Win stupid prizes.
He means that criminals are more likely to stuff a pistol in a waistband than go to the trouble of strapping on a proper holster. Easier to dispose of, for one thing.
Same thingās happened to me twice just in the past several years, once as a burglary suspect (in my own office,) once just walking down the street matching a description. A half-dozen cops with guns out each time, plus a K-9 the first. (The dog did not draw its sidearm.) I was alarmed at the time but never felt particularly disturbed. Being white helps.
That depends on who you ask. People still debate whether that amendment is meant to protect in individual right to bear arms or a right for militias to bear arms. In part it has to do with the placement of commas - supposedly the punctuation of the amendment was different in the version the states passed vs. the version Congress passed, in a way that would have been meaningful given legal writing conventions at the time.
Also, ābearing armsā may or may not mean open carry, and may or may not apply to particular categories of weapons etc. Also, the history of gun control laws in this country (and who supports them) has strong racial biases.
3 Likes
I have that, but instead of a gun itās a canned ham. An actual canned ham. Canned ham, like a gun, is like an umbrella, you see. Itās better to have it and not need it than need it and have no canned ham.
3 Likes
I clicked through out of idle curiousity and was redirected to a page which started ādue to the attention of the mediaā¦ā
I /thought/ it was going to say āweāve withdrawn this productā, but no! Apparently theyāve sold out! Donāt worry though, more are on order!
As I understand it the 2nd amendment gives you the right to arm bears as part of āan organised militiaā, not just randomly day to day. Forgive me if Iām wrong.
2 Likes
The counter argument is that because itās ānecessaryā to have a well armed militia to protect against government tyranny, people have the right to bear arms all the time, so that when they need a militia, arms are available.
Of course, there wasnāt meant to be a standing army either.
2 Likes
I see what you did there 
I didnāt.
1 Like
Careful what you presume. (-:
One was a case of mistaken identity ā my buddy and I matched on car make, model, and color, ht/wt/hair-color description of suspects AND the (erroneous) auto license plate number that was given by an eyewitness to a liquor-store robbery ten minutes earlier where three people had been shot. Yep, they approached with drawn weapons, and I donāt blame them.
A couple of times it was because I was at crime scenes where bloody violence had just occurred, and when police arrived armed, not knowing who was who, anyone they found was held at gunpoint until identified. Once I was one of the victims, twice a bystander, and twice I had intervened in someone elseās dispute.
In one of those latter cases, I was holding the perp at gunpoint (with his own gun) when the PD arrived.
And on several OTHER occasions, the police had very good reasons to point guns at me ā which I will NOT be detailing on the public Internet. (-:
(Not to shoot me, mind you ā just to point guns at me until I surrendered. Which I did, and then everything was fine.)
But I was never once concerned about being shot. And, no, I donāt find any of those cases ādisturbingā ā I think the police were taking perfectly appropriate precautions in all those cases, and behaved professionally at all times.
No, you may not.
May I assume that you can imagine where I think you should stick your racist assumptions?
2 Likes
Forget the police. Suppose another guy saw you wearing such a t-shirt and shot you dead in āself-defenseā, would a jury convict him?
I donāt think so. The legality of gun ownership is not the point. What is the point is whether a jury of your peers would consider that there exists reasonable doubt of your killer (whether he be police or anyone else) being guilty of your murder. His lawyer would simply have to convince some jurypeople that he could have had a basis to feel threatened, an argument that ordinary Americans have been receptive to time and again. Without evidence of clear premeditation, and with this t-shirt excusing his impression, he will likely get away with it.
So yeah, this t-shirt makes it legal to kill you. Enjoy.
1 Like
Consider the example of the SA, standing up to the tyrannical dictates of the Weimar Republic,
Does this rate above or below the list of other, inane things police offers can presently kill you over with little/no justification?
I sort of lost track after they added āpocketknifeā, ācell phoneā and ānon-existent drugsā.
1 Like
It does not.
The āwell regulatedā part means āwell equipped and in working orderā. During the Revolutionary War you were a burden if you came to fight with sub standard equip, no powder, no balls, holes in your boots, etc. If you read Militia laws from that time they actually spell out the gear you had to have.
And in the second half it says, right there, āthe right of the peopleā - just like every other right out lined in the Bill of Rights.
And finally the Supreme Court which is in place to clear up matters like this has ruled it an individual right.
ETA - I think I missed the clever pun initially, but I will leave this here anyway.
Correction: will get you shot /if you arenāt white/.
Interesting choice of words, given which segments of the population can actually open-carry without being shot on sight.
āLaw abidingā is such a weaselly phrase.
2 Likes
