December 24, 2012

David Gregory, neatly tweaked...

... by Drudge (in Christmas colors):



The links are: "Did David Gregory Violate DC Gun Law On National TV?" and "Mocks NRA Chief for Proposing Armed Guards; Sends Kids to High-Security School..."

And here's the transcript for the whole interview. We watched it. Gregory was all heated up, eager to extract his sound bites from LaPierre, in the typical style of recent gun control debates I've seen, like this one between Bob Wright and Jacob Sullum. The one who wants gun control cranks up the emotion, and the gun control opponent stolidly stands his ground.

It's like they intended to make an implicit argument, premised on the question: This is what a human being is like; do you want people to have guns? The gun control advocate models the answer "no" (because people run on emotion and might do unpredictable, regrettable things). The gun control opponent models the answer "yes" (because people are stable and rational).

It's all about control: Do you think people are self-controlled or is government control needed? And now, I see this post is about to bust loose into a much more general set of observations about politics, and I don't want to do that. This is a blog post, the first of the day, and it needs to come to an end. So let me leave you with 3 brief bonus observations:

1. David Gregory was not appearing on "Meet the Press" as a gun control advocate. He's the moderator... some sort of "journalist."

2. If a new federal gun control program includes a buy-back of some newly banned "assault" weapons, it will be like Cash for Clunkers. I hated Cash for Clunkers.

3. The post-Newtown gun control advocates have been emphasizing the gun, rather than the person, on the theory that a person may have murderous impulses but if he doesn't have a gun, he won't be able to do as much damage. But in real life, if you had someone in you midst who was bent on murder, you would not think: Well, at least he doesn't have a gun. If he goes off, what's the worst he can do, maybe 4 or 5 kids, max?

201 comments:

1 – 200 of 201   Newer›   Newest»
Paco Wové said...

I think I see a typo.

"some sort of "journOlist."

There.

Surfed said...

Overheard/read pithy comment - Libs think things cause problems. Conserves think people do.

Paco Wové said...

Liberals don't think. Liberals are a mass of feel.

Ok, I overgeneralize.

Bob Ellison said...

Someone in an earlier comment thread here, I think, suggested that we add to teachers' contracts a little bonus money for obtaining and using CCW permits. That's thinking outside the holster.

cubanbob said...

Gregory sends his kids to a school that has armed guards.
Fortunately for him hypocrisy on gun control isn't a capital crime.

Quayle said...

These 'discussions' are no longer about public policy.

They are about having another stick with which to beat your political opponents.

Notwithstanding:
"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'"

"But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons [and daughters] of your Father in heaven."

"He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous [so that there is never any doubt that any rift in the relationship is solely the choice of only one of the parties.]

Merry Christmas to all.

He is just as harmless to us now as He was when he was a baby in a manger.

mark said...

Gregory, Obama, Bloombery and other typical dumb-ass liberals = "Men and Guns for protecting us and our kids ... you and your kids should just die and be glad they are leading the way to a glorious liberal future".

Pogo said...

I don't think gun control is the the plan; well. It's control per se.

After gun control comes speech control. Undo Citizens United and groups of people lose their ability to speak freely. We are atomized, and ineffectual.

The only thing protecting the first amendment is the second.

This is what fascism looks like.

rhhardin said...

I'd argue it on statistics. Kid killing is a non-problem.

You don't think twice about taking your kid out for pizza, yet his traffic accident death odds are higher than his being in school.

Apparently it's a narrative-worthiness concern.

A study of what a human life is worth found it's about $5, when it comes to donations to saving African children.

In short the audience is entirely dupes for the crisis narrative biz.

ricpic said...

I guess when it comes to his own kids Gregory isn't an egalitarian after all. Whodathunkit?

campy said...

Did David Gregory Violate DC Gun Law

Laws only apply to the little people.

pm317 said...

Apparently his children go to Sidwell Friends, you know that ultra special school where Obama's children go to. His children are more privileged than other children and need to be saved which is why all that security in that, you know, ultra special school. I wonder where would these ultra important people send their mentally ill child to school. It is not impossible that they don't have any.

Some Seppo said...

I've decided to to read every Liberals' pronouncement on gun control by removing the word "gun" and replacing it with the words "abortion" or "free speech".

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Astro said...

Let's be realistic: What private citizen really needs a machine gun? When would you ever use it? If you want one, you should need a license.

And while were at it, let's be also be realistic: What private citizen really needs free speech? Really, how many people ever write a letter to the editor, or to their Congressman, or to their Senator, or for that matter to the President? You want to protest something, get a license.

[/sarc mode switched off]

bagoh20 said...

As usual, the problem is government and the solution is freedom.

If parents choose to allow to have responsibly armed adults in the schools, then they should have it, and if not, they don't. If it's a non-problem then fine, but if kids continue to be gunned down mostly in gun free zones while remaining more safe in the armed schools, then that fact should be available.

Anyone who chooses to send their kids to an armed school, while admonishing such protection for others is an ass, and should be called out for being an evil selfish bastard. That is a unacceptable level of foul for any public personality. Gregory is unfit to be a journalist let alone speak to millions of people on TV. He's simply a jerk, and does not care if your kids die, as long as his are safe and his political bias remains intact. Despicable.

rhhardin said...

Herman Goring, as head of the humane society, did away with evil Jewish scientists.

The narrative is everything.

David Carlson said...

It could of been more - a plane(s) like 9-11, Fertilizer like OKCity. Guns are a convenient foil for politicians.

pm317 said...

See here is the mistake republicans make. Why didn't that NRA guy ask this fucker, where he sent his children to school? Force him say my children are more important than others. Put him on the spot.

Jake Diamond said...

The one who wants gun control cranks up the emotion, and the gun control opponent stolidly stands his ground.

Bwahahahahahahahaha! Althouse and her lemmings become more delusional by the day.

"The gubmint is coming to confiscate our guns!"

Pathetic.

chrisnavin.com said...

I like Barry's offer for LaPierre to be on Biden's blue-ribbon panel of healing and awareness and truth-seeking.

It's the old community organizer tactic of walking down the street with a megaphone and some T.V. cameras and asking LaPierre to meet the sufficiently rabble-roused crowd.

This seems to be Barry's m.o., from Obamacare to berating the Supremes at the State of the Union, to the fiscal cliff debate.

Call out your opponent, and then leverage everything you've got against him.

We're on to you, Barry. No thanks. Keep plugging away at the white, increasingly liberal guilt though and shifting money around. Let me know when we reach peak social justice.

Astro said...

I noticed on Wikipedia he was born in 1970. That's a lot of gray hair on a guy not even 43 years old yet. I figured he was in his 60s.

DADvocate said...

I don't think gun control is the the plan; well. It's control per se.

Absolutely. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool or lying.

I'd argue it on statistics. Kid killing is a non-problem.

Very true. Statistically bicycles and swimming pools are a much bigger problem, as is suicide. Not sure who'll listen to this argument. Of course, the libs won't listen to any argument other than their own. They'll sit there with fingers in their ears, going "Blah, blah, blah, blah, I can't hear you."

Michael K said...

" Astro said...
Let's be realistic: What private citizen really needs a machine gun? When would you ever use it? If you want one, you should need a license."

Is this a joke ?

Did you just arrive from Mars ?

Machine guns have been banned without a very big license since 1934. They have been even less available since 1968.

Gun buyback programs are popular in the inner city. Where else can you sell stolen guns and not worry about getting arrested ?

Tyrone Slothrop said...

As Glenn Reynolds keeps saying, leftist "solutions" have nothing to do with actually alleviating problems. It's all about control.

Firehand said...

First, If a new federal gun control program includes a buy-back of some newly banned "assault" weapons, it will be like Cash for Clunkers.
Except the .gov wouldn't send armed people to arrest you, and kill you if you resisted, for not selling them your clunker.
And let's not pretend otherwise: they can call it a 'forced buyback(how do you 'buy back' something you never had?) but it's still confiscation under threat of force. And a lot of these clowns are quite willing to send someone else(armed and armored to the teeth) to imprison or kill you if you don't go along.


Astro:
The response I'm going more and more with to the 'Why would you NEED such a thing?' is "Screw you, is why"; I'm tired of people thinking any of my rights depend on what they think I NEED.

And for those who don't know, machine guns have been highly regulated since the National Firearms Act of 1934; being in possession of one without that federal permit(and having paid the tax and all) is worth a long federal vacation at taxpayer expense.

chrisnavin.com said...

Barry's like a balloon you see at the Macy's Day Parade. He grows enormous as long as there's white guilt, and racism, and he can stoke the class resentment angle and the race issue and appear to be the healer, the boyfriend, the reasonable man the moderate.

One day, when he's deflated on the ground, we'll probably just see a dog-eared copy of "Community Organizing 101," some pretty confused ideas about how economics works, a lot of promises made to some people against others, and a few more autobiographies written for piligrims to the $35 million mansion in Hawaii.

Firehand said...

