Finally, a Dating Site for Loonies »« It’s SSA Week!

Dumbass Quote of the Day

From our old friend Joseph Farah:

The Chechen terrorist wouldn’t have lasted five minutes in a free society that entrusted its citizens with their unalienable, constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

First of all, that right is protected. In fact, the very thing he complains about is a possible future gun control measure:

Despite the stark lessons of Boston, there are still those in Washington gleefully and excitedly pushing…more national restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms that are essential for safeguarding homes, families, businesses and the public in general from future threats of this kind.

The people of Boston do have the right to bear arms, including assault weapons. I’m sure tens of thousands, at bare minimum, do own guns. And yet the Tsarnaev brothers did manage to last more than five minutes. Maybe it’s because no one knew who they were and that they were bad guys. Were people at the Boston Marathon supposed to just open fire on two nondescript men with backpacks and baseball caps on? Were they supposed to saddle up a posse and go out shooting at people they thought might have been involved without knowing who they were? What the hell is Farah babbling about?

Comments

  1. says

    Christ on a bike. Farah is a tool but even he *has* to know that every spectator on Boylston Street could have been standing there with an M-16 at port arms and the outcome would have been different in only one way: In the panic following the bomb blasts, people would have started shooting and more innocent citizens would have died.

  2. says

    The Chechen terrorist wouldn’t have lasted five minutes in a free society that entrusted its citizens with their unalienable, constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

    Even assuming he is talking about after their pictures were circulated, they lasted way more than five minutes. I suppose the owner of the boat the survivor hid in could have riddled it with bullets without hitting more than one or two of his neighbors and maybe getting himself blown up.

    The NRA ass-kissers all think of guns and shooting people like they were 5 years old again playing cowboys and indians.

  3. says

    He’s right, Ed. Only one of them was armed.

    Oh. I don’t think that’s what he meant.

    Oh. He meant a vigilant and armed public (excluding terrorists);
    “Gat down! They’ve gat a backpack!”, exclaimed everyone.
    [massive, massive crossfire]
    “Fahk! That wicked hurts!”, lamented everyone.

  4. Larry says

    Somehow, packin’ heat gives one super-duper powers to determine who is out to do evil and to take 2nd amendment action to stop said evil-doer.

    Or something.

    Too bad no one in Boston was carrying that day.

  5. Artor says

    I dunno, Farah’s porn’stache looks pretty suspicious to me. No Real American™ would wear something like that. Maybe someone should cap him before he commits a terrorist act. Just to be safe, you know.

  6. unbound says

    I agree with kevinbeck. The only realistic difference in outcomes if the public was loaded to the teeth, is that a whole lot more innocent people would be dead or recovering from wounds.

  7. says

    One of the things that gunzloonz are very clear about is that it’s not their duty to protect anyone but themselves. In the next breath they will often say that had THEY been present when some mass shooting occurred that they and others in the swivel chair militia woulda opened a massive can of .223 and 9mm whupass on those mooslim mothafuckahz!

    I’ve learned a lot about how teh gunzloonz “think”. Three tenets seem sacrosanct.

    They always know who’s a bad guy. They never miss. They can’t get hurt, cuz, like, they’re experts wit teh gunz!

    That the vast majority have never fired at a living target, especially one that’s shooting back, seems not to matter. They will, in the parlance of that college degreed hillbilly that Ed fucks with from time to time, “Git ‘er done!”.

  8. Doug Little says

    Were they supposed to saddle up a posse and go out shooting at people they thought might have been involved without knowing who they were?

    This sounds remarkably like a spaghetti western plot line so the answer is Yes! It’s what the Duke would’ve wanted, PBUH.

  9. says

    Freely admitting my ignorance about the bombs used, but wouldn’t bullets hitting the bombs have caused them to go off if they struck the correct locations & ignited something?

  10. Doug Little says

    They can’t get hurt, cuz, like, they’re experts wit teh gunz!

    And you can always call mulligan and get a do over if something goes wrong, Oh wait that’s computer games and movie retakes.

  11. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    I’ll bet that Saudi student who was injured in the blast, and then tackled by a bystander who thought he looked suspicions, is glad that not everyone was packing heat that day.

  12. Dennis N says

    Yeah, but if you don’t know the difference between a Glock and a Walther, and don’t jack off to Guns & Ammo weekly, your opinion doesn’t count /end gun nut rant

  13. slc1 says

    Re Doug Little @ #9

    Actually “Duke” Wayne never appeared in a spaghetti western. Little is thinking of Clint Eastwood.

