“But the sensationalism of the discussion is quite disturbing to me.”

By now, I assume most of you are aware that Governor Deal has signed the campus carry law.  As usual, you can’t count on the General Assembly to pass something coherently written, and there is already plenty of discussion about how the law will be applied and enforced.

In the law, one of the excluded places for concealed weapons includes “buildings or property used for athletic sporting events.”

But those eight words, written in line 26 of House Bill 280, could be interpreted in different ways.

One scenario has raised an interesting question for Georgia: Given the fact that up to 100,000 fans, if not more, partake in tailgating festivities many hours before kickoff, how will the law be interpreted on its campus for a Saturday football game?

Georgia’s athletics department is unclear whether this law will strictly mean that guns are disallowed inside venues such as Sanford Stadium or if they will be banned from all tailgating sites. The University System of Georgia and attorneys likely are still sorting out the best way to enact the new law.

Athletics director Greg McGarity was reached twice during the past five days since the signing of the law and said he isn’t sure of the details yet. The University System of Georgia Regents declined further comment on the topic.

Two of HB 280’s sponsors, Rep. Mandi Ballinger (R-Canton) and Rep. Rick Jasperse (R-Jasper), did not respond to requests to comment. Deal’s office didn’t respond to multiple requests for clarification on the language either.

An opponent of the law, Rep. Scott Holcomb (D-Atlanta), said the phrasing is “100 percent unclear” and that it could wind up in litigation not too long after it goes into effect July 1.

“They use the term ‘athletic sporting events’ and ‘property used for athletic sporting events,’ ” Holcomb said. “One could definitely say, ‘Where people park is property used for athletic sporting events.’ Someone else could argue, ‘No, it’s just where the sporting event itself takes place.’ It’s not well constructed at all. It’s really poorly drafted.”

Lot of “no comment” there.  Well, except for this dude.

Rep. Alan Powell (R-Hartwell), one of the six HB 280 sponsors, later said in a speech that Trammell was exaggerating his claim while stating a joke.

“Not everybody starts drinking corn liquor at 5 o’clock in the morning to go to the ballgame,” Powell said. “A lot of us quit doing that when we were in college. And then a lot of us learned there was something better than corn liquor, and it was called bonded whiskey.

I’m not worried about the folks drinking bonded whiskey, fella.  It’s the people abusing Fireball and Natty Light who are more of a concern.  Especially if they’re likely to mix with opposing fan bases after a long day of imbibing.  Hey, maybe there’s something after all to be said for those noon starts.

Bottom line:  choose your tailgating spot prudently.

Advertisements

67 Comments

Filed under Georgia Football, Political Wankery

67 responses to ““But the sensationalism of the discussion is quite disturbing to me.”

  1. But, but FREEDUMB!!!!!

    Like

  2. “There’s no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

    Ronald Reagan

    Like

    • watcher16

      Times have changed: Welcome to Trump’s America

      Like

      • I love watching people go full retard when politics come up. Smh

        Like

        • Me too:

          TRUMP: I mean, had Andrew Jackson been a little later, you wouldn’t have had the Civil War. He was a very tough person, but he had a big heart, and he was really angry that he saw what was happening with regard to the Civil War. He said, “There’s no reason for this.” People don’t realize, you know, the Civil War, you think about it, why? People don’t ask that question. But why was there the Civil War? Why could that one not have been worked out?

          “I want to see peace with Israel and the Palestinians,” Trump told Reuters Thursday. “There is no reason there’s not peace between Israel and the Palestinians – none whatsoever.”

          The retard is definitely strong in this one. Good thing he’s not in charge of anything, you know, complex or consequential.

          Like

          • Napoleon BonerFart

            Right. The Civil War obviously had to happen because of slavery. I learned that in middle school. The fact that slavery was ended peaceably everywhere else in our hemisphere means they just did it wrong. Because middle school history.