Also, for those who think "If we get rid of guns, these killings can't happen':
A: check history.
B: You want a real nightmare? Think what the waste of oxygen behind this crime could've done with a couple of cans of gasoline and a lighter.

phx said...

We're going to see some commonsense gun laws at last. There's no reason for large capacity magazines. I haven't even heard anyone pretend to defend them.

And if we have to put more security guards in our public schools and daycare centers then I want them to be funded by taxing the bejesus out of guns and ammo.

bpm4532 said...

We're entering dangerous territory where laws don't matter. Hell, the constitution won't matter. Obama is intent on destroying Republicans. The typical Chicago pay-for-play extortion will mean that no business will get government work unless they pay tribute to Democrats. The strong message will be sent that in addition to the direct tribute paid to Democrats, companies must not hire employees or work with other companies that don't pay tribute to Democrats. Then will come the acceptance of the once fringe idea that merely to be a conservative or Republican makes you clinically insane, not just immoral and racist. They will use this as the pretext for confiscation of weapons from Conservatives or Republicans, as mentally unstable people aren't slowed to possess firearms. This will then expand to all civilians, because merely to want to possess firearms will be considered a sign of mental instability. The second amendment need not be amended or repealed. You CAN possess arms, but to merely WANT to disqualifies you from doing so

Chuck Currie said...

Timothy McVeigh & Terry Nichols - Oklahoma City, April 19, 1995 - 168 dead, 680 injured. No gun used.

Andrew Kehoe - Bath school, Bath Michigan, 1927 - 45 children died. No gun used.

You don't need a gun to commit mass murder. Just a little ingenuity.

Cheers

William said...

A crazy person's ability to inflict harm increases exponentially when he comes into possession of a firearm. That's just a fact.....How much will the self reliance and independence of a private citizen decrease if his right to bear arms is eliminated.....There's a trade off involved, although the David Gregory side is unwilling to see it..... It's also a fact that the 300 million weapons in the United States will never disappear and some of them will occasionally fall into the wrong hands. It's in society's interests that more of them are in the right hands than otherwise.

edutcher said...

Wasn't it the Gray Lady that was railing against "high capacity" ammo?

If these people weren't so dangerous, they'd be laughable.

And Pogo's right about control.

Jake Diamond said...

The one who wants gun control cranks up the emotion, and the gun control opponent stolidly stands his ground.

Bwahahahahahahahaha! Althouse and her lemmings become more delusional by the day.

"The gubmint is coming to confiscate our guns!"

Pathetic.


Diamond isn't just a fool, he's ignorant.

Jake Diamond said...

Kid killing is a non-problem.

Hmmmm. It certainly is for the victims, their family, friends, and community.

In any case, thanks for that public expression of "compassionate conservatism" from the Althouse crew.

DADvocate said...

people run on emotion and might do unpredictable, regrettable things

People often (usually?) make arguments based on what they see in themselves. Liberals make arguments based on emotion because that's what they react to, re JD's comment at 9:29 AM - pure appeal to emotion.

I'm not sure about the unpredictable part, but the regrettable part for sure. That's why emotional reasoning is strongly advised against in problem solving models. Emotions leads you to do things that you can't afford, have unintended negative consequences, etc. Of course, when you ignore the facts, that's what happens.

Of course, about 6 months ago, I bought my daughter a car based on emotional response. I didn't want to buy that car, but she was looking at me with those big puppy eyes, saying, "Pleeeease, Daddy." I caved and the car is a piece of shit, just like I thought it would be. $1,000 worth of repairs in the first six months.

Jake Diamond said...

Oh hey, edumbshit is here! Let the fun begin!

edumbshit - Why don't you tell us again how all the polls showed Mittens with a 5 point lead a week before the election? And don't forget to completely ignore all of the evidence that shows otherwise!

jr565 said...

Mark wrote:

Gregory, Obama, Bloombery and other typical dumb-ass liberals = "Men and Guns for protecting us and our kids ... you and your kids should just die and be glad they are leading the way to a glorious liberal future".

yes exactly. If its good enough for David Gregory's kids why not my kids? (Not that I have kids, I'm just saying). Are my kids not deserving of an armed guard, but his are? His special kids? Meanwhile my kids should just be herded into a room and pray that a cop with a gun gets there before the shooter blows their heads off, or that the shooter decides to blow his own head off?

Why doesn't LaPierre or another gun advocate confront the liberals making these arguments on their apparent hypocrisy? Get them to either endorse or renounce the position that they or their kids are safer because of the security where they work or go to school. And if they persist in arguing the stupid talking points demand that they renounce their school or workplace for engaging in NRA police state tactics.

How much security does a president really need? And why must they have guns. Give presidential security guns with only three bullets in each clip. Make sure that they have to load one bullet at a time. Or make them forgoe guns altogether and give them a rock.

Jenner said...

Here's my observation on the emotion v. non-emotion arguments: If gun control advocates were really worried about setting off gun owners, they would probably tone down their rhetoric. Why intentionally rile up 4.3 million NRA members?

phx said...

Two reasons why you may not be gaining any traction in this argument:

1) You keep pretending people who want greater gun control are saying it will stop all criminal attacks and fix all your problems (no, they're not).

2) You pretend that they want to take away all your guns (no, they don't, just some of them - large capacity magazines, too).

John Cunningham said...

Thought experiment--guns do not exist on this planet, Lanza the same crazy loon that he is now. what prevents him from taking an ax and machete from the garage, killing his mother, then breaking into the school? a 20-yr old with an ax can do a whole lot of evil in a classroom of 6-yr olds, no?

Jenner said...

I'm against giving any monetary incentive for teachers to arm themselves. That takes away from honest, deeply held principles of self-defense. If anyone wants to be armed, it should only be because they have an undiluted feeling of duty to protect oneself or others in immediate danger.

Jay said...

If a new federal gun control program includes a buy-back of some newly banned "assault" weapons, it will be like Cash for Clunkers.

Obama, Harry Reid, and Pelosi thought Cash for Clunkers was a great idea.

So did the people who vote for those 3 idiots.

Jenner said...

Something I feel that is being overlooked in these discussions is the element of surprise. Sure the shooter has a gun and that must be dealt with, but the other thing these attackers rely on is surprise. They sneak up on their unsuspecting victims. What if those teachers had just a few seconds more notice of what was coming at them? An unarmed volunteer patrol in schools would cripple this essential element in an attack.

jr565 said...

Phx wrote:

We're going to see some commonsense gun laws at last. There's no reason for large capacity magazines. I haven't even heard anyone pretend to defend them.

what would you consider a reasonable capacity? What would stop a shooter from bringing more clips and more smaller guns (which are actually more portable and concealable unlike a rifle) and how long does it take to reload?
Lets say you have ten rounds per clip max. If you bring 4 guns you could potentially get off 40 shots, with only a few seconds switching between guns before having to reload.
If you lower it to 6 bullets for clip, that's still 24 bullets before having to reload.

Reloading is a momentary delay, but its not as if a gunman has to waste a lot of time in between their killing to do it.

Jay said...

You pretend that they want to take away all your guns (no, they don't, just some of them -

It is hysterical you think taking away "some of them" is some sort of good idea.

Jay said...

phx said...
We're going to see some commonsense gun laws at last. There's no reason for large capacity magazines. I haven't even heard anyone pretend to defend them.


you have not one utter clue what constitutes a "large capacity magazine" or what it is or does.

Go fuck yourself you gun grabbing pussy.

Bob Ellison said...

It's high time we had a national discussion about high-magazine ammunition, assault-style wooden stocks, and explosion-propelled bullets. Dick Gregory is right to wave that high-magazine assault clip around, though he should have been a little more careful with it.

phx said...

The third reason you may not be getting any traction in this argument is because you keep pretending gun advocates are "rational" and gun control advocates are the emotional ones.

Jay said...

Phx wrote:

We're going to see some commonsense gun laws at last.


The use of semi-automatic rifles in homicides is statistically insignificant.

You are an ignorant embarrassment.

Hey, remember when the "commonsense" AWB expired and violent crime sky rocketed?

*SNICKER*

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

phx said...
The third reason you may not be getting any traction in this argument


Laugh out loud funny.

You seem to be under some delusion that 8,000 people per day aren't joining the NRA and gun stores can't sell any AR-15's (avg price increase since this shooting: over $500)

You're like opposite guy here. Everything you say is silly bullshit.

bagoh20 said...

The difference is what people want traction on. Liberals want traction getting more control over law abiding citizens, but some of us actually care about kids being safer from the people who don't care what law you pass, which includes every mass killer past and future.

Stop being blinded by politics. You are demonstrating that protecting kids is not really your focus.

Phil said...

Yeah, I remember 1999 when "high-capacity" magazines were illegal, and there were no mass school killings. Oh wait. Something about Columbine?

William said...

I'm not knowledgeable about mass shootings. I try not to read about them. They're all horrible. However, I think I've heard that in a couple of cases the magazine jammed and, at that juncture, the shooter took out another gun and shot himself....If this is true, it's a valid argument for limiting the capacity of the magazine.