  14. rory says

    Let’s ask someone from the Boston PD how they’d have felt about civilians wandering around packing heat that Friday. I’m sure it would have made them feel much more safe and secure.

  15. says

    Okay… At this point, I think we’ve been making a false assumption about the gun nut mind, though it wasn’t an unreasonable one. That assumption is that the protective feelings they get from guns is based in their utility at putting holes into people. A gun lets you put holes in bad people, therefore guns protect you from bad people. It’s a naive oversimplification. Given their intellectual ability (or rather, their lack of it), it’s a plausible hypothesis about how they think. But I’m questioning it.

    I start to wonder if that naive oversimplification is actually just an attempt at rationalization put on top of their real belief: Magic. They think guns protect people by producing magical auras. To them, guns are mystical talismans that ward off malign spiritual forces. Thus, when they fail to protect lives, they have to explain it through ad hoc hypotheses like a more powerful countering force or lack of faith in the talismans’ power. Gun control laws, regulations, background checks, and so forth are to them what a skeptic’s “negative” attitude is to psychic powers. So they lash out at any tiny signs of disbelief or anything that challenges the supreme status of the gun’s protective powers.

  16. Doug Little says

    slc @14,

    Man I would’ve thought he would have been in plenty. I was still thinking of him, not the actor himself but the caricature he became, come to think of it Clint is a very capable substitute in the scenario.

  17. dmcclean says

    Right, because the police could never get there on time.
    Just everyone ignore all the photos of eleventy-three cops with their hands on their holsters looking in all directions two seconds after the blast.

  18. bahrfeldt says

    The news reported that there were thousands of armed police officers and active duty National Guard personnel on duty for the marathon. Didn’t help much.

  19. Reginald Selkirk says

    composer99 #10: Freely admitting my ignorance about the bombs used, but wouldn’t bullets hitting the bombs have caused them to go off if they struck the correct locations & ignited something?

    Considering the specific type of bomb used; a pressure bomb, putting holes in the containment vessel would probably have lessened the harm. It might have fizzled rather than exploded.

  20. glodson says

    Freely admitting my ignorance about the bombs used, but wouldn’t bullets hitting the bombs have caused them to go off if they struck the correct locations & ignited something?

    Not a problem if they had bullet-proof backpacks, which is why we must not let liberals take away our right to high powered rifles in public loaded with armor piercing bullets to stop bad guys with backpacks that look dangerous.

  21. baal says

    So let’s assume a bunch of armed people and that I’m ok with shooting people in the middle of a city (I’m not). How does the angry mob armed with rifles get the right guy(s)?

  22. siveambrai says

    I love the little word play that goes on here by calling the brothers, Chechen terrorists, which of course downplays the fact that one of them was a US citizen and therefor would have had the same right to appear in public armed, once again setting up the spectacular crossfire that others have pointed out.

  23. says

    baal “How does the angry mob armed with rifles get the right guy(s)?”
    By getting everyone who is not Us. You know…Them. Sure, that Saudi who got tackled would’ve been shot a bunch of times, but you know he was up to no good. On account of his being one of Them.

  24. says

    And more good Americans should have been packing bombs in Boston that day.
    Because the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a pressure-cooker bomb is a good guy with a pressure-cooker bomb.

  25. ArtK says

    It’s all about the comforting stories that they tell each other. The world is a scary place full of scary people so the conservative tribe huddle together and tell each other how brave they are and how strong. Reality weakens the stories so they reject it.

    Bronze Dog is right, too, that they believe in their magic talismans to protect them. If they fail, then it must be because of some evil influence, Satan, gun control, liberals. Accepting reality means accepting how weak and helpless they really are and that’s intolerable.

  26. Doug Little says

    And more good Americans should have been packing bombs in Boston that day.
    Because the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a pressure-cooker bomb is a good guy with a pressure-cooker bomb.

    Takeoff and nuke the entire site from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

  27. Rip Steakface says

    @17

    Nope, Wayne was a traditional Western star. Spaghetti westerns are actually known for being deconstructions of the Western genre. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is quietly mocking the tropes it uses. Meanwhile, Duke’s movies played them straight.

  28. lochaber says

    You would have thought, what with their gun, military, and war fetishes, at least a few of these folks would have served some time in an infantry unit.

