Jackson Jambalaya

Didn't "Zeus" and his son fall from the top of the ladder due to their knowing, and extensive criminal activity? Regardless of their hidden wealth, their character and integrity at best are highly questionable. They sound like jailhouse born-agains just trying to stay relevant. Sorry Dickie, if you had really cared about poor, uneducated Mississippians and who they vote for, you'd have seized on that opportunity while you had your law-license and some decency. Now, your son and you are just a corrupt, laughable, Oxford-affiliated characters out of an obscure book. Your chance to "save the world" has come and gone. Now crawl back in your hole.

"Education and jobs are what reduces crime."
- Dickie Scruggs

Educated with a law degree
Had a job as a very prominent attorney
Still committed a crime

- also Dickie Scruggs

I'll pass on taking advice from this guy, thanks.

Dickhead Scrub represents the typical liberal response to crime. His solution is some idealistic BS that doesn’t address the immediate issue, “education and jobs” blah blah blah. Meanwhile he attacks those that are the rightfully pissed off victims of the crime. My question for convicted felon Scrub: how much of your I’ll gotten wealth have you donated to help with education and jobs? And your contributions to the ACLU and Democratic candidates doesn’t count.

Dickie Scruggs, why do you even have a twitter account? You are a disgraced, convicted felon. Yet you have no shame and are unable to just live the rest of your life quietly reflecting on all of your bad deeds.

Why does anybody care what this convict says???

The governor's wife is as big a redneck as he is. Who knew.

Because not being afraid of criminals is totally redneck. Got it, Ms. Mamby-Pamby.

It always has been open season on anything left unattended unguarded in rural areas in Mississippi. You take a big gamble leaving that atv at your deer camp....

Debbie pulled a Fordice: I'll whup your ass [fill in the blank]!

You win the internet 8:07...you win

Birds of a feather, I suppose. Besides, who's afraid, whistle britches? I just think its juvenile to suggest you're going to hunt down some common thieves. I've been there - had several guns stolen from my camp house. Lesson learned. I'm not going to go create a violent situation by hunting the assholes down nor am I going to waste my time seeing if they'll come back and shoot them. Neither will she. It's a redneck comment, passed along by a simpleton governor, and enjoyed by knuckle draggers.

Dickie, what a joke

At first I just figured dickie was trolling for potential clients, but then I remembered that his ass is disbarred.

Before we get on the first lady too hard, let's step in her shoes.

Do you like having your belongings stolen?

No. That's all this is about.

No one advocated tracking them down or setting up an ambush for them. Nothing wrong with saying you are prepared if someone tries to rob you.

Don't worry...someone dinged Scruggs on twitter for the hypocritical statement. He never responded.

Love how a kid selling dope gets caught and they'll take everything he has claiming they were all ill gotten from the drug trade. And you get time.

Get caught trying to bribe a judge, rather get caught conspiring with your son and your cronies trying to bribe a judge and rig a lawsuit, and everyone pretends that every dime you "earned" from using the court as a lever was above board. The only recognition he deserves going forward is a gold medal for Mississippi corruption.

Dickie, don't go away mad. Just go away.

I typically don't take life advice from convicted felons.

The Governor's wife has really demonstrated the another great argument for ownership of the civilian AR-15.

Most women can easily manage a AR-15 carbine with a collapsed stock. I built a AR pistol for my small wife to use. With a decent amount of training a woman can easily defend herself and her family from a group of attackers with this fine weapon.

Eugene Stoner was a genius and the AR-15 reflects that with a reliable and light, low-recoil rifle.

I agree there's nothing wrong with saying you're well defensed. That's not what she said or what Deputy Dog bragged about, though.
"I'm taking my AR down and waiting on their asses!!!"
But you do you, KF.

What part of what Dickie said was wrong or out of line? Doesn't he have a right to speak his mind?

Crime in Copiah County, Mississippi
Crime is ranked on a scale of 1 (low crime) to 100 (high crime)
Copiah County violent crime is 54.6. (The US average is 31.1)
Copiah County property crime is 45.7. (The US average is 38.1)
Maybe the citizens need to contact someone who will do something about crime in this area?

"Nothing wrong with saying you are prepared if someone tries to rob you."

(Unless you are Dickie Scruggs and you mention your AR15, that would probably be the wrong thing to say.)

In fairness to Dickie, if he did do what he pleaded guilty of doing (but see below), he did it in a street fight with other lawyers who were just as wrong but went untouched. That is not meant to, nor can it, gloss over the situation. I have no doubt that Zach, et al, knew exactly what the situation was, but I'm not sure Dickie knew everything. I suspect he knew enough to know better and attempted to take most of the heat to save his son. He pleaded guilty, so he is to be assumed guilty, and he did his time, apparently as an exemplary prisoner who went above and beyond in helping fellow inmates get an education and reform themselves. As such, that debt has been paid with interest, so to speak.

