do know that many public schools already have armed guards? You do know that, don't you? the schools in connecticutt that the Newtown kids are at has armed police guards. should they be withdrawn? pl


The problem in Somalia isn't "small government". Try again.

Our problem is the people who think "more government" is the panacea to all ills.

Civics? You mean like Washington's farewell address that said we should be careful of large debts, foreign entanglements, and large governments?


No, I was more making the point that stupid people doing stupid things is more a matter for law enforcement and not a reason for the nanny staters in DC to ban everything tangentially related.

No one made any threats to the White Plains newspaper that decided to publish gun owners addresses and then hired armed guards because they were scared. The letter in question said "actions have consequences", and the same people who were bravely comparing gun owners to sex offenders and huff puffing about "safety" were terrified.

I see that people have a right to free speech, and a right to bear arms. The two go together splendidly. They banned guns in the UK, and now you can go to prison and lose your children to the state for expressing "racist" thoughts.

What you don't have a right to is being swaddled in bubble wrap from cradle to grave by your government, which is something many people seem to think is a right, or should be.

I'd also like to point out that our "elites" who cry about gun control seem to have no problem surrounding themselves with armed men. Sidwell School for Friends, where the Obamas' children go, has eleven armed guards. Actually, from their picture they look more like a SRT. Again: for me, but not for thee. Armed guards are for our elites, but not for the filthy rabble, according to many on the Left.


Not just more guns.

More guns, more training, more citizen-soldier ethos among the populace.

Less complancency, less serfdom, less never ending childhood.

You should also stop talking as if you speak for everyone, particularly your last paragraph. It makes you sound like you're coming down from your ivory tower to educate us savages.


My understanding is that very few people nowadays hunt out of necessity for food/survival. Anyway, outside of rabbits and, perhaps, feral hogs, isn't it illegal to hunt wildlife during various periods of the year, and don't hunters require licenses to do so?



Are you calling me a liar? If you are you are gone from here. People in the country here all own one or more freezers that contain a steer, a pig or two and deer, rabbits, etc. Local butchers will cut and wrap anything you bring them. You "understand" about hunters, eh? No, you don't. You know city people. pl


'few people nowadays hunt out of necessity'? Really? I guess they don't count when it comes to rights.

steve g


I have a hard time wrapping my
limited cortex around the term
nanny state. Is this the same
entiy that sends its citizen
soldiers to far away climes to
pacify and then rectify the locals
non-compliance with the above men-
tioned all knowing all seeing hege-
monic policies of exceptionalism?
Do many of these same citizen sol-
diers return from said expeditions
and embrace the state in another
but similiar capacity? Enforcing
the states laws in certain areas but
not embracing all of them. I know
many retired 25 to 30 year local
law enforement people. Almost to a
man they espouse small state or lim-
ited government intervention in all
aspects of its citizenry. Yet they
were the states force projection.
Is it me or is there a dichotomy
hidden somewhere. Respectfully.
Please enlighten me.


If that hypothetical and hopefully rare gun owner has to obtain a license for owning those inherited guns, he may not be given one. Thus, the detective can arrest him for being unlicensed. Should he, for some reason, obtain a license, it could be taken away from him and then the prior scenario would apply.


Like Washington's farewell address, Eisenhower's more important one is also ignored. Some of it has to do with living in a much different times. The main problem has more to do with the personal and financial ties between Big Biz and Big Gov. Break that and we may get a much better and possibly smaller government that is more concerned with the common good.


When did I ever talk about big business? You're the one going on about the magic of big government. Big business and big government are two sides of the same coin.


Who else would you trust with violence? Those skilled in its application and who see what the worst excesses of power lead to?

Or professors in "gender studies" and "community activists" who haven't even been punched in the head and blithely order the deaths of millions because they're not the ones fighting the war?

Why do they espouse small governments? Because a large empire and this insane globalist crusade we've been on for the last twenty plus years go hand in hand. The best way to prevent 20 somethings from trying to shove their guts back into their torsos on the battlefield is shrink the apparatus of the nation state.

I also imagine for your friends, and know for myself, that there was always a desire to serve the needs of the greater good and be part of something awesome and majestic (my beloved Army).



That information is online. There's no reason to go to the court house, only to show your age, young man.



The situation described occurred last year, not 150 yards from where I sit. It was not a hypothetical situation. Fortunately, the gun owner was "encouraged" to surrender the long guns to the PD.


Prepaid lawyers is insurance too.


I wasn't intending to call you a liar, but I was pointing out that subsistence hunting - as in needing to hunt to feed one's family - is rare in the US outside Alaska, and there are regulations even there. I was merely taking issue with your last sentence. I have family and friends who hunt, and I have eaten and enjoyed the fruits of their labors. They hunt, however, more for sport than out of necessity, although they always eat the meat. Only one of them doesn't live in a rural area, and for the others, they chiefly depend on poultry and livestock. My father was a country boy who lived most of his life in cities or suburbs. Enjoying one lifestyle doesn't preclude being familiar with another.

Bob Bernard

Apologies if this comment is on the wrong thread re weapons, but what if instead of being concerned with ownership, we think about tracking.

If designated classes of weapons had factory installed RFID chips, the presence of those weapons near schools, airports, etc. would be more readily detected.


The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

September 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Blog powered by Typepad