Comments on: i do not need this

By: walls of the city

walls of the city — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:03:29 +0000

keyboards should be licensed

Well, for all those people who are firmly convinced that Tennessee is just a bunch of hillbilly rednecks humping their guns and clinging to their Bibles, I have news for you – we also have our fair share of liberal…

By: walls of the city

walls of the city — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 19:53:56 +0000

soiled pantaloons

Brits must go through a lot of knickers, at least if Alex Hannaford’s most recent column is any indication. I doubt I will have the stamina or the inclination to fisk the entire thing, but I will try and hit…

By: Linoge

Linoge — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:57:00 +0000

Shiny. Works for me .

By: panhandle

panhandle — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 23:31:16 +0000

Thank you for the hospitality, just had a little look at the rest of your blog….i like….think i will hang out here for awhile.

By: Linoge

Linoge — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 08:37:40 +0000

Ack. I seem to have failed at making myself clear – do not worry, it happens more than I would like. Let me see if I can straighten some things up.
First, my post was not trying to redefine gun ownership as a want, or need, or anything inbetween. I was simply trying to express my frustration at larger and larger numbers of people applying the “need” argument to firearm ownership, and then having firearms come up short. This frustration largely stems from those people arbitrarily defining what people do and do not need, so my post responded in kind – people do not “need” any of those things, but that does not matter, does it?
It does not matter because, even if people just want those items, they should be permitted to have them. And it further does not matter because now I am just arbitrarily redefining the ground rules, like I was ranting about, and it is not my place, or anyone else’s, to do so. If you feel as though you need something, you do, and no one else should have any capability or capacity to tell you otherwise.
Second, while I agree with you on every point (apart from the confusion I generated over redefining needs as wants – not what I was trying to do, believe me), the “need” argument is a losing game for firearm rights activists, simply because gun-grabbing hoplophobes do not recognize any of those things you listed as “needs”. As such, why not just chunk the “need” argument entirely? In all reality, it simply should not factor in for any possession ownership, firearms included, for aforementioned reasons.
At any rate, you are more than welcome to come back whenever you want, Panhandle, and contribute however you want. Comments like yours let me know where my flaws in expression lie, and I appreciate that.

By: panhandle

panhandle — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:13:17 +0000

Nice post,
I like the way you think but i have to admit that i think you have missed the boat. I myself certainly dont need most of the trinkets that i have, that make life much more pleasant, and i certainly agree that no one should be able to choose or take away what i have.
I have a family that i am ultimately responsible for there physical well being. I need a gun to help me with that task.
I must also take care of my physical well being if only so that I can take care of my familys financial well being, and for that, I need a gun.
I think everyone in this nation needs a gun just to guarantee that a tyrannical government will not run rough shod over the top of us, and for that we all need a gun.
I hope i never need to use it, but i need it all the same.
I believe that the founding fathers of this nation felt the same way. I believe this is why they guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms in the bill of rights. That is why i believe you are doing us a disservice trivializing gun ownership as a want. Its not only a want, or a need, but most importantly a unalienable right to have and bear that gun. We as a nation better get real, real mad real fast if someone even thinks about taking that right away. Its much more than important than a television set.
Thanks for reading my little rant, thanks for the opportunity to be able to contribute a little bit.

By: Linoge

Linoge — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 17:23:00 +0000

True enough, on both counts, Mark.
And I would be just as happy not bailing out the auto industry, DirtCrashr, especially considering how the presidents of those companies are behaving and reacting in light of their companies’ situations.

By: dirtcrashr

dirtcrashr — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:08:59 +0000

Nobody really *needs* a Prius either – they just buy them to feel good about themselves.
And nobody really *needs* to re-cycle – it’s simply a tenet of Faith among the Eco-Cultists.
And nobody *needs* to bail-out the Auto Industry either.

By: Mark@Sea

Mark@Sea — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:33:17 +0000

As I told my ex-wife when she told me I didn’t need to own a gun, I didn’t need to get married, either.

By: Linoge

Linoge — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:54:59 +0000

Exactly correct, on all counts gentlemen. The second we start letting other people dictate to us what we can and cannot have based of their own biases and prejudices, the slope becomes very slippery indeed – especially when some of those bans and regulations directly impact Constitutionally-protected rights. And it is funny how some “need”-based bans would immediately be challenged, and others are welcomed with open arms… I guess since the majority of them are not students of history, Americans do not quite understand the “first they came for…” concept.
Just remember, it is for your own good. Or the good of the children. Or the good of the environment. Or something.
On another note, I am a proud deckswab on the Galactica, Browncoat, and Trekkie, and likewise thoroughly approve of your DVD choices, Carl .