AprilApple said...

Cash for clunkers with guns and millions of new felons.
Meanwhile, the criminals remain untouched. Great idea!

Some Seppo said...

phx said...

The third reason you may not be getting any traction in this argument is because you keep pretending free speech advocates are "rational" and free speech control advocates are the emotional ones.


See how easy it is?

Roger J. said...

If I may suggest: were we to eliminate all guns in society, the level of violence will not decrease. There are simply too many ways for a determined killer/psychopath to kill people if they are intent on doing so.

As PHX noted, not all "liberals" are intent on eliminating guns from society, and I agree with his point. The folks interested on doing that are what I call the confiscation nuts. Would someone tell me just how the government could confiscate all guns in society? Just how would this work? I don't see that as a workable solution.

For those in the commutariat who advocate confiscation in the attempt to eliminate all firearms, just how would that work?

Barring confiscation, which I do not see as a reasonable option (there is that nasty 4th amendment), what other solutions are possible? Large capacity magazines, and other "mechanical" fixes are too easily overcome by someone determined to do violence.

The overriding question, IMO, is what freedoms we are willing to forego for precisely what return.

Hunter said...

#74 thing that people who aren't familiar with firearms don't know: super high capacity mags and drums are gimmicks. If you're a psycho mass murderer and you use one it's as likely to jam and screw up your plan entirely as it is to let you kill any more people than you could with a bunch of 10-round mags that might take two whole seconds each time to change and continue firing.

phx said...

If this is true, it's a valid argument for limiting the capacity of the magazine.

Careful William. Your argument is telling numbers of conservative readers that you only care about gaining control over US citizens, and protecting kids is not your focus.

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Phil said...

I also remember the one year anniversary of Columbine, when Bill Clinton proposed - get this - ARMED GUARDS in schools. Provided millions for the initiative, too. But I guess he was just as fucking crazy as LaPierre.

jr565 said...

It's actually scary to me that so many are taking the position that cowering in a room is somehow good protection, but having an armed guard is crazy. It's like they're cows walking right onto the conveyer belt to have their throats cut willingly and docilely.

Bob Ellison said...

William, a little further down that slope lie laws that prohibit making, selling, or owning sharp knives.

Hunter said...

As for Gregory, it's not like the ignorance and hypocrisy are surprising.

It would be fun to see him suffer some legal consequence for violating DC gun laws. Not only for pure schadenfreude (a not inconsiderable benefit) but it would further underscore how incredibly stupid and worthless the laws are.

cryptical said...

phx said...

2) You pretend that they want to take away all your guns (no, they don't, just some of them - large capacity magazines, too).


We've had about 80 years of taking away "just some of them", look how that's worked.

I welcome a national conversation on guns, we can sit down with the pile of failed gun laws your side has incrementally foisted on us and get rid of the ones that don't work.

You don't want to have that conversation, though. You want just a few more compromises to our rights because "we have to do something, it's for the children".

Boiling the frog, it's your playbook.

Jake Diamond said...

You are an ignorant embarrassment.

This from the guy who insists that pregnancy tests can cause pregnancy.

Roger J. said...

We have laws on the books that proscribe murder--but irrespective of the laws, murder happens routinely.

phx said...

@Bob Ellison your argument is worth making and worth debating. The idea that people are unworthy or acting in bad faith simply because of their POV on gun control law is not.

We need a full debate.

jr565 said...

If bill Clinton proposed guards in school, why don't those arguing the point rub the medias nose in it. Stop arguing rational positions with these people. They have to be made to see their hypocrisy on this otherwise they don't get it (they still won't get it, but some people watching it might).
Te next conversation that La Pierre has he should bring up Clinton and ask if the interviewer thinks he's an extremist for proposing the same thing.
Otherwise, libs get to have their cake and eat it too. And we all know the degree to which libs talk out of all sides of their mouth. Don't let them.
Tis is what breitbart was talking about when saying conservatives need to start controlling the narrative and not letting the media get away with their propaganda. The media narrative is self serving bullshit. Show people the self serving bullshit.

shiloh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

As PHX noted, not all "liberals" are intent on eliminating guns from society,

Yet all people intent on confiscating guns from the American population are liberals.

Michael Haz said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Roger J. said...

Jay--re your point, true enough.

shiloh said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael Haz said...

In their zeal to rampage this left-wing agenda, the media has apparently forgotten that back in 2000, on the one-year anniversary of the Columbine shooting (which occurred with an assault weapons ban in place), President Clinton requested $60 million in federal money to fund a fifth round of funding for a program called “COPS in School,” a program that does exactly what the NRA is proposing and the media is currently in overdrive mocking

Read more.

bagoh20 said...

Any of these murderers could have easily hand made a large capacity magazine if it was impossible to find one, or simply reloaded with smaller ones. They nearly always shoot as many people as they want to long before anyone ever gets there to stop them. A smaller capcity magazine would have made no difference whatsoever in these cases.

Facts like that get no traction with the tactical sheep gun haters. First, because they don't know anything about guns, and second because they don't care about any outcome other than controlling law abiding citizens.

They know they are sheep, and they hate the sheep dogs they depend on, because they can't tell the difference between a sheep dog and a wolf, and the sheepdogs remind them of their woolen frightened nature.

EDH said...

Remember when gun control was about ensuring that the police weren't "out-gunned".

That didn't work, evidently. So, now, as Althouse points out, it's about the capacity to kill in large numbers.

But in real life, if you had someone in you midst who was bent on murder, you would not think: Well, at least he doesn't have a gun. If he goes off, what's the worst he can do, maybe 4 or 5 kids, max?

DADvocate said...

I think I've heard that in a couple of cases the magazine jammed

The case I read about, it was a high capacity magazine that jammed, not a standard capacity. All semi-automatics will jam at some point. In CCW class, they told us know how to clear your gun when it jams, and that it will jam at some point. But, regulating magazines based on probability of jamming doesn't make much sense.

But, an intelligent, well organized killer like James Holmes or Adam Lanza could find a way to kill guns or not.

phx said...

not all "liberals" are intent on eliminating guns from society, and I agree with his point. The folks interested on doing that are what I call the confiscation nuts.

I will fight with you against "confiscation nuts." But unless someone has a persuasive counter-argument, I'm fighting against you on large-capacity magazines.

Jay said...

phx said...

We need a full debate.


Given your level of ignorance and stupidity, you have no interest in any "full debate"

For example, in CT there are background checks, a waiting period, and gun registration. In addition to an "assault weapons ban"

Connecticut is by no means a "gun friendly" state.
The shooter came from an affluent family and had a mother's almost full time attention and was seeing a psychologist.

I guess the abject failure of the policies you support is a virtue for you or something?

You're just a stupid, non-gun owning person, typing silly shit on the Internet.

Lem said...

Why do some banks have armed guards?
Because some people rob banks.
Why do some people rob banks?
Because that’s where the money is.

Why do they have a traffic light at intersections?
Because two cars cannot occupy the same space at the same time.
But why did that guy just ran that red light?
Because there are no cameras and there are no cops around.

But how can a camera catch the guy that runs the red light?
The camera takes a picture for later.
Wouldnt it be better if you put a cop at every intersection?
It would cost too much money. Besides, running a red light is not a big deal...
Its not like robing a bank or shooting up a school?
Its worst.

Running a red light is worse than robbing a bank and shooting up a school?
No comparison... When I was young like you, I ran a red light and it got me in a lot of trouble.
Yea, but you didn't kill anybody.
That's what I told the judge... but he still threw the book at me.

I don't understand... what book are you talking about?
People have short memories... so they have to write everything down.
Doesn't that cost a lot of money... to write everything down?
You are catching on fast... The way we get around not having enough money is we borrow it.

Isn't getting around something like running a red light?
Not when it comes to money... With money, you can borrow more to pay what you already owe.
Is that what they call a bailout?
No... A bailout is when you save jobs.

Wouldn't having a cop at every intersection create jobs?
Yea... but people would get pissed off because they would start getting pulled over.
People dont like cops?
Huh, people like them when they go after other people.

So, that’s why we have cameras at the intersections instead?
Yea... Although some people don't like them because they want privacy.
Whats privacy?
That's when you don't tell anybody your bank account number.

The bank where the borrowed money is that the bank robbers go after?
Yeap.
Why not put a cop at every bank?
Ah... it doesn't look good. Banks want to inspire confidence... armed guards remind people of evil.

But they don't have to remember evil because they write it down.
That's right... You are catching on very well.
But wouldn't a camera do a better job of archiving memory?
Yea… we just have to make sure the cameras are there when something happens.

Like someone running a red light?
That's right.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Liberals and Progressives. Always wanting to make rules to control others and of course, those rules don't apply to them.

