BUT SQUIRRELS AND COPS ARE TERRORISTS  10:59 am June 28, 2010

by Ken Layne

Wonkette's image library is the Alexandria of weird combinations.ROGER EBERT ON 5-4 OVERTURNING OF CHICAGO HANDGUN BAN: “Supreme Court sides with squirrel hunters and drug gangs against cops and innocent bystanders.” [@ebertchicago/Reuters/Sun Times]

 
Related video

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

{ 74 comments }

Manos: Hands of Fate June 28, 2010 at 11:04 am

You gotta eat something, and this economy DYI meat is prefered.

TGY June 28, 2010 at 11:08 am

That’s it, ima go buy me some heat.

FMA June 28, 2010 at 11:10 am

Finally, my avatar is pertinent. Freakin’ squirrels.

Terry June 28, 2010 at 11:10 am

By squirrel hunters, do you mean “squirrels who hunt” or “people who hunt squirrels”? If it’s the first, that photo indicates that they may be arming for something other than a bit of recreational hunting.

crapshooter102 June 28, 2010 at 11:12 am

You expected a different verdict from the NRA Board of Directors, oh I mean SCOTUS?

bfstevie June 28, 2010 at 11:12 am

It’s time for a new reality show, with British judges: “America’s Packin’ Heat”.

Mild Midwesterner June 28, 2010 at 11:14 am

It’s a “handgun” ban that was overturned. So the pictured squirrel is, technically, still illegal.

jetjaguar June 28, 2010 at 11:14 am

God damn it Barry, you were supposed to TAKE our guns away…

THIS GUY

JMP June 28, 2010 at 11:17 am

Yay I’m gonna go buy myself a nuclear ICBM to celebrate!

Ken Layne June 28, 2010 at 11:20 am

[re=607554]Mild Midwesterner[/re]: Neilist will be around shortly to properly identify the squirrel’s weapon.

Katydid June 28, 2010 at 11:23 am

But but but did they even have handguns in 1787?

glamourdammerung June 28, 2010 at 11:34 am

[re=607561]Katydid[/re]: Handguns have been around since the 15th century. The Holy Roman Empire had a ban on them at some point.

Gratuitous World June 28, 2010 at 11:34 am

What’s the waiting period in squirrel days?

steverino247 June 28, 2010 at 11:35 am

[re=607561]Katydid[/re]: Yup. Used them in duels and everything. About half the plot of Barry Lyndon involved them, it seems.

KnaveOfDiamonds June 28, 2010 at 11:35 am

[re=607558]JMP[/re]: How else can a militia protect America from the tyranny of the gubment without the threat of mutually assured destruction?

AnnieGetYourFun June 28, 2010 at 11:36 am

[re=607560]Ken Layne[/re]: I’m shocked he isn’t here already.

RPPTT June 28, 2010 at 11:39 am

Looks more like a prairie dog than a squirrel to me.

WhatTheHeck June 28, 2010 at 11:42 am

We won’t be as complete a nation, until the wording on the currency changes from “In god we trust,” to “Mah guns an’ mah bible.”

Johnny Zhivago June 28, 2010 at 11:43 am

Finally, I can tear out those Walmart solar path lights and put landmines back in my front garden!

WhatTheHeck June 28, 2010 at 11:46 am

[re=607560]Ken Layne[/re]: Before Neilist pipes in, the weapon the squirrel is packing is what any self-respecting home owner needs for self defense.

facehead June 28, 2010 at 11:47 am

[re=607568]AnnieGetYourFun[/re]: Probably still waking up, I mean, smelling the napalm.

Snarkalicious June 28, 2010 at 11:48 am

I agree with SCOTUS. The citizens of Chicago have just as much right as anyone to live in the murder capital of the world. Juarez, Kingston, Caracas, Moscow, Flint…all of these places can officially suck it, now, because of the Constitution. GLORY GLORY HALLELUJAH!

pub_option June 28, 2010 at 11:48 am

Have we gone from ‘the right to arm bears’ to ‘the right to arm rodents’?

TGY June 28, 2010 at 11:50 am

[re=607560]Ken Layne[/re]: Like that was hard. It’s a Mark 153 SMAW rocket launcher. We gigolos gotta know things about firepower.

missly12 June 28, 2010 at 11:52 am

Black and white, we are all the same!

{—–W W W.Black -White -Cupid.C/ O M——} ;)

Sparky McGruff June 28, 2010 at 11:54 am

Silly liberals. There is no such thing as “innocent bystanders”.

