Since the tragic shootings at Sandy Hook, there have been the predictable idiotic knee-jerk responses from those politicians and Hollywood notables who continue to show they don't know jack. To not "know jack", of course, is an abbreviated version of the actual phrase I'd normally use, but I'm trying to eliminate profanity from my speech, both vocalized and printed. Wish me luck on that. But the term means that one's understanding of an issue is so devoid of fact and knowledge that one is rendered unworthy of the privilege of offering an opinion. One who does not know jack is so ignorant of even the basics of the issue at hand that it provokes in those who do know jack great wonder that one would dare broach the subject. I myself have been accused on occasion of not knowing jack by certain visitors to this blog. But these visitors do not demonstrate a better knowledge of jack in their inability to show where my description of jack is in error. To them it is just something they say when their own limited understanding of jack, if they possess any at all, does not prove compelling or even accurate.
But I digress. This is about particular people who don't know jack and their insignificant proposals for dealing with gun violence in our culture. Before I get to the main point I wanted to relate here, I have to mention something I heard today on the radio whilst working another unnecessarily long day (another digression). Michael Medved did a quick spot on the subject of dishonest leftist stats (are there any other kind?) regarding gun deaths. In it, and I grant that I've taken no time to research this particular bit, he states that in their relentless pursuit of a defenseless population, the left likes to speak of gun deaths which include suicides. His point is that suicides from self-inflicted gunshot distorts the picture of gun violence, or more accurately, crimes committed with guns. If such suicides are removed from the equation, and added to gun suicides all other forms of suicide, the total would overwhelm the amount of murders by gunshot. Again, I did not research this stat myself. I doubt that Medved made it up, and he is known for being pretty good with stats. In any case, it does represent another case of the left doing anything they can to push their agenda.
Getting back to those with the jerking knees, I want to touch on the issue of large capacity magazines. They come up in the discussion because the gun-grabbers ask, "Why would anyone need large capacity clips?" It so happens that a good article explaining why was found at the incredibly biased, poorly written and therefor obviously unworthy of serious consideration by progressives AmericanThinker.com. In fact, the article is co-incidentally entitled, "Why Does Anybody Need A 30-round Magazine?" Check it out.
Before reading this article, I had already pondered the question and came up with the obvious answer, "Because there might be lots of bad guys." And the article addresses that. But it also speaks of how many rounds it might take to stop a single attacker as well. The stories related in the article are compelling examples of how the anti-gun goofs spend little time truly thinking about an issue before they spew their nonsensical solutions. One must wonder why that is as it happens with incredible regularity. It lends credence to my opinion that those who vote for leftist candidates don't know jack, since they routinely vote for candidates that don't know jack, either.
The same, of course, can be said about the notion of "assault weapons". I could assault you with a can of cling peaches in heavy syrup and that would make that can of peaches an assault weapon. The term is purposely vague and requires stupid people to react primarily on an emotional level upon hearing it that they respond affirmatively to the leftist politician's impotent legislative proposal to ban them. It's been tried and there was not discernible effect. Now, Sen. Diane Feinstein, who doesn't know jack any better than any other leftist politician or celebrity, what's to bring the ban back.
Then, as if that wasn't enough, some will alter the term to "military style weapons". And no doubt, we can't have people owning automatic weapons, now can we? They're only for killing, by golly! Such calls completely ignore the fact that the 2nd Amendment was intended to keep the federal government on notice.
Some are worried about the thought that people are walking around with guns or in possession of certain types of guns in their homes. We should be far more worried about politicians who want to restrict our right to protect ourselves by arming ourselves. I know I am definitely worried about people continuing to elect people who would exploit tragedies and play on the emotions those tragedies inflame. It's not about guns. It's never been about guns, or knives or bows and arrows or weapons of any kind.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
326 comments:
1 – 200 of 326 Newer› Newest»You're so full of self-righteous shit.
Really. Care to elaborate, or do you just enjoy drive-by commenting?
Anonymous was a typical liberal response to anything requiring thought.
Anonymous...Typical liberal foolishness. No facts. Nothing but insults.
Great article, Marshal.
Hey, idiot, non-law enforcement good guys don't need a 30-clip magazine if the bad guy can't get one, either.
God, but you're a simpleton.
(And, btw, the use of "God" here is a short, petitionary prayer: please, Lord, don't test our faith by forming such stupid Christianizing fakers.)
I know Feodor is a near genius and has more education than everyone who has ever blogged, but what in the world is a "30 clip magazine"?
Mea culpa, Craig; I should have said "30-round magazine." I trust you to be versed in assault weapons since my ivy league university doesn't really treat assault weapons.
I only used pump-action shotguns with a plug to limit the hunter to three shells for migratory game birds; which is what Texas law prescribed for hunting when I was a kid.
Feodor,
Texas "proscribed" said shotgun limits? I think you mean "prescribed."
Who are you to determine whether or not I "need" a 30-round magazine? I used to have one when I owned a Ruger Mini-14; it saved me a lot of reloading at the range.
What about pistols which have 14-15 round magazines, which my S&W 9mm had - is that also too much? Just what arbitrary number of on-board rounds do you think we should be permitted to have?
Perhaps you just don't know how to handle a weapon with more than three rounds!
And here comes someone from further out on the fringe.
Glenn, I'm the ghost of Christmas future - that future when the majority of americans who now think restrictions need to be in place will eventually enshrine this position of safeguarding children in legislation. That and the laws that will ensure we teach our children science in science class and not religious literature.
And because you think that "it saved me a lot of reloading at the range" is justification for allowing the socio-pathically mentally ill to save time from reloading when gunning down children - which does not surprise me coming from you - there is little headway you and I can make from a basis of reason.
Personally, reading you, and I had the option, I'd keep sharp pointed objects out of your hands as well. I'm sure you barely passed the glue and scissors projects in school.
BTW, Glenn, what did the word, "marriage," mean to the founding fathers?
Fedor,
Limiting ammunition will not safeguard children. Like all liberals, you claim every government intervention for everything is “for the children.” While you at the same time massacre children in the womb. Hypocrites.
I know of no one who advocates teaching “religious literature” in the science class - except for evolutionists who want their religion of Darwinism taught in the science class. How about sticking to the topic at hand - or is that too difficult for your tiny brain to understand?
You lack of reading and comprehension skills is abysmal. I never stated or even implied that “socio-pathically mentally ill” should have a firearm, let alone one with a large capacity magazine. You just raised a straw man to knock down. (by they way, I’d love to hear how the mind - which is intangible - can be “ill”; that’s some of that unscientific pyschobabble you’ve been brainwashed with)
Nice ad hominen attack at the end of your comment - typical liberal response when they don’t have a rational argument.
Fedor,
The word "marriage" meant the same thing to the founding fathers as it did to all of society until the homosexual agenda began getting support from liberal activist judges who redefined the word to sanction that which is an abomination.
Wow. 10 comments to get from guns to gays. Hardly a record, but not surprising, either.
Liberals always seem to change the subject to homosexuality. Liberals are obsessed with it.
Sorry, Geoffrey, I'm the one who asked Glenn what marriage meant to the founding fathers.
For some reason, he has refused to answer the question.
Fedor,
How about you look above? I responded to your question immediately.
No, Glenn, you did not answer what marriage meant to the founding fathers.
You said they agreed with "all of society" whatever that is. But you did not define what "they" agreed marriage constituted, now, did you?
Though I'm gratified that you cannot refute my very initial point: that no one needs a 30-round clip to fight off bad guys if they, too, cannot get their hands on a 30-round clip.
Speaking of intangible, you're not tangible to me and yet I feel this great, lurking, dysfunction coming from these wireless and electric intangibilities.
Fedor,
I guess my answer assumed you knew what all of society understood what marriage was. First and foremost, it is the union of opposite-sex people. I would suspect they also believed it was instituted by God.
Now, pray tell, what has this to do with the subject at hand? Or do you find it difficult to stick to the subject?
I can easily refute you initial point about the need for a 30-round magazine (not "clip") to fight off the bad guys. What do you do with 3-rounds when you have a gang or rioters and looters attacking your place of business? The Koreans in California used such weapons to defend their businesses.
Whether or not I am tangible to you does not alter that fact that I am tangible. Truth is not relative.
"First and foremost, it is the union of opposite-sex people."
This is not what the founding fathers defined marriage to be by law, Glenn.
Fedor,
I wasn't aware that the founding fathers defined marriage, since there was never any question before this past liberal generation as to what it was.
So now you're not sure what they thought?
Fedor,
I didn't say I wasn't sure what they thought - I said I was unaware that they legally defined what marriage is.
Now, how about dropping this discussion because it has nothing to do with the topic at hand - you have "kidnapped" the blog.
Let me help you out, Glenn. You'll be happy to know that the colonies and the brand new states did pass laws on marriage. And marriage between a man and a woman were the terms.
But these terms were taken for granted - as you expected - and were not the point of the laws.
The colonies of Maryland and Virginia defined marriage as between a white man and white women or between a man of any other race than white and a woman of any other race than white.
Which would make my marriage illegal for the first almost two hundred years of this country.
Here's you dilemma, Glenn.
We have already changed the definition of marriage.
Nonetheless, you say that society has always agreed on what marriage is until this belated upheaval by pro-human rights people.
Doubtless this position is one you jointly hold with a strict interpretation of the constitution: we need to adhere to what the framers wrote and what they intended in their writing.
So, in the context of Marshall's post, tell me, Glenn, did the framers of the second amendment, when they wrote, "to keep and bear arms," intend a 30-round clip, automatic Bushmaster?
And second, please enlighten me how you willy-nilly ignore the framers' context for that right, "well regulated"?
Glenn, feckless as you are, I'd point out that you're first comment is typically how shallowly thinking people try to grapple with public policy: you made it personal. "Who are you to determine whether or not I "need" a 30-round magazine?"
As I abstractly demonstrated, it is not up to me. The task is a public discourse trying to adjudicate between changing public desire - in the context of accruing experiences of horrific, impossible to expect mass murders and daily gun violence - and existing federal and state laws and our constitutional government that must be continually interpreted in the light of new experiences.
As part of that discourse, I'm certainly of a mind that guns for sport are allowable, even a high kind of adult sporting experience, but, as extremely dangerous instruments, regulation and reason should be required. I had to take a course and pass a test and be of a certain age to drive. But all that did not license me to drive a big rig. And if I pursued the training and license for that, it would not allow me to fly a plane. And if I pursued a pilot's license, even that would not let me fly a fighter plane armed with missiles.
Yes, I object to people arming themselves willy nilly with maximumly dangerous weapons without strong and repeated checks on their fitness to manage their use.
And the majority of american people are closer to me than you - and that is how laws are made.
Fedor,
The individual colonies did not necessarily represent the entire nation. Normally when speaking of the "founding fathers," the context is those who established the federal government.
Just because some people were racists and defined married in a way to avoid people of different skin color marrying, that doesn't mean it was any more correct than redefining marriage to include other than opposite-sex people. God defined marriage and to him all are one race.
As for what the founders meant by the 2nd amendment, I have posted that on several blogs, but I will cut and paste it here also - something I wrote long ago for people like you. Stay tuned.
The first 10 amendments were added by popular demand to give "the people" specific guarantees. The amendments clearly indicated reference to individual rights, not states' rights.
The term "militia" referred to all able-bodied male citizens at least 18 years old.
In 1903 an act was passed creating the federal control, funding and training of state forces as organized militia. It designated all other adult male citizens as the unorganized militia.
An act of 1916 designated the organized militia as the National Guard. This was further clarified by the National Defense Act of June 4, 1920, and this act again designated all other adult male citizens as the unorganized militia.
Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 311, states that the militia consists of all able-bodied males 17 to 45. It also specifies two classes of militia exist; the organized and unorganized.
In U.S. vs Miller, 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court said that when militia members were called to service, there were "expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the same kind in common use" at the time.