            Also, the political boundaries of the United States are divinely inspired and cannot be made smaller by one bit. Large nations with heavily centralized power are always a good thing. Middle school taught me that, too.

            Like

            • I guess either you’ve never heard of Haiti, aren’t familiar with our hemisphere and/or are a complete blithering idiot.

              Like

              • Napoleon BonerFart

                Good point. Haiti was the other country that ended slavery violently. Thank God we had their shining example to emulate. But that doesn’t change the fact that all the other countries who peacefully abolished slavery did it the wrong way. Kudos for the smug rudeness in defense of violence and murder, though. Your middle school teacher would be proud.

                Like

                • As an American patriot I am a proud defender of violence as a means of achieving freedom…for white people. For all others non-violent resistance, at most, must be insisted upon. We can’t have lesser races going all George Washington or Spartacus or William Wallace on the white power structure can we? Of course not.

                  You see those three examples are of heroic men who saw and injustice and killed to gain (or try to gain) freedom for themselves and others. They are icons of liberty. Haitian slaves rebelling? Oh I declare! How ungracious of them! We had fed and housed them, given them a job and this is what we get? Well I just get the vapors thinking about it.

                  You’re an ignorant hypocritical bigot.

                  Like

                  • Napoleon BonerFart

                    Ad hominem. Your best debating tool. Takes me right back to eighth grade.

                    Clearly you embrace violence. How else can people settle political differences? Obviously, anyone who disagrees with your demands deserves to die. Why, Christians, white men, heterosexuals and Southerners should all get the axe. How else can we prove to them how wrong they are?

                    Like

                    • Being a moron. You’re sole debating tool. Your initial response was awash in arrogant condescension and now you complain about tone? Fuck you.

                      Ironically, that response was stupid and wrong. Now you’ve been reduced to throwing feces and squawking like a monkey.

                      I think all men are entitled to use whatever means are necessary to ensure freedom and liberty for themselves and their families. Our nation was founded on it. I feel no sorrier for those who participated in, benefited from and did nothing to stop slavery in Haiti for getting their just desserts than I do those who were hung at Nuremburg or the King’s men slaughtered by Wallace or the Redcoats at who met their demise at Bunker Hill.

                      What is annoying is that while William Wallace is considered a hero those who respond to a greater indignation, but are not white, have their motives and tactics called into question. Tell me why the Haitian slave revolt is morally different than Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Do you think that they would have earned their freedom with less force? What obligation were they under to try?

                      Being bonded in chains, brought across an ocean, being stripped of every ounce of humanity and forced into labor is at least as bad as Pearl Harbor isn’t it?

                      Your problem, systemic of your stupidity, is that you have zero realization that you have viewed these historical events through biased eyes. You don’t see a “human” struggle. You see white man’s gallant struggle for freedom vs. black men’s inherent tendency towards violence to settle disputes. Why? Because you’re stupid. Your inconsistency is not based on facts and reason anymore than your initial assertion that slavery ended peaceably in the new world save the US. Every place where there were slaves in the America’s experienced violent revolts. There are dozens of documented violent slave revolts throughout the Americas. Those revolts in no small measure brought attention to the slaves conditions and contributed to changes in the law.

                      However, back to the initial point if Il Douche wasn’t being a fucking moron over this Civil war was avoidable BS, peace tell us what would have been the grand bargain that should have been struck to avoid Southern secession and thus the war? This was the initial idea. He’s an idiot.

                      Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      Ouch. You really don’t like it when someone agrees with you, do you?

                      Hey, I’m here to cheer violence and murder along with you. I mean, if slavery was ended a few years earlier than it could have been ended peacefully, and some Southerners were taught that political boundaries are sacrosanct (unless we’re expanding them), then 1.5 million casualties was a small price to pay, amirite?

                      Now, if you want to keep calling me stupid for agreeing with you, then I guess you’ve hit the mark. Our mutual positions are fairly moronic. But, my idiotic brother in arms, don’t forget that my mock-worthy positions are yours.