Come here a minute June 28, 2010 at 11:58 am

If our nation’s gun laws become squirrelly, then only squirrels will have guns.

slappypaddy June 28, 2010 at 12:00 pm

just don’t act squirrelly in chicago and you should be all right. and don’t go anywhere without your handgun (you might want to learn how to use it, those damn things are more dangerous than they are useful. give me a rifle or a shotgun any day of the week. i used to live in the middle of an inner-city drug war zone, pistols going off all the time, fired by punks who’d learned everything they knew about firearms from teevee shows, movies, and video games. they couldn’t intentionally hit the broad side of an SUV or a king-cab pickup, but they could accidentally take out grandma and the babies. we are so fucked.)

Katydid June 28, 2010 at 12:03 pm

My tweet back to Ebert: @ebertchicago: Send squirrels, guns and money? The shit has hit the fan!

snideinplainsight June 28, 2010 at 12:04 pm

Hey! It turns out they still won’t let you in the SCOTUS viewing gallery with an Uzi. What’s up with that?

comicbookguy June 28, 2010 at 12:12 pm

[re=607567]KnaveOfDiamonds[/re]: Don’t worry, the militia will protect you from the gubmint with their punishing dildo mallets. As long as you have a picture of Dubya on yer junk, your freedum is secure.

Einstein' June 28, 2010 at 12:17 pm

So, Chicago gangs are considered militias now?

Tube City June 28, 2010 at 12:18 pm

This means that Wyatt Earp was a taxing tyrant, for requiring that cowboys turn their handguns in to the sheriff within city limits. The Clanton Gang are the new American patriots.

glamourdammerung June 28, 2010 at 12:18 pm

[re=607607]comicbookguy[/re]: I am always amused at the militiatards thinking the American armed forces would not pretty much kill all in under say, one day. It would probably take less time than that if the predator drones took out all the militias precious HFCS supplies.

glamourdammerung June 28, 2010 at 12:20 pm

[re=607615]Einstein[/re]: I think it depends on what color the gang members are.

Ken Layne June 28, 2010 at 12:24 pm

[re=607598]snideinplainsight[/re]: Proves what we knew all along: The Supreme Court ain’t in America.

An Outhouse June 28, 2010 at 12:28 pm

I could use one of those Mark 153 SMAW rocket launcher thingies for the upcoming Independence Day Celebration weekend.

gatoratlaw June 28, 2010 at 12:28 pm

The Supreme Court sided with Nazis in Brandenburg v. Ohio, because why not?

comicbookguy June 28, 2010 at 12:34 pm

[re=607618]glamourdammerung[/re]: That’s nothing. My right wing nut of a brother is all Glenn Beckified and goes on and on about how keeping a gun in your house is the only way to protect yourself against the government. He also said that government is inherently bad and tends to do the wrong thing because of human nature (even in a democracy), so its power should be limited in every way possible. The irony is his job: he works for a big defense contractor building advanced weapon systems for the government.

So to review the logic of this die hard Glenn Beck fan… 1) government power should be limited, 2) guns are power, 3) obviously, let’s give the government more guns.

In fact, let’s give everyone more guns. This is a guy who sees a 12 year old Afghan kid with an RPG on the news and thinks, there’s someone who is free!

comicbookguy June 28, 2010 at 12:36 pm

[re=607618]glamourdammerung[/re]: Sorry, forgot to add the snark.

KABLOWIEE!! Ducks and diapers everywhere!

Katydid June 28, 2010 at 12:40 pm

[re=607598]snideinplainsight[/re]: And that succinctly sums up just about everything that’s wrong with the Supreme Court.

Simba B June 28, 2010 at 12:51 pm

Fucking squirrels are terrorists. Just ask the brave men of the U.S.S. Birdfeeder what they think.

Simba B June 28, 2010 at 12:53 pm

Of course, the U.S.S. Birdfeeder is under attack on multiple species-fronts.

PineyWoodster June 28, 2010 at 1:01 pm

At the risk of being not funny, could I at least pose the following question?

Since criminals in Chicago are not going to comply with the gun ban, and

since the Chicago police are unlikely to be immediately at the scene of a crime when an illegally armed criminal is accosting a law-abiding citizen,

is it not possible that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry weapons for their own personal protection might actually be a Good Thing?

comicbookguy June 28, 2010 at 1:08 pm

[re=607676]PineyWoodster[/re]: Sounds good in theory, but in practice, societies where everyone carries a gun have higher murder rates, not lower. The proven solution is, instead of spending $1000 on a gun, put that money into the local tax base and hire more police.