Now, all that said, his "education and jobs" comment was hypocritical, even if true from a societal standpoint, and frankly, stupid for a man of his undeniable ability with language. On the other hand, he and Zach appear to have put, literally, their money where their mouths are insofar as education, learning lessons, and helping to make things better - Google his GED program, etc.

As to Phil's tweet, it comes across as nothing but redneck YE-HAW'ing for what he sees as his base and reinforcing the "Philbilly" image. Does anyone with any sense think a Governor's wife would be allowed to go play Clint Eastwood at a rural home, even if she really was so inclined? Just like Dickie, Phil should have had more sense. Look, I understand - if she said it, I'm sure to a "good ol' boy" like Phil, it was a real "ain't she a pistol!" (no pun intended) remark. Share it and laugh among friends and family, not with the entire world.

Look, Phil, here is some free advice: Mississippi has real problems and issues. Big ones. Most are real, some are optics. Tweets from you - the Governor - that make either worse are just plain stupid. I'm sure Debbie Bryant can handle a rifle (and that is pretty cool, in my opinion), but you intentionally creating the public image of Deborah Bryant, the First Lady of Mississippi, setting up an ambush with an AR just isn't smart or savvy. It feeds right into the poor optics. And why did it have to be an AR? Look at what happened with Joe Biden and his wallhanger double. I'm not saying that "her deer rifle" or any other firearm would have been OK, but an AR is a particular and well-known flash-point for the anti-gunners. Is the public response fair? Almost never, regardless of what the issue or response might be, but it is what it is, so why provoke it unnecessarily? Bottom line? Think before you tweet. Just because the Donald regularly makes an ass of himself on Twitter does not mean you should.

And for the record, I'm a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, the right to carry, etc., but I'm not going to use a firearm as a shock-value display item, the immediate purpose of which is nothing more than causing controversy. The 2nd does not in any way permit such use or activity and as a responsible gun owner, I know better.

@10:48 Of course he has a right to speak his mind. But he said education is a key to reducing crime. Scruggs is well-educated and he committed a crime, so his statement is at least ironic.

Who would I rather blast away with my granddaddy’s ole rusty shotgun- some low level thug stealing some low value crap from my house or a mega rich tyrant who likes to stack the deck against me in court when I need fairness at my most crucial moment?

And Dickie, so you don't feel left out, here is some free advice for you, too:

You pleaded guilty to a crime. Even if there is some semantic loophole to be found, never look for it and certainly, never attempt to use it. You paid your debt insofar as time served and from what I understand, you did so in a fashion that demonstrates both remorse and reform (or at least a significant change of attitude). And now, apparently, you are taking the lessons you have learned and the wealth you possess and attempting to make things better for the less-able and less-fortunate. That's your message and it is a good one, so stick to that.

Besides, you know you know better. It's a jury of thousands, all of whom judge, and there is no voir dire, stikes, or sidebars. Ill-considered comments that do little but provoke negative emotional responses about the equally ill-considered comments of another isn't going to help your message one bit.

@12:15PM
While I'm sure everyone enjoyed your grandiloquent novel, I must disagree. The AR-15 is front and center and I don't care if it bristles the hairs of the left.

Please allow me to pontificate. The AR-15 is what seperates our 2nd ammendment rights from what the Aussies, Brits, and Canadians call their 'gun rights'. I mean, if we let them take away our semi-auto rifle that utilizes high capacity magazines then we no longer have the 2nd ammendment.

It is literally the last stand before the ammendment is meaningless. It should be perpetually vocally defended.

If I'm not mistaken, the First Lady gets MHP protection! Looks like Phil is trying to look like Trump, which he can't!!!!!

It's a shame that Phil didn't get tough on crime until it happened to him.

I wonder how many of the people being so hard on Dickie will do the same when the entire Trump family goes to prison (or he resigns and makes a deal for the whole family).

Why didn't Phil include a plug for the flag and sons of the confederacy while he was at it? And maybe a swipe at Mexicans. Call him a Trump wanna be, but also a Trump never be.

Take his twitter away. Please.

Very well said 12:15. 1:35, since apparently no one has let you in on the secret, I will. You and the rest of the Bubba platoon of Bushmaster .223 owners are as much of a bulwark against tyranny as a troop of mounted knights or a group of Agincourt archers. That is to say, none at all. I don’t know you, so I won’t make the obvious leap that your AR fetish is an obvious attempt to compensate for something, but you need to undestand your owning an AR doesn’t make you Rob Roy, before you get yourself hurt.