Global warming....the peons must live in little hovels, with nasty mercury laden light bulbs, keeping the heat down to sub artic temperatures, drive around in converted golf carts....while the likes of Gore etc revel in gigantic mansions, with indoor green houses and have fleets of gas guzzling limos, SUVs and private jets.

Food. We must be forced to eat low salt, low fat, tasteless crap. Dictated as to the size of portions and amounts of drinks and sodas we are allowed to consume.....while Obama and his hideous wife consume Kobi beef, throw lavish parties and waste hundreds of thousands of dollars on food that the lower classes are denied.

Safety. We should give up any protections that we have. Crush our guns and be denied the 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. Send our children out to be cannon fodder in mythical gun free zones to be sacrificed on the altar of gun control.......while David Gregory and his hypocritical types send "their" children to be protected.

Rules for thee, but not for me. The hypocrisy is staggering. If they had half a brain they would be ashamed of their duplicity. But...they don't and they aren't.

BTW: if they ban guns. I suggest a good compound bow. Win win. Silent. No one knows where you are at when you are shooting...AND the ammo can be reusable. :-D

Roger J. said...

PHX--I would submit that large capacity magazines, however defined, are not the sine qua non, of eliminating the problem. I use a Remington 870 pump action shotgun (not an automatic weapon) and I can assure you can reload the weapon manually in a matter of a few seconds. And were I reloading with double 00 buckshot, I can do one hell of a lot of damage.

phx said...

And as always, those who call their opponents "sheeple" or who make a point of letting others know they keep a well-worn highlighted copy of the Constitution in their back pocket at all times and you don't can be mocked and ignored.

Aridog said...

David Gregory is proof positive why "gun control" of the kind he advocates doesn't work. Some shit-head, like him or worse, will break said law(s) and get away with it. Ring me up when he's arrested for violating the law:

DC High Capacity Ammunition Magazines – D.C. Official Code 7-2506.01 ... (b) No person in the District shall possess, sell, or transfer any large capacity ammunition feeding device regardless of whether the device is attached to a firearm. For the purposes of this subsection, the term large capacity ammunition feeding device ...[snip]... to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

garage mahal said...

The use of semi-automatic rifles in homicides is statistically insignificant.


And we all know what a stats guru you are! Who can forget your skewed polling masterpieces here at Althouse? Legendary, dude.

Jay said...

But unless someone has a persuasive counter-argument, I'm fighting against you on large-capacity magazines.

Hey stupid shit, I have a Sig P226 40S&W and 4 magazines with 10 round capacity. I can eject a magazine, load a new one, and continue firing in 2 seconds.

You really, really have not one utter fucking clue what you're talking about here.

Keep "fighting"

Jay said...

garage mahal said...

Who can forget your skewed polling masterpieces here at Althouse?


I never posted any such thing you fat retard.

DADvocate said...

It's actually scary to me that so many are taking the position that cowering in a room is somehow good protection, but having an armed guard is crazy. It's like they're cows walking right onto the conveyer belt to have their throats cut willingly and docilely.

We all need to learn to willingly and docilely accept whatever fate the government, to which we all belong, deems appropriate to dole out to us. Being willing to sacrifice our lives or the lives of your children is a sign of faith in government that must be displayed. Kind of like Abraham being willing to sacrifice Isaac to God. The left demands that kind of loyalty and belief in government.

Jay said...

garage mahal said...
And we all know what a stats guru you are!


Um,

rifles of any type account for only a fraction of homicides in the United States — of 12,664 murder victims last year, 323 were killed with rifles, according to the F.B.I.’s Uniform Crime Report.


You fucking retard.

Aridog said...

bpm4532 said...

The typical Chicago pay-for-play extortion will mean that no business will get government work unless they pay tribute to Democrats...

I'd really like to agree wholeheartedly with this opinion. While I agree that the Democrats are the masters of crony benefit extortion, they have plenty of Republican company. Look up the no-bid contract awards to Haliburton/Kellog, Brown & Root at the beginning of the Iraq war. Some extended for 5 years as "emergency" acquisitions. NONE were justified by any exigent conditions lasting or even predicted to last more than one year. Republican (and Democrat)"buddies" benefited big time...and much as I liked Bush, as an individual, the institutionalized malfeasance of too large government made him weak.

One very tiny example of the impact: if you were in a forward base in Iraq circa 2004-2005 and needed a DoD approved paper shredder, you could buy one through Defense Logistics Agency for ab out $170...however, you were required to by pass DLA and acquire the the exact same shredder from a Kuwaiti supplier for nearly $1200 IIRC. My Division counter part received a reprimand for using the DLA/DSCP to buy his shredder, saving $$1030 of taxpayer money. DOD and Dept of State both supported the "local" bribes as purchases scenario.

Anyone who thinks this behavior is new or limited to one group is in serious denial. I wish it was otherwise...but it ain't. And I was once part of it...in fact I told my first significant official lie to benefit the powers that be in 1969. The F'ing General I lied for got a fricking medal (from VP Agnew) for the result of the lie. Next time I tried to tell a truth was in 1970 and I nearly got busted for it...so I revised my figures and lied again, for the same asshole General.

Once you are in the "swim" you are stuck in the rip current that is government.


Big Mike said...

David Gregory was not appearing on "Meet the Press" as a gun control advocate. He's the moderator ...

David Gregory is not "moderate," except by the highly skewed standards of Madison, WI. And based on what I've read, he certainly was letting his own opinions get in the way. A true moderator does not do that.

If a new federal gun control program includes a buy-back of some newly banned "assault" weapons, it will be like Cash for Clunkers.

That's certainly been the experience with inner city buy-back programs -- the authorities pay good money for broken guns.

The post-Newtown gun control advocates have been emphasizing the gun, rather than the person, on the theory that a person may have murderous impulses but if he doesn't have a gun, he won't be able to do as much damage.

That seems to be the impulse behind Bob Wright's suggestion that we revert to single action six-shooters like the cowboys of the Old West. Apparently he had never heard about speedloaders. Next he suggests banning speedloaders, not realizing how easy they are to make. Besides, instead of a speedloader you can use a moon clip with ACP ammo. Next he'll propose banning ...

Social liberals need to understand something about gun control that social conservatives need to understand about Roe v. Wade. Those debates are over, and they lost. Did liberals think they'd win them all?

garage mahal said...

I never posted any such thing you fat retard.

Are you sure about that Jay? I seem to recall you going on and on about all the "skewed polls". What do you think, should we take a stroll down skewed poll memory lane?

Surfed said...

Cops in my school have an office. fully armed with a taser and a Glock. Patrols the halls during class changes. One high school down the road (known for the violence of it's student population) has a sub-station on campus with numerous police officers. Their squad cars have shotgun mounts in the front seat. At any given moment here are half a dozen Glocks on patrol in the halls there. And we won't even count the lady teachers with hidden 22 cals in their purses. We wand our students on a weekly basis with armed police escort. America is wayyyyyyy behind our school system. Not even in the same universe as it were.

garage mahal said...

I seem to also recall Jay being a Jobs Truther. Good times. Good times.

harrogate said...

"But in real life, if you had someone in you midst who was bent on murder, you would not think: Well, at least he doesn't have a gun. If he goes off, what's the worst he can do, maybe 4 or 5 kids, max?"

I don't have much of a dog in the fight when it comes to gun laws. Still, just because you wouldn't think it doesn't make it any less true.

Surfed said...

And the RDIF chip controvery? Hahahaha. The students in my school just get up, flip you the finger and go strolling around the campus. We have no idea where they are. Too fast to catch, they just run from you laughing and cursing at you. I wouldn't chase them anyways. What would I do with one if I caught him/her? Better off not to have them in the classroom anyways. But if anything was to happen to one of the little precious teenagers as they're running around campus expect a lawsuit and a payoff. Anyways our school system doesn't suspend kids for skipping class. Why reward them with a get out of school pass for free?

Richard Fagin said...

"Well, at least he doesn't have a gun. If he goes off, what's the worst he can do, maybe 4 or 5 kids, max".....

Yeah, tell that to the victims of homemade bombs.

Marshal said...

Phx wrote:

We're going to see some commonsense gun laws at last


Revealing that phx doesn't consider prohibiting automatic weapons commonsense gun control. One wonders why he's so focused on the (by comparison) miniscule effect of magazine capacity.

Aridog said...

Roger J. said...

... I would submit that large capacity magazines, however defined, are not the sine qua non, of eliminating the problem. I use a Remington 870 pump action shotgun (not an automatic weapon)....

I'll one-up you on the shotgun. My old reliable Model 12 Winchester 12 Ga. pump shotgun reloads just as fast as your Remington, BUT it will fire all loaded rounds with a single trigger pull! :-))

[pssst: those who've used Model 97's and Model 12's know that all you have to do is cycle the "pump" action slide...the hammer will fall each time the bolt locks up so long as you've not released the trigger from the first shot.]

Rusty said...

phx said...
We're going to see some commonsense gun laws at last. There's no reason for large capacity magazines. I haven't even heard anyone pretend to defend them.