But yeah, we all fall for that romantic notion of defending a damsel in distress with your trusty side arm. Or chasing off Black Bart with your Red Ryder carbine action range model air rifle.

slithytoves June 28, 2010 at 1:10 pm

[re=607676]PineyWoodster[/re]: Yeah sure – as long as they don’t shoot their wives in a fit if rage/have their kids take it out to play and shoot selves or others/lose it it in a home robbery whereafter it is used to kill a store attendant/innocent child in a crossfire, etc../actually accidentally shoot themselves or others when taking it out to show friends/shoot non-Sox/Cubs fans after a day of heavy drinking at the park…or just add any number of iterations on the 80 or so gun deaths in the country each day. Otherwise, fine, keep it with you for those multiple daily carjacking, muggings, attempted rapes, etc.

mumblyjoe June 28, 2010 at 1:13 pm

Hahaha, I love this. Apparently, the one amendment in the Bill of Rights that is phrased as a conditional that is predicated on the importance of an outdated concept of military organization, is the single most inviolable amendment in the constitution, while the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and eight amendments were apparently written with in an “eh, only pay attention to these if you really feel like it and aren’t really scared of something” tone of handwriting, so hey, why not ignore them?

Gun-toting Progressive June 28, 2010 at 1:14 pm

[re=607638]comicbookguy[/re]: Yeah, I chuckle at my right-wing buddies when they trot out this particular argument. They seem to think that the blue-helmeted Disarming Squad (Nobama will need to use UN troops, because of course the US Army would NEVER obey such an edict, and Hey, one-world government fear) will flee in the withering fire of .22LR from their varmint guns.

I believe that the world would be a much safer place if there were no handguns. But, that particular cat is out of that particular bag, and besides, if there were no guns we’d all be arguing about the ban on longbows. Besides, the main reason why I sometimes carry concealed is so when the next `tard who gets whipped into a lather by Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity goes postal, I can return fire. I don’t think al Qaeda is planning to attack my little town.

Lascauxcaveman June 28, 2010 at 1:16 pm

Supreme court ruling:

Squirrel Hunters + Drug Gangs = Well regulated militia.

Duh.

McDuff June 28, 2010 at 1:22 pm

[re=607571]RPPTT[/re]: So, this picture of a bazooka-packing prairie dog may explain why the Black-footed Ferret is nearly extinct in the wild.

McDuff June 28, 2010 at 1:36 pm

[re=607684]slithytoves[/re]: I’ve always thought that the solution is that handgun owners be required to carry their gun AT ALL TIMES or lock it up in a gun safe. As you note, it’s the dumbasses who leave the damn things laying around the house that are problem — gun stolen and used in robbery, kid plays with gun kills little sister, etc. So, if proven that you didn’t lock your gun up, then 40 years in the Big House, no ifs ands or buts — that’s the deal if you want to pack heat. In any event, if Bubba is always walking around the house while strapped, my guess is that the wife will eventually make’em stop acing so paranoid and lock the thing up.

GOPCrusher June 28, 2010 at 1:47 pm

I, for one, support the rights of squirrels to hunt innocent bystanders with a bazooka. The license fees are used to increase the habitat of the innocent bystanders.

mumblyjoe June 28, 2010 at 1:49 pm

[re=607688]Gun-toting Progressive[/re]: If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have longbows, and poach game from the local lord’s manor?

GOPCrusher June 28, 2010 at 1:55 pm

[re=607688]Gun-toting Progressive[/re]: Word. I fear some Tea Bagger on a snoot full of Ten High, showing up at the local mall, looking to exact revenge on the Socialists then I do some gang banger. That’s why I started carrying again.

Buzz Feedback June 28, 2010 at 2:13 pm

Is that squirrel wearing a Kraut helmet?

Naked Bunny with a Whip June 28, 2010 at 2:17 pm

At least really dangerous things, like gay marriage, are still bannable.

Jim89048 June 28, 2010 at 2:37 pm

[re=607586]TGY[/re]: Lib soshulist Bruce Cockburn from Canada City wrote a song about that back in the 80′s.
If I had a Rocket Launcher

TGY June 28, 2010 at 2:52 pm

[re=607786]Jim89048[/re]: Funny, I imagined that to be a parody of BNL “If I had a Million Dollars” from the title. Hmmmm.

gatoratlaw June 28, 2010 at 3:44 pm

[re=607683]comicbookguy[/re]: Which is why the murder rate in places like, oh, Washington D.C. (pre-Heller) was so low because of the strict ban on firearms, amirite? Its also why I’m terribly afraid to go outside here in Tampa (which has next to no firearms limitations beyond federal law), but can safely walk the streets on the southside of Chicago, amirite?

The crime rate has been going down for years now, even as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired.