    Apparently not, or they would realize that even setting up a life-fire range (without opponents firing back at you) takes a nearly ridiculous amount of safety precautions, just to prevent our troops from getting hit with ricochets (or even direct fire). And that’s when everyone is starting on the same side of the range, firing down range, and with all kinds of planning and live oversight. And people still get injured, and even killed on these live fire exercises.

    Did’nt they trot out this same bit with the Colorado movie theatre shooting?

    ridiculous fucktards

  29. says

    @30:

    Well, these are the same people who will be “frontin’” the U.S. militaries A-10′s, Abrams tanks and drones with their AR, SKS and other military style weapons. I’d suggest that they read up on what happened in Mogadishu, Somalia or Fallujah, Iraq as to what goes down when you kill some U.S. troops. Of course a lot of the asshats who yearn for MurKKKageddon are the sort who would lob rocks from YOUR yard and then scurry back to mom’s cellar when the pissed-off guy whose windows got broken shows up.

  30. gingerbaker says

    The Chechen terrorist wouldn’t have lasted five minutes in a free society that entrusted its citizens with their unalienable, constitutionally protected right to bear arms.

    First of all, that right is protected. In fact, the very thing he complains about is a possible future gun control measure …

    The people of Boston do have the right to bear arms, including assault weapons. I

    I don’t think that is quite right. The people of Boston do not necessarily have the same right to bear arms on the street as residents of other, more rural, parts of Massachusetts. Bostonites get to apply for a permit, but wanting one merely for personal protection is not considered reason to grant one.

    Joseph Farah is wacky when he brings up the Boston bombers, but he has got a point: The right to bear arms is NOT unalienable; it is rationed out in what seems to be a capricious almost Kafka-esque manner:

    We know that cities have more gun-related crime than rural areas, yet the bigger the city, the more difficult it is for a regular citizen to get a concealed carry permit simply for his or her personal protection. Why? Because evidently they don’t trust a registered gun owner farther than they can throw a hophead using a gat to knock over a liquor store.

    Which makes Farah’s assertion that we don’t have ” a free society that entrusted its citizens with their unalienable, constitutionally protected right to bear arms” seem pretty valid. And considering the plain brute language of the 2nd Amendment used to delineate that Constitutional right, the idea that “personal protection” is not a valid reason to be issued a permit makes a mockery of our Constitutional rights, if you ask me.

    I know a lot of folks don’t like guns. But I think we all do like Constitutional liberties. And watching any of our
    personal freedoms whittled away by bureaucrats should be a concern to us all.

  31. kermit. says

    gingerbaker, I won’t argue with you about constitutional rights, partly because I’m not sure I disagree with you. But if, say, a couple of dozen not-cop citizens had been wearing concealed weapons, what would they have done besides what the couple of dozen police on the scene were doing? They would have looked around, hand on holster (attracting the attention of the cops, who were already busy looking everywhere at once).
    .
    Farah’s an idiot, and if he had been there and carrying, probably would have shot the first brown person he saw. Most folks with CCP aren’t idiots, of course, or they wouldn’t have a lower incidence of serious criminal convictions than average.

  32. says

    kermit. “Farah’s an idiot, and if he had been there and carrying, probably would have shot the first brown person he saw.”
    Balderpucky. He’d be running away like everyone else. Faster, probably.

  33. says

    “Which makes Farah’s assertion that we don’t have ” a free society that entrusted its citizens with their unalienable, constitutionally protected right to bear arms” seem pretty valid. And considering the plain brute language of the 2nd Amendment used to delineate that Constitutional right, the idea that “personal protection” is not a valid reason to be issued a permit makes a mockery of our Constitutional rights, if you ask me.”

    Bullshit.

    You don’t have to go any farther than northern Mexico to see what happens when society is awash in weapons. That the Mexican gummint has draconian gun rules seems to have small deterrent value in a society where the gun rules.

    Farah and his kind hold exactly one of the 28 amendments to be inviolable, the 2nd.

    “Most folks with CCP aren’t idiots, of course, or they wouldn’t have a lower incidence of serious criminal convictions than average.”

    Depends on what you’re reading to get the figures.

    It is exceedingly difficult to prise information about permits from police incident reports.

    It is also notable that in a number of states with less restrictive gun laws, gun deaths (homicides and suicides) and gunshot injuries are higher per 100K.

    Boston, unlike, say, Chicago or D.C. is in a state where getting a handgun permit is not a foregone conclusion and, if you don’t have a permit and do have a handgun, it’s a felony rap.

    Panicked crowd scenes + vigilante citizens ? not a good mix.

Leave a Reply