Recently several media outlets noted the anniversary of the murder of John Lennon.
This is an annual blip in the news, and every year when reminded of it I want to make the entire world watch this video of longtime, legendary Detroit local TV newsman Bill Bonds offering commentary on it. His commentary beginning at 1:50 may be, without exaggeration, the finest moment of American television journalism. Since I have always been disappointed that a transcript of his commentary is not available anywhere on the internet, I invested the ten minutes necessary to do it myself.
I suppose like you I am depressed and saddened by this mad, senseless act. I don’t think John Lennon ever hurt anyone; he wrote and he sang songs. He brought pleasure and he brought entertainment to hundreds of millions of people all over the world. And at 40 when a man’s or a woman’s life really begins to "Come Together," he is gone forever. Murdered by some insignificant nobody with insanity and a pistol for his companions. It is not fair and it is certainly not right.
I wonder when America will finally control its guns, how many of us will have to be murdered before that will happen. John Kennedy. Bob Kennedy. Martin Luther King Jr. All murdered, all gone. Vernon Jordan, gunned down earlier this year. George Wallace, paralyzed, his life and career ruined. People, critics, newspapers all over the world today are looking at America and Americans and saying, "That is a brutal, barbaric place."
As I say control the guns and ban them, collect them all and melt them down, I know we are not going to do that. We are again left with painful, senseless trauma and the responsibility of feeding and clothing the Sirhan Sirhans, the Charles Mansons, the David Berkowitzes, and now the Mark David Chapmans of the world. How much better the world might be with Dr. King, Bobby Kennedy, John Kennedy, John Lennon, still alive, still with us.
But…no, Americans must have their guns. We know there is no shortage of good, strong, sensitive, talented men and women; we can afford to kill them.
Our guns are signs of our freedom. Someday maybe all 220 million of us will own a weapon. Perhaps then we will appear as barbaric to ourselves as we must appear to the rest of the world.
We have so much. Why do we Americans need these damn guns.
Bonds, an alcoholic who once tried to physically assault Detroit mayor Coleman Young during an interview, is a throwback to a time – one long since passed – when one could be a "Man's Man" or a Tough Guy without waving around a gun like a surrogate dick.
Such comments would never make it on the air today – especially not on the wasteland local TV news has become – despite the fact that they are as true right now as they were when first spoken.
Jude says:
Seems like a good place to post these poll results.
Nick G. says:
I'm in favor of much more rigorous background checks, in addition to mandatory training by the Federal government that would be specific to each firearm purchased. Why not make it free? I think it's important enough an issue to warrant those measures. I say Federal to make no room for dog whistle "states' rights" bullshit.
I'm open to more practical solutions. As I see it, banning guns outright is about as effective as the desire for some on the right to deport all undocumented citizens, and for that reason, no one in power has actually suggested such a ban.
Robert says:
Part of me wants to run for public office on the sole platform of amending the Constitution to revoke the Second Amendment.
But I'm not quite ready to die just yet.
Rich says:
that was the end of the era where media outlets, including those that never editorialized about anything else, were in favor of gun control. Th NRA's hysteria started into high gear after that and the media and the gun control people have been pretty meek ever since. The hand wringing about the Dems losses in the off year elections have included just about everything except the generation long fail of much of the public policy left–gun control, abortion, the list goes on. There needs to be a look at whet those people who keep soliciting contributions for "good causes" have been doing with that money and why none of them has found a way to take an assertive posture.
Huey says:
You have to pass a license test, not be blind or have other disqualifying medical conditions, get a government ID, title, register — and in a lot of places get regular safety inspections — and either have liability insurance or else post a bond to drive a car.