The 2nd Amendment mentions the need for a militia as the primary reason for the right to bear arms, but it does not limit it to solely the militia, be it organized or unorganized.
All these non-relative truths you'd like to pin your life on, Glenn: they will always change on you. Or on your children.
God is an intangible spirit. And that spirit moves where it will. It is not ultimately and absolutely determined by laws. The same is true of natural law, which images God.
Original asexual life evolved sexuality. And not all sexuality remained heterosexual.
Interracial marriage was outlawed as a crime against God's law and natural law. But not anymore.
Every house needed a gun in an unregulated, un-policed brand new nation. But not anymore.
All wars were fought by armies and navies. But not anymore.
Laws and institutions server the people. And when the needs of people change, invested with rights are they are, new laws and new institutions are needed.
Fedor,
I would say that more American are more like me than like you, in that they don't care how many rounds a gun can hold. It is only the liberal anti-gunners who are making all the noise which makes people THINK there are more on their side. I'll bet more than half of adult citizens are gun owners.
But the question remains - what gives anyone the right to determine what another person "needs" as long as what they have is legal. Do we next decide how many cars a person needs?
Fedor,
Comparing God to the mind is apples to oranges. God can’t be ill either, though.
There was no original asexual life evolving. God created mankind as we are now. Evolution is a lie and a fraud perpetrated by atheists. It has no scientific backing, only speculations and assumptions.
There is no such thing as “inter-racial” marriage, because God created one race - the human race. In the past, the word “race” was analogous to “tribe” or “nation,” as the Irish race, or the German race, etc. Just because sinful people gave skin color the designation of “race,” that doesn’t mean God accepts it.
And sinful people being racists is who outlawed marrying people of different skin color; there is no biblical basis for such racist ideas. Marrying people of different colors is also not against natural law, since they are still 100% humans.
The 2nd amendment was to provide defense against tyranny in the future - it had nothing to do with being an unpoliced nation (which, by the way, it wasn’t)
The needs of the people to be able to defend themselves against tyranny will never end until man is no longer sinful. The tyranny of the current administration is a good example.
Glenn, I'm pretty sure that the founding fathers received their education, formed their politics and policies, and lived a super majority of their lives as citizens of colonies.
It was delegates of the colonies that met as the First Continental Congress. So, too, delegates of colonies constituted the Second Continental Congress which drafted the Articles of Confederation. These articles of confederation and union stood for 13 years.
The American Revolutionary War began as a war between Great Britain and the colonies.
Pretty influential, I'd think.
Gallup/USA Today poll:
Please say whether you favor or oppose each of the following: A law which would ban the sale and possession of high-capacity ammunition clips that can contain more than 10 bullets.
12/19-22/12
Favor Oppose Unsure
% % %
62 35 3
Pretty much the same numbers when it comes to laughing at your reading Genesis as science.
Same polls said most of Americans wanted Obama for president.
Polls show what you want them to show.
I am very heartened, though, Glenn, that you clearly are not a strict interpretationist like that god-awful Scalia.
It is encouraging that even on the raging right, people like you support constant re-interpretation of a 200 year old document in the light of new times. In this, there is hope that you can see your way to new laws to protect privacy and rights and maybe we can find a way to talk about what guns mean in the 21st century.
Ummm, most Americans did vote for Obama for President...
Fedor,
What are you talking about!?!?! I am a strict constitutionalist, except of course where it claimed skin color made people less human.
Back to your founding fathers thing - my point was that we are talking about the founders of the fed gov't, not state gov't. Two different entities, and the Constitution was written to keep it that way - but that has been totally violated over and over.
Most Americans who voted, voted for Obama. I know for a fact that large numbers refused to vote for either candidate.
The meaning of the 2nd Amendment was as then as it is now. If you have difficulty understanding what I posted about judicial findings and other laws since, that is your problem.
I've got better things to do now. Have a good night.
"What are you talking about!?!?! I am a strict constitutionalist..."
But the Supreme Court cases you cited are from activist Supreme Court tenures. Especially the New Deal Supreme Court of 1939!!!
They all were moving commerce control into the hands of the federal government and away from states, massively growing and strengthening the notion of "substantive due process" which, at first, tended to support free contract over worker protections but then quickly reversed course and brought about a whole range of rights protections.
Either way, these courts did not go by strict interpretation. So, that you're using their decisions to prop up what you think about gun rights, the fact is that you are in clear violation of what you think you're thinking.
"The meaning of the 2nd Amendment was as then as it is now."
Clearly your argument has enumerated the many times in which the Supreme Court has reinterpreted and reinterpreted again what the 2nd amendment means. As is right, since we need to continually return to see how it serves the social good.
Because we can leave behind what the Founding Fathers had in mind - and must because no one can imagine, much less write laws for a distant future - so, I agree that a 30 round clip must be talked about in terms for today. The 2nd amendment, when it was written, could not mean a 30 round clip.
So we have to talk about it now. It's an open discussion.
So, too, marriage for the Founding Fathers - who participated in the drafting of their individual state constitutions as well - legally could not mean anything other than a white man with a white woman.
So we have to talk about it now. It's an open discussion.
"I know for a fact that large numbers refused to vote for either candidate."
And when is this not true?
You sure do like to curve insignificant familiar commonplaces into significant truths. Perhaps you need a more profound base from which to think.
"Hey, idiot, non-law enforcement good guys don't need a 30-clip magazine if the bad guy can't get one, either."
Apparently, feo has resolved for 2013 to be a bigger asshole than he has already proven himself to be. Tall order. I'm betting he'll succeed.
But if he had read the linked piece, he would have seen a reason why large capacity clips have their uses. Multiple attackers, drugged up attackers...
But hey, if you don't want to own one, don't buy one. Isn't that how you leftist fools respond to those who oppose abortions and homosex marriages?
Large capacity clips have far less to do with mass killings than does "gun-free zones".
Adding to your quest to prove your idiocy is your belief that the founders were just too stupid to assume advances in firearm technology. Considering the point of the 2nd was to hold at bay the government itself, it would seem logical to assume that regardless of how such advances manifested, the ability of the people to protect themselves from the government would remain the point and purpose of the 2nd. That we could protect ourselves from each other is a collateral benefit of that right to self-defense being honored Constitutionally. That we should be denied the right to take advantage of such advances renders the point of the 2nd absolutely worthless.
Like all idiots, you look to the superficial, in this case the tool used to perpetrate crime, rather than the real issue, which is the user of the tool. The misuse of an object by some should never be a reason to deny the use of the object to people of good character. That you are not a person of good character, it is understandable that such a point is lost on you.
And again, whatever the color of the participants, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. THAT is the definition around which all the variations throughout history have been based. What you support is not a matter of "human rights". It is mental disorder dressed up as human rights.
Marshall, give the approximate date of your latest brush with drugged up, multiple attackers. Or give a list of those killed in the last year by the same until you have equalled the numbers killed in Newtown, Aurora, and Oak Creek.
But how lucky for those with large magazine capacities when the Iranians come across Canada and invade Minnesota.
"... the ability of the people to protect themselves from the government would remain the point and purpose of the 2nd."
I really can't deal with the stupidity and mass paranoia on the part of uneducated white men that this statement condenses. Reason is not alive in this and cannot be resurrected.
Fedor,
Talk about a logic fallacy! So, the SCOTUS made some moves to federalizing and violating the intent of the Constitution, therefore none of their decisions were what the Constitution intended?!!!???
Fedor,
Your arguments are irrational and illogical. It is senseless to continue. I'm finished with dealing with such asinine logic.
Hah. It seems Glenn didn't really have an answer for tripping on his own evidence.
Shorter Glenn Chatfield: I stand behind the Founders, even though I can't tell you what they thought, except for what's in the Constitution, which I haven't actually read.
Feodor, honestly, why waste energy on this low-hanging fruitcake?
I've probably read the Constitution more often and more time than 99% of Americans - and even once is more than 99% of liberals.
I just get fed up with illogical reasoning.
And I am tired of dealing with liberals who suffer from hoplophopia.
I've been sick and cooped up in the house on Epiphany. And again today.
And the state of television is horrible and my eyes hurt when I read.
Glenn goes well with phlegm, sputum, coughing and hacking.
Why do we ever get caught up here but to let out some steam and replenish with feelings of superiority. If I don't do that here, I try it with my wife - but that doesn't leave me feeling superior.
Glenn, for support of your stance on the 2nd amendment, you draw on court tenures that were activist in nature and practice. Their decisions were based on their judicial activism and active culturally present contextual interpretations of the Constitution - as you yourself noted.
I'm fine with activist, interpretive decisions - they are really the only kind. But the courts you rely on are conscious of doing so and have an elaborated systemic base of reasoning for doing so. Scalia is an unconscious contextualizing interpreter - for which he then cannot have a conscious base of reasonable logic constructions.
That your support contradicts your theoretical stance is not my problem. It's yours.
And how many times are you going to say you're out of this discussion?
Glenn said,
what gives anyone the right to determine what another person "needs" as long as what they have is legal.
Hmm, but that doesn't apply to abortion?
The position of the founders regarding bearing arms is really quite clear. It isn't as if they weren't prolific in their writing and recording of their opinions. To pretend their intentions are unknown on the subject is to ignore those easy to find opinions. For example:
" "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
" "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"
-- George Washington
And if you go with the conservative position on strict construction, one has to say that what is equally clear is that when the framers used the word, "arms," they meant muzzle-loaded muskets and flintlock pistols.
Here's more:
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
" "One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
-- Constitutional scholar Joseph Story, 1840
"The bearing of arms is the essential medium through which the individual asserts both his social power and his participation in politics as a responsible moral being..."
-- J.G.A. Pocock, describing the beliefs of the founders of the U.S.
" Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest."
-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.
"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
-- Cesare Beccaria, as quoted by Thomas Jefferson's Commonplace book
And yet more...
" No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave."
-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775
" Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788
"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788
I could go on. There is so much more that shows the founders were indeed of a mind that the foremost purpose of the right to bear arms is for protection against the government (while one or two quotes were not from founders---the quotes were just too good).
Then, there's this:
" In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis."
-- Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984
Like so many leftist chuckleheads, feo likes to think that people like Glenn are doing what he is actually doing...talking out his butt. And again, I would take issue with anyone who wants to beat the dead horse of "they couldn't envision 30 round clips." Nonsense. Only a feo (meaning, an idiot) would try to run with that line.
feo believes himself to have scored with this:
"Marshall, give the approximate date of your latest brush with drugged up, multiple attackers. Or give a list of those killed in the last year by the same until you have equalled the numbers killed in Newtown, Aurora, and Oak Creek."
My personal experiences with thuggery, or lack thereof, has little to do with the logic and sense behind preserving the right to bear arms, including those with high capacity magazines or automatic firing. That the story from the link is true should be enough to justify the position. feo believes that I must face a group of attackers or a drugged up attacker in order to make the argument. Desperation is a horrible thing and feo is desperate to make such a demand.
"I really can't deal with the stupidity and mass paranoia on the part of uneducated white men that this statement condenses."
The above quotations show what a complete schmuck feo is to dare type the above. Hubert Humphrey felt as I do, that despite the unlikely nature of even a Barry Obumbles led dictatorship, history shows that unarmed populations have indeed been oppressed by their governments. It's not a paranoia, though the opposing position is sheer stupidity. It's common sense. What's more, feo shows his own lack of education, and definitely his incredible lack of wisdom, to suppose he knows better than those who saw fit to deny the government the authority to prohibit the possession of weapons by law-abiding citizens. Idiots like feo think the presence of weapons provokes their use. All that education, all those books and feo remains one of the most incredible buffoons to soil the halls of this blog.
I almost missed this bit of absolute stupidity:
"And if you go with the conservative position on strict construction, one has to say that what is equally clear is that when the framers used the word, "arms," they meant muzzle-loaded muskets and flintlock pistols."