And if we have to put more security guards in our public schools and daycare centers then I want them to be funded by taxing the bejesus out of guns and ammo.



Why 30 round magazines? Why not 20 or ten?

I'd much rather see armed parents patrolling school grounds. It's their kids after all.

What you tax you get less of. There is already a special tax on firearms and ammunition. Wanna guess what it's for.

Besides. I've made my own firearms and load my own ammunition.

You claim to want a reasoned dialog, but I'm not seeing any here.

bagoh20 said...

It's perfectly indicative of the lack of any good arguments on anything that regardless what subject is being discussed, the leftists here invariably lose the argument and let you know it by resorting to reminding you how their guy won the election, and since yours lost, you can't possibly be right, even when it looks like you are even to them. I guess it soothes them to rub that Obama poster in their bedroom everyday.

phx said...

Revealing that phx doesn't consider prohibiting automatic weapons commonsense gun control. One wonders why he's so focused on the (by comparison) miniscule effect of magazine capacity.

Because I haven't made up my mind on prohibiting assault weapons.

garage mahal said...

A few of Jay's greatest hits:

"So in other words, if you believe these polls, you believe Democrats will exceed their 2008 turnout"

"If that is true, Obama will only get about 220 electoral votes.

"If you actually think Obama is getting 300 electoral votes, you need your head examined."

"He's [Nate Silver] a 1 hit wonder who is pretending the 2008 turnout model is still valid."

"Want to guess what the samples were in that poll, gullible idiot?"

"Florida’s 2008 exit poll when Obama won by 5 percentage points: Dem +4.
Quinnipiac/NYT Florida poll today — Dem +9"

"I love the fact that machine, garage, and shiloh think that Obama, who ran in 2008 as this post-partisan uniter, is going to run this great campaign against a "do nothing" Speaker of the House"

"Oh well, the whole RV model was fun while it lasted.

Maybe Nate Silver will "dig deeper" and find Obama with a 90% chance of winning now."

My favorite:
"This will be a bloodbath on par with what happened to Mondale..."

Bruce Hayden said...

We're going to see some commonsense gun laws at last. There's no reason for large capacity magazines. I haven't even heard anyone pretend to defend them.

Love that phrase "common sense". Who could argue against it? But, it turns out that most such "common sense" solutions are such because vital facts are ignored.

So, is a limit on magazine size is probably not "common sense"?

- advocates have been unable to show that such would have saved a single life, esp. in mass shootings, where the perps just bring more, smaller magazines.
- higher capacity magazines are more likely to cause gun jamming. Not good for the shooters.
- apparently, one can get very fast at switching magazines by practicing before a mirror.
- likely quarter of a billion or more "high capacity" magazines in private hands in this country. Or, if that estimate is high, at least north of a hundred million.
- they are easy to create, or to convert in the garage or workshop from a smaller magazine by adding an extension and a different spring.

hombre said...

The post-Newtown gun control advocates have been emphasizing the gun, rather than the person, on the theory that a person may have murderous impulses but if he doesn't have a gun, he won't be able to do as much damage.

I lived overseas for a time in a country with strict gun control. People who went on rampages did so with hatchets, "tomahawks," swords and machetes. It is unlikely that the result would have been much different if Adam Lanza had been armed with a hatchet and had the same intent.

(Yes, I know. "Rational" liberals assume gore will deter a homocidal maniac. Not so.)

Bob Ellison said...

phx, it really is a challenge to define "assault weapon". There's no useful way to do so.

Gun advocates don't want everyone to have nukes. But gun-control advocates seem to want to eliminate guns. You say you don't, and I believe you, but what about DC? What about Chicago, or Camden?

At some point, gun-control advocates should at least look at the stats and admit the clear inverse relationship between gun control (at the tight level currently advocated) and violent crime, whether committed with guns or not.

Marshal said...

phx said...
Revealing that phx doesn't consider prohibiting automatic weapons commonsense gun control. One wonders why he's so focused on the (by comparison) miniscule effect of magazine capacity.

Because I haven't made up my mind on prohibiting assault weapons.


Automatic weapons, not "assault weapons".

Aridog said...

phx said...

And if we have to put more security guards in our public schools and daycare centers then I want them to be funded by taxing the bejesus out of guns and ammo.

Can't resit, 'casue you said it twice...but I tried. Really, I did.

How about we tax the parents, directly, of the little precious kid-lets in schools and day care...those who insist we have armed protection for their spawn?

Actually, that's rhetorical...in many areas, as already mentioned here, the schools do have armed certified police officers on patrol...in most cases paid for by property & school taxes paid by everyone, breeders or not.

Your theory is taken as tongue and cheek by me...because if applied to beer and booze, vis a vis deaths caused by alcohol impairment, to fund highly intensified enforcement of the laws, a six-pack might cost $100 and my favorite cognac would be out of reach except for Warren Buffet.

I like straw man positions now and then :-)

edutcher said...

Jake Diamond said...

Oh hey, edumbshit is here! Let the fun begin!

edumbshit - Why don't you tell us again how all the polls showed Mittens with a 5 point lead a week before the election? And don't forget to completely ignore all of the evidence that shows otherwise!


The man made of dumbshit wants to make a fool of himself, who am I to stop him?

And, yes, all the major polls had him ahead - Ras, Gallup. As we all remember.

But where's the man made of dumbshit rebutting my point about his moronic and puerile attempt to denigrate the Lefties wanting to confiscate firearms?

C'mon, moron, what do you think (I use the term loosely) about Andy Cuomo's threat? After all, he's only the most likely nominee next time (if he can make people forget how he screwed up Sandy).

Lessee, what stupid things did you say?

Bwahahahahahahahaha! Althouse and her lemmings become more delusional by the day.

"The gubmint is coming to confiscate our guns!"

McTriumph said...

Who does David Gregory think is going to protect his family when the shit hits the fan, when civil society breaks down? It may if we continue to lie to ourselves, Homeland Security plans for it. Mr. Gregory and his ilk will be shocked to learn the cops are at home protecting their own families. Credentials and being invited to the right cocktail parties are going to mean shit.

Bob Ellison said...

There's a simpler way to curtail gun violence, and it doesn't conflict with the 2nd Amendment:

Tax gun violence.

That will obviously make shooters think twice.

Tim said...

phx said...

"We're going to see some commonsense gun laws at last. There's no reason for large capacity magazines. I haven't even heard anyone pretend to defend them."

Really?

Do you realize all of the heroin and cocaine used in the US is imported, illegally?

Do you have any idea how many foreign manufacturers of semi-automatic rifle magazines there are?

Do you think making "large capacity magazines" (definition, please?) illegal will really restrict their use, especially among the criminal classes?

Or, is it your real intention to create a black market in "large capacity magazines"?

Regardless, please explain your "common sense" gun laws and how, based on historic examples and what guns will remain legal under your "common sense" gun laws, Americans and their children will be safer. Please compare these "common sense" gun laws with existing gun laws in Connecticut.

Big Mike said...

Because I haven't made up my mind on prohibiting assault weapons.

You're too late. Proper assault weapons have the ability to fire on full automatic -- that is to say, as long as the trigger is held down the gun keeps firing until the magazine is empty or the shooter releases the trigger. Such weapons have been banned since 1934. Note that this has not stopped inner city gangs from acquiring such weapons.

I don't own a magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle, so I have no skin in the "lets ban 30 round magazines" game. But FWIW, phx, go on YouTube and watch people change out empty magazines -- it takes less than a second. If the Newtown shooter had three 10-round magazines instead of one 30, it would have made no difference whatsoever.

DADvocate said...

garage - I see decided to defile the memory of the great Ray Nitschke. Shameful.

When I was in high school, Bob Johnson (center for the Bengals, drafted #2 in the 1968 draft, the first Bengal) came and spoke to the FCA. He talked about playing against Ray Nitschke as something you survived, not won.

Bruce Hayden said...

My problem with Gregory, along with many on the left, is that they seem to think that their lives and families are more important than most everyone else's. They push laws that would make life more dangerous for most, but not for them, because they are so special.

I think that it was the height of arrogance and conceit to go so openly violate DC gun laws on national TV, while pushing for more strict laws - that would apply to everyone else, but obviously not him and his type of people.

One problem with socialism and other forms of collectivism is that while everyone is supposed to be equal, some are much more equal, and they tend to be the ones with the best connections. Gregory is of this mind, as is Sen. Feinstein, pushing new gun legislation, while being having long carried a concealed weapon herself. But, then, so are most of those pushing gun control measures in D.C., NYC, CA, etc., with one standard for most everyone, and another one for special people like themselves.

shiloh said...

Jay said...

I love that these losers are now reduced to saying you "Need to read Nate Silver, he cuts through the bullshit"

It must be so hard being a liberal needing that blanket of lies to keep you warm & toasty...

10/16/12 10:56 AM


Indeed, as Jay's eloquence is always appreciated. As well as several other astute Althouse con prognosticators in the referenced thread.