                      Now, what bargain could have been struck to avoid Southern secession? None that would have been acceptable to men such as ourselves. Decentralization of power probably would have done the trick. But we can’t have that.

                      Thanks for the amusement. You get an A+ in middle school civics and discourse.

                      Like

                    • Given the numerous slave uprisings in the south and the nature of slavery itself, it wouldn’t end without violence. Violence was inherent in the slave trade and the maintenance of slavery as an institution. Obviously, your and Trump’s concern isn’t directed to the violence against slaves but the violence visited upon white people related to its abolition. Yes, that part is such a shame and so avoidable, right? Surely we could have worked it all out so that only Africans were harmed, right?

                      Why didn’t Trump say “why doesn’t anyone ask why we had slavery? So unfortunate. So unavoidable. Couldn’t we have worked it out so we picked our own cotton?” Because it’s not the slavery that is regrettable is it you flatulent dick?

                      Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      Since slave uprisings, with limited casualties, would have occurred, better to have a nation-wide war with a massive death toll? Seems legit.

                      Dude, here’s a secret that you didn’t learn in middle school. Some of the Civil War casualties were black people. See, Confederate soldiers weren’t all slave owners wearing Klan robes. And Union soldiers weren’t all abolitionist preachers with mixed-race families. And the deaths weren’t limited to soldiers. Many civilians, including black civilians, were killed, wounded, or missing. Many people who aren’t as religiously devoted to your politics as you are consider that a bad thing. Some people even believe the heresy that, if the Confederacy were allowed to secede and peacefully abolish slavery in, say 15 years after secession, it would have been worth the money, property, and lives saved from avoiding the war.

                      But hey, I’m on your side. Obviously anybody who fails to cheer the destruction and death of the Civil War is retarded. Violence and murder is awesome! Collateral damage be praised!

                      But keep those insults coming for agreeing with you. And be sure not to look up “irony” in the dictionary while you’re at it. 😉

                      Like

                    • I understand that there are those who subscribe to the notion that the south should have been allowed to leave in peace. Many of them think that the south would have then freed the slaves shortly there after because ultimately they can’t come to grips with the then-south’s malevolence.

                      I call these people idiots. I already knew you were one of them.

                      I’ve always questioned why King George resisted the independence of the colonies because that really is the real question right? Why worry about the meanlingless, soon to be abandoned practice of slavery, when we can focus on how much better we’d all have been had the central government simply tolerated it, or even better, agreed to cede half it’s territory to accommodate the slave owners?

                      Personally, I’ve always thought that FDR should have given up those islands in the pacific to the Japanese once we knew what their interest was. Do you know how many lives were lost simply because the nation concerned itself with what was then a mere territory?

                      Are you familiar with the term “fucktarded?”

                      Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      Are you under the impression that slavery would still be legal today if hundreds of thousands of people hadn’t been killed in the nineteenth century? Do you have any evidence for this besides your own misguided sense of moral superiority over people who live in a particular geographic region?

                      King George resisted the independence of the colonies because he wanted the maximum amount of power. That’s the same reason Lincoln resisted the secession of the Confederate states. He explicitly stated that his reasons for fighting the war weren’t about slavery. It was about not allowing the boundaries of the United States of American to become any smaller.

                      Sure. FDR has blood on his hands for provoking Germany and Japan into declaring war against the USA. Should he have done so? Probably not. Unless you’re a bloodthirsty warmonger who cheers death and destruction (not to mention the bankruptcy of his domestic spending programs). Then, FDR is a hero.

                      And I’m well familiar with the term fucktarded. I’m reading your “arguments” aren’t I?

                      Like

                    • That’s one big ball of stupid right there.

                      Point one- slavery probably wouldn’t have lasted long enough to have cared to do anything about it anyway and certainly not 150 more years because we know how racially enlightened the south was in say the 1960’s right? I guess 100 years of bondage would have been acceptable, right?

                      Point two- Lincoln, the first president of a party founded by abolitionists fought the war ONLY because of power. You know the south had the option of just letting the government ban slavery right? I mean they could have accepted the majority’s judgment on that right?

                      Point three- FDR goaded the japs and the nazis into war. Now we’re in tin foil hat land. Congrats on your special mix of stupid and insane.

                      Point four- during the time we rose to be the world’s greatest superpower we were also bankrupt.

                      You sir are simply the dumbest living creature in the universe.

                      Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      I’m interested to know exactly how notably bankrupt and bloodthirsty you are. Give me an estimate for how many deaths one year of freedom for slaves was worth. Was ending slavery 10 years earlier than it would have been accomplished peacefully worth 250k deaths? 500k deaths? 1 million deaths? 100 million deaths?

                      On point two, don’t you trust Saint Lincoln? He was the one who said he would forego freeing a single slave if it would preserve the Union. You don’t think he knew his own mind?

                      Three, FDR’s own attorney general stated he was trying to provoke war. The Japanese constantly tried negotiating for peace only to be rebuffed by FDR. US ships ran blockades and escorted British ships containing weapons and military supplies. But you didn’t learn any of that in middle school, did you?

                      Point four, yes we’re bankrupt and have been since FDR’s spending spree. Now, we could make the payments for a few decades. But eventuality we could no longer do that. Now, we owe more in unfunded liabilities than total wealth that exists in this country. But you will have to forgive me for using such big words when discussing things with someone of your reading level. Rest assured that much of what you’ve been taught in middle school is simplistic, biased, or just outright wrong. If you move on high school or even college chortle you might learn more than you currently know. Until then, just continue your arrogantly ignorant rants about how middle school history is the height of scholarly knowledge and anyone who doesn’t agree with either your ignorance, or your lust for death must be stupid.

                      Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      Sorry for autocorrect. Not notably bankrupt, morally bankrupt.

                      Like

                    • 1) Fiat justitia ruat cælum
                      2) If that were true, why did the south secede anyway?
                      3) attorney general and war? Seriously? That’s like saying the secretary of defense had an interesting point about the school lunch program.
                      4)considering debt to income ratio the country is less “broke” than your average home buyer. The debt is 75% of yearly GDP. That’s like saying a guy who buys a 75k home and makes 100k a year is broke. The bank would be more than happy to loan that guy some more $.

                      Keep digging stupid….

                      Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      1) Well, I’ve got to hand it to you. It takes a special combination of evilness and stupidity to not only believe that slavery was so bad that not only should slave owners be killed, but so should their wives, children, extended families, friends, neighbors, countrymen, and even their slaves, but to state it publicly. Most people wouldn’t support the idea that people who live north of an imaginary line are righteous, while people who live south of the line are evil and holy northern warriors should be free to rape, pillage, and plunder their way south in a jihad against the southern infidel. But hey, you’re obviously a different breed of cat.

                      2) The Confederacy seceded, mainly, because of abolitionist pressure from the North. That is why the South fought the war. It’s not why the North fought the war. The North fought to preserve the Union. Secession was the event that precipitated the war.

                      3) You don’t believe attorneys general have any insight into the presidents they serve under? Bless your heart. Would you trust other administration officials? FDR’s ambassador to France said the same thing. FDR was provoking the Axis powers to try to goad them into declaring war against the USA. Numerous historians have written books and articles on the subject as well. Educate yourself.

                      4) Sigh. Wrong again. You’re only including public debt. That’s only one kind of debt that the US government has. That’s like bragging about being debt free because you paid off your credit cards, but you forgot about your $10 million mortgage with a variable rate and balloon payment. The total amount of unfunded liabilities the US government currently has is over $129 trillion. Now, that’s a problem because the total net wealth of the country is $54 trillion. That means if the government seized every private asset in the country and sold it to China, it would still be $75 trillion in the red. And that’s a bad thing.

                      If you have any other “insights”, I suggest you run them by your parents or your middle school teachers before posting. It might save you some embarrassment.

                      Like

                    • Actually 85 trillion is is houshold value. The net worth of total national assets is 270 trillion. Nearly twice as much as liabilities. Dummy.

                      Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      Unsurprisingly, the actuaries (experts at valuing liabilities) disagree with your estimates. My numbers were taken from their reports. I’m much more interested in truth than your bullshit, kiddo.

                      Like

                  • If a terrorist said to you: put that baby in a microwave and hit start OR I will set off a bomb in Times Square would you nuke the baby? I wouldn’t. I’d tell him to go fuck himself. There is no “balancing” when it comes to pure evil and human bondage is in that category. You can’t sit there and say, well let you keep the slaves but only one beating a week! No more raping too! You want to rape them on Mondays? Monday is rape day or no deal huh? Well I guess in order to save lives we’ll let Monday be rape days. That’s as evil as the bondage itself.

                    Thank you for that so unhelpful chicken and egg bullshit. The north forced the south’s hand over slavery. The South seceded. The country responded. We all know that dick. You’ve been suggesting not that the South could have relented but that the north should have allowed the south to go. Because you’re stupid.

                    Do you believe everything Ramsay Clark says? I don’t. I suppose FDR could have goose stepped and said Heil Hitler so that no one would accuse him of having bad motives, but the idea that we wanted Pearl Harbor is always been nothing more than rumor and innuendo. Like JFK and RFK killed Marilyn Monroe in a drug fueled orgy! Just because there’s a book(s) doesn’t make it fact. The Germans declared war on us when we declared war on the Japanese.

                    A $300000 mortgage for a person making 100k is an unfunded liability. Doesn’t mean he’s broke. The country is worth 85 trillion btw.

                    Like

                    • Napoleon BonerFart

                      Interesting analogy. I agree that you would be justified in refusing to kill the baby. But you would not be justified in sending your jihadists to rape, plunder, and kill everybody that lives in the geographic region that the terrorist came from. Many of those people would have had nothing to do with his actions and even disagreed with them.

                      You believe the bullshit from middle school because that’s your intellectual level. The South must have fought to preserve slavery and the North must have fought to abolish slavery. That’s what your teacher told you. But even Lincoln disagrees with you. The war was fought because of secession, not slavery. If the South had seceded over the electoral college, the North still would have gone to war. Slavery is just the smokescreen that stupid people and middle schoolers buy into.

                      I believe the credible things that Clark claims about LBJ. He was, after all, well positioned to know much. As for FDR, read some non-middle school history, dude. American convoys escorted British ships through shipping lanes and even fired on German U-boats. Americans conducted joint military operations with the British. We provided military assistance to the British, French, Russians, and Chinese at a time when we were claiming to be neutral. America joined the British and Dutch in a strict embargo against Japan, which needed to trade for raw materials. That was designed to push Japan into a state of desperation where it would attack American territory. FDR needed an incident to sway public opinion so that he could enter the war and Pearl Harbor was the answer to his prayer. Even the Secretary of War testified that, “we needed the Japanese to commit the first overt act.” Is FDR’s Secretary of War enough of a valid source for you?

                      No, your example of a $300k mortgage against $100k in income doesn’t mean the fellow is broke. But your numbers are a straw man with no parallel for the national debt. I would jump for joy if the federal government ONLY owed triple its revenues. But, if the federal government were a dude with $100k in annual income, its mortgage debt would be over $4 million. That’s broke.

                      Like

            • Got Cowdog

              Just my two cents, but slavery was on it’s way out in America anyway due to mechanization.

              Like

  3. The increase in frequency of mass shootings over recent years should make us all feel safer. The good news is that all the GBI busting drink college kids in the student section are already locked in to what is important.

    Like

  4. Hunkering Hank

    How about a reader poll: Who among us will now carry a gun to tailgate?

    Like

    • Cojones

      Mac will. He carries his concealed weapon everywhere, the conceited arrogant POS ( 🙂 ). I put the last words in there now so that we will be over this when we meet accidentally at a tailgate. Mac, I will be unarmed and passing out cookies, so hold yore iron until you taste one of these mellowing babies.

      Not really, Mac. I have to admit that we mostly agree here at gtp, but just making sure you don’t write my name on a target for practice. :0 :0 :0

      Like

      • Macallanlover

        You have me wrong Old Timer, I only carry my gun with me when I leave my little corner of the world, which is 90%+ of the time. For those who don’t, that is fine with me. But I won’t be subject to the idiotic whims of others, I intend to be able to protect myself, and my family. Stay off my lawn…seriously.

        Like

        • Macallanlover

          Excuse me, over 90% of the time I don’t carry a weapon. Cocktail time, special brown water made me crazy. 🙂

          Like

          • thanks for clarifying the 90 percent. I thought what the hell just leave it on all the time.

            Like

          • I think I am correct in stating, that in my state of residence(Alabama) do the fans shoot each other over ball games.

            Like

            • What the hell, this was to go at the end of the comments.

              Like

            • Macallanlover

              That actually do, I remember a father shooting, and killing, his son in an argument after an Alabama loss about fifteen years ago. Don’t remember the details but just thinking, wow! Those were tough times for a very quiet Tide fan base, haven’t had much reason to be angry since Sir Nick arrived.

              Like

  5. W Cobb Dawg

    Over 66% of firearm deaths are suicides. Followed by shootings of family and friends, then accidents. An armed person killing someone in self-defense is about as likely as winning the lottery jackpot. There’s a reason legislators don’t allow arms in the state house.

    Like

    • Cojones

      There’s an interesting story about that sort of thing in “Profiles In Courage”. Seems that Texas could carry in their Legislature at one time and if you bucked the political crowd, you had better be ready to use it. My, how times haven’t changed.

      Like

  6. Sherlock

    This is a public service announcement: If you can not control your emotions while drinking to where you can not trust yourself with a gun in an emotionally charged environment, you need to quit drinking and you should not own a gun. If you can not control your emotions while sober to where you can not trust yourself with a gun in an emotionally charged environment you should kill yourself.

    Like

    • The problem with that of course is that people lack the required self-awareness. You could just as easily say we don’t need the FDA or the EPA because if you don’t know it’s wrong to poison people for money then….

      Rules are made for people disinclined to be impacted by decency or common sense.

      Like

      • Sherlock

        You kind of missed my point. I’m not stressing that those of us that trust ourselves should be carrying at football games. I’m stressing that incompetent people that can be incited to violence simply by words should stop propagating their genetics and culture. We are a self aware species and are responsible for guiding our future evolution.

        Like

        • That’s an interesting theory. How exactly do you avoid Mike Judge’s Idiocracy? My feeling is that the only thing he got wrong was how long it would take.

          Like

          • Sherlock

            Yeah, but, to his credit, I thought it would take longer back in the 90s as well. The accelerated time-line is concerning. We are facing the dual threat from the Idiocracy and the weaponization of the Islamic womb. I’m not sure that Enlightenment based Western Modernism will survive for more than a few generations. Even academia is increasingly promoting the post-modern idea that the products of the Enlightenment – logic, reason, facts, the scientific method, evidenced based decision making based on objectivity – are the tools of oppression of the Cis-White Patriarchy. The most disconcerting part of this is that the backlash in response has been reactionary populism and not a full-throated intellectual defense of Modernism. Sigh.

            Like

            • The only enemy we have to fear is ourselves. Tyranny will come, if at all, by consent.

              I have far less fear of terrorists than those who say we must give up our freedoms in order to be protected from them.

              Someone wants us to be dumb and to distrust our institutions thereby diminishing representative democracy as a means of eliminating multilateralism. That someone is named Vlad. His butt buddy is now president. I fear that much more than all the Halal wombs on the planet.

              Trump, Brexit, Le Pen are all a by-product of Russia’s desire to destroy the West, and the alliances that come with it, from within. We can either retreat and cower in fear or we can ensure that a “Government of the people, for the people and by the people shall not perish from the earth.”

              As much as I resent the many many morons around, I am a little “d” democrat who believes that most of the people get it right most of the time and even if they don’t, so long as we don’t fundamentally change our system of government, the majority will get it right as soon as they are given the chance.

              Like

              • Sherlock

                I’m not talking about terrorism. I am talking about replacing a culture by outbreeding the local population and not assimilating into their cluture. I am not talking about the US specifically; I am talking about the concept of Liberal Western Democratic Modernism and principles such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality of the sexes, tolerance of minority rights, equality under the law, respect for individual rights, etc. My comment about the weaponization of the Islamic womb is about Europe, specifically countries like Sweden. Sweden is currently 6% muslim. They are now bringing in the equivalent of ~1% of the population in “Refugees” each year with almost the entirety of them being muslim. They plan on continuing for the foreseeable future. They are very specifically not asking the “New Swedes” to integrate into Swedish culture as they think that would be “racist”. They are instead asking their citizens to adapt to a “multi-cultural” society with unassimilated Somalis, Eritreans, and Iraqis (that also happen to live almost exclusively on government benefits.). It is a common refrain in Salafi mosques to promote the idea of moving to Europe in order to outbreed the locals to facilitate the expansion of Islamic territory; hell, even Turkish President Recep Erdogan openly promotes this. If you think that in the year 2100, Sweden, with a majority muslim population that never assimilated is going to maintain a Liberal Western culture based on the tents of the Enlightenment then you are insane. If they do not change course, It will be Swedistan and Sharia will be law.

                The US has an excellent record of requiring everyone to assimilate, hence why we are the great melting pot. I have no current reason to believe that we will change that requirement. Hence, why I think we are doomed to the path of the Idiocracy.

                Like

                • I don’t know how we’ve “required” assimilation. The main thing we’ve insisted on is no second class citizen track for immigrants. Plenty of first generation immigrants never learned English. Their kids did. Many became criminals to survive. Their kids and grandkids eventually did ok.

                  I don’t think that Islam is anymore inconsistent with democracy than Christianity or Judaism or atheism or Buddhism. That’s just alarmism.

                  There was no “culture” of democracy in 1776. We simply started it.

                  I will agree that western civilization must be protected, but that was started and maintained by polytheistic pederasts. Not exactly a culture we’re embracing. Its the ideas and ideals, not thier values.

                  Like

                  • Sherlock

                    It is the citizenry that has required assimilation, but government requirements to obtain citizenship are also quite strenuous.

                    I don’t think that Islam is anymore inconsistent with democracy than Christianity or Judaism or atheism or Buddhism. That’s just alarmism.

                    The Torah / Bible / have all of the same culturally backward bullshit that the Quran does. The difference is that they are interpreted through the lens of Western morality. Leviticus commands everyone to kill the gays, but modern Christians and Jews just ignore that crap. The Muslims that have assimilated feel the same way. Hell, most of them came here for the expressed purpose of getting the hell away from the backward muslims.

                    The majority of muslims around the world believe in death for apostasy, homosexuality, or adultery and the government enforcement of sharia. When they encourage “New Swedes” to hold on to their culture instead of assimilating, you are asking them to hold on these beliefs. The current zeitgeist of the islamic world is not modernization like it was 80 years ago. Female genital mutilation is now almost universal in Egypt.

                    I’m not so sure that Western Civilization will be protected or preserved. Greek and Roman culture was wiped out. It took the rediscovery of classic philosophy during the Renaissance for the ideas and ideals of Roman antiquity to return. We could face the same fate even if it seems unlikely.

                    Like

                    • Got Cowdog?

                      Shit, Sherlock. I was worried about the Dawgs going 9-3 this year, and now I have to worry about the collapse of civilization as I know it as early as my unborn grandchildren’s generation.
                      Somebody’s gonna have to rock me to sleep tonight.

                      Like

                    • No doubt, but like the Romans, the cause will be suicide. The empire that conquered the world was not defeated by the Vandals. They diminished themselves to the extent that they were subject to being defeated.

                      Also keep in mind that what was ascendent in the dark ages was Christianity and despotism. Religion and social progress are almost always at cross purposes.

                      Like

                    • Sherlock

                      No doubt, but like the Romans, the cause will be suicide

                      Suicide is the exact term I would use for what the Swedish government is currently doing.

                      Also keep in mind that what was ascendent in the dark ages was Christianity and despotism. Religion and social progress are almost always at cross purposes.

                      You seem to keep forgetting that I am an Atheist and a Classical Liberal / Libertarian.

                      Like

                    • I would argue that you can’t be a classical liberal and an atheist. You can be a unaffiliated deist, but you can’t deny the existence of a supreme being of some sort and simultaneously insist that you have God-given inalienable rights. If those rights are ordained by man, then they can be taken away by man without any compliant about inference with a divine plan. A dangerous proposition in my view. I rather say that I am free to speak because God says so than because some guys in the late 18th century thought it seemed like a good idea at the time. Doesn’t mean God actually exists, but it’s certainly better for free men that we think there is such a being.

                      Like

                    • Sherlock

                      Our rights are natural and unalienable. They are derived from our existence and recognition of self. The idea that rights either come from the Sky Bully or Man (or… shudder… government) is a false dichotomy. You can read Bastiat’s The Law, remove every instance of God, and it still makes perfect sense.

                      Like

                    • It’s not exclusively a debate about logic. I’m suggesting that you’re inviting needless risk when you challenge the main precept of the Declaration of Independence. The people you need to assist in the fight are more familiar with the King James Bible than with Bastiat.

                      Suggesting that rights are natural and inalienable is all fine and good but one must acknowledge how long it took to go from walking upright to a representative democracy with enshrined rights. Natural did not come so naturally to man. Our position as free men must be recognized as precarious or it could disappear and be another couple of millennia before it reappears, if at all.

                      Like

      • Napoleon BonerFart

        Liberty should obviously be reduced to the lowest common denominator. If someone could use his liberties to hurt someone else, then we should all give up our liberties to ensure that nobody gets hurt. Seems legit.

        Government will protect us. Government is the light. Government is the way.

        Like

        • Got Cowdog

          Based on the fervor for particular political sects and the division it causes among the populace, you may be closer to the truth than you think, Boner.
          Government as a replacement deity. Huh.

          Like

    • Dawgflan

      I’m not worried about my emotions, but what about those of the 100,000+ strangers who now may have the right to pack heat along with their liquor and fried chicken?

      Like

  7. gastr1

    Those of us in the arena love the idea of college students, drugs, drama, dorms, and guns. Just LOVE it.

    On another note, in my brilliant state, they passed such a law allowing concealed carry in every building and place anywhere, with said buildings having to have appropriate security (metal detection systems/security pat-downs) at every entry to disallow concealed carry.

    Then the governor, who supported the new law, asked the state legislature to come up with $24 million to put “appropriate security” at every hospital in the state.

    The devil’s in the details with this stuff, y’all. Srsly.

    Like

  8. whb209

    Will I carry a gun to a football game?
    No. I will just stay home, get drunk and shoot the TV.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Cojones

    “Down in front!” “I said ‘Down in front'” !! BOOM!

    I already told them to sit down in front, twice.

    Drankin’ and totin’ don’t mix. Testimonial has been and is being given at many bars across the country on Sat nites- Sun morns. In spades!

    Like

  10. Frankly, I would feel much safer if everyone in the stadium was actively packing and drinking at the same time.

    Like