He makes the same type of mistake with Biblical interpretation, which is common with the lefties. One does NOT have to say that at all, unless one is as dense as feo. Go ahead and show some quote that would back this up and try to make it seem as if they believed weapons technology and innovation was static. What a complete buffoon. You don't need your wife to make you feel inferior. Just read your own pathetic attempts to convince yourself you aren't. It's certainly entertaining for me.
Jim,
Try another apples to oranges comparison if you please.
OK, I'll accept that since you cannot find a quote where they find marriage to be rigidly static.
"OK, I'll accept that since you cannot find a quote where they find marriage to be rigidly static."
Honest and intelligent people do not debate the obvious. When you can find ANY hint that the founders, or religious leaders up until the late twentieth century, regarded marriage as anything but the union of two people of the opposite sex, then we can talk. Like Jesus, there would be no need for the founders to speak on the makeup of marriage. It went without saying in both times, that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
No Jim,
It doesn't apply to abortion. Abortion is the murder of an innocent child. Just because it is legal, that doesn't make it right or moral.
Well, now we have a kind of tautological problem, Marshall, due to your contradictory criteria of proof. And, taking just one side of the contradiction, you have an additional problem.
In the case of guns, you want evidence that the founders DID NOT have an expansive expectation of what guns could be.
(Either case is unprovable, by the way, so you've provided no ground for making an argument in any direction.)
In the case of marriage, you want evidence that they DID have an expansive expectation of what marriage could be.
(Either case is unprovable, by the way, so you've provided no ground for making an argument in any direction.)
All we can argue, when the founders are silent on the questions we are interested in, is simply make analogies. And it's here where you have to stick to making parallel analogies between the two situation. But you make contradictory ones.
Now, I'm sure you'll continue to demand to have it both ways, I'm just writing to let you know that this kind of break down in logic would get a failing grade in freshman philosophy class.
More basically, your argument is grade school fantasy because you can't write laws on illusions of what the future will bring. Legislators let future legislators do that. And here, I'm quite sure, the founders were smart men.
That is why they cannot be totally judged as members of a cultural time that fell far short of God's full mercy. You say that they understood marriage to be "the union of two people of the opposite sex" and you're clearly wrong in ways you yourself will make obvious (but deny again in an intellectually dishonest cowering from simple sense):
Virginia had a law stating that "All marriages between a white person and a colored person shall be absolutely void without any decree of divorce or other legal process." (Code Ann. A7 20-57)
So, no, Marshall, the founders did not understand marriage to be simply a union of two people of the opposite sex. And we've since grown to a more fuller vision of God's mercy and a view of individual right to privacy. And we are continuing to do so.
feo,
There is nothing contradictory regarding my position. There is only the lame effort on your part to equate two disparate issues.
"In the case of guns, you want evidence that the founders DID NOT have an expansive expectation of what guns could be."
Only if you're going to put forth the incredibly self-serving and unsupportable notion that the founders could not envision that weapons technology would advance beyond muskets. It's your idiotic suggestion, so support it with something other than your own idiotic argument. The 2nd provides that the gov't could not deprive the citizen of his right to defend himself and as they were strongly in support of liberty (this might be news to you), it should at least seem obvious to anyone who, unlike yourself, actually thinks, they would allow the citizen the liberty to decide for themselves what constitutes a proper weapon with which to arm himself.
"In the case of marriage, you want evidence that they DID have an expansive expectation of what marriage could be."
Again, you make the suggestion, provide the evidence for it or admit it's only your own twisted desire to support mental disorder as normal. Regardless of their position on race, their definition of marriage only consisted of one man and one woman and the thought of same sex unions would be far more shocking and illogical than two people uniting to produce something like you.
"And it's here where you have to stick to making parallel analogies between the two situation."
I don't draw parallels between two disparate issues such as the 2nd Amendment and the illogical "right" to redefine a word to one's own satisfaction. It's laughable, as your self-stroking sense of your own imagined higher intelligence always is, to pretend you are capable of logical thought.
"More basically, your argument is grade school fantasy because you can't write laws on illusions of what the future will bring."
I never made that argument and don't now, though it's clear you desperately wish I did. Rather, it is you who wishes to write laws on assumptions about what you want to believe was the case in the past, that the framers could only think in terms of muskets. I would contend the type of "arms" was not even the point, nor that they concerned themselves with more than the right to self-defense against gov't tyranny. The quotes provided suggest as much at the very least.
"So, no, Marshall, the founders did not understand marriage to be simply a union of two people of the opposite sex."
The lie that race is the same as mental disorder doesn't fly here or anywhere else honesty and logic exists. Racial discrimination or no, the sex of the participants was always understood to be one man and one woman. Try to find ANYTHING that disputes this. Your sad and sinful belief that a fuller vision of God's mercy dictates denying His clear stance on this sinful behavior is twisted, to say the least. The right to privacy is not at issue with the demented push to redefine marriage. That right is not in question. What two adult perverts do in the privacy of their own defiled home is their own business. What they expect from the culture, the state and their fellow citizens is quite another.
Feodor: "More basically, your argument is grade school fantasy because you can't write laws on illusions of what the future will bring."
Fartshall: "I never made that argument and don't now..."
What a shock that you can't undersand what you write and that you did make such an argument and have just made it again: 1) " try to make it seem as if they believed weapons technology and innovation was static" and 2) " unsupportable notion that the founders could not envision that weapons technology would advance beyond muskets."
What a dumb and stupidly servile self-contradictory liar you are.
Then you jive some more with, " I would contend the type of "arms" was not even the point."
Which then allows the rest of us to say the type of marriage wasn't the point either, they simply wrote laws to keep white folks from being fucked by black and brown folks.
It's is simple as that. And once we see clearly that the framers were writing for their times laws that no longer are needed to protect the myth of white virture or the myth that a King George could be crowned and Americans put under a monarchy again... then the 2nd amendment and anti-miscegenation laws no longer are reasonable.
Except to white, racist anti-authoritarian losers.
Now, go on and rant about false priests and misused libraries and how we've elected an Ottoman sultan with socialist dictates that will take away our guns and replace them with pointless scimitars so that we can't defend our biblical faith.
And this is what your Bible has taught you? How pitiful.
Always a special time for me when the real feo comes out. How much like Alan you are in trying to make it seem that I'm not following along, that I don't know what I've said, that you have "caught" me in something contradictory or false.
I've NEVER made any argument that suggests the framers wrote laws "on illusions of what the future will bring" or anything close to it. YOU have tried to suggest that they could only imagine a world where muskets and the like were the extent of weaponry for all time and thus, they could not conceive of automatic weapons and thus there is no legitimate way to suggest that the 2nd protects a right to such weapons. YOU are basing this on nothing more than a wish that it is so. There is nothing in the Constitution, the Federalist, the Articles of Confederation or any other recorded mention of "types" of weapons one might possess which would fall within a law-abiding citizen's right to bear arms. People who actually use logic and reason to speculate on what was NOT said would lean toward the citizen's right to bear the types of arms that would best serve them in fighting their gov't, which was the main purpose of the 2nd Amendment in the first place. It wasn't about target shooting or hunting. It was about self-defense and protecting one's life, liberty and property.
So again, if you want to imagine that the founders would balk at a citizen owning an Uzi, then it is up to you to draw from the voluminous collections of their writings some shred of evidence that would support such a notion; something that shows they were not forward looking people incapable of seeing beyond the day after tomorrow, like yourself. Unlike yourself and Geoffie, they seem to me to be ACTUAL intellectuals rather than those like yourself who simply like to posture as intellectual.
Perhaps you would be better off removing your head from your backside before you again try to put forth some idiotic suggestion only to dance away from it when I insist you support it. For example, with this statement:
"In the case of guns, you want evidence that the founders DID NOT have an expansive expectation of what guns could be."
...my asking for evidence was because you made a statement suggesting the founders ONLY were thinking in terms of muskets and the like. The request for evidence for this or against the notion that they did not have an expansive expectation of what guns could be is not something I would seek if idiots like yourself didn't make idiotic suggestions about what weapons they had in mind. Again, I don't think the types of weapons possible in the future or the only types then available had anything to do with the creation of the 2nd Amendment. The only point was the right of the citizen to arm himself. I've no doubt founders would leave it up to the citizen as to how best to do so. You can only wish otherwise.
"Which then allows the rest of us to say the type of marriage wasn't the point either, they simply wrote laws to keep white folks from being fucked by black and brown folks."
Not at all, but truth and facts never stops the morally corrupt like yourself from pretending such might be true. Thus, it is not as "simple as that", but you are about as simple-minded as a highly educated false priest could possibly be. There is nothing that can be drawn from the right to bear arms that could be used to justify redefining the institution of marriage to include attractions that prove mental disorder.
It furthermore is simple-minded, if not incredibly idiotic to suppose that the framers were writing laws for their times alone. This is patently absurd. And while they saw fit to implement an amendment process should scenarios develop that would warrant it, the bulk of the Constitution is timeless in its genius, though intellectuals like yourself aren't intelligent enough to understand. The 2nd is entirely reasonable and always so, especially with a president so willing to ram an agenda through by executive order, as he is now threatening to do again regarding gun restrictions. Such stupidity is genius to bright boys like yourself.
"And this is what your Bible has taught you?"
You have no idea what the Bible teaches. You've proven that thoroughly thus far. May God have mercy on your children.
Heh.. marsha not only hates black people.. but hates women too.
And gays, too. Right Benny? Whatever you say, troll.
marsha.. of course you hate homosexuals. Anybody that disagrees with you or looks different that you is on your hate list.
Everybody looks different than me, so I hate everybody. Right Benny-boy? And everybody disagrees with me on something, so I hate everybody. Right Benny? Whatever you say.
"Hey, idiot, non-law enforcement good guys don't need a 30-clip magazine if the bad guy can't get one, either."
And I suppose you never considered the possibility of a black market?
"I trust you to be versed in assault weapons since my ivy league [sic] university doesn't really treat assault weapons."
Since “Ivy League” is a proper noun – describing a specific thing - it is always, without exception, capitalized. Clearly, Feodor should request a refund from whatever Ivy League school failed to teach him proper grammar.
You guys can deal with this dingbat if you want, but personally I’ve no use for those suffering from delusions of grandeur.
"marsha.. of course you hate homosexuals. Anybody that disagrees with you or looks different that you is on your hate list. "
I've told Marshall before that I disagree with some of his traditionalist views, but surprisingly I've not detected any sort of aversion. Why would that be, I wonder, if your hypothesis is correct?
Perhaps you're just full of shit, like most liberals.
Damn, Marshall. These muttonheads come in droves to your blog, 'eh?
http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2013/01/10/the-need-for-semiautomatic-assault-weapons-n1485999/page/full/
Terrance,
"Damn, Marshall. These muttonheads come in droves to your blog, 'eh?"
Yeah. I'm really lucky.
Glenn,
Your link is a nice addition to the one I presented in the post. Too bad it won't be read, either, by those who need to get a clue.
You can lead a mule to water, but you can't make him drink.
I can well imagine why Terrance - clearly a lover of capitals - would rather take issue with trivialities. I'm sure he can boast a greater consumption of hot dogs, too.
And does he actually intend to use the existence of a black market to paradoxically legalize something? Prostitutes and SAMs here we come! (Hope he really enjoyed the capitals.)
feo,
That you can imagine most anything to soothe your insecurity is not in question. The point Terrance makes is clear and appropriate since you enjoy posing as one of intellectual superiority. As such, "trivialities" like when to capitalize letters, should never be overlooked.
However, I'm sure Terrance does not need to highlight "trivialities" to understand your limited mental abilities. It's clear to anyone not easily impressed by tactics.
As to the point about black markets, we already know that guns are acquired by criminals in a variety of ways that more regulations and restrictions upon the general law-abiding population won't resolve. The El Rukns had dealings with Qadafi in Libya. Bad guys find ways. Thus, you prove yourself to be a muttonhead just as Terrance said.