But any asshole with $100 and a nearby pawnshop can own a gun.
tim hosler says:
Thank you for that , I look forward to reading your work daily . This was a special one for me.
geoff says:
You'd think the near miss on St. Ronnie (a mere few weeks later, and by miss I mean he was not actually killed) might've changed a couple people's minds about this, but you'd be wrong. I am starting to feel like American exceptionalism means we're exceptionally fucking crazy.
don says:
I never saw that before, so thank you. And how depressing, that this could be said then, and never said now. I remember being young and thinking the world – that is, my world, my country and society – was on an unstoppable upward arc, that the force of our vision would inevitably, obviously prevail. Even Reagan didn't dissuade me, really; I still knew we would win.
Now I drink.
Ben says:
@Robert: I will not only vote for you, I will run your campaign. This idea is long overdue in the public sphere in America. The "right" to own firearms is as out of place in modern society as conestoga wagons and tricorn hats.
Repeal the 2nd.
don says:
And I might add, tonight's bitter alcoholic haze is prompted not by the anniversary of Lennon's murder but by a few unguarded minutes watching Bill Bond's media descendants defend torture. I think we need an asteroid to cure us.
Ben says:
Sigh. In the grand interweb tradition of domain name camping, some enterprising individual registered the domain repeal2.org… on 12/15/2012.
Nick G. says:
The guns we know about outnumber people in this country. Assuming the 2nd is repealed tomorrow, you still have all your real problems ahead of you.
I lived most of my life without guns, so I can live the rest of it with either option.
But I can't take seriously someone who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment any more than the drunk guy who thinks any and all gun control is tyranny. I say the same to both: Nice pathos ya got there.
c u n d gulag says:
20 young kids and 6 teachers and administrators gunning down.
And the call was for more guns, and to arm our schools.
And did we strengthen gun control laws after that?
Hell no!
The opposite happened.
We are a very fucked-up nation.
RosiesDad says:
@Robert: Repealing the 2nd Amendment is what will be necessary to begin to have an adult conversation about guns in America but this country is not ready yet. But as the number of gun owners continues to fall and the number of mass shootings rise, maybe when the next generation grows up and takes over, such a thing can take place.
Dookie says:
There are several women who would passionately disagree with Bill Bond’s statement “I don’t think John Lennon ever hurt anyone”. Of course, being physically abused can cloud your judgment. Ditto for physiological abuse, as Julian Lennon would certainly disagree with Mr. Bond too.
Did Mr. Bond say anything after that?
Alan C says:
Dookie (nice screen name!): Didn't all that come out after Lennon was killed? He was no saint, but he was certainly a man of peace publicly, if not in his personal life.
Bitter Scribe says:
Because I'm a perverse asshole, every time I contemplate Lennon's murder I remember Patrick Buchanan sneering that Lennon "died what the kids would call filthy stinking rich." That forever cemented my view of Buchanan as a piece of shit, and colored my view of right-wing pundits in general.
beejeez says:
Bill Bonds was a character, all right. He could be dead-wrong about this or that controversy over the years, but he never got to his opinions dishonestly, and he never suffered bullshit gladly.
And John Lennon … well, what artist's death was ever as dispiriting? I pray we never have to go through another one like that.
Mo says:
Had an esprit de l'escalier moment after your query a few weeks ago on what would be The Next Big Thing.
How could I have missed:
Something that either turns gunpowder to glue, or blows it up from a safe distance.
"Don't point that gun at me, asshole, or I'll activate my Powder Ray and you'll be armless." [all sorts of puns intended]
Emerson Dameron says:
@Dookie:
Nice derailment there, guy. There are plenty of other places on the internet to talk about Lennon's private dickishness – it's not relevant here, and it didn't mean his murder wasn't an absurd travesty.
You're just like the people who bring up MLK's adultery as a bullshit explanation for why they're bored with the whole civil rights thing. But libertarians are known for the company they keep.
It's just too COMPLICATED, right? Might as well leave everything the way it is.
HoosierPoli says:
Most nations in the western world have a perfectly functional blanket ban on guns. It's no more complicated than a functional healthcare system.
Andrew says:
@RosiesDad: The number of gun owners keeps falling, but the number of guns keeps going up. That means the people who own guns own MORE of them than ever before.