>

Here's another thread re: Althouse con's imaginary skewed polls.

Jay said...

Nice strawman you got going there.

But, since you're like super duper knowledgeable about polls and stuff, why don't you tell us the value of polls which assume 8% more Democrats than Republicans are going to turnout and vote in November?

Why, it is almost as if you attacking strawmen allows you to avoid those questions or something.

10/2/12 12:27 PM

Jay said...

is that they are "oversampling" Democrats. If you actually believe that argument -- which is in fact bogus

Actually, your statement is bogus and frankly, retarded.

10/2/12 12:28 PM


>

During the campaign, conservatives embraced a theory that polls were skewed, based on the thought that the electorate could not possibly lean as heavily Democratic as it did in 2008. In the end, though, the party ID makeup in 2012 was 38 percent Democratic, 32 percent Republican and 29 percent Independent, almost identical to 2008's 39-32-29 split.

>

But hey, these fools pied piper was also a delirious, true believer!

My observation of the entire scene tells me Romney will have a decisive win.

Merry Christmas!

Humperdink said...

What "moderator" (gag) David Gregory demonstrated, unwittingly of course, was just how it easy it was to obtain an illegal 30 round clip. He will not go to the pokey, but it will be enjoyable watching him do the 2-step for a brief moment.

Ridicule is best form of punishment.

edutcher said...

The little asshole has yet to tell us where he (she) was hiding the month Romney was winning, but he's (she's) now so sure Ned Silver was right.

Ned Silver doesn't cut through anything, he spreads it, like the rest of the Gray Lady.

But I notice he (she) doesn't want to talk about the Lefties and their real motives (and ignorance) in the gun grab.

I also see somebody hit him (her) up with a little Prozac so he's (she's) out of Diamond mode.

Wassamatta, the head troll think you were going to make an ass of yourself one more time?

Bruce Hayden said...

Big Mike - a couple of nits.

The NFA of 1934 doesn't actually ban fully automatic weapons, but rather heavily regulates and taxes them. Also, it isn't limited to fully automatic weapons, but also applies to, for example, the more recent M-16 versions that selectively fire 3 round bursts - because 3 > 1 (which is the definition of semi-automatic). Of course, since the M-16 was developed decades after enactment of the NFA, the weapon has never been unregulated in this country.

Pretty much any fully automatic weapon in the hands of gangs or criminals in this country was acquired illegally - most likely through smuggling, mostly from Mexico (and, often the same guns we gave their police and military), but on rare occasion theft. Mexican smugglers who routinely ship containers containing drugs (and humans) into this country have little problem getting guns in too. And, while pretty much all guns are illegal in that country (as we found out recently with Jon Hammar), fully automatic weapons are widely available for the right price.

garage mahal said...

garage - I see decided to defile the memory of the great Ray Nitschke. Shameful.

Not sure about Nitschke's politics, but Vincent Thomas Lombardi was a proud union supporting member of the Wisconsin Democratic Party.

The Packers are owned by the people.

The Bears are owned and run by right wing losers.

Nuff said.

Aridog said...

Bruce Hayden at 11:16 AM...

Thread winner.

This special mindset is really what this is all about. Everything else is: "Oh, look ... SQUIRREL!"

shiloh said...

Althouse #1 doting, trained pet seal ~ want to personally wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year as it's the christian thing to do.

No hard feelings for my (64) year old foolish/clueless curmudgeon!

Astro said...

HEY -- Don't you people understand the "/sarc off" note?
I was being sarcastic (and even telling you I was being sarcastic) - to make the point that citizens have a right to own guns (even, imho, machine guns) -- it's as much a right as free speech. Full stop.

I fully agree with what Jacob Sullum said the other day in that Blogginheads video.

I saw a comment the other day that a lot of people (reacting to the Newtown massacre) think we need a ban on 'assault rifles' -- these people being blithely unaware that Connecticut already has such a ban in place. -- Thus, asking for a useless ban which would have had no bearing on the massacre anyway.

Humperdink said...

Gregory's performance for his progressive buddies on NBC was impressive. That is, until he realizes there will be more people that will read about his hypocrisy on Drudge and other websites than watch his program.

Tank said...

Bruce Hayden said...
My problem with Gregory, along with many on the left, is that they seem to think that their lives and families are more important than most everyone else's. They push laws that would make life more dangerous for most, but not for them, because they are so special.

I think that it was the height of arrogance and conceit to go so openly violate DC gun laws on national TV, while pushing for more strict laws - that would apply to everyone else, but obviously not him and his type of people.

One problem with socialism and other forms of collectivism is that while everyone is supposed to be equal, some are much more equal, and they tend to be the ones with the best connections. Gregory is of this mind, as is Sen. Feinstein, pushing new gun legislation, while being having long carried a concealed weapon herself. But, then, so are most of those pushing gun control measures in D.C., NYC, CA, etc., with one standard for most everyone, and another one for special people like themselves.


Animal House.

Again.

Duh.

PS Well put sir.

Cedarford said...

The problem is the nexus of mentally diseased people saturated in violence porn with access to guns.

1. It is similar to the nexus of nutty jihadis immersed in martyrdom porn with easy access to fertilizer. No person but a total idiot is talking about ending terrorist bombs by taking fertilizer off the market for everyone - just stopping the Jihadi from getting it - or going out and proactively killing the hate-mongers like al Awlaki.

2. Similarly, no one is talking about the "compelling need" to ban everyone from violence porn..or limiting cop shows to one killing per hero cop per season, one Quentin Tarantino violence porn flick per 8 years, and video game porn to video game proxy murderers 'action characters" to only play with video guns that have 10 rounds per clip and no more assault weapons on video games because it makes psychos want them...

3. Media will only mention guns ...because they are making 10s of billions off violence porn each year...and all of them line up to claim that unlike the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment is a Sacred Thing that cannot be "trammled". Especially when huge revenues could be lost..not just the fictional games and violence porn TV and movie fare ...but all those ratings gained from milking every "senseless tragedy" for all it is worth until producers see that after days of garbage speculation, tedious heroes and healing spiels...and immortalizing the deranged asshole with absolutecsaturation bombing of the public with his name, picture, details of his life, and any writings, artwork or video product of the psycho they can get, use, and exploit for ratings, they will do.

Maguro said...

Animal House? I think you mean Animal Farm.

Unless there was some kind of political/philosophical subtext that I missed in the classic Belushi film.

shiloh said...

Seven years of college down the drain ...

Tank said...

Ha. Maguro is right.

OK, back off the eggnog and spread em.

Big Mike said...

@Bruce, you are correct. But I was trying to make basic points for phx.

I see garage and shiloh are trying desperately to hijack the thread. Please don't feed the trolls. @garage, and @shiloh, not up to your usual standard for thread-hijacking.

edutcher said...

shiloh said...

Althouse #1 doting, trained pet seal ~ want to personally wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year as it's the christian thing to do.

She doesn't know about being Christian, including the fact it's capitalized.

No hard feelings for my (64) year old foolish/clueless curmudgeon!

Hey, I'm not the one who never backs up his (her) statements. I'm not the one who's afraid to rebut anything.

Running around saying, "Nyah, Nyah, I won. Ned Silver said so!", isn't something I do, but it's certainly foolish and clueless, so I guess it's all yours.

edutcher said...

PS Did the little moron really copy down all our comments about the campaign?

If so, that's a sick puppy.

I can believe he slips into Diamond mode when the meds start to fade.

Tank said...

Ya know, I haven't read Animal Farm in a looooooong time, but I don't have to, because idjits like Gregory remind me about it every day. They always have great ideas/plans for "the people."

garage mahal said...

I see garage and shiloh are trying desperately to hijack the thread.

Big Mike had some curious presidential predictions as well!

315 EV's for Romney if I recall correctly. Heck, we all make really crazy predictions though from time to time that don't reflect reality.

hombre said...

Why should we be receptive to incursions on our 2nd Amendment rights at a time when police departments are buying drones and riot gear and civilian agencies of the federal government are buying millions of rounds of ammunition? (The government's demand for ammunition from Federal Cartridge Co. is so great that WalMart and others cannot supply Federal ammunition to civilian buyers.)

There is evidence suggesting that the government's anticipated response to a large scale civil emergency is to preserve itself by controlling us rather than by taking steps to prepare to provide aid to its citizens. Sandy also provides evidence for governmental inadequacy during an emergency.

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set.

We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
Barack Obama, 07/02/2008

phx said...

PS Did the little moron really copy down all our comments about the campaign? = You mean someone wants to hold me accountable for my bullshit?

hombre said...

Garage wrote: ...but Vincent Thomas Lombardi was a proud union supporting member of the Wisconsin Democratic Party.

It's doubtful that would be true today.

I was an active Democrat for most of my adult life. No more. To borrow a phrase, today's Democrats are "America's termites."

somefeller said...

PS Did the little moron really copy down all our comments about the campaign? = You mean someone wants to hold me accountable for my bullshit?

Yeah, that and basic research tools like Google (particularly its more specific search settings) can really confound some people and cause them to sputter. Particularly if they are already prone to sputtering and being confounded.

Rusty said...

phx said...
Revealing that phx doesn't consider prohibiting automatic weapons commonsense gun control. One wonders why he's so focused on the (by comparison) miniscule effect of magazine capacity.

Because I haven't made up my mind on prohibiting assault weapons.


"Assault weapons" are already prohibited without BATFE permission.The weapon allegedly used at Sandy Hook was a semiautomatic rifle. If you want a dialog on this you should understand the terms.

You know , of course, that prohibition just creates black markets.

One sure way to get an American to buy something is to tell him he can't have it.


Big Mike said...

315 EV's for Romney if I recall correctly. Heck, we all make really crazy predictions though from time to time that don't reflect reality.

There have been numerous articles published since the election describing the data mining that Obama's campaign engaged in. Outstanding mathematical work, in a terrible cause. But I'm a pretty fair expert in Big Data Analytics myself, and starting after the first of the year to meet with Republicans to provide them with the same capabilities.

Thanks for the motivation, garage.

shiloh said...

"You mean someone wants to hold me accountable for my bullshit?"

Indeed, as Oct. was a fact free month at Althouse for her 90/10 con flock. Just like any other month ...

edutcher said...

It was also a shiloh free month once Choom got his ass kicked.

Michael said...

What kind of dumb motherfucker types away about election polls months after an election? As the progs are wont to say: sad.

Jay said...

Jay said...

But, since you're like super duper knowledgeable about polls and stuff, why don't you tell us the value of polls which assume 8% more Democrats than Republicans are going to turnout and vote in November?


I like how this is supposed to be some sort of indictment on me.

Note that the polls were wrong in that Obama won by a tiny margin, and you and your dipshit friends couldn't answer the question.

So of course you're drooling all over yourself.

Idiot.

Jake Diamond said...

BTW: if they ban guns. I suggest a good compound bow. Win win. Silent. No one knows where you are at when you are shooting.

Yet another Althouse lemming who desperately needs a mental health check.

phx said...

Yet another Althouse lemming who desperately needs a mental health check.

I didn't take the time to see who said it, but yup. I don't worry about most gun owners, but some of them....

Four firefighters shot in another mass shooting in upstate NY this morning. Two are dead. Firefighters for God's sake.

Jake Diamond said...

Hey stupid shit, I have a Sig P226 40S&W and 4 magazines with 10 round capacity. I can eject a magazine, load a new one, and continue firing in 2 seconds.

What we know about Jay:

1. He's stupid
2. He has anger management problems
3. He's armed

Does anyone else see a problem with this combination?

shiloh said...

"It was also a shiloh free month once Choom got his ass kicked."

Oops !!!

Althouse, please give you #1 lemming a Christmas hug! TIA

shiloh said...

"dumb motherfucker"

Michael, please try to control your anger ...

shiloh said...

Althouse, please give Jay a hug also ...

edutcher said...

Try again, asshole, Romney was up 5 going into the final week.

You should know, you hid out the second Zero got his ass kicked in the first debate.

Ooops!

Jake Diamond said...

Hey, I'm not the one who never backs up his (her) statements.

Oh really? That's great, edumbshit! You can finally go ahead and link to those polls that showed Mittens up by 5 in the week before the election. I've only been waiting a week or so.

Jake Diamond said...

The use of semi-automatic rifles in homicides is statistically insignificant.

I am SHOCKED to discover that Althouse lemmings don't understand the concept of statistical significance.

shiloh said...

Althouse, your con lemmings don't appear to be in the Christmas spirit. Go figure!

Michael said...

Shiloh. "dumb motherfucker"

Michael, please try to control your anger ..."


They always self identify. You cannot stop them from stepping to the plate. Har and LOL. LOL. Har.

edutcher said...

Jake Diamond said...
Hey, I'm not the one who never backs up his (her) statements.

Oh really? That's great, edumbshit! You can finally go ahead and link to those polls that showed Mittens up by 5 in the week before the election. I've only been waiting a week or so.


You haven't been waiting except for the lithium to stop dripping.

All you have to do is go to Rasmussen or Gallup. If you can spell.

The use of semi-automatic rifles in homicides is statistically insignificant.

I am SHOCKED to discover that Althouse lemmings don't understand the concept of statistical significance.


More of the man made of dumbshit's bluster. Care to specify your expertise?

Aridog said...

Ah yes, this thread has evolved ...no surprise.

edutcher said...

shiloh said...



It's called exorcism. Evil must be cast out.

Btw, do you still think it's funny so many little kids were killed this close to Christmas?

Dan Osborne said...

I highly recommend Larry Correia's writeup on Gun Control. It addresses and debunks PHX's magazine capacity restriction quite well. In fact it should be required reading for any legislator talking about confiscating guns. Link below.

http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/an-opinion-on-gun-control/

Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...


I am SHOCKED to discover that Althouse lemmings don't understand the concept of statistical significance


I think you should continue to show us how you just make these silly, dipshit comments as if they are conclusive of anything other than what a silly, dipshit you are.

hombre said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

Jake Diamond said...

I am SHOCKED to discover that Althouse lemmings don't understand the concept of statistical significance


Prove it, assclown.

Go ahead, we're all eagerly awaiting your "facts" yet again.

Jake Diamond said...

All you have to do is go to Rasmussen or Gallup.

Ok, so you refuse to link to a source to back up your claim. Hey, wasn't that just what you were accusing someone else of doing?

Once again edumbshit proves that he's a dunce.

hombre said...

"What kind of dumb motherfucker types away about election polls months after an election?"

If you are a moral relativist, principles mean nothing. Winning elections is the ultimate "moral" victory for a progressive sociopath.

After an election victory, all threads become congratulatory daisy chains for them.

Jake Diamond said...

By the way, edumbshit, I've checked Rasmussen and Gallup polls and neither show Mittens ahead by five in the week before the election.

And another thing... When you originally made your claim, it was that ALL the polls showed Mittens ahead by 5 in the week before the election. So even after backtracking, you're still wrong. And stupid.

Happy Holidays, edumbshit.

Jake Diamond said...

After an election victory, all threads become congratulatory daisy chains for them.

Congratulations sane people!

shiloh said...

"daisy chains for them."

No, but makin' fun of Althouse, self-righteous clueless, con lemmings can be fun ...

but as w/most realities, diminishing returns finally kicks in as playin' w/delusional folk has it's limits.

Jake Diamond said...

Seriously, none of the other Althouse lemmings are concerned that someone as mentally unstable, emotionally fragile, and tempermentally unpredictable as Jay has guns?

Jake Diamond said...

edumbshit? Where are those links?







*crickets*

hombre said...

"...playin' w/delusional folk has it's limits."

You mean delusions like:

The 2nd Amendment exists and bestows an individual right to own firearms;

Our government provided the kind of weapons progressives want banned to murderous Mexican Drug lords;

A $16 trillion plus deficit will seriously disadvantage our children and grandchildren;

Democrats plan to keep increasing that debt;

The President has no plan to reduce unemployment and "fix" the economy and "gun control" is just another in a series of red herrings;

etc., etc.

You mean delusions like those, Sociopath?

T J Sawyer said...

When does somebody turn to one of these idiots and say, "That magazine is made from sheet metal and springs." Just how would you ban its existence in a country with 150,000 unionized sheet metal workers, god knows how many un-unionized sheet metal workers and millions of hobbyists and inventors with tools?"

phx said...

Seriously, none of the other Althouse lemmings are concerned that someone as mentally unstable, emotionally fragile, and tempermentally unpredictable as Jay has guns?

The thing about Althouse cons, they're comfortable with the elephant in the room.

hombre said...

"A $16 trillion plus deficit....," at 1:17, should read:

"A $16 trillion plus debt...."

bagoh20 said...

Being wrong on everything before or since for decades, they did guess one right in the election 2 months ago.

I guess we can't blame them for hanging on to that for as long as possible. Kind of like winning that bet of licking the frozen sign post. Yep, you did it alright. Congratulations.

I bet most lefty resumes now end with "I predicted the Obama win in November 2012, so you know I'm really smart."

Bob Ellison said...

You lefties here are starting to sound like Dana Carvey's Church Lady.

shiloh said...

"Being wrong on everything before or since for decades"

May bagoh20's continual, inane con generalizations be fruitful and multiply in the comin' year at Althouse.

Speaking of being wrong about everything, Obama is currently at 57/37 Gallup job approval, whereas Bush43 was at 25/71 Oct. 10-12, 2008.

Wrong indeed, as 71% job disapproval is was the highest in Gallup history!

And Willard wanted to double down on Bush43's incompetence/ineptitude! What's not to like!

That's the ticket!

Althouse, please give bagoh a hug also ...

shiloh said...

And the Boehner "led" congress is at 11/81 = ((( 70% ))) disapproval.

blessings

Jake Diamond said...

A $16 trillion plus deficit will seriously disadvantage our children and grandchildren;

Dude! Deficits don't matter! How could you forget the words of your hero so easily?

Dan Osborne said...

Jake Diamond said...

A $16 trillion plus deficit will seriously disadvantage our children and grandchildren;

Dude! Deficits don't matter! How could you forget the words of your hero so easily?


Its amazing how that one incorrect comment from Cheney has after all these years given the left such license. Increasing the debt from 10 trillion to 16 trillion in 4 years is justified. Sorry, off topic but Jake its ruination of the country and I wish we all would own up to it.

Sam L. said...

So if I have a machete, how many people can I hack to death? Works in Africa, I've read.

bagoh20 said...

"Obama is currently at 57/37 Gallup job approval"

"Despite the past trouble, Smith was again appointed to be in command of the newest ship in the Olympic class when the RMS Titanic left Southampton for her maiden voyage." ~ wikipedia

Jake Diamond said...

Its amazing how that one incorrect comment from Cheney has after all these years given the left such license.

Uh huh. Reaganomics produced huge deficits. Bushonomics (recycled Reaganomics) produced huge deficits. Mittens proposed returning to the policies of Bush (tax cuts, anyone?).

Republicans have lost all credibility on the subject of fiscal discipline.

DADvocate said...

The Packers are owned by the people.

As all NFL teams should be in my book. I remember watching the Packers back then. Truly a classic football team. Nitschke banging his head on the walls to get in the spirit of then game. Great coach, although he had his faults off the field.

edutcher said...

Some phony folksy and his sockpuppets must be afraid of something. Consider all the drivel...

Jake Diamond said...

By the way, edumbshit, I've checked Rasmussen and Gallup polls and neither show Mittens ahead by five in the week before the election.

The man made of dumbshit lies anytime the facts go against him, what else is news?

And another thing... When you originally made your claim, it was that ALL the polls showed Mittens ahead by 5 in the week before the election. So even after backtracking, you're still wrong. And stupid.

No, stupid is resorting to invective without cause.

And that's the man made of dumbshit.

But what do expect form our own combo if Ed Schultz and Bob Beckel?

shiloh said...

Speaking of being wrong about everything, Obama is currently at 57/37 Gallup job approval, whereas Bush43 was at 25/71 Oct. 10-12, 2008.

Yeah, and this was the guy who was at 47 most of the year. Couldn't have anything to do with Axelrod & Co leaning on Gallup.

Wrong indeed, as 71% job disapproval is was the highest in Gallup history!

Stick around, Choom's got flexibility now.

And Willard wanted to double down on Bush43's incompetence/ineptitude! What's not to like!

Yeah, Dubya brought the economy back from the mess Willie left and gutted Al Qaeda.

Last I looked we're looking at the fiscal cliff and massive taxation come January.

shiloh said...

Althouse, it appears your #1 doting, trained pet seal is in need of a group hug, stat.

Then you may proceed w/a full scale (5) stages of grief intervention!

hombre said...

Jake wrote: "'A $16 trillion plus deficit will seriously disadvantage our children and grandchildren;'

Dude! Deficits don't matter! How could you forget the words of your hero so easily?"

Didn't notice the correction at 1:39, eh, sociopath. My hero? Have I identified a hero?

edutcher said...

Why does the little asshole always beg Althousian intercession when I hit him with stuff he can't answer?

Go on, moron, tell us about how swell things are. Tell us about how sales are down 43% from last year.

Tell us how nobody is hiring.

C,mon, tell us.

hombre said...

shiloh wrote: "And the Boehner "led" congress is at 11/81 = ((( 70% ))) disapproval."

There are only elections and polls. There is no reality. There was no "Fast and Furious"; no $16 trillion debt; no Benghazi incompetence; no missing Senate budgets; no broken Obama promises; no unemployment; etc.

Progressive sociopathic trolls.

Jake Diamond said...

Hmmm. Still no links from edumbshit. I wonder why.

So here's my Christmas present for edumbshit:

"In the Rasmussen presidential tracking poll Mitt Romney had a lead of 2 points. President Obama was at 47% compared to 49% for Romney... Rasmussen Reports released their presidential tracking poll this morning, Tuesday, October 30, 2012."

Once again, edumbshit's wrong. And a dunce.

Stay tuned for edumbshit's next bout of denial.

edutcher said...

Jake Diamond said...

Hmmm. Still no links from edumbshit. I wonder why.

Took the Blonde out for lunch and then we put up the Christmas tree. Don't you wish you had a life?

Once again, edumbshit's wrong. And a dunce.

Stay tuned for edumbshit's next bout of denial.


For sdomebody who expects us to believe his unsupported (not to mention imbecilic) word, the man made of dumbshit thinks we're impressed.

OK, a couple of articles from

the beginning of October and
the end.

Waiting for the weaselling.

Jake Diamond said...

Does edumbshit really think that the beginning of October is "a week before the election?" And the Gallup Poll referenced in the linked LA Times article shows Obama and Mittens tied. Seriously, how brain damaged do you have to be to think that a poll taken a month before the election that shows a tie is evidence that Mittens led by 5 points a week before the election?

At edumbshit's second link, poll results TWO weeks prior to the election are reported; Rasmussen shows Mittens ahead by 4 points and Gallup has Mittens ahead by 3 points. Again, what kind of idiot thinks those results prove that "Romster was ahead by 5 in all the polls a week before the election."

Honestly, edumbshit is mentally deficient. He's become a major embarrassment to all the other Althouse lemmings. They don't even try to defend his lunacy any more.

Sad. Pathetic. edumbshit.

edutcher said...

As I said, pop goes the weasel.

Admit it, the guy was ahead. That's the point.

I know, it didn't really happen Barry is the most popularest, awesomest President in the history of Ever.

Go back to sleep, whatever the Commies used in place of Santa Claus has something for you.

Paul said...

Only be able to kill for or five kids if the don't have a gun?

Hahahahaha.... in 1927 a man with THREE BOMBS blew up a school killing 47 people and injuring over 50.

Geeze you guys, if they are insane and watch 'Bat Man' they would see many ways to kill in mass. Cyanide in the public water easily comes to mind. Or simply run a car into a school crosswalk at the end of the school day.

Insane does not mean stupid or incapable of intelligent thought. Many of the mass murderers at schools were quite intelligent.

Trashhauler said...

I was the person who suggested offering some proficiency pay to school administers and teachers willing to take gun use and safety.

There are practical objections to using a single armed guard in a school. For one thing, anyone willing to sign up to stand guard is probably not the person you want standing guard. Add to that the usual drop off in awareness and attention as the solitary guard stands watch day in, day out, for years, without anything happening - until it does - and you can see the weakness of that security plan. Plus, an active shooter will probably plan to take out the single visible guard and proceed with his mayhem.

I have a better model, one I have experience in from my years as an Air Force pilot. In most of those years, I carried a concealed weapon (along with another crewmember). When it became awkward to do so, I stored the weapon in a secure gun box. Aside from annual qualification, carrying the weapon or having it nearby did not interfere with my primary job in the slightest. Now, consider a school in which an administrator and two or three teachers volunteer for training in gun use and safety. Pay them some proficiency pay and provide secure gun boxes, so they don't have to have it on them all the time. Such a system will eliminate the problems with having a single permanent guard, will not disrupt their work, and will provide two or three chances at stopping an active shooter. Perfect? No. But miles ahead of facing an armed nut with nothing more than a ruler.

Robin said...

4 or 5 kids max?

1927, Michigan, attack on school by farmer. 45 dead. Weapon used? Explosives.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103186662

Robin said...

Jake Diamond, "huge" deficits? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

The GOP has lost credibility on fiscal discipline? The Democrats have given us trillion dollar deficits for the last four years, and propose continuing them for as far as the eye can see.

30yearProf said...

Happy Times Bar in NYC about a decade ago. 1 quart Mason jar of gasoline, 1 kitchen match, yields 87 dead people. Why? Girl friend dumped him.

Evil lurks in the minds of certain young men, not in 4 or 5 pounds of steel and aluminium.

misu akter said...


Shop Best Buy for electronics, computers, appliances, cell phones, video ... Best Buy Logo .... Beats By Dr. Dre - Beats Solo HD On-Ear Headphones - Black .
buy beats
beats online

Jake Diamond said...

Jake Diamond, "huge" deficits? I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Yes, Robin, the deficits (as a percentage of GDP) were huge compared to the norm. That's a matter of public record. You can even look it up if you know how to use google.

The GOP has lost credibility on fiscal discipline?

Absolutely. Any political party dominated by politicians who've signed a "no tax increase" pledge are not serious about fiscal discipline. The GOP has a long record of deficit spending and, more importantly, increasing the scale of deficit spending.

Finally, for the record, the FY2009 budget belongs to Bush. I know right wingers find that FACT inconvenient, but it is nevertheless a FACT.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 201   Newer› Newest»