http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUTaC40sQ1I
TTAG reader Eclzeastes writes:
I just finished watching an episode of Kung Fu Panda on Nick called “The Midnight Stranger.” The ruler of the village bans kung fu. To keep the village safe, the hero (Po) has to dress up as the Midnight Stranger so he can secretly use kung fu. The leaders catch the Midnight Stranger and are going to put him in jail. Then all the evil guys come out to thank the village leader for banning kung fu so they can rule. Eventually the hero breaks his bonds and fights the bad guys and wins. The village thanks the hero for using kung fu. It makes me think the show’s scriptwriters were pro 2A; if not then they just made our argument for us. I’d love to know if they are actually liberal gun-hating Hollywood types that didn’t realize what they were writing . . .
I’ll stick to the model 25 in .45 LC which it’s the caliber it was made for. I get a little leery when using Moon Clips and alternate “It will fit” ammo type. The .45ACP is best in a semi auto which it was designed for. Sorry boys and girls if I need a shot gun I’ll rely on my Vietnam favorite Mod 870 riot. Great idea for some I will admit however not for this old vet.
The first X-Men movie carries a similar message, that we have to trust our fellow citizens.
Nice find Eclzeastes! Definitely an allegorical defense of 2a. Pretty smart too — they’re not only getting the argument out there, but automatically getting the viewer to identify with it.
There’s an argument that good literature flourishes at times of political repression because it forces the author to be more indirect and artful. You can’t literally say “Louie the 14th is an evil tyrant,” so maybe you’ll write an allegorical play and just let the audience discover the true meaning for themselves. As long as state censors can’t control our internal thought process, allegory will continue to be a way around state tyranny… or Hollywood political correctness.
I just purchased this pistol a couple weeks ago and shot it for the first time yesterday. After firing the first round it would not fire a second round. It did not jam. I could push in where the striker indicator is and it would fire. Any ideas?
today’s fun fact:
A small number of straight-pull, bolt-action only Mini-14 and Mini-30 rifles were manufactured for sale in the United Kingdom. (wikipedia)
I always said that any high (standard) cap bans are the kiss of death because they are a high profile issue with the pro-gun crowd. Many will pay in 14′ midterms.
I live in a rural part of the Poconos, not in town, but on a dead end cul-de-sac more than 10 miles from any incorporated town. For the month of Feb, there has been one murder and three violent home invasions all within 2 miles of my house. I now home carry all the time. It’s the ?#$%@* meth labs and the burned out tweakers that are addicted to it. My township has no local police dept, we rely on coverage from the PA State troopers who have an average responce time of 40 minutes. I know because I have had cause to call them on 4 seperate occassions. So in my house, I am FULLY aware that I am the first responder, my family’s safety falls on me and my wife. And frankly, any bad guy should hope he runs into me instead of her. She can shoot very well, but prefers a knife with which she is an expert.
I see what they did there…..
So this seems semantic and useless (even after re-reading what I am writing), but “guns” don’t have “rights” technically and while we all know that we are talking about a person’s individual right to bear arms, the anti-s jump on this point and it is an annoying distraction. I’d call it “Equal Right to Bear Arms” rather than “Equal Gun Rights”. Also, when the anti-s use the term “gun violence” they are showing that they are only really focused on and concerned with “the gun”. This is their moral failing. I am not focused on “the gun” when I think of what we call “gun rights”, rather literally “the right of the people to bear arms”. It’s not a gun issue, it’s a people’s rights issue. Guns happen to be the current state of individually bearable arms, so their relation (should be… I know it isn’t actually) secondary in nature to the main point. I only bring this up because “argument re-framing” is regrettably what wins or loses this battle, not being right 🙁