“I can well imagine why Terrance - clearly a lover of capitals - would rather take issue with trivialities. I'm sure he can boast a greater consumption of hot dogs, too.”
All mooncalves have active imaginations, Feodor. Especially those inculcated at – gasp – an Ivy League school. Such as a lamb in the ides of Nisan, so too would I tremble in your presence…
“And does he actually intend to use the existence of a black market to paradoxically legalize something? Prostitutes and SAMs here we come! (Hope he really enjoyed the capitals.)”
Now, this sounds awfully close to an argumentative fallacy.
You said: "Hey, idiot, non-law enforcement good guys don't need a 30-clip magazine if the bad guy can't get one, either."
I said: “And I suppose you never considered the possibility of a black market?”
Since “the bad guys” could get “30-clip magazines” from a black market – the existence of which undoubtedly better known to criminals – your assumption was incorrect. Such was the purpose of my rhetorical question. You inferred for the purpose of setting up straw men. Shame.
“…does he actually intend to use the existence of a black market to paradoxically legalize something?”
The criminalization of alcohol spurred a violent black market, so in response the Eighteenth Amendment was either (a) “paradoxically” repealed; or (b) necessarily so?
You have to question this Feodor’s ability to reason, folks.
What in blazes is a "30-clip magazine"?!?!?!
It would be nice if anti-gunners would just a wee bit about guns.
A "clip" is like the old M-1 Garand used; cartridges clasped together for inserting into the internal magazine. A magazine is either and internal or external unit into which cartridges are loaded for feeding the weapon. All attachable/detachable units are magazines.
1> Marshall: "Not at all, but truth and facts never stops the morally corrupt like yourself from pretending such might be true."
You should use a plural verb when you have plural subjects. So, "truth and facts" take the verb, "stop" not "stops."
2> Marshall: "It furthermore is simple-minded, if not incredibly idiotic to suppose that the framers..."
You need a comma at the end of a subordinate clause just like at the beginning. So, you should have written: "simple-minded, if not incredibly idiotic, to suppose..."
Furthermore, if you put furthermore where you put it, you've split an infinitive from its subject. You can't do that at all.
3> Marshall; "As such, "trivialities" like when to capitalize letters, should never be overlooked. "
Here, you've separated the subject "'trivialities'" from its verb, "be." You can't ever do that either.
4> Marshall: "Right Benny?"
You must place a comma before address, Marshall.
1> Terrence: "Such as a lamb in the ides of Nisan, so too would I tremble in your presence…"
I think you'll find, Terrance, that "such" is a poor word choice here for you. It usually operates as an introduction to a specific instance of a general category just given. I think you're rather looking for the word, "like," or "as," since they function to set up a poetic analogy, which is what you're attempting to do.
2> Terrance: "... – the existence of which undoubtedly better known to criminals – ..."
You've forgotten something, here, Terrance.
3> Terrance: "You inferred for the purpose of setting up straw men."
"Inferred" what, here? You're writing in shorthand, leaving your audience unclear as to what exactly your referring to as the "inferred." You could tighten up your prose quite a bit.
4> Terrance: "The criminalization of alcohol spurred a violent black market...
Again, poor word choice it seems to me. "Spurred" connotes intention, don't you think, with its active physical reference frame? You should find something that bears unintentionally. I'd suggest "set off," which can often refer to unintended consequences. Quite like your puny assed problem with capitalization when posting social network comments in a box.
>5 (finally) Terrance: "... so in response the Eighteenth Amendment was either (a) “paradoxically” repealed; or (b) necessarily so?"
Here, you've made two of three mistakes. Perhaps, you've forgotten to separate the subordinate clause, "in response," with commas - while still leaving your sentence unfinished in it meaning: the 18th amendment was paradoxically repealed or necessarily so... necessarily so - what? What is your meaning? If you mean, "necessarily repealed", then your error has been to embed the dual use of "repeal" in one case only, leaving it semantically unavailable to be a possible referent of the "so" in a second, additional, case. In this instance, you should have written, "the response to REPEAL THE 18TH AMENDMENT WAS EITHER (A) PARADOXICAL OR (B) NECESSARY."
OR you've subordinated an essential part of your sentence, the "response" which was indeed the 18th amendment. in which case you've royally screwed up the sense you wanted to make. To wit: "repealing the 18th amendment AS A RESPONSE WAS EITHER (A) PARADOXICAL OR (B) NECESSARY?"
You see what I'm getting at, don't you?
In summation, I'd like to say how incredibly dreary it is to exist at the level at which you guys engage intellectually. Exhausting to live so small.
But it's your blog, Marshall. And when in Rome, "Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto."
"It would be nice if anti-gunners would just a wee bit about guns."
Well, I think we all know we can't expect whole sentences from Glenn.
You're correct Fedor, I typed so quicky that I left out a word I was thinking, and I did not proof-read prior to submitting. I was out the door for church about 30 seconds later.
So I will restate the obvious:
It would be nice if anti-gunners would LEARN just a wee bit about guns.
feo,
So desperate is the commenter that is reduced to pointing out typos to indicate inferiority of his betters. You are not perfect in your own typing. But I understand that you are willing to stoop as low as you need to stoop in order to find anything upon which you can suppose yourself better. So yes, I do indeed "see what you're getting at". You're lost in your search for some argument that won't be seen for the nonsense and crap it is, and instead attempt to evade by your petty attack on grammar and punctuation.
BTW, the use of the word "stops" in your first example is correct. It refers a phrase, "truth and facts", which is not plural. If anything, it would be more grammatically correct to have said "truth and fact", but that's mere nit-picking, which is all you've got. You certainly have neither truth nor fact(s) on your side.
“I think you'll find, Terrance, that "such" is a poor word choice here for you. It usually operates as an introduction to a specific instance of a general category just given. I think you're rather looking for the word, "like," or "as," since they function to set up a poetic analogy, which is what you're attempting to do.”
Since the word also operates as a predeterminer, I think your comment merely reflects the last stand of bumbling birdbrain trying to regain some lost pride.
“You've forgotten something, here, Terrance... "Inferred" what, here? You're writing in shorthand, leaving your audience unclear as to what exactly your referring to as the "inferred." You could tighten up your prose quite a bit.”
I’m not sure my prose leaves anyone but you in a state of uncertainty, my friend.
However, I don’t believe you’ve grasped the point of my editorial exercise. If I wanted to be persnickety or punctilious, I could correct most everyone commenting, including myself. Instead, my exercise was intended to point out the irony of someone making such a simple grammatical error in the same sentence as boasting his educational achievements.
“Again, poor word choice it seems to me. "Spurred" connotes intention, don't you think, with its active physical reference frame? You should find something that bears unintentionally. I'd suggest "set off," which can often refer to unintended consequences. Quite like your puny assed problem with capitalization when posting social network comments in a box.”
It might be poor word choice to someone that doesn’t understand its use as a transitive verb, meaning, “cause or promote the development of.” The object being “a violent black market.”
Must I teach you the benefit of active writing?
“Here, you've made two of three mistakes. Perhaps, you've forgotten to separate the subordinate clause, "in response," with commas - while still leaving your sentence unfinished in it meaning: “
Silly child, “in response” was not acting as a subordinate clause because it was part of the main clause. Since you like to cherry-pick, I’ll provide the full-sentence.
“The criminalization of alcohol spurred a violent black market, so in response the Eighteenth Amendment was either (a) “paradoxically” repealed; or (b) necessarily so?”
There should be a semicolon after "was" and "either" should be deleted, but other than that the sentence was left incomplete for a reason.
You devoted two paragraphs to explaining my mistake, which amounted to nothing but a missing colon and an unnecessary word. Funny.
“In summation, I'd like to say how incredibly dreary it is to exist at the level at which you guys engage intellectually. Exhausting to live so small.”
And notice, folks, that Feodor addressed none of our arguments.
Because I know you won't give up, I'll explain better the intent of the sentence.
"The criminalization of alcohol spurred a violent black market, so in response the Eighteenth Amendment was: (a) “paradoxically” repealed; or (b) necessarily so?”
Complete the sentence with either (a) or (b).
"The criminalization of alcohol spurred a violent black market, so in response the Eighteenth Amendment was paradoxically repealed."
Or:
"The criminalization of alcohol spurred a violent black market, so in response the Eighteenth Amendment was necessarily repealed"
Nothing appearing after the colon is intended to be part of the sentence. The sentence itself was left incomplete so you could choose either (a) or (b), thus recognizing the folly of your previous argument.
My only mistake was the inclusion of "either" and a missing colon. Of course, you could make an issue out of the word "so," but you knew precisely what I meant. And this isn't, after all, an Ivy League dissertation.
Now, would you care to address the arguments we've made?
PIccolo, you do know that I'm not really into calling people on their writing mistakes or spelling mistakes or grammar, right? It's just that Terrance needed to act the fool because of an inferiority complex, unable to put 2 and 2 together and realize that his complaint was a cover up for something else.
Knowing details about guns is not the point. Regulating weapons at least as thoroughly as we regulate the purchase of stocks, insurance, cars in order to cut down on the deaths of children is the point. And I think Colin Powell is on my side in that. He knows a thing or two about guns.
Marshall, stupendously stupid on such a consistent basis, fails to get the obvious point.
And Terrence does, too, apparently.
It seems I've spurred their natural inclination to strain at gnats and swallow camels of hysterical concepts. Since this is a community of small-visioned, tight-assed legalistic Pharisees... we are not shocked.
"It's just that Terrance needed to act the fool because of an inferiority complex, unable to put 2 and 2 together and realize that his complaint was a cover up for something else."
Two guys walk into a bar. One guy says to the other, "Hello. I'm Frankie. What's your name?" The other guy says, "I'm Feodor, and I was educated at an Ivy League school."
Which one do you think has the inferiority complex?
Exactly.
"... mere nit-picking, which is all you've got."
Wow. How obtuse.
Hey, Terrance, asshole, you've put yourself in the middle of the history when you weren't. And I can't believe we have to keep dealing with this.
Here's the history, as recorded... why, on this very post:
Asshole #1 (Craig) picks up on clip/magazine/round mistake and says, "I know Feodor is a near genius and has more education than everyone who has ever blogged..."
So, Feodor picks back: "Mea culpa, Craig; I should have said "30-round magazine." I trust you to be versed in assault weapons since my ivy league university doesn't really treat assault weapons."
Asshole # 2 jumps in (you, Terrance) who wants to join in the sandbox complaining and takes issue with a non-capitalized noun despite the fact that we reams of mistakes because nobody cares about such small bore issues on blogs.
Now you're an asshole and a liar - just to try to make yourself look good.
Feodor,
First, I’m an asshole. Now, I’m an asshole and a liar. Goody, goody gum drops! I wonder what I’ll be next…
You pretended to have intellectual superiority over others, but were caught committing an elementary mistake, which wounded your pride. Now you’re scrambling to save that floundering mess of a delusion you’ve clung to for so long, as though it were a lover.
You’re a fucking joke, Feodor. Everyone knows it but you.
Now you're a bare faced liar, unable to acknowledge that the simple record of comments reveal your joke to be just self-serving diversion.
You're the joke that proves it's hard to find anyone on you side who deals with integrity.
Okay guys, Let's watch the language. We must remember what Christ would have us do.
Since I don't examine everything about the posters here, I'm wondering if Fedor is a buddy of Trabue, since one of the few sites Fedor follows is one of Dan's. It wouldn't surprise me.
People who always have to brag about their intellect must have an inferiority complex. Much like those guys who are always bragging about how "macho" they are.
Now I'm a "bare faced liar," is that it?
Sweet!
Indeed, the record is available for all to view. But I would like to draw attention to your first comment. Remember?
"Hey, idiot, non-law enforcement good guys don't need a 30-clip magazine if the bad guy can't get one, either.