To July 26, 2018 at 1:35 PM,

First, some technical points. ARs, along with all other rifles, are ill-suited to "home defense" in the US. They _will_ (not "might") over-penetrate in nearly every reasonable situation involving "home defense" (again, in the US). They are simply not a good tool for that job. A smaller-gauge (20, 28 or .410) pump shotgun with a shoulder stock and shortish barrel, loaded with sub-6 shot over a reduced-power load is the best all-round "home defense" firearm, with a revolver, again with special loads, in second place. You can argue YOUR screwdriver is almost as good as a hammer for driving nails, but a hammer is still a better hammer.

Now, some legal points. A particular magazine capacity is not protected under the 2nd, but an arbitrary limit that would operate as a de facto limit on (fire)arms is prohibited. An arbitrary limit would be one in which there is no demonstrable reason to support that limit. Plainly, 10 rounds is an arbitrary number. Why not 9? Why not 6, 11, or 23? In other words, capacity limit arguments relate only to illegal/improper use, so if any number up to and including 10 rounds in a magazine is reasonable for legal use, there is no viable argument that an arbitrary increase in capacity by X rounds, in and of itself, creates an unreasonable _magazine_ regardless of what an unreasonable _person_ might do with it. The same goes for "ARs," by the way - non-Title II ARs are self-loading rifles (or "semi-automatic" as they are often called), no more, no less, as is a Marlin 60, Ruger 10/22, Remington 760, etc. and arbitrary bans because of stock design, ammunition feed design, etc., are not proper. In broad terms, a person predisposed to shoot into a crowd has no business with ANY firearm, even a single-shot .22, and a responsible gun owner is no more likely to shoot into a crowd with a belt-fed SAW than he or she would be with the single-shot .22. Put another way, does anyone seriously believe (not argue, believe) that magazine capacity or any other feature of a firearm could inspire an otherwise law-abiding person to commit murder?

Next, some history. Until the mid-80s, you could buy a new AR15 for around $200, a used one for 1/2 or 2/3 of that, and almost no one wanted them. Then "the ban" hit in 1986 and prices, along with demand, skyrocketed. The $200 AR went to $2000 in a week or two. Manufacturers (really, "builders") sprung up constantly. An attenuated "boom and bust" wave cycle has continued since then. The point being is that the AR is a newcomer to the "gun scene" and until relatively recently, it was dismissed as niche firearm of little value by the "gun community." Its current popularity is a product of its marketing rather than any inherent characteristic of its design. That said, it is nothing more than a "self-loading rifle" and so, "It is a firearm I choose to own" is a Constitutionally-protected reason to own one, with no further explanation required. However, to suggest that it (or any other particular firearm) is THE lynch-pin of freedom is either trolling or naivete. If the latter, it plays directly into the hands of those you think are out to take it away.

In closing, if you are going to make arguments, at least have some facts.

I witnessed a guy who was shot with #6 from a 12GA from about 18 feet, it did not incapacitate him. I mean he probably wouldn't recommend it just for fun, but he could have shot back easily. He was conscious and ambulatory when the ambulance got there probably 20 minutes later. I would highly suggest 4B or above on the off chance the distance is beyond bad breath range, bird shot just won't cut it.


Over-penetration with the AR is a result of bad ammo choices. You have to have some degree of penetration for it to work, obviously. While M193 is not a good choice in a home defense situation, several manufacturers, notably Hornady, make purpose-designed loads for these situations: rapidly expanding, frangible bullets that actually penetrate walls less readily than service handgun loads and heavy buckshot. They are very popular with law enforcement.


What ban in 1986? The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, or the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban, was enacted in September 1994.

Funny that all of you Second Amendment zealots would deprive Dick Scruggs of his First Amendment right to express his thoughts. Hypocrites.

The Firearm Owner's Protection Act (FOPA) became law in 1986 and it banned transfer of "machine guns" made after May, 1986 to "civilians." The ironic thing is it fueled an interest in, and spurred sales and price increases of, both ARs ("semi-automatic") and Class III ("machine guns"). For example, in the early 1980s, a Colt AR-15 was about $200 and a Colt M16 was about $500 (plus the $200 tax) and sales were slow on the AR and nearly non-existent on the M16. The Class III items were slow sellers because very few wanted to spend the 2-3 times the price of the "semi-automatic" version, plus $200 tax (and the paperwork), plus the exponential increase in ammunition cost, all for a firearm "type" that very few wanted in any form. The FOPA is why an M16 is $25K-plus today, as the comparatively very small number already in existence was frozen in 1986. The 1994 "ban" also fed price increases, but things changed in 1986.