Dookie says:
Domestic violence = dickishness? Got it.
Alan C has a good point…Bond likely didn't know anything about Lennon's violence against women.
Skepticalist says:
I used to listen to Larry King's old syndicated radio talk show which was fairly popular at the time of Lennon's death. He devoted his entire call in show that night to it. I wasn't really aware of the pain suffered by so many until then. I don't remember the amount of calls about gun control there must have been some. You'd think from then on, it would have amounted to enough to have some effect. I guess not.
I'm hoping that the NRA is the worst thing that ever happened to gun freaks. It's childish and maybe it will have the same effect on youngsters as Jerry Falwell and his ilk have had in turning them away from their nasty shit.
Would be nice.
Dillon says:
Bill Bonds couldn't hold a candle to Mort Crim.
Xynzee says:
Five words: "…for a well regulated militia." They're already there.
Just have to make it so if you want to own a gun you *MUST* be a member of your State's official militia. None of this "Militia for Freedom from Taxes" or whatever shit.
Require every member to show up one weekend a month and unless you're in hospital no excuses, miss twice you're out. That way a psych eval is done and regular tabs are kept on the members and make the COs responsible for keeping an eye on their group(s), as in court martialable responsible if someone blows a gasket and goes on a spree his/her arse is in the sling.
Nick G. says:
@RosiesDad:
Mass shootings are high profile, but I find it's more effective to point out that people all across the country die from guns on a daily basis that outnumber any mass shooting so far. Every day. That's crimes of passion, robberies, suicides, accidents due to retards not knowing how to lock a gun up, etc.
But still, there remains the fact that guns in themselves number around 300 million. There's probably at least another hundred million illegal weapons, if not more.
Is it possible that the US could repeal the 2nd, have the "adult conversation," and transform itself into a society on par with the UK in terms of gun violence? Sure. But I think it's unlikely. Just like it's unlikely there will ever be an American version of the NHS.
I'd like for the latter to happen for sure. I also like shooting paper targets.
And, I know you won't like this, but violent crime rates in general are much higher in the US than UK. There's many reasons for that, including the more retarded GOP-flavor views on guns, but also racial/ethnic tensions, class problems, and other inequalities and infrastructure fuck ups unique to our slice of Earth.
I really don't think anyone's going to get the chance to say "I told you so" on this one.
RosiesDad says:
@Andrew: yup. Fewer gun owners individually own more of them than ever before.
@Nick G.: repealing the 2nd will not happen anytime soon but in a generation or two when the gun owning public is a smaller minority than today, it might be possible.
Mark says:
What drivel most of you write. Self protection is a natural right, not something given by the government. The 2nd amendment was put in place to guarantee that I am allowed to protect myself, either from a thug or a tyrannical government. I think most of you are limp wrist sissies who quake at the mere sight of a gun.
Major Kong says:
I'm sure Mark was the first to cheer the Ferguson MO police dept too.
Neddie Jingo says:
A man's allowed to grow up. Lennon had to do it in public. And he didn't get to finish the job. Don't fling the 20-year-old in the face of the 40-year-old. It's not fair.
Mo says:
I'm framing Mark's post, with the title:
Distilled Essence of White Male Goon
I mean, it's a classic – all the right dog whistles and buzz words, the pure crystalline hit, the essence of lower class white male fear.
Wannabe authoritarians who don't have the right stuff, but envy the oligarchy who do.
The very best sort of minions.
democommie says:
"But I can't take seriously someone who wants to repeal the 2nd Amendment any more than the drunk guy who thinks any and all gun control is tyranny. I say the same to both: Nice pathos ya got there."
We can't cure cancer–let's stop trying.
Mark = clueless douchebag fuckwad.
Robert says:
Anyone who's studied the background of the 2nd will recognize that it was never about private citizens protecting themselves from either a tyrannical government or from criminals. The guns of the well regulated militia were to be used in defense of the state itself, in the absence of a standing army.