The crime rate has absolutely nothing to do with the availability of firearms.

comicbookguy June 28, 2010 at 4:08 pm

[re=607891]gatoratlaw[/re]: All things are not equal, and the assault rifle ban was never lifted in D.C. The real question is: will the murder rate drop in Chicago now? If the NRA is right, we should see a statistically significant drop in crime with no change other than a loosening of the gun laws. If that happens, the NRA will issue a blizzard of press releases. If it doesn’t, they’ll ignore it.

And yes, there are small towns in Texas that are much safer than gangland D.C., but there’s also neighborhoods in Houston where I wouldn’t walk the streets at night, armed or not.

Neilist June 28, 2010 at 4:15 pm

YES! YES! YES!

“Chicago! Chicago! That gun-toting town!
Chicago! Chicago, we’ll gun something down!
Get your Blue Steel Special you’ll bleed to death with!
Chicago! Chicago! The folks who visit
Know wear their flak vests is!”

[re=607586]TGY[/re]: [re=607560]Ken Layne[/re]: TGY beat me to it. It’s a SMAW, alrighty. (Nice call, TGY. Most would have said it was a bazooka or something.)

[re=607568]AnnieGetYourFun[/re]: I was reading the decision. It was more difficult than usual, weeping for Sheer JOY as I was.

[re=607554]Mild Midwesterner[/re]: Technically, you probaby can fire a SMAW one-handed. No recoil, donchatknow? So it could be a “handgun,” kinda. (I don’t know this for a fact, as the SMAWs were after my time. But you can fire a LAW one-handed. If you are really, really stupid. Or stoned. Same thing, really.)

The problem is that a SMAW (or a bazooka) is a “destructive device” under 28 U.S.C. section 5485, which is part of the National Firearms Act of 1934. (The latter is the federal law that prohibits/overly regulates “Fun Stuff.”))

YES! YES! YES!

“On State Street where life is so cheap, they’re blasting away!
They do things, with SMAWS and the rest, they don’t do on Broadway!
You’ll have the time of your life, as long as it lasts!
Bring lots of ammo, your wife and your kids, to load ‘em up fast!
Chicago!”

gatoratlaw June 28, 2010 at 4:17 pm

[re=607920]comicbookguy[/re]: Because, say it with me now, criminality is independent of access to firearms. If you’re right, the south side of Chicago should turn into a war zone overnight. Hell, it might anyways, it IS the south side after all.

We both know it won’t, because states with lax firearm laws have bad areas, and states with strict firearms laws have bad areas. Access to guns doesn’t make a lick of difference. At least now my aunt in Chicago doesn’t have to worry about being arrested just because she wants to protect herself in her own home.

Neilist June 28, 2010 at 4:38 pm

[re=607934]gatoratlaw[/re]: “just because she wants to protect herself in her own home.”

If she wants to use a SMAW, make sure she complies with the 1934 Act. But if she wants to use a tactical nuke, have her check with the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration.

And be sure she fills out all the forms in triplicate.

(I’m just here to help.)

gatoratlaw June 28, 2010 at 4:44 pm

[re=607957]Neilist[/re]: NFA-regulated weapons are outlawed in Illinois, but thanks.

I’m very well versed in the NFA.

Advn2rgirl June 28, 2010 at 5:00 pm

At the risk of losing all my liberal, non-violent street cred, GO SCOTUS. Yes, people who don’t properly store their guns risk harm to their friends and loved ones. Yes, there are idiots out there. But I’ve grown up as a smart, sane gun owner and I DO believe you should be armed in case you need to defend yourself, sometimes from the government.

As the child and grandchild of people whose lives were threatened BY the government for trying to exercise other rights guaranteed under the Constitution (silly things like voting or freely assembling), I was taught from an early age that an armed populace is a free populace. When the people in our county peacefully agreed to desegregate the schools, and the Klan decided they wanted to have a rally here, they weren’t dissuaded by rational argument, it was the NAACP’s “Bring Any Weapon” Turkey Shoot in the next field over that persuaded them to leave, and has kept them out, even when they’ve had rallies and events in neighboring jurisdictions. They know we don’t play and we are not afraid.

I’ve had a handgun as long as I’ve been an adult living on my own. Right now, the nearest sheriff’s office is 20 minutes away, even if I were to rely on them to protect me. When my neighbor’s son was on drugs and came in the night to steal a second time (!) (and this is in a neighborhood in which no one had locked their doors in YEARS), I never thought about shooting the shape in the kitchen. I just yelled that I was calling the police. But when a pervert was raping little old ladies in their homes all over the county, you’re damned skippy I was glad I had a gun in the dresser drawer.