God, but you're a simpleton."
You lack presentation, child!
Glenn,
Perhaps Feodor and Dan are the same person.
And if I said to you, Glenn, that bagpipes are for blowhards...
Fedor,
It would say to me that your thinking in that regard is juvenile.
That doesn't really sound like you from these pages.
What would you really say?
Okay,
My wife had just posted something on her blog and was still signed in when I responded. Didn't mean to confuse you.
But that is exactly what I said, and what I really said, and it does indeed sound like me.
Well, ok, so you struck back and called me juvenile. Which now let's me make the nonsensical leap that you made: there you go again, bragging continuously about your bagpipes; so much so that it suggests you must reall have no testicles at all.
This, Glenn, is the analog of your flighty characterization a about me. All I did was strike back at Craig about something he snd Zmarshall have known for a long time.
How thrilling battle is with you and Terrance. It's a skirmish with clowns.
A skirmish with clowns?
I've had that same thought the entire day...
Although I should mention that my adversary was a clown wearing an ass-hat pretending to be a statesman...
Never an original thought from you. Always drafting.
Meh. Such is life, my friend.
It's quite telling that Terrance, who is quite new to my blog, has not needed but a comment or two from feo to peg him as the fraud and pompous ass he is. "Muttonhead", of course, works just as well.
But in order to get back to the issue...
"Knowing details about guns is not the point. Regulating weapons at least as thoroughly as we regulate the purchase of stocks, insurance, cars in order to cut down on the deaths of children is the point."
Knowing details is essential in knowing just how or what to regulate so as to reduce the deaths of children. Only the left makes sweeping judgements based on emotion in order to "do something". Unfortunately, gun regulators are as much a reason people are killed by nut-jobs as anything else, if not the main reason. Thousands of gun laws currently on the books has done little to prevent such tragedies from reoccurring. The types of regulations lefty numbskulls hope to enact will be equally impotent. For example:
--It takes about one second for a trained person to change clips on a handgun. If the average capacity is ten rounds, one could still hit a lot of people. Thus, to ban large capacity clips (I don't care whether "clip" or "magazine" is the correct term---the meaning is clear regardless) is pointless.
--Though there is no legitimate reason for it to be so, automatic weapons are already banned. Semi-automatic rifles are no different than revolvers that do not require cocking the hammer in order to fire. Said another way, most revolvers are already semi-auto due to the fact that many do not have to be cocked in order to fire. Thus, banning any semi-automatic weapons is pointless.
I could go on, and am willing to do so, because the arguments put forth by those looking to "do something" will not take the time to really consider whether or not their proposals will really do any good.
"Knowing details is essential in knowing just how or what to regulate so as to reduce the deaths of children."
Oh my God, Marshall! You know all the details in the Pediatric Drug Handbook?!
You're so smart.
________________
Knowing that General Powell and General McChrystal, Sarah and James Brady, and Gabby and Mark Giffords - most of whom own guns - are for tough regulations of guns and outlawing domestic ownership of and enforcing control of assault weapons means that you, Marshall, are empty of moral feeling on the issues. It means that you blocked access to whatever parental senses you have. And you further show yourself to be a member of the paranoid fringe with your wild shots at trying to resemble reasoning.
You fundamentally unhinged on the issue.
"Oh my God, Marshall! You know all the details in the Pediatric Drug Handbook?!"
Setting aside the fact that you've proven quite well that you are the only god you worship, I do not need to know ANY of the details of the Pediatric Drug Handbook for my statement to be absolutely true and logical. I haven't put myself up as such and authority. Even so, do you truly believe that details are not important to those who put such a handbook together? Really? Are you so desperate to find fault in me that you would imply such stupidity? (Rhetorical question. Of course you are.)
My position on the subject of gun ownership is totally driven by morality, and indeed flows from it. It is also driven by calm reflection and consideration of what is relevant to the issue. Weapons selection of the insane is not foremost among them when considering whether or not anything can be done to prevent future Sandy Hooks. More important is leaving them as defenseless targets by forbidding responsible and law-abiding citizens from arming against the insane. Assuming no nut-job is evermore able to acquire a firearm of any type, I would still favor firearms in the hands of responsible and law-abiding citizens tasked with watching over my children at school or anywhere else I am not able to watch over them myself.
There is nothing paranoid about acknowledging the presence of evil in our fallen world. It is a matter of reason. There is, however, a sad paranoia in those who suspect everyone of one's neighbors are truly potential murderers. You are not only unhinged on the issue, but like most issues discussed in this blog, you're a complete idiot.
Fedor,
I don't remember ever bragging about my bagpipes. And I dare say you'll never find anyone who will say I ever brag about playing them.
I called your response juvenile because that's what it is. It was just as juvenile as all the other "funnies" I've heard about bagpipe players.
And you do indeed often brag about you great intellect. You may be very intelligent, but from much of what you say I think you are morally and spiritually corrupt.
This is what rational people in rational states with rational governments do:
"The legislative package which Mr. Cuomo said he believed would be “the most comprehensive package in the nation,” would ban any gun magazine that can hold over 7 rounds of ammunition — the current limit is 10 rounds — and require background checks of ammunition buyers and automated alerts to law enforcement of high-volume purchases.
The legislation would also increase penalties for gun crimes, require background checks for most private gun sales and create a statewide database of gun licenses.
The expanded ban on assault weapons would broaden the definition of such weapons, banning semiautomatic pistols and rifles with detachable magazines and one military-style feature, as well as semiautomatic shotguns with one military-style feature."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/nyregion/new-york-legislators-hope-for-speedy-vote-on-gun-laws.html?hp&_r=0
"This is what rational people in rational states with rational governments do:"
The first problem with the above statement is that feo believes he is rational enough to recognize what "rational" is or how it manifests in government. But let's take a look:
Magazine capacity: To think that anything is solved by reducing the size of magazines is irrational given the speed with which a magazine can be replaced. This is easily witnessed on many YouTube videos demonstrating this fact. So if this proposal is meant to reduce deaths, i won't. It will only result in more people practicing quick change techniques, including the very monsters intended to thwart by such a proposal. Bottom line here is that "rational" proposals should have measurable impact on the status quo.
I don't care about increasing penalties for gun crimes as I don't care how much suffering a criminal must endure for committing a crime. But this is an after-the-fact proposal that will do little to prevent crimes like Sandy Hook to reoccur.
Background checks are useless if first a data-base that includes all convicted criminals and mental patients certified as dangerous is assembled. However, those who are not on the list must have their info released to the buyer so that their ownership of weapons is not made public in any way. The government has no right to know how many law-abiding citizens possess weapons or what kind.
The same goes for ammo. If I am a law-abiding person, it is the irrational boob who believes a high-volume purchase of ammo is problematic. Why must such a person be forced to stock up according to the irrational fears of spineless neighbors?
Banning weapons with military features, including fully automatic weapons, flies in the face of the intent of the 2nd Amendment. It also has no effect on the criminally minded.
"Rational" is a term of which feo has no rational understanding.
BTW, while a Illinois state senator, Barry O voted against a bill that would increase penalties for those using a weapon on behalf of one's street gang. Just sayin'.
Feodor is just like Dan, with the continuous "no true Scotsman" fallacy. If you don't agree with them, then you are irrational.
I see nothing at all rational about limiting magazines. All it does is make people reload more often. Have you seen the video of the guy who gets off 12 accurate shots in less than 3 seconds, with a six-shot revolver and a speed-loader (sort of like a backup magazine for revolvers, in case you aren't familiar). So are speed-loaders for revolvers next on the agenda?
You people have no clue. All you want is to disarm law-abiding citizens, one step at a time.
Glenn,
I am aware of speed-loading mags for revolvers. A cop friend of mine had them. As for the downside of reloading, this video gives one an idea of just how quickly a mag can be changed. Now it is true that the guy in the video is a pro, but in this video, one hears testimony from a woman who lost her parents to a nut-job. It doesn't take long for her to address the stupidity of anti-large cap mag proposals. "Irrational" is the word that best applies to the Cuomos and other idiots trying to legislate worthless anti-gun laws making potential victims of more people.
More later, namely how Mark Giffords wishes a limit were in place when his wife was shot because, accompanied as she was by armed guards, Loughner got off as many rounds as he did because he used a large capacity magazine and did not need to reload.
But you name Cuomo as if the New York State Assembly vote by Democrats and Republicans didn't matter. Typically anti-democratic of you. They approved it 104-to-43. And the Republican led State Senate? Approved 43 to 18.
Rational people in a rational state with rational government.
Apparently, feo is unable to read, or more likely, can't bring himself to view videos that prove his position is crap. Mag capacity is irrelevant to the numbers of victims considering how quickly one can be replaced even by one with limited experience with the weapon.
Number of supporters does NOT matter. What matters is intelligent proposals. Apparently, a 104-43 approval on bringing back slavery would be rational to you.
What's more, "rational" needs something akin to proof or evidence. Mere assertion does not do it. Disarming law abiding people is not rational. Setting up barriers in front of the law abiding citizen's ability to equip his self-defense is not rational. Thinking another law will make any difference to the next nut-job is irrational.
What's irrational is how unconnected your thinking is, leading you to lie: no one is disarming anybody. Limits and regulations are being tightened. That you have to make illogical leaps reveals your baseless paranoia.
And no state legislature will be voting for slavery - interesting how your mind goes there in its flights of anxiety - because, since you haven't noticed, every citizen of any color has the right to vote and it violates moral and constitutional law.
Whereasbanning domestic use of military arms and regulating pistols and other guns do not.
Marshall,
Thanks for those video links. Even on my best day I couldn't reload that fast! I had a speed loader as a back up for my old .357 S&W revolver, but when I traded in for a S&W 9mm I just bought an extra magazine.
Liberals will feel good about banning AR15s, but anyone who practices can do just as much damage with any other gun, just as quickly. But with liberals it is all about feeling good about have done "something," no matter how irrational it is.
Glenn, you name "liberals" as if the majority of Americans don't support action and as if General McChrystal and Secretary Powell - Republicans who disagree about Obama's administration - are also in support of more stringent legislation.
You're on the fringe where unreason lives.
Generals who are anti-gun have crossed the line to liberal. It will make it easier for them when martial law is instituted.
Liberals like you always shout "fringe" when people disagree with your irrational nonsense.
"When martial law is instituted"
Paranoid lunacy. Defined.
And people don't disagree with me; that's why laws are getting passed.
feo,
McChrystal and Powell (who voted for Obama---I guess he doesn't disagree with Barry all that much) are perfectly free to be as wrong as you are. And you seem to think that numbers has anything to do with whether or not an opinion is right or wrong. Such is not determined by how many agree or disagree. Truly rational people understand that the rare instance of mass killings are not prevented by disarming law-abiding rational people, or limiting their choices of how to defend themselves.
As to disarming the population, that is exactly what is happening. But like all other culture destroying moves, it is happening incrementally. I am disarmed if my choice of weapon is denied me. That I might have to make do with a lesser choice leaves me more vulnerable.
And of course, when these regulations you covet are in place and the next mass killing occurs, weak sisters like yourself will again call for even more regulations, restrictions and prohibitions. All the while, you never come close to dealing with the real problem.
What is lacking in the push to regulate and disarm is any rational reason to deny the law-abiding. Why the paranoia?
well, 1) you're too stupid to grasp the definition of "disarm." 2) legislation is aimed at stopping murderous law breakers, meaningless homicidal accidents, tragically impulsive children.
3) rational conservative government led by rational people doing rational things:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?hp&_r=0
Of course I know the meaning of the word "disarm". I also know that to limit the ability to acquire the weapon one feels is best to defend one's self is the same as disarming if it leaves one vulnerable and defenseless against superior firepower. And if idiots like yourself insist on limiting the types of weapons a law-abiding person can purchase, you are limiting their ability to defend themselves and have in effect disarmed him.
