The Daily Banter

The Daily Banter Mail Bag is Piloting the Black Helicopters

This week's questions:

1) What do you think the chances are of President Obama getting an assault weapons ban through Congress?
-- SR

2) First it was the 9/11 truthers, then the birthers, then the Sandy Hook truthers, and now in case you haven't heard there's the T'eo truthers, who have all kinds of weird beliefs about what was really behind the Notre Dame player scandal. What's going on, are we living in a new golden age of conspiracy theories?
-- Trish

3) Okay so Lance Armstrong is admitting he doped. Why should I care?
-- Brian

  • D_C_Wilson

    No bill containing an assault weapons ban will pass this session. Maybe some of the other proposals will squeak on through, but even that is a roll of the dice.

    The reason why is simple: Wayne LaPierre’s dick is microscopic and is willing to take the entire country hostage.

  • IrishGrrrl

    Bob, re: Lance Armstrong….did you see the text of Nicole Cooke’s retirement speech? I am not a cycling fan but I found her level of honesty astoundingly refreshing and her thoughts on the inequality of women in the sport riveting.

  • GrafZeppelin127

    Allright, somebody explain this part to me.

    “I shouldn’t have to register my guns. All that does is let the
    government know I have them, and I don’t want the government to know
    that I have guns, or what guns I have. If the government knows what guns
    I have, they can come after me and take them.”

    But wait, I thought that was the whole point of having a gun: to prevent the government from “coming after” you, viz., so that if anyone “comes to take” your gun, you can shoot them. Wouldn’t it follow that if “the government” knows you have a gun, they’ll leave you alone and won’t send anyone to your house to take it, to avoid being shot by you? Or would “the government” only “come after” people who they know don’t have guns, in order to … take their guns, which they don’t have?

    Please, somebody explain to me the logic behind this opposition to gun registration, to letting the police or “the government” know you have a gun, and/or what kind of gun(s) you have.

    [Actually, I know what the “logic” is, although no gun enthusiast will admit it: They don’t want to be held responsible if anything happens with their gun should it be lost, stolen, or otherwise misappropriated — something they failed to prevent — and used in a subsequent crime. In other words, they don’t want “responsible,” as part of the phrase, “responsible gun owners,” to actually mean anything.]

    • IrishGrrrl

      Graf, I think a good portion of them genuinely don’t want the government to know what guns they have because they truly think the government is evil and it will eventually come after anyone on “the list”. I dated a guy in college (this was during second Clinton term) who was a gun nut. I didn’t know his “theory” about government until we were pretty involved and I’d already met his parents. His parents, at least his Dad, was of like mind. They bought guns legally and illegally and they hid a lot of them away. They literally thought that the government would some day beat down their door and confiscate their weapons. So the thinking was, if the government does turn fascist/communist/whatever and confiscate our registered guns then we will still have our “hidden” guns to use for the rebellion that was sure to follow. It’s true paranoia–that’s all it is.

      The really sad thing is that he and his family were very poor and could have benefited from government programs and to a certain extent they already did. Their son went to college on grants scholarship all of which were governmental in origin and he was a member of Army ROTC (was how we met). They lived in what I considered to be a two bedroom shack that had holes that had been patched with whatever material they could find, had a wood stove for heat and neither parent was full time employed–father was disabled from the RR and mother part-time librarian in very small town. Rural, poor, uneducated and/or poorly educated. They had to hunt to have enough food and they often killed more than the legal limit–but no one begrudged them that–it was that or they went hungry. However, regardless of whether he was rural and poor or suburban and middle class, this paranoid behavior gets passed down in families and it’s for real. I know people point to the American Revolution as the origin of this paranoia but I honestly don’t think that is the case. I don’t understand how that paranoia translates to the subcultural phenomenon of government paranoia we see today.

    • MrDHalen

      I don’t think you’re going to get a logical answer out of someone who thinks they’re going to be a match for the U.S military with their AR-15.

      If your name is not China, you should just stick to voting as your best weapon against an oppressive U.S government.

    • janefromhell

      If I could up-arrow this comment any more, I would have. Brilliant (and painfully obvious) contradiction,