Guess The State!

[theweaselking]

Traffic stop-ee: "Officer, I..."
Police officer: "SHUT THE FUCK UP"
Traffic stop-ee: "I am carrying ..."
Police officer: "NOBODY IS TALKING TO YOU, SHUT UP"
Traffic stop-ee: "Officer! Here is my permit for..."
Police officer: "SAY ONE MORE WORD AND YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL"
Traffic stop-ee: "..."
[Police officer searches car, comes to driver]
Police officer: "GET OUT OF THE CAR! WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT CARD YOU KEEP WAVING AT ME?"
Traffic stop-ee: "Officer, I am carrying a concealed weapon. This is my permit."
Police officer: "YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO SAY THAT IMMEDIATELY! I SHOULD EXECUTE YOU RIGHT HERE AND NOW"

On video, of course.


[Poll #1763936]

Comments

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

And i don't know why you bring "other countries" into this since this didn't happen in "another country"

Yeah, heaven forbid I take into account my own experiences in the country where I actually live. After all, it's not as if there are any other continents than North America, is it?

unless you're just being a provincial dickwad

A what?

As for the YouTube comments, they're best left unexamined in any case.

It wasn't just the comment. It was also the providers of the video. They are promoting the right to hold a concealed handgun. I just find it really hard to understand the mentality that concealing a handgun is your god-given right. It just sounds sick to me.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

That's basically at the core of being a "Real American". Combine our tendency to regard the Constitution as something that was handed down by God on stone tablets to the Founding Fathers, and the fact that the right to bear arms is guaranteed therein, and you have that gun rights are something deeply ingrained in the national culture. Unfortunately, thinking about what that means is something that is avoided because that leads to questions and Real Americans do not question the National Culture. The concealed weapon rights pinheads love their myths about how it keeps them safe, and people around them safe, when collected data so far point to the reverse.

[fatpie42.livejournal.com]

Sorry if I took your last comment as rather more confrontational than it was intended.

I completely concur with this latest comment. That's pretty much how I see it.

[swwoodsy.livejournal.com]

Well, it started because under British rule the colonists were not allowed to arm themselves, or assemble peacefully, etc. (apparently the British were concerned the colonists might revolt. Huh. Whodathunkit?). And colonists were required to billet British soldiers in their homes during "peacetime" (which totally interferes with revolt-planning operations, knowwhatImean?). Add in lots of taxes and no legalized way to address the situation, and you get a lot of righteous anger in a pressure cooker.

So when they drew up the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they put those protections in there.

First Amendment to the Constitution: right to free speech, peaceful assembly, free press, government cannot officially pick one religion over another (they seem to ignore this now), freedom of religion, and you can bitch at the government for "redress of grievances."

Second Amendment: you can own a gun, serve in a free-standing (not part of the government) militia.

Third Amendment: you don't have to billet soldiers in your house without consent during peacetime. You may have to during war, but only according to law.

That these were the first (for the most part, pre-existing) rights that they codified into legal protections speaks to the immediacy of their concerns and the importance of these rights in the daily lives of the colonists. And because it is part of the foundation of our government, it's just been carried forward. Much (if not all) of the US legal system is based on English Common Law, and British citizens had some of these rights and protections in place already. Some of the US rights are taken directly from British law.

My dad had 50 rifles and shotguns and 25 handguns. He said he was a collector, but really he just liked guns, he hunted, and he had a permit for concealed carry. So he carried concealed ('cause he could and because people had attempted to mug him twice when he was coming out of his office, thinking he had money or access to meds/drugs. Yes on the money, no on the meds). He had three gun safes, and there were still (unloaded) rifles and shotguns in my closet. There were loaded guns for "home security" stashed throughout the house. My sister and I were under strict instructions to never, ever touch them. And as far as I know, we never did (I know I never did).

Responsible gun ownership is tricky. If you do not train regularly and carry all the time, the gun is more of a liability than a benefit. At the same time, you don't want to bring a knife to a gun fight.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

government cannot officially pick one religion over another (they seem to ignore this now)

Kind of - what they do is claim that Christianity isn't one religion, but many, and that they're not favouring any one specific Christian denomination, therefore it's legal for them to favour Christians in general.

It's not "establishment" of Christianity because you have a choice: Baptist or Southern Baptist!

[swwoodsy.livejournal.com]

Well, I was meaning touting/supporting Christianity and marginalizing all the other religions out there, but yeah, OK. I cannot tell you how annoyed I get by the jerks saying they support freedom of religion but it's OK for a community to ban building a mosque. Jackassery at its finest.

When I come to power, I am going to legalize pot, prostitution, and gambling, and I'm going to tax the churches. And a flat income tax across the board for everyone (business and individual), unless you make less than $20K/year. Then you can pay and get it all back. No deductions. Flat 10%.

The pot, prostitution, and gambling thing may be why I'll never come to power....

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

The flat tax bit ain't so hot, either. That's a huge tax break for the rich and tax increase on the poor.

[swwoodsy.livejournal.com]

How so? Link me?

OH! And when I come to power, I'm taxing the churches. Double if they're evangelical, and triple if they do mission work and require the people they are ministering to to submit to indoctrination to benefit.

I hate proselytizing.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

You're giving a 25% cut to the rich while taxing more of the poor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) *and* eliminating credits and deductions that poor people depend on. In the process, you haven't touched sales taxes, which again eat up a vastly disproportionate part of the income of the poor.

Under your plan, rich people get a massive tax break, and poor people pay more than they do now.

"Flat taxes" are superficially appealing, but always turn out to be massively regressive in practice. This is why millionaires support them so much.

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Oh, and: You need to define "income" VEEEEEEERY carefully, to avoid fun tricks like "I was paid exactly $20,000 last year as CEO. The company paying for my house and car and credit cards and contributing to my RRSP were all perks, not income"

[swwoodsy.livejournal.com]

Oh, no. Perks get taxed.