The aim of legislation is nowhere near as important as whether or not it achieves its aim. The thousands of gun control laws already on the books have been proven impotent in preventing Sandy Hook-type tragedies. However, law-abiding citizens with weapons of their own have successfully mitigated the death tolls in situations where other mental cases sought multiple victims. In other words, we know what works and what doesn't. Armed citizens works. Disarmed citizens die.
An example of your third point is every state where concealed carry is legal and where the above mentioned results are documented. What you favor has no relationship with rational thought whatsoever.
Feodor,
“ 2) legislation is aimed at stopping murderous law breakers, meaningless homicidal accidents, tragically impulsive children”
Isn’t that a paradox? You’re suggesting that a law is going to stop someone that breaks the law. Absurd People will break the law with or without a gun. If they can't shoot 20 children, they'll thrash 20 child with a knife.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/22-kids-slashed-in-china-elementary-school-knife-attack/
Criminals have no problem purchasing and smuggling illegal firearms, so the suggestion that these laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals is debatable. And while the existence of black markets – which are sure to emerge – do not automatically necessitate legalization, this case is the exception, otherwise you’re leaving law-abiding citizens vulnerable, thus exacerbating the problem of crime.
I also know that to limit the ability to acquire the weapon one feels is best to defend one's self is the same as disarming if it leaves one vulnerable and defenseless against superior firepower.
Then when will you be acquiring the laser death rays to fight the firepower of the Venusians when they invade your home? Because, you know, it could happen.
Or what "superior firepower" are you talking about?
Jim,
Try finding someone more clever than Parkie or feo for humor tips.
As to superior firepower, perhaps you've heard the expression concerning bringing a knife to a gun fight? If not, ask some adult what it means and then perhaps you'll be able to grasp meaning. It isn't really all that difficult.
The problem with pointing out Marshall's illogical leaps and plummets in reason, Jim, is that these are not his failures - and therefore open to possible nuance in response from him - but they are the very habits and structures of his thinking. So, that's why these threads always grind down to this point: his blindly looping denials.
The problem with pointing out my "illogical leaps and plummets in reason" is that there are none for you to find. You speak of my habits and structures of thinking, but this is just pretense and dodging. You like to tap dance like that when you have no answer to trump the logic and truth of my comments. And perhaps you can point to a denial that is nothing more than denying your inane distortions of my positions and your own false and baseless opinions.
"And perhaps you can point to a denial..."
Thus: "Of course I know the meaning of the word "disarm". I also know that to limit the ability to acquire the weapon one feels is best to defend one's self is the same as disarming..."
__________________
"However, law-abiding citizens with weapons of their own have successfully mitigated the death tolls in situations..."
Exactly. And those situations did not require mega-magazines. They did it with conventional weapons which are not being outlawed - and so no one is being disarmed.
___________________
But perhaps you were unconsciously on to something earlier when you ludicrously talked about modern day legislatures voting for slavery as a comment on your post about irrational denials of rational gun legislation:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
______________________
And then here's more rational people with rational governments doing rational things:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/us/politics/recalling-pain-of-guns-toll-mayors-urge-bills-passage.html?hp
"And perhaps you can point to a denial..."
Thus: "Of course I know the meaning of the word "disarm". I also know that to limit the ability to acquire the weapon one feels is best to defend one's self is the same as disarming..."
__________________
"However, law-abiding citizens with weapons of their own have successfully mitigated the death tolls in situations..."
Exactly. And those situations did not require mega-magazines. They did it with conventional weapons which are not being outlawed - and so no one is being disarmed.
___________________
But perhaps you were unconsciously on to something earlier when you ludicrously talked about modern day legislatures voting for slavery as a comment on your post about irrational denials of rational gun legislation:
http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
______________________
And then here's more rational people with rational governments doing rational things:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/us/politics/recalling-pain-of-guns-toll-mayors-urge-bills-passage.html?hp
Yeah, I've heard the expression. Nobody is talking knives here. We're talking laser blasters.
What is the superior firepower you are concerned about and who are you expecting to wield it?
Jim,
One doesn't have to have any tangible fears of imminent tyrannical oppression by current government to have an understanding of what the 2nd was designed to accomplish. I know you libtards believe you are identifying paranoid right-wingers by asking such stupid questions. But it's a burden we more rational and logical minds must bear.
Just the same, imagine you're armed with only a small caliber handgun with limited ammo and are confronted by federal troops. Do you really believe you are properly equipped to fight off a tyrannical government? Even if all your neighbors joined in with their similarly limited arms, just how could you give the despot pause? If the 2nd was written to keep the federal gov't at bay, which it was, how is that accomplished when they are possessed of superior firepower?
For mere self-protection from the criminal element, the dynamic is the same. I don't wish to be outgunned. If you side with the feos, Dan T's, Alans and other gun control idiots, you are perfectly free to take your chances. You don't have the authority or moral right to insist that everyone else must do the same.
But getting back to the purpose of the 2nd, don't be so stupid as to think that the worst can't happen, or that governmental tyranny is not possible in our country. Regardless of how unlikely it might seem to be now, and I'd agree with that, an armed populace keeps it that way, or at least has a better chance of doing so.
feo,
I read the first offering. It gives me reason to ignore the second, which I haven't looked at yet. But "Truthout" takes great liberties with the source material they use to support their premise. The bottom line is that the premise is stupid, race-baiting and incredibly typical of a leftist source.
The last several paragraphs, begining with
So Madison, who had (at Jefferson's insistence) already begun to prepare proposed amendments to the Constitution...
presume intentions that are nowhere supported in the piece whatsoever. Changes of all sorts were made in the original draft of the Constitution. To state changes to the 2nd were to protect slavery specifically, or that the 2nd was ratified to preserve slavery is an incredible leap.
What is presented in this article shows only one manner in which a state (or states) might suffer should the right to bear arms not be protected. And don't forget the context of the times, a time when slavery was commonplace in the world.
Still, to disarm the states would likely have led to more uprisings against which the states would have less ability to defend. The south would have been destroyed, at least economically, and the nation weakened.
Nice try, though, if race-baiting and hatred of gun owners is your goal.
So, your position is that our country will be safer if everyone has guns but ruin us if everyone has healthcare.
______________
In the 44 years since MLK and RFK were assassinated, more than 1,250,000 Americans have died from gun violence.
In all of America's wars, from the Revolutionary War to today, about 640,00 have been killed.
So, twice as many have died by domestic guns in less than a quarter of the time.
American exceptionalism at work,
_________________
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus2.htm
from the University of California at Davis Law Review
For Terrance, the virtual stutterer - who may not be old enough to appreciate how stunning these changes have been - I'd offer these two cases:
1) If you were alive in the 1970s, no one would have believed you if you had claimed that just by passing laws and buying advertising, governments would have every parent buying child safety seats, having every child buckled up and themselves, too.
In the 70s, no one used seat belts. And many people had them cut out.
2) If you were alive in the 1980s, no one would have believed you if you had claimed that just by passing laws and buying advertising that all people in the North America and Europe would abide the denial of the right to smoke at work, and in restaurants, and almost all families would make a family member smoke outside. Even on live television almost everyone smoked, especially on talk shows.
Not now.
Two sea changes in publicly imposed health and safety policies because people were convinced by just a couple of decades of continuing conscious awareness raising.
It just takes the doing and the guts.
Finally, Marshall, tell us your true feelings of commitment to the 3rd amendment. Since it follows on the 2nd amendment's concern for the militia, surely the 3rd is just as crucial for our times.
If the 2nd was written to keep the federal gov't at bay, which it was
If the 2nd Amendment was written to keep the federal government at bay, what was the point of Articles I through VII? Why set up a system of divided government with checks and balances, enumerated duties and restrictions, with officers elected through individual state mechanisms if what really did the trick was an Amendment that allowed you to keep muskets in case the rest of it didn't work? Why bother? If the Constitution wasn't going to work, why would its amendments have any meaning?
The 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with keeping the Federal Government at bay. There was no standing army to keep at bay and one could only be raised by the vote of the people's elected representatives (see Articles I through VII).
Just the same, imagine you're armed with only a small caliber handgun with limited ammo and are confronted by federal troops.
Under what circumstances, any at all, would I be confronted by federal troops? Why would they pick my neighborhood?
Do you really believe you are properly equipped to fight off a tyrannical government?
Do you believe your Bushmaster .223s and barrel magazines full of armor-piercing bullets is going equip you to fight off predator drones, Black Hawk helicopters, B-1s, and SEAL Team 6?
I don't wish to be outgunned.
Then you better stock up on laser blasters, because alien invasions (no, the other kind) could actually happen.
an armed populace keeps it that way
Yeah, I'm sure the BATF and FBI were scared shitless of David Koresch.
The lunacy of Marshall's logic and the plummets of his reason.
feo,
I have begun reading your lengthy offering from the University of California at Davis Law Review. I hadn't gotten far when leftist biases began to appear. Two examples:
"The bulk of this writing has been produced by a small band of true believers who belong not merely to the individual rights school of thought but a particular wing commonly called "insurrectionist theory."[35] The leader of this band is Stephen P. Halbrook,[36] who, with the support of tens of thousands of dollars in NRA grants..."
This suggests a common leftist theme, that money spent by any group for research is used to produce falsehoods for the purpose of deception in defense of that group's agenda.
"While, as a general matter, mainstream scholars have only a cold disdain for the work of insurrectionist theorists..."
Another common tactic of the left (though not necessarily unique to them), to dictate what constitutes "mainstream" when it is merely a definition partial to their own agenda
"Insurrectionist theory may be paranoic, anarchistic, and anti-democratic..."
This might seem true to looney leftists with a twisted notion of the source of violence and criminality, but is no more than cheap and baseless opinion nonetheless. Perhaps I'll be lucky enough to find some proof within the piece as to support this opinion. I doubt it.
As already indicated, the intent to prove pro-slavery sentiment drove the invention of the 2nd requires a stretch. We'll see where this thesis takes us. No doubt it appeals to your own warped notion of reality.
"In the 44 years since MLK and RFK were assassinated, more than 1,250,000 Americans have died from gun violence."
From one accounting I found on-line:
American Revolution.....25,324
War of 1812.............2,260
Mexican War.............13,283
Civil War (Union).......498,332
Civil War (Confederacy).364,821
WWI.....................116,516
WWII....................405,399
Korean War..............54,246
Viet Nam................58148
Total to this point: 1,525,148 American dead from American Revolution to Viet Nam. I will say that I thought that the Civil War total was around 600,000 alone, which was the first thing that came to mind when I saw your stat regarding all of America's fallen in war. I don't know how the above was compiled and whether or not all listed were battlefield deaths alone, as opposed to complications from wounds that led to death. In any case, 640K seems deceitfully low. But we can always compare gun related deaths to the number of abortions since Roe v Wade, if you want to play that game.
Also, when considering 1.25 million deaths from "gun violence", what does that mean? Murders alone? How many were justifiable shootings of cops to criminals, self-defense? How many were suicides, which then becomes a separate category which must include suicide by means of pills, hanging, slit wrists, etc? Use stats to your advantage as a deceitful false priest will won't mean those stats have any real significance.
Worse, your stats imply that only violence by guns should be a concern, or that guns and violence are inextricably linked. Guns constitute only one method of perpetrating violence, murder, suicide and the like. Remove one tool and another takes its place and violence remains. Rationality requires looking at the real problem, the hearts of men, and not the tool they use.
As regards your idiotic response to Terrance ("virtual stutterer"? What kind of asinine insult is that? Answer: a typical feo insult emanating from his inflated sense of imagined superiority.), you fail in two ways:
First, as regards seat belt laws, the potential for death in auto accidents went up as a result of regulations concerning fuel consumption that resulted in lighter cars. But as with gun ownership, responsible behavior as a driver has more to do with the number of traffic fatalities than any regulation or type of car.