I’m willing to be responsible for safe storage and usage. I’m not clinically depressed or living with someone who’s apt to blow themself or me away. I’m no more apt to use a gun in anger than I would use a hammer in anger. I think we do ourselves a disservice when we demonize a useful weapon. One reason bullies come for us is they think we’re easy pickings. Don’t be that guy. Don’t be that girl. As my grandfather used to say, “If the Jews had been armed, and had taken out a Nazi every time they came for one of them, the Holocaust might have been a whole ‘nother story.” I’m not sure that’s moral but it is something to think about. People in Chicago deserve the same constitutional protections as the rest of us.

Neilist June 28, 2010 at 5:16 pm

[re=607987]Advn2rgirl[/re]: You left out the part about how much fun it is to shoot up (1) Stop Signs; (2) power pole transformers; and/or (3) the homes of ex-wives.

Ergo, you are a Scum-Sucking Liberal.

[Oh, and your father stole the "Jew With A Gun At The Front Door" thingy from the novel "Fail Safe." That's a line from the hard-liner Jewish intellectual, Professor Groeteschele, played by Walter Matthau in the 1964 film.]

(I know, I know. Neilist is an ASSHOLE.)

[re=607963]gatoratlaw[/re]: If she needs help with the nuke stuff, let me know. I used to represent one of the Weapons Labs.

Boy, did THEY have COOL STUFF, or what? Although admittedly not very “neighborhood friendly.”

Except, maybe, the Enhanced Radiation warheads. Those wouldn’t fuss the feathers on a Bluebird of Happiness perched on a feeder five blocks away.

Or so I was told . . . .

sati demise June 28, 2010 at 5:19 pm

Is that military squirrel related to the squirrel that water skis?

I love that squirrel!
Maybe they are the same squirrel, one a photo on duty one photo on leave!

Justin Time June 28, 2010 at 5:37 pm

Archie Bunker had this advice regarding the then-epidemic of plane hijackings circa 1970: “arm all of the passengers!” In line with this current decision, here is a similar win-win suggestion. First, compile a federal list of all current gun owners and the type and number of weapons they each own. Next, heavily tax each gun owner for each of these existing weapons. Then use the accumulated funds to issue gun stamps and ammo stamps (like food stamps) to everyone who does not currently own a weapon. The bubbas will likely be thrilled for the opportunity to be identified as a gun owner, and pay a tax, in order to provide every single non-bubba with a free weapon and lots of free ammo. There will need to be a requirement that all weapons and ammo purchased through this program must be made in the U. S. – this is a jobs program to help the economy! A completely armed society is a polite society.

Dean Booth June 28, 2010 at 5:49 pm

[re=607676]PineyWoodster[/re]: I’ve never seen any pro-gun argument in which you could not easily substitute (say) “hand grenade” for “handgun / rifle / &c.” to the same affect. E.g., Hand grenades don’t kill people, people do. All the arguments ignore the central question — what weapons rights increase the public good.

I’d prefer a city where only criminals and squirrels had hand grenades.

Neilist June 28, 2010 at 6:47 pm

[re=608044]Dean Booth[/re]: “I’d prefer a city where . . . squirrels had hand grenades.”

Why not a city in which monkeys had tactical nuclear weapons? Or have you already tired of Washington, D.C.?

And as to the your question, “[W]hat weapons rights increase the public good”?

Answer: All of them.

(Chicago! Chicago!)

CanadianBacon June 28, 2010 at 11:45 pm

I was reading the comments in a newspaper from Tennessee where someone wrote they hoped this ruling meant that instead of just liberals carrying guns in bars now it would be legal for people that drink to carry guns in bars. Hopefully they won’t try to drive home because that would be unsafe.

Advn2rgirl June 29, 2010 at 12:29 am

[re=608006]Neilist[/re]: Nah, you can’t shoot up other people’s stuff; that’d be wrong.

And the crazy thing is, I’m pretty sure my Papa Nelson didn’t know anyone Jewish until the 1970s and he didn’t read fiction, so I *think* he reached that conclusion on his own.

Your assholery and my dirty liberalism may, also, be independently true.

I truly don’t get why so many of the people who vote the way I do seem so willing to give away power over their own lives, though. Not to put too fine a point on it, but why wouldn’t you trust yourself more than someone else with your own safety and well-being? Especially since you’re (definitionally) right there?

MsQuasimodo June 29, 2010 at 12:51 am

Chicago has some badass squirrels. Don’t fuck with them. When I used to eat my lunch in the quads at the University of Chicago, I’d get held up by south side squirrels packing mini Uzis in their tiny baggy pants.

vkladchik June 29, 2010 at 8:58 am

Someone explain to me again how laws will prevent people who break laws from breaking laws?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: