Monday, March 04, 2013
Even More Goofiness--Cars More Regulated Than Guns?
The goofiness to which I referred was the last comment Parkie posted to the previous discussion. This fool often makes cracks accusing me of never researching anything. While that is an idiotic claim considering the many links in both my posts and comments, here and elsewhere, it is clear that he did no research before parroting the goofy claim that cars are more regulated than guns. In response, I offer this insightful article. Maybe regulating guns the same way we do cars is not such a bad idea after all. Thanks Parkie!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Priceless. Simply priceless. It has made my FB wall
Marshall,
Great stuff. Dan was in love with this approach for a while, then someone pointed out these same points. This is similar to the "marriage equity for all" line that the left loves. Except, when pressed, we find out that "all" doesn't actually mean all. I'm sure that your usual commenters will fill the remainder of the thread with witty intelligent, reasonable and insightful comments on the content of the article.
Given that you, Glenn, Craig, and the author of your link are idiots, I'll have to make clear to you all the obvious:
1) The point that Mr. Gore and others make regards licensing. Notice how quickly your stupid avatar leaves the point of licensing to talk about parking.
2) To follow in his idiocy, however, is to engage in subjective metaphors. For no reason or justification whatsoever, your intellectual agent chooses a Porsche as the metaphor.
One can easily, but more appropriately, choose a tank. Because a machine gun has the capacity to kill more people more quickly than a shotgun, a tank on the roads and highways of America is the better parallel.
And tanks aren't allowed on the roads and highways of America.
_________________
"Insightful"? Not if one consciously uses one's brain.
Well, that was easy.
Feodor,
I hate to bust your arrogant, self-congratulating bubble, but tanks are indeed allowed on the roads and highways of America. Special permits are required, of course, but they are allowed nevertheless. I have seen them with my own eyes in parades with various antique military vehicles.
Sadly.. if you would do "research" outside your cave.. you might find a different answer. Maybe even one that doesnt fit your preconceived ideas.
And I have no problem, Mr. Magoo, with machine guns in "parades with various antique military vehicles."a
Machine guns galore in military parades, I say!
But of course, parades are licensed aren't they?
Is your subconscious recognizing the need?
Obviously I can't be an idiot, as I quite correctly predicted that the usual suspects would fill this thread with intelligent, reasonable and insightful comments.
Not only are tanks etc. legal, so are machine guns.
"Obviously I can't be an idiot, as I quite correctly predicted that the usual suspects would fill this thread with intelligent, reasonable and insightful comments."
haha.. that was awesome. Let that soak in for a min. Craig. Your analytical skills are amazing.
Craig,
Of course you can't be an idiot if it's an idiot calling you an idiot. One must consider the source. Anyone that compares a tank to a car and then dares to call someone else an idiot takes idiocy to a new level. The author was referring to comments made by idiots, who provoke leg tingles in other idiots like Parkie, in which the suggestion was made to make gun regulations more like car regulations, because supposedly there are more for cars than guns. The Parkies of the world just eat that stuff up with no questioning of their own.
In any case, since the suggestion refers to cars, including tanks is idiotic since a tank is no more a car than is a bulldozer. Only an idiot would dare make such a suggestion. Thanks for stepping up, feo.
Further, the idiot in question, feo, has a problem with the Porshe metaphor. The point was obvious. It compares a more powerful car, one that is faster than, say, the Yugo that feo drives, with supposedly more powerful firearms, like any semi-automatic. No one is restricted from owning a faster or more powerful car, so that only the Yugo-type vehicle is their only choice. Faster cars are certainly more dangerous, as they compel more reckless driving behaviors in far too many people.
And then of course there's the insipid Parkie, boy wonder. He has yet to make the connection between his lame "dog shoots man" story and guns being a problem, then he continues to worry about how I research for my posts and comments, as if he ever did a moments research to back up any of his pathetically idiotic comments.
Neither of these Einsteins understands the true point of the article, which is the fruitless and dishonest use of the comparison to compel more gun regulations.
The number of said regulations is always in question. The real issue is what good they do to prevent crime. One source I reviewed said it well, that gun laws are really gun infringements, as they only interfere with the right of the law-abiding to defend themselves according to their own standards and beliefs regarding the best way to do that.
The opinions of hoplophobes are not a rational basis for dealing with violence in our society.
Yep P-arkie,
It takes an amazingly adept analytical mind to predict how intellectual giants such as you, feo and your ilk will respond to something like this.
Hoplophobes of the world unite!
If you want think, Marshall, that a point about licensing is rather a point about cars that's on you.
But to stay with your - and your obtuse avatar's -metaphor, then I could certainly go along with it if you were reasonable consistent:
As long as parking and speed are thrown in, let's throw in a $34,000 price tag for a Remington 870.
This could have the needed dampening effect on gun related deaths this country needs. That and a picture license.
Proving Mr. Kopel less obtuse and more obviously wrong.
"If you want think, Marshall, that a point about licensing is rather a point about cars that's on you."
Good gosh, you are an idiot, aren't you, feo? (Rhetorical question---you've already proven that repeatedly) Kopel's piece is in response to others making the point about matching gun regs to cars. There is nothing consistent about adding tanks to the equation, since tanks are not cars. As regards that, I'd much prefer honesty to consistency and including tanks is neither. But I understand your difficulty with honesty. You've already proven that repeatedly.
And what about price tags? Are you suggesting a gov't influence on automobile prices? That is, are you admitting the affect of gov't regulation on auto pricing? I'll leave gun prices to gun sellers and the effects of market forces/supply and demand.
Furthermore, you continue with the idiocy (or dishonesty, if not a typical mix of both by you and the left) of focusing on "gun related deaths" rather than reducing crime, which is the real issue. There is no epidemic of accidental death involving firearms that has overtaken other accidental deaths, such as traffic accidents. We do not ban cars because of accidental traffic fatalities. We do not ban drugs because of accidental poisonings and overdoses. We do not ban cleaning products because little kids sometimes ingest them. Only an idiot would look to the object involved with accidental deaths rather than the choices and actions of the people involved.
It doesn't matter what object was involved in a death of any kind. All that truly matters is, first, was it murder? If so, the weapon used in inconsequential compared to the character and choices of the perpetrator. If not, the means of death is inconsequential compared to the actions and choices of the victim. This might be difficult for a false priest like you to understand when you're more concerned with trying to impress than find real solutions to the issues for which you claim to have any care. But then, with your head so firmly implanted up your own ass, we can expect no better from you.
To escape LaLa land for a minute, the only justification for denying a 2nd amendment protected, law abiding US citizen from owning a tank is public safety.
The same justification goes for restricting machine guns and assault rifles to the military.
And this stands for whether or not Mr Kopel wants to just park his Bushmaster or drive it.
I don't think you're capable of escaping LaLa Land, feo. In the real world, rational people do not think of tanks when they think of bearing arms. While I have no fear of anyone owning a tank, that is, those who have not shown they are incapable of owning one responsibly, there are issues of practicality that come into play. But hey, it's never been beyond the dishonest to put forth unlikely extremes to argue against more the rational, practical and common.
And it's never been beyond the dishonest to argue against something about which they know so very little, as you continue to do here regarding weapons possession and the criminal mind. In your world, it's the gun that drives criminality rather than the criminal using a gun to further his agenda. In the real world, we concern ourselves with the person, not the tools he uses.
Like Parkie, your attempts at cleverness fall way short. Like Parkie, that's because you are not clever at all.
lol.. marsha.. cant take the heat.
" cant take the heat."
That is funny! Parkie thinking he's brought heat. Well...shit is about 98.6 degrees, so Parkie does bring something akin to heat. But who can "take" heat like that?
Get a clue, loser. You've never brought the type of heat to which you refer, and truly have no right to imagine yourself capable of doing so. But still, anytime you think you can "bring the heat", I'm always here and remain patiently waiting for substance from you. It's really quite easy to be so patient knowing that it'll never come. You are the very definition of "pathetic".
lol.. I wasn't trying to "bring the heat".. but... you cant seem to take it.
Can we please get back to this...
"And what about price tags? Are you suggesting a gov't influence on automobile prices? That is, are you admitting the affect of gov't regulation on auto pricing? I'll leave gun prices to gun sellers and the effects of market forces/supply and demand."
What "heat" is it you believe I can't take? Where have I failed to face whatever it is you call "heat"? Indeed, the fact is that regardless of who has tried, I have always "cooled" any "heat" brought by any of you lefties.
As regards that to which you'd like to return, you have yet to indicate what it is about the quote you find so troublesome. You wanna get back to it, then without your very weak attempts at cleverness, without your unjustified cracks of condescension, with only a cold rendering of your thoughts on the subject, get on back to it. feo suggests a mandated price for a Remington 870. If that is not his suggestion, then he needs to clarify his position. If you think he is being clear, explain it in a manner that rational people would understand. I don't speak "idiot".
Just to recap.. you think guns are regulated more than cars and the govt doesnt influence the price of guns?
Just to recap...No, I don't think guns are more regulated than cars. I don't think cars are more regulated than guns. It wasn't me who brought up the correlation. I merely pointed to one who responded to the stupidity of making such a correlation. Guns and cars are different and to suggest they be treated the same is idiotic. We have a constitutional right to defend ourselves against whomever might hope to attack or oppress us. We have no such right to drive. So what, exactly, is your point with regards to the the quote about pricing? That, too, was not a point of my making. You might want to discuss that with feo at his blog, since he brought it up.
lol.. marsha.. you are the best.
Note how Parkie, who claims I "can't take the heat", refuses yet again to risk an actual, thoughtful and honest answer to my questions. He can't even clarify his comments after my repeated requests that he do so. This isn't even "heat" he can't take, but simple conversation. He must be retarded. He is so worthy of pity.
marsha.. you are not only talking to yourself.. but you are arguing against yourself. Let me know who wins.
"retarded"
wow.. the 21st century is a lllloooonnnnnnngggggg way from your mom's basement.
Oh, I'm sorry. I should have said, "He must be a special needs child." There. That's better, and so 21st century. Whatever label best suits you, Benny, the fact is you're pathetic, a complete coward and a clinical idiot (special needs). "lol" that.
lol..
marsha.. I wish I could say I was shocked at how ignorant you are.
Troll-boy,
I would actually have to be ignorant for that wish to come true. Too bad for you.
I, on the other hand, have no right to be shocked at the fact that you still cannot respond with the level of substantive and thoughtful comment of which your history insists you are incapable. Instead, I am further saddened, though that very same history denies me the right to be so.
But you go ahead and prove your mental dysfunction as you always have. It is crystal clear that you can do no more.
Douche... Have you picked a winner yet?
Just the type of comment we've come to expect from you, Benny. You're so pathetic.
Stuck in the low 30s...
"Stuck in the low 30s..."
Tell me about it! I thought for sure your IQ was at least around 37.
.. said the guy having an argument with himself..
Whatever you say, Parkie. I truly hope you find the help you so desperately need.
Post a Comment