Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The irony being.. this kind of BS makes me actually consider being
> armed, just to protect myself from all the nut cases, and most of them
> are definitely ***nut cases***, who already are. 

Do it, you don't need a gun to be armed. Do you know where the kitchen
knives are? Do you know where the nearest exits are, and how to get your
family to them quickly? And do you know which few things in your house
are worth dying to protect?

There, now you are armed. Use this knowledge with great care.

Strangely, this works not just for intruders, looters, and other
neer-do-wells, but for fires, natural disasters, and lots of other
situations.

>Sadly, the only thing
> likely to change this trend towards shear stupidity is a good old
> western shootout some place. Betting it will be between a teabagger and
> someone they conclude is "liberal" because they wore the wrong shirt to
> an anti-liberal rally. 

I don't see that happening. Maybe as a false flag incident, but most of
the very conservative people I know, know each other. They might joke
about the 'liberal' for a few months, or call them out to other family.
But shooting a stranger who just might be a real liberal sent to the
rally to bait them into breaking the law, no sir.

>Ironically, the wacko politicians are at least
> partly right. More people are getting armed because they are fearful and
> don't think the cops can help them. What they fail to grasp is that they
> realize that a) there are seldom enough cops, and even less now in a
> recession, b) many places the cops are in the pocket of local politics,
> and some of those **hate** certain neighborhoods, c) crime rates, for
> the most part, where dropping before now, especially violent crime, but
> that might have reversed, and not because 4 people some place stopped
> praying to the right wings dog, d) under the current conditions,
> promoting "more" guns is a recipe for disaster, not a solution to making
> things safer, in the absence of cops that the government can't/won't pay
> for, or which have been corrupted by politics to not help certain parts
> of the cities. 

When did the police become a means to prevent crime?

> All in all, I am much more worried, today, that one of these idiots, who
> watched a few too many episodes of Walker Texas Ranger, will shoot
> someone for looking too not-right wing enough, than that an army of
> liberals will try to storm the capitol building. Why? Because if the
> later happens, it will be **because** the WTR sort will have shot a
> bunch of people, then holed up in the capitol building, with hostages,
> and the right wing spin engine will be busy calling them "freedom
> fighters" for it, instead of insane, or terrorist, thereby helping to
> cement the civil war these idiots seem to want so badly.

I hate to say it, but they are the same thing. One sides Freedom Fighter
is the other sides terrorist. One sides liberating force is the others
invading army. The only difference is which side you are on or, if it
was in the past, which side won.

You have to be slightly insane to say to yourself, "You know, this
government isn't really working. I think if I could just get a few
thousand people to follow me, we might be able to overthrow the whole
thing." But, history shows that it keeps working.

> Frankly, I wish they would just save us the idiocy and bloodshed, move
> to Texas, secede, and the rest of us where smart enough to let them turn
> themselves into a third world country, instead of bothering to stop them.
> 

Where is the fun in that?

The loud rally-attending folks are not the ones ya ever need to worry
about. Neither are the talking heads that they listen to. Those are not
the people who are going to start a revolution, they wouldn't know how
and they would brag about it before they found 5 other people to
actually trust. No, if the people attending the rallies suddenly go
quiet because they realized that the tide was turning against them and
biding their time would work better, then you need to worry.

Post a reply to this message