Secondly, neither seat belts nor cigarettes have anything to do with self-defense against attack. Neither will laws regulating either have any impact on who wants to kill, rob or otherwise attack you or why. What a stupid attempt on your part.
Jim,
"If the 2nd Amendment was written to keep the federal government at bay, what was the point of Articles I through VII?"
Open a history book. The Constitution was written to limit the federal government from acting unilaterally by acknowledging the God-given rights of man. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can all be threatened by a gov't out of control. All the checks and balances don't mean squat without the threat of force behind it. An armed populace IS that threat of force. The right to life is useless without the means to protect it. Get a freakin' clue.
"The 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with keeping the Federal Government at bay. There was no standing army to keep at bay..."
And yet the founders had that very aim in mind as evidenced by the several quotes from them highlighted in my posts of January 7.
"Under what circumstances, any at all, would I be confronted by federal troops?"
Under what circumstances had any previous despotic government oppressed their people? Name them all and new reasons could be established by the next.
"Why would they pick my neighborhood?"
Because YOU live there.
"Do you believe your Bushmaster .223s and barrel magazines full of armor-piercing bullets is going equip you to fight off predator drones, Black Hawk helicopters, B-1s, and SEAL Team 6?"
I don't know. Has anyone cleared out them Afghan mountains, yet?
"Then you better stock up on laser blasters, because alien invasions (no, the other kind) could actually happen."
Let me know when the rest of your mutant invader friends arrive.
"Yeah, I'm sure the BATF and FBI were scared shitless of David Koresch."
No. They weren't, because they had superior force and firepower. Thanks for helping me make my point.
Well, Marshall given a choice between liberal bias and straight up batshit crazy right wing paranoia, the lessor of the two evils is also the only rational choice.
If you did into the manner of death in the Civil War - and other early wars as well - you'll find the astonishing fact that twice as many men or more died from disease and exposure in the field as died from the combat itself.
The numbers are true for the numbers of soldiers killed by arms in combat compared to people killed by firearms over the last 44 years.
Just to take your Civil War: 140,000 or so Union combat dead, but 365,000 or so total dead. 75,000 or so Confederate combat dead, but 270,000 or so total dead.
1.25 million deaths from firearms. And the goal is sizable reduction.
Now you're shucking and jiving and raising all kinds of non-sequitur objections as smoke and mirrors - historically the strategy for your final twisting in these kinds of exchanges.
As for Terrance, since he found capitalizations fun, I thought I'd point out his five consecutive withdrawn comments.
And you completely whiff on his point, to which I responded: he claims laws have no effect.
And he cites the story about an attack at a Chinese school. But the sentence that he cannot acknowledge in the story IS THE GOAL OF TOUGH GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION:
"Everyone survived."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/gun-show-shootings_n_2513057.html
Maintaining the logic and reason of the intention of the 2nd is not the least bit "batshit crazy right-wing paranoia". What constitutes paranoia is the idea that the average American is not responsible with firearms and therefor a clear and present danger to idiots like yourself.
It is you who are trying to play games with numbers. If you want to compare these numbers on your own terms, then you can pretend there is a significant difference. I would include all war dead as without the wars those deaths not related directly to being shot dead in combat would not have occurred. But then, the comparison isn't as stark for your propaganda, is it?
At the same time, you feel free to lump together all deaths related to the discharge of a firearm. But neither crime nor murder requires a firearm and as you are certainly well aware, murder by hammer is significant as well. Thus, your own batshit crazy paranoia, together with your typical and well proven liberal dishonesty, not to mention your incredibly twisted sense of morality and Christian teaching, won't allow you to focus on the real issue, which has nothing to do with tools such as guns.
What is more, is that together with your stat of 1.25 million deaths is the clear fact that there are likely 100 times that many examples of Americans with weapons that have resulted in no deaths or injuries whatsoever. Liars like yourself refuse to even acknowledge the other side, including plenty of stories of mass killings and other crimes being prevented or mitigated by citizens with concealed carry permits (see here.
"What constitutes paranoia is the idea that the average American is not responsible with firearms and therefor a clear and present danger to idiots like yourself. "
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/gun-show-shootings_n_2513057.html
You are either tired from work, or this is exactly how persuasive your arguments are.
"Now you're shucking and jiving and raising all kinds of non-sequitur objections as smoke and mirrors - historically the strategy for your final twisting in these kinds of exchanges."
First of all, Colin Powell would say you're being racist.
Secondly, your entire argument is a non-sequitur in suggesting the mere possession of weapons by law-abiding citizens presents a danger to idiots like yourself, particularly in light of plenty of evidence to the contrary. Here's a clear example of your employment of the non-sequitur:
"So, your position is that our country will be safer if everyone has guns but ruin us if everyone has healthcare."
What an idiot you are!
Thirdly, someday you'll really have to provide an example of how I twist anything in these exchanges. Saying so doesn't make it so, especially when you're the one saying so, because the truth is not in you.
"And you completely whiff on his point, to which I responded: he claims laws have no effect."
Not at all. But you whiff big time. Terrance was clearly speaking of particular laws, those concerning gun restrictions. He was referring to what Beccaria also said: "They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes." It is only a liar like yourself that would equate that to seat belt laws.
As to the victims in China surviving, that is a matter of good fortune, which is possible with someone who doesn't shoot straight, so nice try attempting to make a point with a single story, idiot.
And speaking of just how much of an idiot you are, you bring up accidental shootings as if that makes your case. But now we have to go back and make comparisons again. People injure themselves from the careless use of all sorts of tools and objects. But to speak of accidental shootings, even when deaths occur, is to pretend that each is a case of violence of the type that you think you are likely to reduce by disarming the general public.
So, feo. After all these inane comments you've posted thus far, have you anything compelling?
Have you been drinking tonight?
Feo,
All you've done is demonstrate that some people are stupid. It doesn't matter that they happened to be stupid with a gun - I've seen many people cut themselves badly through the same stupidity.
Blame the gun, right?
OK, so Glenn's answer to the national conversation about the danger of firearms is... bandaids.
Anybody else?
Why don't we enforce the laws that we already have?
Because http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/atf-obama-gun-reform-control-alcohol-tobacco-firearms
"OK, so Glenn's answer to the national conversation about the danger of firearms is... bandaids."
Yeah. That's exactly what Glenn was saying. What a freakin' idiot you are, feo!
Jim,
I just checked in during the Pats/Ravens game. That MoJones articles looks to be a total hack job. I can't wait to read it in full. I doubt my opinion will change. MoJones has real credibility problems. From a piece by Ann Coulter:
In a nonsense "study" going around the internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of public shootings in the last 30 yers and concludes: "In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun."
This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.
The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: they looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed; i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn't stopped.
If we care about reducing the number of people killed in mass shootings, shouldn't we pay particular attention to the cases where the aspiring mass murderer was prevented from getting off more than a couple rounds?
She then goes on to list a half dozen examples that MoJones chose to ignore, or didn't have the integrity to even seek out. (Those examples can be found here.)
I have no doubt Jim's selection will prove to be similarly lacking.
I wouldn't believe Ann Coulter if she told me the sun rises in the East.
I've no doubt that you don't want to believe Coulter, Jim. But it's easy enough to research the stories to which she refers. Of course, by doing so, you'll have to face the fact that you put your trust in an unreliable source like Mother Jones.
"It doesn't matter that they happened to be stupid with a gun - I've seen many people cut themselves badly through the same stupidity."
Suggests bandaids are all that's needed.
___________________
Marshall, you seem to be so disturbed by the numbers that you've tried five or six ways to diminish their impact for yourself until you finally tried to say that they just don't matter.
Since you've tried your usual smoke and mirrors denials, lets be clear:
Deaths by firearms:
650,000 US soldiers in combat (including Confederate soldiers) in 238 years.
1,250,000 US citizens by domestic arms in the last 44 years.
"Scientific studies have consistently found that places with more guns have more violent deaths, both homicides and suicides. Women and children are more likely to die if there’s a gun in the house. The more guns in an area, the higher the local suicide rates. 'Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,' said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. 'There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html
Fro
I suggested nothing of the kind. I was just using an analogy of what stupid people do with one tool is no different than what stupid people do with other tools.
You don't blame the tools for being carelessly handled by stupid people.
The difference is death, Glenn. Or lost limbs, lost brain tissue, most movement, lost speech, lost ability to walk, lost children, parents, teachers, husbands and wives.
Don't tell me there's no difference.
Feo,
The examples you showed in the article had no one dead.
DUH!
I forget, Glenn, that you don't think - and can't imagine - that words and thoughts live outside of their immediate box.
______________
First, Marshall says its paranoia to think Americans are not clumsy with guns. On the day that a gun convention proves that they are.
Then make a point that has nothing to do with that or the article: you have friends who've had accidents with knives.
Following YOU out of the article, I point out how stupid a response that is.
Then you want to crawl back into the frame of the article which YOU left when you showed up.
God but you're an imbecile.
Feo,
And you're a jackass!
Boy, doesn't name-calling make you feel good!
Quit blaming guns for what people do. That's the problem with this whole discussion. Ban the guns and the people will still kill just as many people using some other device. Timothy McVeigh killed 76 people without a gun. All the people guilty of the mass murders were not permitted to have guns any way, so that shows how much good another law would do.
A person who can't admit they just made obvious mistake in blaming is the jackass.
"The examples you showed in the article had no one dead.
DUH!"
But your previous examples were friends with knives. NOT IN THE ARTICLE!
_____________
"... so that shows how much good another law would do."
With laws and advertising, smoking is not banned in all public buildings. This will save untold numbers of lives and billions and billions of dollars in private, corporate, and taxpayer medical expenses
With laws and advertising, children riding without carseats and all people riding without seat belts has been banned. This has already saved hundreds of thousand of lives and billions of individual and taxpayer dollars.
These laws have worked because reason reigned.
And, today of all days, I'll throw in that eight years ago, almost all Americans would have claimed that we would never elect a black man as President in our lifetime. Maybe a woman.
See what people can do when they put their mind to it?
Feo,
I really hope you aren't as stupid as you are pretending to be. My comment about people misusing knives was an ANALOGY to the article - the point is that you don't blame a tool for its misuse or mishandling by stupid people.
Liberals are sooooooo dense! (and I think it is intentional)
Glenn, myopic imbecile: I had no problem that you tried to make an analogy. In fact, I evaluated the analogy on its own terms by applying your analogy in the real world.
Your analogy (as I take it): accidents happen; look at knives.
My critique: the accidents are not comparable (analogous).
Your imbecilic response: But you're not referring to the article.
My critique: You're the one whose analogy took us out of the article onto other things.
Your myopic response: but I was making an analogy.
My fourth attempt to get you to see the obvious: (see above).
Feo,
I never said I wasn't referring to the article with the analogy. You made that up.
The fact that people misused guns and caused injury is indeed analogous to people misusing any other tool and causing injury.
IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE TOOL!!
Oh, my God! Glenn, you use the word but you don't understand its function.
An analogy transfers meaning from case A and applies it to case B.
This is what you tried to do: transfer meaning from case A (gun accidents in the article) to case B (your friends with knives).
That is an analogy. Yet again, I had no problem THAT you made an analogy from the article to your knife clumsy friends. In fact, I took up your analogy to case B (no longer in the world of the article) and applied it in the real world (still not in the world of the article). - and found it stunningly wanting: gun accidents are categorically different from knife accidents.
Then you WANT to claim that I made the mistake of not staying within the article.
You don't have even a college understanding of linguistic actions. And that's much in itself.
As for how people uses tools, if the tool is dangerous enough, we license it and regulate it to the level that we agree is reasonable. It's that way with cars, with medicines, with cigarettes, alcohol, increasingly marijuana, planes, trains, helicopters, financial managers, lawyers, doctors, veterinarians, chefs, restaurant kitchens, electricians, psychologists, and for fuck's suck even notary stamps.