As to the anecdotal info about the person shot at 18 feet with a 12 ga. and not "stopped," there are similar anecdotes about every other common firearm or ammunition, from .410 and .22 to .44 magnum and 12 gauge. It is also true that far more people have been killed with small caliber firearms (.22, .25ACP) than any other, simply because of the number of people shot with them. It does not make a .22 or .25ACP into the most effective stoppers nor even a "most cases" stopper. Just because people have survived parachute failures does not suggest that skydiving without a chute is prudent. Similarly, a screwdriver can be used to drive a nail but it doesn't make it a hammer, much less a better nail-driving tool than a hammer. What makes a good "home defense" firearm (as under discussion here) must take factors beside ammunition into account, including the ability of the user to effectively use it under the conditions most likely encountered and many other factors. As an example, it is often accurately said that nothing sounds like the unmistakable sound of a pump shotgun being racked and that sound alone ends many potential encounters.

To paraphrase, all are entitled to their own opinions, but the facts are the same for everyone. The extensive data indicates that the previously-described shotgun and shell combo is the best all-around "home defense" firearm and ammunition combination, with a revolver and appropriate ammo (such as the frangible projectiles you mention) in second place. The fact that one can obtain ammo for an AR or other firearms to address one or more of its negatives does not make that firearm a good, much less "better," choice for home defense. By way of example, one COULD load a .50BMG round to make it a low-penetration, sufficiently-but-not-excessively-powered projectile to "shoe-horn" it into a safe, yet effective, home defense round. Doing so would not turn a belt-fed M2 or even a Barrett into a "good" home defense firearm.

July 28, 2018 at 10:20 AM wrote, "Funny that all of you Second Amendment zealots would deprive Dick Scruggs of his First Amendment right to express his thoughts. Hypocrites."

I didn't see anyone even suggest that Dickie couldn't "express his thoughts," much less suggest depriving him or anyone of their 1st Amendment rights.

Besides, the 1st, like the rest of the first ten Amendments, are not "rights," they are _restrictions_ on the conduct of the government. Simply, the 1st doesn't grant Dickie or anyone else to "the right" to say anything they wish (or any other "right"), it restricts the government (as written, Congress and as interpreted, the government) from infringing on very specific things, including the "right" to say certain things. With "rights" come responsibilities and sometimes, one has to take the consequences should they exercise their "right" to do something. In this case, Dickie was free to stupidly criticize the Governor's stupid tweet, with the possible (and likely) consequences being others exercising their "right" to criticize Dickie for doing so. Which is exactly what happened. The 1st has nothing whatsoever to do with it because the government wasn't involved, much less try to infringe upon anyone's "right" to say anything. To paraphrase Ron White, both Phil and Dickie had the right to remain silent...but not the ability...and surprisingly, one would think a number of things would have seared the former on Dickie's brain like a branding iron on a bull's ass, thus foreclosing the latter.

Speaking of those pesky facts.... they contradict your stupid and old idiocy about shotguns... especially birdshot.

The AR is the perfect home defense weapon and the .223 is preferred by us door kickers.

Nothing worse that a bloviater, except one that lies, is incorrect and cites nothing while stating things are fact

July 28, 2018 at 9:18 PM wrote, "...stupid...old idiocy...[T]he AR is the perfect home defense weapon and the .223 is preferred by us door kickers...bloviater [sic, it's "or" not an "er"]..."

The incompetent troll is strong in this one...

Since you seem so earnest, OK. Maybe Debbie can lend you a dress and you can take her place with your AR in the "my husband tweeted about my desire to be a vigilante" situation. Should she, God forbid, ever actually need to use a firearm in self-defense, she is faced with the likelihood of "it was an AMBUSH!" Oh, wait, didn't anyone (i.e., Phil, Joshy or whoever might be doing the "advising de jour") think about that? No? Oops. But, hey, it's just the internet, so it'll be gone forever in a week, right?

Leftist use this look down their nose tactic of telling us how stupid Republicans are…so why don’t we just have us a little IQ Test for each and every Member of Congress?

Yea, this sounds good; and maybe we can get some wagers working on which party really has the dumbest constituents, as represented by their, Representatives.

P. S. @12:15PM, Scruggs is a white collar thug…it’s real easy to do good things with criminally obtained money via fraud and financial crimes.


Like ole Lou says, “You can’t get a little bit pregnant son.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCSOsFe42P8&app=desktop

The case that led to the Scruggs conviction had nothing to do with his financial success.

11:38AM correctly said: "The case that led to the Scruggs conviction had nothing to do with his financial success."

Moreover, if he had not already been so financially successful, the case that led to his conviction would have never been a case. Say what you will about Dickie, but he made his money the not-so-old fashioned (Mississippi) way: he beat it out of asbestos Defendants. And then he took that sizable chuck of change and used it to beat even more out of tobacco companies. I doubt Dickie had been a Plaintiff's attorney seeking money from an individual, other than personal favor stuff, since the 1980s, maybe even 1970s.