6 November 2008
Crazy Jim for President
Posted by John under: Just Plain Crazy .
Break | YouTube | Metacafe | Facebook | RSS | Digg this! | iTunes
12 Comments so far...
BaseCampLegends Says:
7 November 2008 at 9:34 am.
Grenade launcher?! C’mon - they serve a practical purpose for the common man!! Haven’t figured it out what that might be, but I’m sure they do!
Hey, great video again - you guys are great. Forget your real jobs - we want more videos! 
Kris Says:
8 November 2008 at 9:16 pm.
I’m going to have to break away from my normal tongue in cheek shit talking for this one.
CJ knows my opinion on this. But here it is anyway.
In Switzerland (where I currently am living 3 months of the year), every male is required to serve in the military and keep their SIG SSG 550 5.56 assault rifle. There is a national shooting holiday, and a lot of the people who keep their assault weapon shoot at the gun range (which every town has) regularly. Now, this combined with a high quality of life (which comes from many other things that we won’t get into) helps to ensure a very low crime rate, and a very low firearm murder rate. Conversely, gun crime rates are off the charts in countries like England and Australia, where guns are totally illegal. I don’t make this shit up- it’s just the way it is. The founding fathers didn’t put the 2nd amendment in the constitution for hunting purposes- it’s clearly for self protection. Why go rob a store or someone’s house if they are armed? Who the fuck wants to get killed in their attempted robbery? When all guns are illegal, and no one can have them, then I’ll be okay with having all guns outlawed. But it will NEVER happen. There will always be people with guns. Unfortunately, I know a lot of shady people in Oregon and Cali, and I can tell you that I can call my buddy’s cocaine dealers and buy illegal handguns, probably cheaper and faster than in a store. And if I, a fairly upstanding and clean citizen, can do this, then people you don’t want armed can surely do this. So, would I rather have a SPAS-12 combat shotgun or even a TEC-9 under my bed (if I were living somewhere dangerous)? The answer is yes. I think women especially should be armed. What dumbass would want to rape some poor woman in the dark alley in Metropolis if she were going to pull out a .45 and fucking cap him? Sorry, but the idea that guns cause crime or that eliminating guns reduces crime is false, and I don’t agree with outlawing even assault rifles like Jim said. I don’t agree simply because some other people have agendas that include gun elimination in it’s entirety, and every law is baby steps towards more.
Bottom line: If it’s me or you, it’s going to be you, be I armed or not. The gun just increases chances of me coming out on top.
For the many people who don’t know me, I own 2 guns- a .30-06 hunting rifle, and single barrel shotgun manufactured in 1901. I haven’t hunted or even shot in some time. But, I’m all about gun rights.
Phillip Says:
17 November 2008 at 2:31 pm.
Nicely done strolling interview, but I can’t get completely behind what you’re saying.
When you guys get a chance, log on to the NSSF.ORG site and see if you can get a copy of The Writer’s Guide to Firearms and Ammunition. It can help dispel some of the myths and misinformation you’re working with… for example, that there is no such thing as a “plastic” gun that can evade x-ray machines. If you can’t get it, I’d be glad to loan you my copy.
While I can’t personally see the point in owning some of the more exotic “black rifles” out there, I don’t see where there’s anything wrong with it either. A lot of folks don’t understand why I need more than one shot to hunt big game, and that Remington 870 makes one heck of a tactical weapon with a couple of mods. Your Browning A-Bolt… in the eyes of many, that’s a “Sniper Rifle”. See how the hill slopes downward?
Paranoia doesn’t mean they’re NOT out to get you. The second amendment has nothing to do with your hunting priviledges and everything to do with your right to defend yourself against a government run amuck. You won’t be doing that with a 30-30.
Kris Says:
17 November 2008 at 6:59 pm.
Phillip gets it. That’s exactly it- hunting weapons are easily combat shotguns and sniper rifles when someone wants them to be defined as so.
And I’m far more concerned about protecting myself against the Gov’t amuck than the methhead down the street. And that’s fucked up- we should never fear our gov’t. Ideally, the gov’t should fear the people.
Crazy Jim Says:
2 December 2008 at 1:03 am.
Alright guys. I understand your point about basically any gun being a potential tactical weapon. I’m just saying that some weapons go a little too far. I think you can agree with that.
Kris Says:
2 December 2008 at 5:54 pm.
No Jim, you’re wrong. And Crazy.
Don’t argue with me man. Or the other guy who knows more than you.
Phillip Says:
5 December 2008 at 6:13 pm.
Some weapons go a little too far… for whom?
That’s really where this kind of discussion mires down. Sure, I totally get where you’re coming from, but the question is, who gets to decide and on what is that decision based?
What is “too far”? Why?
By the way, it’s not the point that any gun can be USED as a tactical weapon. The problem is that when you start letting politicians and do-gooders make the rules, then any gun can be DEFINED as a tactical weapon… and hence, banned.
Far out? Not at all. Read some of the proposed firearms legislation that comes down around the country every year. If it has a scope, can fire more than one bullet without reloading, has a detachable magazine, etc. etc…. all of these are the given rationale for banning the guns. Fortunately, these rules usually don’t get out of committee, but the anti-gun forces don’t give up. They’re in it for the long haul.
I used not to believe the hype that gun control was simply a series of incremental assaults on all gun possession, but the truth is there. That is the clearly stated agenda, and the folks behind it make no bones about their goals. You start with the easy pickings, the stuff most people don’t understand like the ARs and tactical stuff. Then you tighten the grip to semi-autos and long range gear. At the same time, you try to drive the manufacturers out of business with spurious lawsuits, and try to create insane obstacles for them (and for ammo makers).
This isn’t about public safety, it’s about public control… and the worst part is, the only victims are the law-abiding individuals who try to play by the rules.
The criminals aren’t filling out registration forms, getting Class-3 stamps, or even bothering with background checks.
Damn, I’m starting to sound like one of those guys who lives in a bunker in Idaho or someplace… but the fact is, it’s a scary world for the legal gunowner these days.
Anyway, sorry to go off… I guess it’s the lack of new videos on this site lately that’s got me off-balance.
admin Says:
6 December 2008 at 1:28 am.
Wow! I’m glad that one of our videos actually created some kind of discussion! Now if only more people would join the conversation, perhaps I would make another video. Kidding…
Phillip - isn’t it the politicians job to, ‘make the rules?’ He/She is a public official elected by the people to represent us and to create, lobby for, and hopefully pass legislation based on the will of his constituents? Is that not democracy? If not a politician, who then do you suggest make the rules?
Let’s say, we were to put it to a national vote TODAY. No advertising campaigns, no stump speeches, no nothing - just one man/woman one vote - nationwide. This vote is for: Should the U.S.A reclaim and outlaw all automatic weapons not being used within the military. What do you think the outcome of that vote would be? How/what would the american people base this decision on?
I sometimes wonder if hunters should worry more about protecting their right to hunt, rather than the weapon they use to do it.
Kris Says:
7 December 2008 at 10:12 am.
Phillip- Well said.
Admin- When was the last time any politicians were actually doing the will of the people? Okay, that’s a bit overstated. But as far as I’m concerned, many politicians don’t really do what the people want. War in Iraq is a good example. Who really wants troops there anymore? Yet no one in congress is actually ending it. Bush impeachment? Yeah, congress shot that down as well.
But then, there are politicians that are doing the will of the people when the people they represent want firearms banned. But people don’t understand that it doesn’t solve a thing. My point before- getting rid of guns doesn’t do shit. It just keeps guns out of the hand of people who need them. Like Phillip said above, criminals don’t go the legal route. And if people have the desire to kill someone, they most certainly will. Here in Ecuador, just a few months ago a guy from Oregon got stabbed multiple times by three men, who didn’t even rob him of his camera or money. They just wanted to kill the guy because he was a gringo I guess. So we outlaw knives as well? Hatchets? Gasoline and wine bottles? If people want to kill, they will. Bottom line.
My comment is lacking continuity. I’m a bit hungover.
admin Says:
7 December 2008 at 3:47 pm.
Knives have a practical, humane application - like slicing vegetables. So does a hatchet, gasoline and a wine bottle. What is the practical application of an uzi? It’s to protect the people against the government? So should every man woman and child have a tactical weapon just in case we need to have a coup? Should anyone be able to purchase a tank or mortars as well?
Surely even for you, there is a line as well? Where is it?
Sure. anything can be used as a weapon. And limiting the types of legal firearms allowed to be sold to the public wont necessarily end violent crime.
But is it an incremental assaults on your rights - whether we’re talking about civil rights, prayer in school or gun possession… or is it progress?
Kris Says:
9 December 2008 at 3:38 pm.
Gotta be honest- I don’t feel as if it’s any kind of substantial progression. I look at more law, bureaucracy, and regulation as the opposite of progression. Yes, Uzi’s and Tec 9’s are bit overkill. Obviously, tanks and nuclear weapons are overkill. Besides, no one can really afford those. But it all goes back to the comments made about the eventual tightening of the grip on all weapons. Even CJ said he’d be pissed if his Glock got snached. A Glock is a tactical pistol.
So CJ has his line here, you have yours there, Phillip’s there, and mine over here. So when the line is drawn by so many differing opinions (like some who are idealists and say the world would be awesome and safer without guns), in order to preserve rights we need to just keep them all legal. Someone who wants to rob a bank with a fully automatic AK-47 can do it with a semi auto AK just as well (reference to bank robberies that helped outlaw full auto assault weapons). Someone who wants to rob a store with a Tec 9 can do it with a Glock 9 just as well. Someone who wants to kill people in a school with a Mini-14 can do it with a homemade pipebomb just as well. Outlawing guns stops nothing, but progresses all gun bans. It’s more important that gun owners stick together and keep them legal before agendas outlaw them entirely (or restrict them so much they are unusable, like Australia).
In the end, it is a rights thing. But then, I am more libertarian than any other party and feel like less government regulation and restriction is better in all areas of life.
I think I need to shut up. I’m more or less just repeating myself. So post another video already. I’ll comment on a new one.
Turck Says:
29 September 2009 at 12:52 pm.
Keep up the blog guys. I just ran across this today, and its a gem.