Feo,
I know very well what an analogy is and I made a perfect one! The meaning from the article was that people misused a tool and were injured by it. I point out that “I've seen many people cut themselves badly through the same stupidity.” (Note that I didn’t say anything about “friends” - an example of you reading things into what was said).
When one gives an example of stupid people being injured by the misuse/mishandling of a tool, it is a perfect analogy to point out that other stupid people are injured by the misuse/mishandling of another tool. How is that NOT an analogy except that you don’t want to admit that your “evidence” against guns could be used as “evidence” against any other tool?!?!?!
The type of accident is not “categorically” different. They are the same. Stupid people misusing/mishandling any tool can cause injury or death to themselves or other people. It is not the fault of the tool when people misuse or mishandle it.
Quit blaming the TOOL, you liberal, brainwashed idiot!
When I wrote, "friends," I was trying to be generous.
People mishandle pencils, Glenn, and stick themselves with that tool. It's not comparable.
Jesus Christ.
Here's a third grade analogous series for you, Glenn:
A knife is to a pencil like a gun is to a knife.
Feo,
The analogy IS comparable to any tool, when you give "evidence" of a tool being problematic because people are careless with it.
Someone told me that you were a devout Christian. You use of the Lord's name in vain certainly would lead people to believe otherwise.
Whenever one calls on the son of God how can it be in vain, really?
Unless you have an incredibly small and puny and petty relationship with and vision of the Trinity.
But what a way for you to crawl out of admitting you were wrong. And with this last pettiness of yours, I must go. No more watching TV on this wonderfully historic day.
Feo,
That was NOT a call on the Lord - it was a vain exclamation of frustration about being proven what a fool you are.
Really, Glenn. See how he dances! That was indeed NOT a call on the Lord but an expression of feo's exasperation.
As to your analogy, it is completely sound. feo looks to deny the availability of something that some have abused and with which some have been careless. Then he dares suggest a problem with the analogy because death might be more likely by careless use of a gun, which is meant to kill, than by the careless use of any other object. What a loon!
No one argues that a tool invented to kill efficiently is dangerous and that greater care must be taken in the handling of that tool compared to other tools. But unlike all those other things, such as cars, medicines, cigarettes, alcohol, increasingly marijuana, planes, trains, helicopters, financial managers, doctors, veterinarians, chefs, restaurant kitchens, electricians, psychologists, and even notary stamps", only the right to bear arms is protected Constitutionally. That right does not define what arms one may bear, but that the right belongs to the people to bear them.
I think the Lord hears my exasperation. I think the Lord shares my exasperation, but, regardless, the Lord hears and understands the heart.
I'm surprised the two of you think anything can be bracketed out of God's presence. "If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!"
Surely when the Christ is on my lips, I am in relationship. And no relationship has only peak times. There are always the tedious. Jesus Christ!
(Unless of course one has a small, puny and petty life with God as the two of you do.)
____________________
Marshall, you must be writing after work recently, because your points are obscure, unconnected and only vaguely general.
You seem to be so disturbed by the numbers that you've tried five or six ways to diminish their impact for yourself until you finally tried to say that they just don't matter.
Since you've tried your usual smoke and mirrors denials, lets be clear:
Deaths by firearms:
650,000 US soldiers in combat (including Confederate soldiers) in 238 years.
1,250,000 US citizens by domestic arms in the last 44 years.
I doubt the Lord shares your exasperation at being thwarted in your cheap attempts to posture yourself as more reasonable, more knowledgeable and superior. His exasperation would no doubt be a result of witnessing your vain attempts at pushing that which is twisted and illogical.
I would also warn that His knowing our hearts requires our hearts are well intended by HIS standards. If not, His knowing our hearts is not really a good thing for us. His presence or grace does not provide an excuse to be a condescending, arrogant and pompous blowhard that so easily, willingly and consciously champions bad behaviors.
Considering the vastness between He and us, I can't help but presume that more reverence for His name endears us to Him. But here's a real distinction that worsens your situation in my opinion: It's quite one thing to spit out His name in exasperation vocally. Our emotions can get the best of us. But to take the time to type it out as you did requires a conscious decision. Your tone and attitude since your first visit here, indeed since I first encountered you wherever it was, does not compel me to believe you should be taking any chances.
You obviously believe you are somehow on a different level of relationship with the Almighty than simpletons like Glenn and myself. I assure you, there is nothing puny or petty about mine or his. Unlike yourself, we are well aware of our status before Him.
You say "Surely when the Christ is on my lips, I am in relationship." You wish. I don't believe He takes kindly to a thoughtless utterance of His Holy Name in exasperation any more than He is keen on prayers spoken by mere repetition. There's no reverence there. Surely you don't really believe He's worthy of such.
"Marshall, you must be writing after work recently, because your points are obscure, unconnected and only vaguely general."
While I wouldn't say that I'm not always atop my game, what is more likely is that you are too dense to understand the obvious points I make. The obvious point is that I am not disturbed by numbers, but by your dishonest use of them. Death in combat is a subset category of death by use of firearms. Death by domestic arms encompasses categories that include justifiable shootings, accidental shootings and murder, to name a few majors.
Worse, you seem to think that there is some great obvious difference between death by one inanimate object as opposed to another. NO one on this side of the issue has forgotten that guns are tools for killing primarily. But for murder, there are far more than guns available, as the recent stat regarding hammers can attest. It's not the tool that needs restricting or regulating. It's the hearts of men. Remove one tool from evil men and they'll find a replacement to accomplish their goals. This is the real issue that the intellectually (and morally) lazy, such as yourself, choose to ignore.
But at the same time, you remove the tool from law-abiding people of character, who comprise the lion's share of gun owners and vastly outnumber those who misuse guns.
Violent crime is down these days, while gun ownership is up. The rare lunatic on a rampage does not give mature and reasonable men cause to do something as stupid as disarming themselves. You lack those qualities so you can't see it. I get that. You've made it quite clear.
Whew, that sure is one prickly old white man you have for a god. Sure she isn't having her period? Eternally?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/us/shooting-reported-at-college-in-houston.html?ref=texas
Wayne La Pierre:
"When absolutes are abandoned for principles, the US Constitution becomes a blank slate for anyone’s graffiti."
WTF?
feo,
My God is the God of the Bible. Who's yours?
Jim,
Thanks for the out of context quote from LaPierre. I'm sure you think you see a problem. I don't see nearly enough on which to comment.
"180+ comments in and marsha has yet to make a reasonable point."
Three problems here:
First, Benny-boy wouldn't know a reasonable point if it stuck him in the eye.
Second, Benny-boy hasn't made one attempt to dispute a point he deems as unreasonable. Not surprising considering he couldn't if Adam Lanza had an AR-15 to his empty head.
Third, there's no way Benny-boy has read all the 180+ comments here to know if I haven't posted a reasonable comment. He couldn't go five comments without posting an idiotic comment like what contained the above quote. He can't help himself.
Deaths by firearms:
650,000 US soldiers in combat (including Confederate soldiers) in 238 years.
1,250,000 US citizens by domestic arms in the last 44 years.
To quote Tony Kushner's Lincoln, "shall we stop this bleeding?"
I would suspect that a very large portion of those deaths is gang related, and the vast majority were most likely illegal to be owned by the shooter. Both situations would not have been prevented by any law.
Gangs of what? Rabbits?
King Dufus: "Both situations would not have been prevented by any law."
From Time magazine: "Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people...
The law allows citizens or legal residents over the age of 18, who have obtained a permit from the government and who have no criminal record or history of mental illness, to buy up to three weapons from an authorized dealer, with the exception of automatic firearms and selective fire weapons, which are banned..."
And now, Diane Feinstein, has introduced "... legislation that would ban the sale and manufacture of 157 types of semiautomatic weapons, as well as magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition."
Why don't we give it a try, Glenn, and see how many lives are saved. Surely we can try it and see. If, as you and Fartshall claim, there isn't a reduction in lives lost in five years, then repeal it. Have the guts to give it a chance.
If you are so worried about violence and murders associated with violence, then why not make a law outlawing abortion? Abortion kills thousands more than any gun crime.
The fact remains, that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens - any gun that is currently legal - does nothing to change anything but make lawful citizens more prone to victimization, because the bad guys will always have an unlimited supply of every "illegal" weapon.
Quit punishing law abiding citizens, quit blaming the tools.
What part of banning manufacture do you not understand, Glenn?
And what do you mean by "gang"?
feo,
You seem quite enamored with this stat:
"650,000 US soldiers in combat (including Confederate soldiers) in 238 years.
1,250,000 US citizens by domestic arms in the last 44 years."
It's deceitful to try to interpret these numbers in a manner that suggests the solution is to deprive the law-abiding of their means of self-defense.
Out of that 1.25 million, how many were murders? Add to that number those murdered by means other than shooting and then see what percentage is by firearms. I'll help you:
From 2007-2011, according to FBI stats, there were 12,664 murder victims where the weapon used totaled 8,583 firearms. (That's all firearms) This means there were 4,081 victims murdered by other means.
In that same time frame, there were 1,874 victims murdered by rifle. That's the category of weapon "assault" rifles inhabit. Yet, there were 2,918 murdered by blunt instruments (clubs, hammers, etc). As if that wasn't enough, there were 4,058 murdered by personal weapons. "Personal weapons" are hands, feet, fists, and pushing (as in off a roof or into oncoming traffic or trains).
But go back to the first stat. Take away guns of all sorts and do you really expect that the result would be 8,583 fewer murders? A thoughtful, reasonable and honest person would conclude that the perpetrators would simply find another means of murdering their targets.
So of your 1.25 million deaths by firearms, how many were accidental? This link shows a list of causes of accidental deaths per year. Note that accidental deaths due to firearms ranks #7 on the list at 1,500 per year. That's more than doubled by the #6 cause, accidental suffocation. Over 31,000 die from fires, drowning, poisons and falls. Motor vehicle crashes take over 43,000 lives per year. And you wanna get rid of guns.
And of course there are self-defense cases and justifiable shootings by police.
One more thing. I believe it was the CDC that indicated that during the last "assault" weapons ban, there was no discernible affect on the murder rate. In other words, we already gave it a chance. It didn't help a damned bit.
Feo,
Try addressing this:
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/gun-violence-is-not-a-republican-problem-its-a-democratic-problem/
And then continue to blame the gun, while denying the rights of lawful citizens.
Glenn, I read it even though I don't know why I should even consider the validity of something that refers to places that "aren't America" but "Obamerica".
The article, and I assume your reason for linking to it, equates crime-related gun deaths with random mass shooting gun deaths. I don't think it is valid to connect the two.
Yes, crime is more prevalent in cities, where population is more dense and gang activity is more prevalent. What does that have to do with schools and movie theaters?
denying the rights of lawful citizens
What current proposals would deny the rights of lawful citizens?
Jim, the article had plenty of relevance, but liberals never understand it.
It denies my right as a lawful citizen to be told I can't have a magazine with more than 10 rounds (7 if you live in NY), it denies my right to not allow me to buy a military-style rifle. Shall I go on?
Yes, go on, because according to the Supreme Court and Antonin Scalia, you do not have an unrestricted right to either of those two things. See District of Columbia v. Heller.
And according to the Supreme court slavery was okay and so is abortion.
We don't get our rights from the supreme court. In fact, the 2nd Amendment didn't give us the right to bear arms - it merely stated the right we already had as humans.
And according to the Supreme court slavery was okay and so is abortion.
Please cite one or more cases in which the Supreme Court ruled that slavery was "okay".
As to abortion, yes it is "okay" but not unrestricted according to the Supreme court. That's good enough for me.
No, you don't get rights from the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court explains how your rights may be exercised in this society (of humans).
Hey Jim,
Ever hear of the Dred Scott case? Slaves were not to be considered citizens and they had no Constitutional rights, and they were no more than personal property.
If that isn't saying slavery was okay, then I don't know what is.
Post a Comment