Mo, the exploding your enemy's ammunition was one of Captain Shotover's ideas in "Heartbreak House" by Shaw. Still a great idea.
Regarding the "it'll never work" mentality – imagine being in a restaurant or bar and being told 'I'm sorry, but you can't smoke here.' Smoking was ubiquitous in the USA recently enough for me to remember. Cultures can and do change, if a group of people work long enough and hard enough.
More and more, I'm coming to think that the ideal state of guns in this country is the same as the ideal state of abortion – safe, legal and rare. Instead, gun control is seen as similar to a national health system or the metric system – something other countries deal with without problems, but which are Just Not Our Style.
Major Kong says:
I actually do own guns, several in fact. I keep them locked up and have never felt the need to wander around in public with one.
I also have no misconceptions about being able to take on my local County Sheriff's Department, let alone the National Guard or the First Infantry Division in the event of "tyranny".
Mr. Wonderful says:
Vernon Jordan was not "gunned down." He was shot, but survived, and is still alive. (I'm nit picking, but I did stub my readerly toe on Bonds' error.)
democommie says:
Major Kong:
I lived with a guy who was seriously into his own guns but who had seen, first hand, what the 10th Mountain Division had on offer for dealing with disagreeable folks. He said that anyone who thought they could beat the gummint with guns was amoron.
Andrew of MO says:
I kid you not. Bill Bonds just died.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/entertainment/television/2014/12/13/bill-bonds-veteran-channel-action-news-anchor-dies/20372045/
Kent Anderson says:
Bill Bonds died of an apparent heart attack today at 83. http://www.freep.com/…/bill-bonds-channel-broadca…/20375881/
Mark says:
Democommie, I rest my case on the limp wrist sissy part. Your choice of ID tells me all I need to know about you.
Andrew says:
@democommie. Exactly. You have a closet full of AR15s. The government has predator drones. Guess who wins. The "We need guns to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government" argument may have held some water in 1789, but today it's just absurd.
Major Kong says:
If read about Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion it didn't really hold water in 1789 either.
Robert says:
Major Kong – my favorite detail of the Whiskey Rebellion is the way the erstwhile rebels were able to pay the disputed tax. The soldiers Washington brought with him bought enough whiskey the sellers had the cash to pay.
don says:
@Andrew, @democommie -the thing is, the gun nuts will next seek Supreme Court approval to start collecting predator drones, too. And they'll probably get it. The new Cold War is between us and our gun nuts. Dosvidanya, Mark!
democommie says:
"limp wrist sissy"
Mark, buddy, I don't need a GUN to prove how much of a man I am.
You're a gunzloon, so that's all I need to know about YOU.
witless chum says:
""limp wrist sissy"
Mark, buddy, I don't need a GUN to prove how much of a man I am.
You're a gunzloon, so that's all I need to know about YOU."
Yup. There's nobody scardier than Our Gun Nuts. Crime rates go down, whiny fear never does. I even own a couple guns, but that's nothing to do with my wrist tension or lack there of. And everytime I see somebody like Mark acting the fool, I want to get rid of them despite sentimentality because they were my dad's and the notion that I should start deer hunting again.
Nick G. says:
@democommie
In no way do I think we should stop trying to better govern the issue of guns. In fact, my first post in this thread posited my views on a Federal training program specific to each firearm purchased that would include far more vigorous checks (background and psychological) than are currently offered at any municipal or state level.
My later posts, specifically the one you quoted, were criticizing the common framing of the issue between two extreme points, i.e. no gun control whatsoever, or complete bans/repealing the 2nd Amendment.
The Cliff's Notes version of my views is that I favor more gun control of a different kind than normally offered; most gun control makes the mistake of presuming it can deter crime, which no law can do. just because that line's used by people you and I don't like doesn't make it false. Gun control needs to focus on registration, tight records keeping, safety, and training.
Barring a military search and seizure nationwide (The Double Fantasy of the left and right (Ooh! A Lennon reference!!)), the guns aren't going away.
Marcion says:
Why does anybody think outlawing guns would be any more effective than outlawing drugs currently is? We have more guns than citizens and it's not like they spoil or anything; nothing's going to force anyone who currently has a gun to give theirs up. Combine it with the sort of people who will suddenly see their black helicopter nightmares coming true, and we should expect a healthy black market trade. Hooray?
democommie says:
"Combine it with the sort of people who will suddenly see their black helicopter nightmares coming true, and we should expect a healthy black market trade. Hooray?"
We'll never cure cancer either, so fuck it, let everybody die?
Last I heard, gunz are not addictive, in and of themselves–unlike many drugs.
I'vw been told, uncountable times that LAGOs are not the problem. What you seem to be saying is that all of those LAGOs will suddenly decide to be criminals. If that's true then they shouldn't have weapons that make them think that they can take on the MAN and win.
"Gun control needs to focus on registration, tight records keeping, safety, and training."
No mention of looking at the owner's/wannabe's mental health or previous records of unlawful use of physical force? So, a meaningless platitude will do the trick? Thanks for playing!
Mark says:
Will one of you who wish to outlaw guns please tell me why YOU get to determine how I protect myself? I or members of my family have been the victim of crimes on three different occasions. I was carjacked at gunpoint, but because I could not take my gun to work I was defenseless. Thank God that the state of Texas changed the law so that all Texans can carry a weapon onto company property. My daughter was the victim of armed robbery in a theater parking lot. Had she or her date had a weapon perhaps there would be one less thug on the street.
Andrew says:
@Mark: If someone is actually pointing a gun at you right now, how exactly will pulling out your gun solve the problem? Criminals have the first-mover advantage, as well as the advantage of surprise and preparation. I suppose if we make it legal to fire at them as they're driving away in your car, you could always do that, but you're going to have to clean the brains off the seats and fix the windows. Also, I can get a new car. Nothing I own is worth someone's life. If you disagree, then you're EXACTLY the sort of person I don't want owning guns.
Every society that has restricted private ownership of guns has seen gun crimes go down. So unless you're a believer in American exceptionalism, maybe some restrictions on gun ownership are a good idea.
Also, I was in Texas in April 2014, and the hotel had a sign prohibiting anyone from carrying guns on to the premises. Apparently this is enforceable under TPC 30.06, which makes it a Class A misdemeanor to carry a concealed handgun onto posted premises. Has this changed?
democommie says:
"I was carjacked at gunpoint, but because I could not take my gun to work I was defenseless. "
Howzabout showing us a redacted copy of te incident report?
If you were carjacked at gunpoint and you had a gun, you'd either be dead or someone else would be. If you got yourself snuffed and they lived, guess who'd have one MORE fucking gun to play with.
Nick G. says:
@democommie:
DC: "No mention of looking at the owner's/wannabe's mental health or previous records of unlawful use of physical force? So, a meaningless platitude will do the trick? Thanks for playing!"
NG (From the same comment you quote from): " . . . posited my views on . . . far more vigorous checks (background and psychological). . . "
Thanks for having great reading comprehension!!
And yo do realize people will still die if by some miracle America ever gets rid of its 300 million guns, right? Still die violently, as people did for millions of years before the invention of guns? I'm not ignoring the fact that guns are a uniquely dangerous weapon, which is why I support stronger gun control (to include better background and psych. evaluation) at a Federal level.
Something makes me think you're going to gloss over that and continue imagining the face of Ronald Reagan because I didn't mention Repealing the 2nd as my solution.
Seriously, read the whole fucking comment before you reply, turd blossom.
Fiddlin Bill says:
Here's the thing. The NRA's horribly successful campaign to enshrine the 2nd Amendment as an absolutist doctrine brooking zero mitigation leads, among many other things, to the police being constantly on "hair trigger"–because they now reasonably assume that any citizen they encounter may well be armed. When you couple that reasonable attitude with incipient racism–fear of "the other"– you get the murders of Tamir Rice and John Crawford, et al. Thanks very much for posting that fine complaint from the receding past.
Mark says:
Andrew, I agree that nothing that I own is worth taking someone's life, but when a criminal brings a gun to commit a crime I have to assume he will use it and I want my own gun in this scenario. And you are correct that while a criminal has the element of surprise he will not be better prepared that me. I practice my firearms skills regularly and I pay attention to my surroundings at all times when I am on the street, either driving or getting gas. When I drive I keep my pistol in my lap. Call me paranoid, but I will not be an unarmed victim again.
As far as Texas law goes, yes, if a business posts the correct signage at their establishment not allowing firearms on their property then it is against the law to carry a weapon onto their property. It has to be specific signage, a hand written. "no guns allowed" is not sufficient.
And let me qualify Texas gun laws. In order to obtain a concealed carry permit one must complete all the necessary paperwork and submit to a federal background check. A convicted felon cannot receive a CCP in my state. After clearing the background check four hours of classroom instruction is needed. (it used to be eight hours) Then one must fire fifty rounds at a target set at various distances to prove proficiency.
Democommie, I do not feel the need to prove that I was carjacked, just please believe me. And you are right that had I had a weapon someone could be dead. But who would you prefer that it be, a law abiding citizen who happens to believe in gun rights or a thug?
Andrew says:
@Mark: If an armed criminal sees the pistol in your lap, he might well choose another victim, or he might just shoot you, dump your body in the road, and take your car anyway. Also, driving around with a piston on your lap seems unsafe and unpleasant.
I'm pretty sure a business that wanted to prohibit guns from their premises would be able to craft a sign that complies with the law, or purchase one from a sign shop.
I suppose given a choice I would rather see an armed criminal dead than an armed law-abiding citizen, but if you just give up your car, both of you will probably survive. A car is just a thing. A person, even a person who does very bad things, is more important. In a life-or-death situation, of course I'd rather see the victim survive, but a carjacking need not be a life-or-death situation. By bringing a gun to it, you, not the carjacker, just made it one.
Being a victim of a carjacking sounds terrible, and I'm very sorry that happened to you, but it's probably bad risk assessment to assume it will happen again and take such drastic measures to prevent it or get revenge.
An acquaintance of mine, who lives in my very low-crime town, keeps a loaded gun in a desk drawer because he doesn't want to come home, find a guy raping his wife, and be unable to shoot the guy. This strikes me as a very unlikely event, and he even admits that it is, but it doesn't seem to deter him. I think it's some kind of Dirty Harry fantasy.
democommie says:
"And yo do realize people will still die if by some miracle America ever gets rid of its 300 million guns, right? Still die violently, as people did for millions of years before the invention of guns?"
Of course they will. And people still die in incidents where nobody hung them from a tree because they're black or gay. Your point? Is it that we just need to accept that fucking idiots with gunz will continue to kill themselves and other people (way more of the latter, btw) to ENSURE FREEDUMB?
I don't want to repeal the 2nd Amendment, I want it to be viewed in the same way as the rest of the amendments and not as a blanket permission for moronz to arm themselves to the teeth–and then prove just how fucking stupid they really are.
Mark says:
Demodommie, do you realize that the vast majority of Americans killed by guns are killed by pure thugs? Thuggary is a way of life for some people and it will never be bred out of them. In my opinion this started in 1965 when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. The CRA said to some folks, "okay. I no longer have to work, the gubment will take care of me". Then when they cannot get enough from the working taxpayer to buy their new pair of J's, they simply rob and murder to get what they want. Thuggary. Do not blame the law abiding gun owner for gun violence in this country, as we are simply not the problem.
Andrew, I agree with many if your statements but to say that the life of a common criminal (thug) is more important than anyone's property is inane. One thug does not stop with one victim. I pray that you are never the victim of a felony crime, because when one is it is a feeling of being violated.
Andrew Laurence says:
@Mark: You've just revealed yourself as a racist, so I'm no longer interested in anything you have to say. Societies that have fewer guns have less gun crime. America is not exceptional, except that our attachment to guns makes us exceptionally stupid.
Mark says:
Exactly what did I write that was racist? If you are referring to my mention of the Civil Rights Act, this legislation applied to all Americans, not just those of a particular race. And, how do you know that I am not African American, Chinese or an American Indian?
Andrew says:
The Civil Rights Act didn't establish public benefit for the poor. And you're right. What you said exposed prejudice. It's only racist if you're white. Sorry.
Nick G. says:
@Mark: You're being viewed as a racist because you keep using the word "thug," which most people take to be code for "nigger." Not that hard to see where that perception comes from.
@democommie: I'm in favor of doing everything we can to prevent innocent people from dying. If you're not in favor of repealing the 2nd, then I'm not sure we disagree on much other than spelling words incorrectly.
democommie says:
"@democommie: I'm in favor of doing everything we can to prevent innocent people from dying."
Except for limiting the right of any fuckhead who can afford a gun getting his hands on one–or one hundred.
Andrew:
This
"In my opinion this started in 1965 when LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act. The CRA said to some folks, "okay. I no longer have to work, the gubment will take care of me". Then when they cannot get enough from the working taxpayer to buy their new pair of J's, they simply rob and murder to get what they want"
Classic dogwhistle; Mark's as racist as it gets, regardless his protestations to the contrary.
Nick G. says:
@democommie:
"Except for limiting the right of any fuckhead who can afford a gun getting his hands on one–or one hundred."
Holy fucking shit. What would be the point of me advocating stricter gun control laws if not to limit the rights of certain fuckheads from getting guns?
Mark says:
In order to call someone a racist one must actually hear someone spew racist remarks. I have not done that. The CRA was the precursor to our modern welfare state. Before this any citizen who got a government handout was required to work for their money. Read about the CWA or the WPA. They were work programs to bring the country out of the Great Depression. In today's society all a layabout has to do is stick out his hand and it gets filled with money. When they don't have enough to suit them some resort to crime.
If you are willing to give up one right you must be willing to give up others. Can I choose which right YOU lose?
I refer to my first post where I stated, correctly, that self protection is a natural right. I am allowed to protect myself, by whatever means I have, from a criminal with malicious intent.
democommie says:
"In order to call someone a racist one must actually hear someone spew racist remarks. I have not done that."
Right.
"In today's society all a layabout has to do is stick out his hand and it gets filled with money.:
I can tell you, fuckhead, for an absolute fact, that you are completlely full of shit. I am disabled "without portfolio", so to speak. I get a little help from the gummint, in the form of a $15/month EBT and 80 bags of pellet fuel. You think that I'm living high off the hog, asshole?
Fuck off, troll.
"Holy fucking shit. What would be the point of me advocating stricter gun control laws if not to limit the rights of certain fuckheads from getting guns?"
Then you agree that some people (a fairly large %age of gun owners should not them? And you're in favor of vetting them, post hoc?
democommie says:
Should be:
"Then you agree that some people (a fairly large number of current gun owners) should not have them?"
Mark says:
Democommie, being that you are disabled you are not a layabout. That term is reserved for the perfectly healthy person who simply does not want to get a job. It is much easier to sleep until mid-morning than get up and go to work. You cannot deny that in this country we have an epidemic of folks who prefer to live off the effort of others. They are the ones who vote for a living rather than work for a living.
As far as the language that you use against me, I forgive you.
democommie says:
"That term is reserved for the perfectly healthy person who simply does not want to get a job."
And you know who they are?
"As far as the language that you use against me, I forgive you."
Like I give a fuck.
Mark says:
I may not know their names, but I see them all the time.
May God bless you.
democommie says:
Mark:
You lame p.o.s., you wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass.