... Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”...
So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably. That’s not an option in this case because we all have different risk profiles when it comes to guns. My gun probably makes me safer, but perhaps yours makes you less safe. You can’t reconcile those interests....
Fear always beats reason. So as long as Democrats are mostly using guns to shoot innocent people (intentionally or accidentally) and Republicans are mostly using guns for sport or self-defense, no compromise can be had.
२२ जून, २०१६
"So it seems to [Scott Adams] that gun control can’t be solved because..."
"Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२०६ टिप्पण्या:
206 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Adams has an unacceptable frankness that will get him banned on every accredited campus in America.
Democrats also demonize the police, which ends up leading to a hands off policing approach. Police departments across the country are having difficulty attracting qualified recruits. The government can't protect people so people need to protect themselves
Democrats tell us two things that can't be reconciled.
1) Only the government should have guns.
2) Republicans are Nazis.
If the Nazis are the only one with the guns, isn't that a bad thing?
Also, Trump gave a fantastic speech today. Just finished reading it (through a twitter link given by Adams) and it read great. I can't stand reading political speeches, usually. But this one read smoothly. I really liked it.
I do not own a gun, but I am happy that many of my neighbors own guns.
This is why we have States. Gun control is just one example.
The Federal Government is increasingly trying to force everyone to live under rules that may make sense to folks in NYC or on a university campus, but not in the rest of the country.
This why we have gridlock in DC.
The gun control issue can't be solved because the only way gun control solves alls these shootings that cause people to want gun control is to include confiscation. It's the issue that control advocates hide. It takes gun control from 50-50 to 75-25 against.
The use of the term 'gun violence' infuriates me. A gun is not capable of violence.
I guess maybe I'm a "gun problem denier," but a mass shooting every now and then in a country of 320 million does not a crisis make.
But in all fairness, I've never even come close to ever purchasing a lottery ticket.
My gun probably makes me safer, but perhaps yours makes you less safe.
Not quite. Guns possessed by low-crime people make everyone around them safer, guns possessed by high-crime people make everyone around them less safe. Whether the second amendment makes you safer overall depends on whether you spend your time in low-crime or high-crime neighborhoods.
Gub control.
When will the left put a stop to radical Islamic violence? The left and Islam are brothers in arms - when will it end?
It's like those statistics of driving vs flying. Now tell me my odds if I never drink and drive.
@Ignorance is Bliss
Read the whole thing. I think you are agreeing with him.
Gun control worked great in Paris.
It's actually much simpler than that and you don't have to go into the leap that pro-gun control Democrats consider killers to be a key constituency with a veto over their gun control policies.
Gun controllers simply believe that guns are inherently unsafe, much as drug controllers believe drugs are inherently unsafe, and should be banned or tightly regulated because they believe statistics show how dangerous these things are in the hands of average people who are consistently irresponsible. Culturally, most of them likely live in cities and close suburbs where they have no experience with guns, as there's not much options for hunting or target shooting, and they may not know anyone with a gun (that they know of, anyway). This is similar to most drug controllers living a lifestyle where they have had little or no access to drugs or little desire for them.
Gun libertarians (similar to drug libertarians) think more about individual responsibility with guns, and figure dangers are out there but a responsible person with a gun should have a right to defend themselves and if they're not an idiot they wont' accidentally shoot someone. Culturally, they're likely to have been around guns and people with guns, and recognize that like any dangerous tool (a car, or chainsaw) a gun must be taken seriously but can be handled safely. They're not thinking about the masses, or statistics, because statistics don't overcome the basic logic that an individual must have rights and responsibilities and can be trusted with a gun. (If they want to talk statistics, they can point out that cities with strict gun control still have high crime rates)
First, they disarmed the babies.
But, for everyone else, it's a matter of risk management. Also the rights and responsibilities that are unalienable and socially inseparable aspects of humanity.
He's not wrong.
However, the GOP tried to pass gun control legislation a day or two ago. Dems voted against and accused the GOP of trying to arm ISIS.
So, yeah, reform is possible.
This needs to be repeated --- the Dems killed gun control. Dead. Just like Dem behavior is why Dems demand gun control. Because their supporters seem to have poor impulse control.
Not quite. Guns possessed by low-crime people make everyone around them safer, guns possessed by high-crime people make everyone around them less safe. Whether the second amendment makes you safer overall depends on whether you spend your time in low-crime or high-crime neighborhoods.
...which fits into the "Democrats use guns to shoot each other" thing.
Gub control.
All bank robbers should use a sans-serif font.
Read the whole thing
I have a Nom de Plume to maintain.
If the Democrats gave any shit about reducing "gun violence" they would legalize drugs and ban suicides.
and figure dangers are out there but a responsible person with a gun should have a right to defend themselves
Not should but does... a Constitutional Right. The whole point of the second Amendment is to prevent the government from disarming the citizenry. The point of an armed citizenry is to resist government tyranny. (Which is why the Democrats and the government want to disarm us.)
Did we really want to restrict a person's rights based on them being on a secret list? A list that they likely don't know they are on, how they got on, and worst of all how to challenge why they are on it and get themselves off?
This is still America damn it and we are NOT supposed to do that shit!
We are SUPPOSED to be innocent until proven guilty and to be able to have our day in court.
Citizens who support gun control can roll the dice on their own personal safety and that of their family. Don't expect me to risk my life and the lives of my family, friends, and strangers who are collateral beneficiaries who happen to be in the area. The dumbest thing I heard lately is AG Lynch saying we need to love terrorists to get them to change their evil ways not shoot them.
The most effective means to reduce gun violence in America is to repeal all forms of vice law. Drugs, prostitution, gambling, alcohol — every legislation designed to control, curtail, or discourage by taxation an activity seen as a social vice eliminated. Put these categories into a laissez-faire arena, drug dealers and brothel operators able to call on the police to protect their business activities, and the activities of organized crime gangs and the violence they cause will drop immediately.
Did we really want to restrict a person's rights based on them being on a secret list? A list that they likely don't know they are on, how they got on, and worst of all how to challenge why they are on it and get themselves off?
One party had a Senator say, on TV, that "due process is killing us".
That party was not the GOP.
The only concern the Left has now is power. They do not care how they get it.
And let's see how serious the Dems are. Give them their gun rights bill EXACTLY how they want it --- except include OTHER rights, also. Include voting. Free speech. Etc.
Such eloquence should be encouraged.
Politicians, terrorists and criminals prefer to deal with unarmed peasants.
"Did we really want to restrict a person's rights based on them being on a secret list? A list that they likely don't know they are on, how they got on, and worst of all how to challenge why they are on it and get themselves off?"
They had a choice between liberty and security, chose security and got neither. Anyone supporting a secret list that can be used to take your rights away without due process is destroying a little bit of America, piece by piece.
"The most effective means to reduce gun violence in America is to repeal all forms of vice law."
They should do this anyway. Bring vice into the open, let people make personal choices and only get the law involved when they infringe on others' rights (e.g., steal someone else's drugs). Government had a good run trying to control vice, it failed. Let's let the free market do its work.
The dumbest thing I heard lately is AG Lynch saying we need to love terrorists to get them to change their evil ways not shoot them
Someone should point out to Miz Lynch that the existence of her department of government makes nonsense of her position. If she really believed what she says how can she operate an army of prosecutors and enforcement agents whose purpose is to apprehend and punish those who evade the law?
They had a choice between liberty and security, chose security and got neither. Anyone supporting a secret list that can be used to take your rights away without due process is destroying a little bit of America, piece by piece.
I'd say it's way more than a little bit. They want to allow a list that you won't even know that you are on, nor why you are on it, nor have any real clear path to remove yourself from it and restrict rights based on it.
This is the kind of stuff Hitler and Stalin would do. Just unilaterally decide to restrict your rights until you have none.
Do they SERIOUSLY expect this to happen and have no violence break out? And the violence will be people far better with guns than the gang-banging idiots of Democrat cities.
Adams argument applies to the constitutional argument also. Republicans see Democratic overreach, plus control of the bureaucracy and courts, as tyranny. Thats what the guns are for, a constitutional backstop, theoretical or far fetched as it may seem.
They do, I think at a subconscious level, think that they are necessary for protection from Democrats, just not always of the street-criminal kind.
It would be best if this sort of argument could be conducted in the open.
Someone should point out to Miz Lynch that the existence of her department of government makes nonsense of her position. If she really believed what she says how can she operate an army of prosecutors and enforcement agents whose purpose is to apprehend and punish those who evade the law?
She loves terrorists. Doesn't necessarily feel the same about Americans.
A good friend of mine is a cop in the inner city of Milwaukee. He always has stories to tell, and most of those stories revolve around how different the culture of the inner city is, compared to the suburb where we both grew up.
He told a story the other day.
A neighbor comes over to a guy's apartment, the two start drinking, one of the two says something unflattering about Obama. An argument ensues. The neighbor goes into the kitchen, gets a knife, and attempts to stab the homeowner.
He manages to grab his cell phone and calls...his mother.
His mother calls his brothers, sisters, cousins.
One of them wisely calls 911. The others head over to his place.
By the time my buddy shows up, the drunk knife wielding neighbor has left, and a large crowd of friends and relatives has shown up. My buddy, the cop who was dispatched to this 911 call,
is told to leave, that they will handle it from here.
He doesn't leave, he calls for backup, because their plan is to go beat the hell out of the drunk knife wielding neighbor.
Had he not been there, they would have gone to the neighbors' to beat him up, but he would have called his mother or brother or cousin, who'd in turn would call more relatives either before, during or after his beating, and they'd show up and you'd have a 30-person brawl in the street.
As inconceivable as this scenario is to those of us who grew up in the suburbs, this is how conflict is resolved in the inner city.
Good luck confiscating 300+ million guns without igniting the bloodiest civil war in history.
Quaestor said...
Adams has an unacceptable frankness that will get him banned on every accredited campus in America.
6/22/16, 10:49 AM
A wise Latina will wish Adams into the cornfield.
Democrats only want cops and criminals to have guns, and maybe not even cops. They want their superpredators to have them, whether they exist or not.
@Michael the Magnificent,
As inconceivable as this scenario is to those of us who grew up in the suburbs, this is how conflict is resolved in the inner city.
Well, actually, things are lot like this at Bethesda Country Club, too. You shoudda seen the brawl that broke out when Muffy knocked over a Mai Tai on Shoshanna's brand new Anna Kosturova beach dress at poolside the other day. You'd think a "I'm so sorry" & the offer to pay the cleaning bill would have covered it, but, oh no, not for these entitled bitches & their cliques!
A rock climber I knew told me that the reason many people didn't climb is that they were inwardly afraid that they would let go (and fall to their deaths). If you can overcome that fear, climbing becomes easier.
I have come to believe that the reason many democrats are afraid of guns is similar. They feel that if they had a gun, they might go off and kill people around them. If they feel that way, then they assume that everyone else is the same. Having handled rifles, shotguns, and pistols from my youth, I have no such fears. I understand how they work and the responsibilities that go with them. But I do understand that because of this fear, owning a gun is not for everyone. If you don't trust yourself, then I shouldn't trust you.
To the dipshit who's "infuriated" by the term "gun violence," your outrage is noted and more sympathetic I could not be.
Indeed, Rocket launchers don't kill people. Nukes don't kill people. The 2nd Amendment. Good guys with nukes.
Another inner Milwaukee story:
A woman, who has a daughter, has a man over. They get drunk, end up in bed. In the middle of the night he has to use the bathroom, so he walks, naked, to the bathroom. Does what he needs to do, leaves the bathroom, goes into the wrong bedroom naked, gets in the bed and falls asleep. It just so happens to be the bed the woman's daughter is in.
The daughter gets out of bed, goes to her mother's room, wakes her up and tells here there's a naked man in her bed.
Now, this is an honest mistake, which would have been less of a mistake had he bothered to put on a pair of underpants before leaving for the bathroom.
However, the baby momma, disturbed by what she's heard, calls...the baby daddy.
He calls his friends and relatives, and they all head over to the baby momma's place and proceed to beat the shit out of the naked drunk who accidentally crawled in the wrong bed.
If everyone on my block of nearly all conservative Republicans (we have one token Democrat, a retired sheriff's detective) had an AR-15 and a thousand rounds of ammo, it'd be the safest, most polite neighborhood in SE Wisconsin. But we handle conflict resolution far differently than they do in the inner city of Milwaukee, were an AR-15 and a thousand rounds of ammunition might come in handy for resolving a conflict with the neighbor or sleepover guest.
In Texas, the two degenerate Islamists barely made it out of their car before being gunned down. Only at Ft. Hood, where no one is allowed to carry, did the violent Islamist get away with it.
Gun Free Zone's are an illusion.
Totalitarians are always in favor of gun control-gun banning like the Democrats but then again what is the difference between them other than a label?
If Democrats want to be taken seriously on the subject they would have more credibility if they were to advocate that all government agencies federal, state and local other than active duty Armed Forces were disarmed.
If the criminal traitor Hillary Clinton deserves armed protection then I, who has never committed a felony and am a net taxpayer certainly deserves armed protection and if I don't then she even less so.
I agree, we have a gun problem. Restricting gun purchases, watch lists, registration lists, excessive permit controls, taxes on ammunition will never stop the 300 million guns already purchased in the US. I am not a big fan of guns. Suicide is painless (least some believe others believe it is a right), and inner city disputes will continue (turf wars), homicides for love or objects will always be. Yes gun removal would reduce this, it's simple math. But, I worry more about the government's control over guns and the removal of the people's ability to change a repressive government. If the government can control the people's ability to rebel, then we the people lose. This has happen many times in the past. Read history, it always shows that violence rules, e.g., a force via an army with weapons will control. That the people if able to be controlled will be repressed. Any man or women in power will attempt to control you if he or she can. There are no all magnificent rulers, maybe Jesus, but this is theology. Reality is a look at the current leadership, after all do they not fit Orwell, e.g., "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others?" These "some animals" have more than you or me. They have an army with many guns for protection, the best health care, the greatest food, a media control environment, laws for them and laws for you, and more perks beyond our reach. They tell others what to do, and if able they would stay at that table no matter what the cost (your freedom). Therefore I believe, like our founding fathers, that the cost of their removal is worth the risk and pain of keeping the second amendment and hence, the associated deaths. A short term gain of gun control will lead to a long term pain of freedom lost. I am glad that today I can write his here. I'm always up to defending the constitution, after all one day you may have to do it too. just be glad it is with words and not guns. As always love in a brotherly way. SgtPete
Not only are Democrats with guns dangerous, but the end state government Democrats would wish to implement is dangerous and tyrannical, the exact reason for why the 2nd amendment exists.
If the Democrats were serious about "gun control," they would discuss it in serious terms, but instead they lie about every verifiable fact pertaining to guns and gun ownership.
That naturally leads to a deep suspicion as to what they are really up to, whatever they propose, and an instinctive reaction that these people must be resisted.
The way I see it, people who use guns to shoot innocent victims are given light sentences.
This alone is the reason we should not be asked to disarm.
If Chicago can reduce pistol murders by 75% then maybe we can start talking about rifles.
Michael The Magnificent said...
As inconceivable as this scenario is to those of us who grew up in the suburbs, this is how conflict is resolved in the inner city.
6/22/16, 11:51 AM
Actually that makes some sense. It is a play on "snitches get stitches". You don't call the PoPo. You handle it yourself. Sometimes "yourself" turns out to be 10 or 15 of your closest friends/relatives...
"I'd say it's way more than a little bit. They want to allow a list that you won't even know that you are on, nor why you are on it, nor have any real clear path to remove yourself from it and restrict rights based on it."
The problem is there's a little for everyone in that--Dems love it because it takes gun rights away from some people, some Republicans love it because those rights will be taken away from "Muslim extremists" (though how a "Muslim extremist" is defined, or why that policy would be limited to "Muslims" when whoever controls the list may just decide that anyone they consider "extreme" should be on the list). The country needs a libertarian constituency that can push back against the hysteria of the moment. But libertarianism seems out of style these days.
So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably.
He's right about this, but he's wrong about the block being political interest groups. The vast majority of gun crime is associated with the drug trade. This can be direct in defending the drugs themselves or indirect in robbing to support a drug habit. It's unreasonable for anyone to believe a multi-billion dollar smuggling operation which all levels of government have tried to close down for decades in vain will suddenly become unable to smuggle in guns.
Yes gun removal would reduce this, it's simple math.
Let's see your figures.
Yes gun removal would reduce this, it's simple math.
While you're at it discourse on violence in the pre-gunpowder era.
harrogate said...
Good guys with nukes.
Democrats with nukes have killed more people than...
The only term more infuriating and dishonest than "gun violence" is "gun safety".
Brando wrote ...though how a "Muslim extremist" is defined, or why that policy would be limited to "Muslims" when whoever controls the list may just decide that anyone they consider "extreme" should be on the list.
Well put.
Yeah, those democrats seem to have a big violence problem. We might need guns to protect ourselves from them.
"If the Democrats were serious about "gun control," they would discuss it in serious terms, but instead they lie about every verifiable fact pertaining to guns and gun ownership."
Ben Shapiro pressed Piers morgan about this. If he was really for reducing gun violence wouldn't he attempt to ban hand guns? Yet the dems keep going after 'scary' assault rifles, even though they are rarely used in violent crimes.
Mandatory cooling-off period
PS. There's a few Easter eggs to be found. Look carefully, kiddies!
Per my June 14 post - "If we could just outlaw Democrats from owning or possessing guns (and could actually enforce it), you would eliminate 80-90% of gun-related homicides. Kind of why those of us who are not Democrats resent the effort to seize our guns." I know Adams reads Althouse and I hope my post may have been an inspiration.
eric wrote:
Democrats tell us two things that can't be reconciled.
1) Only the government should have guns.
2) Republicans are Nazis.
If the Nazis are the only one with the guns, isn't that a bad thing?
same logic applies to Black Lives Matter and black people. Only cops should have guns, according to the left. But the cops are targeting black people simply for walking while black, according to BLM (which the left supports).
So, we should only let cops have guns, even though we think cops are genocidal racists who will shoot blacks for nothing? Are blacks ok with this formulation?
Quaestor said...
Mandatory cooling-off period
Clearly we need to close the pie bake off show loophole.
If we could just outlaw Democrats from owning or possessing guns...
The telling indicator of future anti-social behavior in pre-schoolers is impulse control. The longer a five year old can resist present gratification in expectation of future reward (you may have one gummie bear now or five later) the less likely that kid will grow up to be a career criminal. I suspect low impulse control correlates strongly with Democratic voter preference.
"To the dipshit who's "infuriated" by the term "gun violence," your outrage is noted and more sympathetic I could not be.
Indeed, Rocket launchers don't kill people. Nukes don't kill people. The 2nd Amendment. Good guys with nukes."
Moronic slobbering like this is also a major factor in gun owner's distrust of the Left. How could people so ignorant be entrusted with such a basic human right as self-defence?
Why can't i buy a howizer or a bazooka?... i would feel much safer then... or maybe an M134 minigun?
Wouldn't it be great if Speaker Ryan put forth a Bill that outlawed gun possession by members of the Democrat Party?
Pass the popcorn!!!!
major factor in gun owner's distrust of the Left
It's the Left's historical and contemporary propensity to resort to extreme rhetoric, actions, and emotion faith that undermines their political/social viability.
Why can't i buy a howizer or a bazooka?... i would feel much safer then... or maybe an M134 minigun?
Under the original meaning of the Second Amendment you could have.......
A worthy cause: Teach statists not to kill! As I often point out, the bloodiest gun-toter in history is the "liberal" Hive's idol, Der Staat. Look up the work of Prof. R. J. Rummel. After studying the available evidence, he estimates that in the 20th Century alone, the State murdered--and mind you this is not counting the casualties of war--somewhere between 170,000,000 to 300,060,000 people. Yes, Big Brother is just the one we need to hand all the effective weaponry over to! Big Brother loves us!
"Yes gun removal would reduce this"
that is unless, cops needed to go door to door removing guns by force. How else would we remove guns from people that lawfully possessed them?
GWash said...
Why can't i buy a howizer or a bazooka?... i would feel much safer then... or maybe an M134 minigun?
6/22/16, 12:57 PM
With some restrictions, you can. Maybe not those exact items but close. You can not purchase, as a citizen a fully automatic weapon that was not made and registered prior to 1984(?). But items before that date? Yes. You can also purchase a Sherman tank and tank rounds and other high explosives. Each one requires a BATF DD form and tax stamp (which is $200 per stamp) but you can if you have the time and money. I don't think you can purchase hand-grenades legally but there are quite a number of things you can.
http://www.dailydot.com/lol/operational-tank-for-sale-armslist/
howitzer, ... original meaning of the Second Amendment you could have
Probably not. The limits were established by the key phrase "A well regulated Militia", which would preclude individual possession and use of large-scale armaments and devices. The founders were principally concerned about a population capable of good citizenship, which includes self-sufficient individuals, checks and balances, etc. Other rights (e.g. self-defense) and uses (e.g. hunting, recreation) were not proscribed with the presumption of a population of men and women capable of self-moderating, responsible behavior.
Private citizens used to own cannons too...
Michael The Magnificent said...
A good friend of mine is a cop in the inner city of Milwaukee. He always has stories to tell, and most of those stories revolve around how different the culture of the inner city is, compared to the suburb where we both grew up.
Your first story reminded me of one my told me about life in the Philippines. When she was growing up, it was understood that if a man beat his wife, her extended family would come and beat the crap out of him. Even his family would understand that he had it coming. As a result, wife beating was quite rare. That was decades ago so things might have changed since then. For them, the system worked quite well.
"and want it to stop" The policies of Dem city governments say otherwise. So do the actions of national Dem politicians demonizing police and opposing incarceration of felons. Dems politicos can milk guns like pseudo-cons have milked abortion.
Scott Adams finally wrote something concisely that I can agree with wholeheartedly!
If the Democrats had a good argument for "gun control," they would speak truthfully about the issue.
But they don't.
Indeed, Rocket launchers don't kill people.
Inanimate objects are poor at unilaterally killing people.
The country needs a libertarian constituency that can push back against the hysteria of the moment. But libertarianism seems out of style these days.
Looking at Reason, unless it's attacking religious people, pimping for the need for transgender "rights", or blowing Gary Johnson, Libertarians don't give a shit.
Why can't i buy a howizer or a bazooka?... i would feel much safer then... or maybe an M134 minigun?
Why can't I libel and slander people with no penalty? FREE SPEECH!!!
Why not allow private citizens to have nukes, then?
virgil xenophon said...
"An armed society is a polite society."
If you need to be armed to be polite you are one sick puppy.
We are now down to purely childish behavior with Rep. James Lewis (D) leading a sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives.
GWash said...
Why can't i buy a howizer or a bazooka?... i would feel much safer then... or maybe an M134 minigun?
Well, these weapons are a little cumbersome.
harrogate said...
Why not allow private citizens to have nukes, then?
A nuked society is a polite society.
Really a sit-in. They are sitting on the floor just like a bunch of day care children.
A nuked society is a polite society.
It certainly ended Japan's rudeness.
Large-scale armaments and devices are covered under the Penumbra Clause that legalized mass abortion and clinical cannibalism of over one million [wholly innocent] human lives annually, and other selective rites and exclusions.
Why can't i buy a howizer or a bazooka? (sic)
GWash, for someone born in the 18th century you surprise me. Haven't you heard of privateers and letters of marque?
Congress underfunded the Navy for for years under your administration and even under John Adams. Instead of paying for ships and seamen they reasoned the Constitution sustained the principle of armed citizen up to and including the ultimate weapon of the day, the canon-armed warship. Just a few frigates were required, and the privateers would make up the difference, or so they thought. However throughout the undeclared wars with the French Republic and the Bey of Tripoli, and the declared war with Great Britain the privateers were soundly trounced. Congress perforce abandoned the discredited practice of issuing letters of marque and strengthen the official navy. They did not, however, outlaw privately armed ships, acknowledging the fact that our navy could not police the seas to such a degree that canons for self-defense against pirates were unnecessary.
It certainly ended Japan's rudeness.
Stings, don't it, ARM?
Char Char Binks said...
Democrats only want cops and criminals to have guns, and maybe not even cops. They want their superpredators to have them, whether they exist or not.
Basically this. Democrats have a fucking fetish for murderers and rapists. The more society is being predated on the better as far as they are concerned. All part of the plan of overthrowing America. Remember Charlie Manson wanted to instigate a full-on race war that he hoped would destroy America?
The left is Charlie Manson without the obvious crazy eyes.
It certainly ended Japan's rudeness
Not to mention their campaign of mass torture and abortion of Chinese citizens. Sometimes self-defense requires a good offense... with a big stick.
Quaestor said...
It certainly ended Japan's rudeness.
Stings, don't it, ARM?
If one thinks the wholesale slaughter of civilians is a good idea it might, oh right, you have no problem with this.
"It certainly ended Japan's rudeness."
Simple snark. Not quite a rejoinder to or agreement with the argument that private citizens ought to be able to own nukes, but we're on our way.....
So let’s stop acting as if there is something like “common sense” gun control to be had if we all act reasonably
Yup.
I don't believe them, because their "common sense" tends to either be a straight-up ban or something they don't even really try to hide being just a first step towards one.
Compromise is what you do when there's middle ground.
(People up above talking about howitzers and bazookas should know a few things:
1) Muzzle-loading cannon and mortars are Federally perfectly legal to own, as well as in most [almost all?] states. People do own them, without so much as a look from the BATFE.
As a fun side note, remember that the Gatling Gun is also still completely legal to own, as well as more modern versions on the same principle.
2) You can own rocket launchers and artillery and bombs, just like machineguns - you just need an NFA tax stamp and FBI background check and a very large amount of money.
3) Yes, it was exactly intended that individuals be able to own weapons of military utility such as cannons and grenades [in normal military use in 1789, remember - Grenadiers were elite assault troops!], as Quaestor and others mentioned. This is so widely attested both by the text of the Constitution and by the writings debating the Bill of Rights that it's baffling that anyone can even suggest the contrary.
You can think it was a bad decision, but that's a different argument.)
If one thinks the wholesale slaughter of civilians is a good idea it might, oh right, you have no problem with this.
It was Hirohito's and his generals' choice to have Hiroshima and Nagasaki go up in mushroom clouds, ARM, not ours. There was another way offered. They refused.
Is anyone else as disappointed that Adams is a Democrat as I am? His insight into the modern workplace doesn't fit with big government views, imo.
Simple snark.
No, it was nuanced, complex, multi-layered snark offered in response to simple snark.
Yet the dems keep going after 'scary' assault rifles, even though they are rarely used in violent crimes.
Remember when the dems were trying to outlaw possession of rifles chambered in 50BMG? Their argument was that you could shoot down an airliner with one. Perhaps you could, but considering how fast airliners are moving, you'd have to be luckier than a lottery winner to hit a target moving that fast, even luckier to do any significant damage. Not to mention, just how many American citizens have been killed with a 50BMG? Didn't matter.
My theory is, democrats aren't worried so much about a 50BMG taking down an airliner, as much as they are worried about a 50BMG taking out an armored limo. They aren't worried so much about a muslim using an AR-15 to shoot up a nightclub, as much as they are worried about disgruntled veterans taking out democratic congressmembers.
That's why, every weekend, while they pile up dozens of dead bodies in Chicago who are victims of handguns, no democrat congressmember is concerned.
You can own a ship of the line.
With dozens of cannons.
Rocketeer said...
No, it was nuanced, complex, multi-layered snark offered in response to simple snark.
They run and hide because they do not want to admit that there are always limits. Althouse pretends to be pro-gun but when I suggested that she allow guns in her classroom or in the Supreme Court she censored my posts. Hypocrites, one and all.
Would a small nuclear device in your grandkids school be OK? Imagine how polite that school would be.
harrogate
Absolutely you can have an atom bomb or a nuclear weapon. Go buy one.
I suspect your grandkids good behavior might require the threat. For mine, it would only be additional insurance.
Heh: Instapundit's "Tweet of the Day" is from David ("Iowahawk") Burge. It shows a close-up of Civil Rights icon Rep. John Lewis (surely the stupidest-looking guy in Congress) participating in the sit-in in Congress, with Burge's caption pointing out that Martin Luther King Jr. was a gun-owner on the FBI watch list.
Why not allow private citizens to have nukes, then?
Well, we're busy helping Iranians get it. Bob down the block certainly couldn't be worse.
If you need to be armed to be polite you are one sick puppy.
I wonder why gun free zones are targeted so often for mass shootings. Who can possibly figure out a reason?
Really a sit-in. They are sitting on the floor just like a bunch of day care children.
A sit-in against the concept of due process.
Absolutely you can have an atom bomb or a nuclear weapon. Go buy one.
I bet the insurance required to cover indemnity if it kills a couple of thousand people might be rough...
Heh: Instapundit's "Tweet of the Day" is from David ("Iowahawk") Burge. It shows a close-up of Civil Rights icon Rep. John Lewis (surely the stupidest-looking guy in Congress) participating in the sit-in in Congress, with Burge's caption pointing out that Martin Luther King Jr. was a gun-owner on the FBI watch list.
He was also erroneously put on the list in the past. He was less than happy.
All this bullshit about a 'polite society' is just a cover for the sick society that gun owners actually believe they live in. Apparently, having more guns than any other place on the planet doesn't actually fix anything. No amount of guns can fix the problem if the current number of guns can't. If nothing else diminishing returns kicked in a long time ago.
I don't own a gun. I don't have any problems. People are polite towards me day and night, and given the low levels of gun ownership where I live it is not because they are armed or think anyone else is armed.
If you were going to point to one key index for what a crappy society we have become this obsession with personal security would be it. Paranoids everywhere. Not simply bowling alone but fearfully obsessing alone.
I am against "No fly - No buy" for two reasons:
1. The government can't be trusted to keep a "No fly" list restricted to the authorized purposes.
2. If it could be trusted, it still would not be competent to do so.
Well then there you go, ARM, there's no problem.
If you like your gun, you can keep your gun.
If you don't like guns, don't have a gun.
Spoken like a true serf, "Reasonable" Man. You're a regular Spartacus!(Like "liberals" are reasonable. They react to a syllogism the way Dracula reacts to a crucifix.)
The FBI can't keep track of the wife of a terrorist, and the left insists there's no possible way to deport a bunch of third-worlders who managed to walk here.
So if that's the case, I don't know why lefties think they have the wherewithal to track down hundreds of millions of guns and organize the logistics of confiscating them.
That being said, I'm unwilling to give them the opportunity to try.
All this bullshit about a 'polite society' is just a cover for the sick society that gun owners actually believe they live in.
Gun shops aren't the sites of mass killings. Feral beasts seldom go to gun shops. But they do know who to target. All creatures know how to target the weak.
Apparently, having more guns than any other place on the planet doesn't actually fix anything. No amount of guns can fix the problem if the current number of guns can't. If nothing else diminishing returns kicked in a long time ago.
France has STRICT gun laws and saw two massive killings last year.
Germany has STRICT gun laws and saw a wave of rape and sexual assault.
I'm blown away to think that guns aren't the cause of crime, aren't you?
I don't own a gun. I don't have any problems. People are polite towards me day and night, and given the low levels of gun ownership where I live it is not because they are armed or think anyone else is armed.
Your neighbors could be lost if they walked around naked during a snowstorm.
If you were going to point to one key index for what a crappy society we have become this obsession with personal security would be it.
Not the demands to not offend anybody ever...it's a desire to protect yourself. Got it.
So, ARM, I think the Second Amendment is more important than the First. Therefore, I rule that your speech be curtailed harshly. And don't be one of those whiners who complain about it.
People are polite towards me day and night, and given the low levels of gun ownership where I live it is not because they are armed or think anyone else is armed.
You seem to speak for and make assumptions on behalf of others an awful lot. I've noticed that aspirational tyrants do that quite a bit.
AReasonableMan said...
If one thinks the wholesale slaughter of civilians is a good idea it might,
How does one conclude both
(a) Threats have to be existential before concern over them is justified, worrying about lesser threats is paranoia,
and
(b) The small number of deaths which could conceivably be stopped by "gun control" is "a wholesale slaughter" justifying essentially anything?
AReasonableMan said...
All this bullshit about a 'polite society' is just a cover for the sick society that gun owners actually believe they live in. Apparently, having more guns than any other place on the planet doesn't actually fix anything. No amount of guns can fix the problem if the current number of guns can't. If nothing else diminishing returns kicked in a long time ago.
Please stop conflating A with B. I understand that some have quoted that old "polite society" adage and the other one about a gun show being the most polite place on Earth. Both are true to a point but both have nothing to do with the 2nd A. Those are distractions and nothing more. For many, they have guns cause they can. So what. What do you or anyone else care. Just as we are told about Muslums, the majority of gun owners are moderate and law abiding, why are you trying to pick on them just because a "lone wolf" nutter used a gun for bad purpose?
I don't own a gun. I don't have any problems. People are polite towards me day and night, and given the low levels of gun ownership where I live it is not because they are armed or think anyone else is armed.
As far as you know.
If you were going to point to one key index for what a crappy society we have become this obsession with personal security would be it. Paranoids everywhere. Not simply bowling alone but fearfully obsessing alone.
6/22/16, 2:26 PM
Really? The feeling that one must protect one's self and loved ones is why this is a "crappy society"? Really? It has nothing to do with criminals shooting up the place [like in Chicago] and killing innocents? It has nothing to do with Muslim terrorists shooting up night clubs cause gay folks hang out there? It has nothing to do with Democrats and Government in general doing more harm than good in telling everyone what they can and can not do, what soda sizes they can drink, what cars they can drive, what they can throw out and how, and all around being more intrusive, dictatorial, and busy-bodyish? Really?
Look at what is happening today, right now with the Government attempting to stifle due process. Look what they are already doing to free speech. Look at them letting terrorists and illegals just walk right into the country. But they sure did solve that bathroom issue!
And you call gun owners unreasonable, un-seriousness, and out of touch...
http://i.imgur.com/5CxpYmm.jpg
Here's the rest of the gun control debate. FYI Europeans online often call Americans "Amerifats", which is what "Romanfats" refers to.
"You can own a ship of the line.
With dozens of cannons."
No you can't.
Each of the dozens could be an NFA destructive device, depending on specifics and which definition the government chooses to enforce, especially shells and shrapnel, even if the bursting charge is gunpowder.
Federal laws limit how much powder is permitted in your magazine to, variously, between 5lb and 50lb depending on the applicable rule, waay less than a privateer will need to feed dozens of guns. Thats not enough for a single broadside.
And in many states you couldn't even hold this much ammunition for them, there being a very low permitted amount of gunpowder, just 1lb in CA, insufficient for even one shot from a medium piece.
ARM: "Would a small nuclear device in your grandkids school be OK? Imagine how polite that school would be."
Do you not notice how stupid that is? It wasn't original, but my father told me, "The best thing to do if you find yourself in a hole is to stop digging."
THIS is perfect.
Governments with guns kill vastly more people than even the most prolific individuals. To put this perspective, to equal the roughly 11 million
I military casualties of WWI, the Orlando shooter would have had to shoot 49 people a day, every day, for 615 years.
"An armed society is a polite society," is one of those expressions that perfectly illustrate the divide that Scott Adams is talking about. The truth value of that statement depends entirely on the makeup of the society: a high trust society composed of sober individuals who generally have good impulse control; or a low trust tribal society composed of mostly impulsive types looking to show off their high testosterone fitness to women looking for one night stands.
Neither the PC Left nor the Libertarian Right can acknowledge that common sense reality.
hombre said...
Do you not notice how stupid that is?
If you are unwilling to admit that there are limits then it is not stupid at all, it is a logical extension of nutty beliefs. You should probably get out of that hole you dug for yourself.
No number of guns can make you feel safe if your actual problem is that you are paranoid. Guns didn't save Chris Kyle. His gun still had its safety catch on.
"If you are unwilling to admit that there are limits then it is not stupid at all, it is a logical extension of nutty beliefs."
--> You may need to take a step back and learn the difference between reductio ad absurdum and straw man arguments. People are saying that responsible citizens should have the right to be armed; you came back with: We should give schools nuclear weapons!
You didn't reduce the argument to an absurd end; you substituted an absurd argument for a reasonable one.
jr565 said...
Yeah, those democrats seem to have a big violence problem. We might need guns to protect ourselves from them.
Black males are eight times more likely to murder with a gun than the general populace. Blacks register as Democrats at roughly an 80% rate. The Venn diagram draws itself.
AReasonableMan said...
All this bullshit about a 'polite society' is just a cover for the sick society that gun owners actually believe they live in. Apparently, having more guns than any other place on the planet doesn't actually fix anything. No amount of guns can fix the problem if the current number of guns can't. If nothing else diminishing returns kicked in a long time ago.
I don't own a gun. I don't have any problems. People are polite towards me day and night, and given the low levels of gun ownership where I live it is not because they are armed or think anyone else is armed.
If you were going to point to one key index for what a crappy society we have become this obsession with personal security would be it. Paranoids everywhere. Not simply bowling alone but fearfully obsessing alone.
I own guns. I don't have any problems either.
Your opinion is duly noted. Let us know when you come up with a solution.
Question.
How do you know there is low levels of gun ownership where you live? Does everyone think like you?
ARM
Why are you more pissed at gun owners and the NRA than the terrorist who slaughtered? Why are progressives more in the corner of the terrorist who has been transformed into a self-hating closeted gay than the NRA? It is weird.
AReasonableMan said...
hombre said...
Do you not notice how stupid that is?
If you are unwilling to admit that there are limits then it is not stupid at all, it is a logical extension of nutty beliefs. You should probably get out of that hole you dug for yourself.
No number of guns can make you feel safe if your actual problem is that you are paranoid. Guns didn't save Chris Kyle. His gun still had its safety catch on.
Here's a point you may not have considered.
I don't trust you guard my rights.
Any of them.
This should be decided by the states.
The fab coastal states, with large cities, can have their gun laws and the flyover grossie states can have their gun laws.
tits.
There are certain people who seem to absolutely despise gun owners, not necessarily because they're afraid of them, but because of who they are... or at least who these people think gun owners are. Specifically, gun owners are an embarrassment to these people's sensibilities. These people believe that most gun owners are unevolved, low class, ignorant, backward, hicks who fearfully and bitterly cling to their guns and religion. They are a pox! A shameful anachronism! "Why can't we all be more like urban Europeans?" they ask themselves.
So they want to punish these affronts to their sensibilities. They want to take away or failing that diminish gun owners rights as much as possible. They want these rubes to conform to polite society.
Of course all this has nothing to do real solutions. None of the has anything to do with actions that may actually truly be effective in mitigating lone wolf attacks or even reducing the current homicide rate with firearms. That's clear to anyone who cares to be clear eyed and truly objective about these things.
But that doesn't change disdain and outright hatred these people feel towards gun owners. So they use emotionality, shame, and fear to make their arguments. I find it all depressing.
Titus - foie gras or steak tartare on brioche? Need to decide on lunch with my fancy friends.
"The fab coastal states, with large cities, can have their gun laws and the flyover grossie states can have their gun laws."
Well, there you go. That would indeed be a reasonable compromise, and I think it could easily be sold to the Republican base.
However, to the left this is an extremist position.
Are you sure you're a Democrat?
Nothing ventured an egg, you do not get a chicken
"There are certain people who seem to absolutely despise gun owners"
Not just gun owners. They despise all of you, who aren't them. This is tribal war, currently in a state of pre-battle invective, both sides lined up and yelling insults at the other. Guns are just symbols, for these purposes.
@nonapod
Did you read this Kevin D Williamson article? If not, check it out: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436739/orlando-shooting-gun-control-left-wing-identity-politics?target=author&tid=903320
"The cultural role of the NRA is to be the fat white face that absorbs the Left’s hatred for the hunting, shooting, and gun-collecting demographics."
While people here discuss the moronic musings of Scott Adams, history is being made in the House by Democrats. This speaks volumes to young people, the Bernie voters. This is what Democrats have been waiting for.
Democrats have been waiting for the House to be shut down by people wanting to suspend American's rights with secret lists? I thought McCarthy was a Bad Guy.
" history is being made in the House by Democrats."
? I must have missed something.
Buwaya: All four Senate gun bills have been voted down; in the House, Democrats are staging a sit-in until the House votes on a bill. Specifically, they want the bill that lets the government put people on secret lists to deny them the ability to purchase a gun.
I think that Republicans should call the bluff and put up a bill that allows the government to suspend ANY rights from people on a secret list. But if it is one, it is all. So, if they say you can't buy a gun, you also can't freely speak and your religion can be constrained by the government. If you are on the list, that is a prima facie warrant, etc., etc.
Quick link that has the line "is this the first anti-civil rights sit in?"
The complete quote about an armed society and politeness is from Heinlein's Beyond This Horizon and states:
"Well, in the first place an armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life. For me, politeness is a sine qua non of civilization. That’s a personal evaluation only. But gunfighting has a strong biological use. We do not have enough things to kill off the weak and the stupid these days. But to stay alive as an armed citizen a man has to be either quick with his wits or with his hands, preferably both. It’s a good thing."
Heinlein, R.A., Beyond This Horizon (1942).
However, my favorite quote from Heinlein's book is:
"The police of a state should never be stronger or better armed than the citizenry. An armed citizenry, willing to fight, is the foundation of civil freedom. That’s a personal evaluation, of course."
"Democrats are staging a sit-in "
I knew that, I was not aware that it was in any way historic.
People are saying it is, so it is!
#ModernHistory
Historical?
The sit-in, which in the '60's was a tool used by young and powerless outsiders, is now being used by old and powerful insiders who are camping out at their place of employment.
Yeah, that's historical all right. Your party has reached peak stupidity.
"Hey,ho, hey, ho,
help me up,
I gotta go!"
CJ said...
"The cultural role of the NRA is to be the fat white face that absorbs the Left’s hatred for the hunting, shooting, and gun-collecting demographics."
That would be the same Kevin Williamson who called Trump voters a bunch of useless drug addled layabouts. And, like that screed, this is also complete BS. Forcing open carry and guns on state university campuses down everyone's throats has nothing to do with hunting, shooting or gun-collecting.
Much of politics is basically theater of the absurd. Waiting for Godot. I read this morning there was a "sting operation" to bust liquor store owners in the L.A. area selling booze to underage minors. Law enforcement gets to brag to the media about "protecting minors" from these evil lawbreakers and the media edits in footage of their chumps with microphones nodding their heads seriously to fill the air with this rubbish. And within a few months the teens who want the booze will get their booze, the media will pass out awards to each other, and the police will get their budget requests.
Same with airport security, especially laughable (but really infuriating.) What is the point of strip searching old ladies in wheelchairs? We're showing the world that we're tough but we're not discriminating. What rubbish. Not only that, but these glorified security guards get a higher uniform allowance than our Marine Corps.
Same with gun control. It's clear that gun control is mostly about control (of the narrative) and less about guns WHICH EVERYBODY KNOWS: GUN CONTROL WON'T WORK. Never let a crisis go to waste? I think people who are fed up to their ears in that bullshit. Thankfully the man who said that might as well be drowning in Lake Michigan for all the effect he is having in public office nearby.
Blogger Titus said...
This should be decided by the states.
The fab coastal states, with large cities, can have their gun laws and the flyover grossie states can have their gun laws.
______________________
I totes agree! Because nobody will ever try to shoot up a gay bar in Boston. Never! If they do and more gays die, well, that's just the price you gonna pay for being fab and coastal.
Completely fine with me. Light a candle and make a sad face, like Michele.
"Why not allow private citizens to have nukes, then?"
Possession and use of radioactive materials (in any significant amount, which would itself be defined by the radioisotope in question) is pretty strictly regulated. But, yes, the 2nd Amendment does have limits. So does the 1st, etc. It's telling that we can no longer rely on common sense as a guide to what those limits should be. I think once you get beyond the realm of common sense, you are no longer in the realm of reasonable restrictions.
So I just heard about this "historic" sit in. Outside of the D.C. political bubble, this thing doesn't even exist.
If so, I would guess even the MSM think this is a big mistake on the House Democrats' part.
Besides, Titus, dear, the most fab gay man in the universe is Milo.
https://twitter.com/nero
You're not even in the same galaxy. Sorry, love.
The cartoons kind of draw themselves.
"But yes, the 2nd Amendment does have limits."
Funny that. For purposes of discussion, where should the line be?
That would be the same Kevin Williamson who called Trump voters a bunch of useless drug addled layabouts. And, like that screed, this is also complete BS. Forcing open carry and guns on state university campuses down everyone's throats has nothing to do with hunting, shooting or gun-collecting.
Neither does the second amendment.
Black males are eight times more likely to murder with a gun than the general populace. Blacks register as Democrats at roughly an 80% rate. The Venn diagram draws itself.
The only two people I have known personally who were murdered were black, shot by other blacks.
What's really funny is when various and sundry Lefties/Journalists choose to refer to the NRA as
"a terrorist organization" - it sorta gives the game away. Because you know that they are just itching to put all 5,000,000+ of us onto their little watchlist.
I'd just like to say "thank you" to Lois Lerner for making it perfectly clear to all how easily big government can be turned against anyone who does not follow the party in power.
Gun control is not an issue over guns, but over control. There can be no compromise with those whose sole purpose is totalitarian authority over others.
So the democrats want to abrogate my due process rights under the 5th and 14th amendments.
Party of civil rights, my ass.
"But yes, the 2nd Amendment does have limits."
Funny that. For purposes of discussion, where should the line be?
It doesn't seem that it should be less restrictive than those placed on the 1st, which pertain to time, place, manner and, depending on where you live, obscenity laws.
And then there's libel, slander and whatever law bars you from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
So there you have it. Not too unlimited at all. Why don't you propose some analogous ways of keeping the right to bear arms from killing so many people?
If you're having trouble, just note that Scalia himself already conceded in Heller certain manner of weapons - (not exhaustively, but pointed to Saturday Night Specials as an example) - as well as time/place - (i.e. restricting weapons from a church/civic building or a private business).
Are Saturday Night Specials less "dangerous" than assault weapons?
And of course, we already restrict the right to bear arms among miscreants much more than we would speech - at least once they're in custody. Right now the NRA is trying to convince the 80% of Americans who would expand that to designated terrorists that they agree with them, while talking out the other side of their mouths and paying off Republican Congress Critters to do the exact opposite.
Oh well. At least they're trying to realize how embarrassing and dishonest they are.
I think the least the gun nutty ammosexuals can do is figure out to put these obvious and unassailably permissible restrictions into play or as part of a more creative proposal - so as to ensure that the 22 Americans mowed down each day in the U.S. is decreased to make it less likely to apply to innocents, unarmed civilians and groups of people caught up in the next terroristic massacre that the NRA is clearly willing to see inflicted on us as a part of what it takes for such paranoid fanatics as they to "feel free."
The NRA and its defenders are to the 2nd amendment what child pornographers are to the 1st.
Love the sit-in. If it goes on long enough it's primary result will be to explain to LIV's what due process is and why Democrats hate it. This one's gonna backfire.
"ammosexuals"
Love that, too. I'm going to use it.
"Ammonsexuals" is better.
They want to allow a list that you won't even know that you are on, nor why you are on it, nor have any real clear path to remove yourself from it and restrict rights based on it.
It's only a problem for innocent people who are on the list. Think of how beneficial it would be to actual terrorists to find out they're being watched.
Backbone found!
"Democrats, who gathered in the well of the chamber, began their sit-in around 11:30 a.m., with members coming in and out to lend their support. The group grew to about 100 members by 3:30 p.m. The assembled Democrats are demanding gun-control votes on measures that would prevent suspected terrorists from buying firearms and expand background checks. Several members also spoke in support of banning assault weapons."
Even if certain types of firearms were 'banned', the components could easily be purchased over the internet.
"Bob Boyd said...
This is why we have States. Gun control is just one example.
The Federal Government is increasingly trying to force everyone to live under rules that may make sense to folks in NYC or on a university campus, but not in the rest of the country."
Gun control may make sense in NYC, but doesn't make sense in let's say, Wayne or Jefferson counties. Which is why sheriffs in upstate NY have told Cuomo they won't enforce NY's SAFE Act, nor assist state police in doing so.
And in that vein, NY's DEC has assured us there are no bears, cougars or other wildcats, nor wolves in our area. The village today sent out an alert today that a bear was sighted behind the elementary school. I've seen wolves, and I know the difference between wolf, coyote, and large dog. WHile I haven't seen them, friends have seen cougars. But the DEC verifies there aren't any large predators in the area. And democrats in NY say we in the country don't need guns. Because their predators have two legs and are their constituents.
hBTW, if you really want to have some fun, don't bother trying to obtain a fully automatic weapon. Get yourself a perfectly legal and functional Gatling Gun. A little cumbersome, but their rate of fire makes an M-16s look sickly. And their great for point defense purposes should you want to dominate a fixed area.
And you can, with proper skills, build your own home made railgun. My son's building one right now. Not even on gun controller's radar yet.
The NRA and its defenders are to the 2nd amendment what child pornographers are to the 1st.
More R&B (Rotgut and Bullshit) obfuscation.
I think the NRA is closer to legal pornographers than illegal ones.
They defend a right that a lot of America deems unpleasant, or would rather not exist, and which brushes up against a lot of territory we don't want to extend those rights to, but ultimately, it is legal, and should be defended.
Ha ha. Glad you liked it, Queasy tor!
Both the NRA and child pornographers have in common that very un-upstanding and unsavory trait of not caring about the harm that their excesses inflict on others.
Didn't conservatives used to deride 1st amendment defenders as "libertine?" I think it's time to make the NRA lackeys accept how deserving they are of the term.
They're ballistic libertines.
Rhythm and Balls said...
"Both the NRA and child pornographers have in common that very un-upstanding and unsavory trait of not caring about the harm that their excesses inflict on others."
Can you put together a simple sentence that explains how my gun inflicts harm on you?
Basically you are assuming the existence of some kind of externality and I just can't understand what it is?
"Both the NRA and child pornographers have in common that very un-upstanding and unsavory trait of not caring about the harm that their excesses inflict on others."
A straw man argument worthy of the great Obama himself! Absolutely fabulous, and equally devoid of meaning.
Marty, you need to go back to junior college, demand a full refund, and go to a real college that teaches philosophy or read a real book on introductory logic and review the section that explains fallacies like "straw man."
There is no greater admission that you don't care about firearm massacres than your own stupid, deflecting response. Ditto for "Captain Billy."
Can you put together a simple sentence that explains how my gun inflicts harm on you?
Simple enough for anyone who's not a toddler to understand.
I can envision the heroin (or meth) building to a crescendo in a few minutes.
R&B
So I can't own a gun because someone else has been irresponsible with a firearm? Does that mean you can't own a car because somewhere, someone drives recklessly?
And I have to note the evasiveness of your response. You wave the bloody shirt rather than respectfully engaging in a dialogue. Bad day at the McDonalds?
So I can't own a gun because someone else has been irresponsible with a firearm?
Nope, you can't. Being in favor of allowing terrorists to get them is the height of irresponsibility.
And I have to note the evasiveness of your response.
Who died and made you king? I made a very specific and substantive comment about limits, in response to a question. And you come in here like a tyrant to evade the question of limits.
You wave the bloody shirt rather than respectfully engaging in a dialogue.
"Bloody?" My my. You ammosexuals really do like your violent imagery, don't you? And you don't want a dialogue. See above.
Bad day at the McDonalds?
They do have pretty bad food. But then, you're the one who has to eat there every day.
Other than that, you can take your classist, elitist, anti-working class comment and shove it up your gun-hole with the rest of rest of the bullshit you use to take other commenters off-track and prevent their voices from being heard, asshole.
"Nope, you can't. Being in favor of allowing terrorists to get them is the height of irresponsibility. "
This argument applies to nearly anything, from computers to rocks.
Lets consider the possibility of a dialogue. This is very difficult among people who fundamentally hate each others guts, but what the hey.
We have a large number of people here who are not going to budge on guns, largely because they absolutely do not trust the other side. It seems to me that a sincere gesture of peace is required. What would your side be willing to give up in order to establish trust?
Jon Ericson said...
I can envision the heroin (or meth) building to a crescendo in a few minutes.
Obviously never tried either heroin (or meth).
Drugs can make you Invincible! PART ONE
Land: Horses/Land of a Thousand Dances/La Mer (De)
The boy was in the hallway drinking a glass of tea
From the other end of the hallway a rhythm was generating
Another boy was sliding up the hallway
He merged perfectly with the hallway
He merged perfectly, the mirror in the hallway
The boy looked at Johnny, Johnny wanted to run
But the movie kept moving as planned
The boy took Johnny, he pushed him against the locker
He drove it in, he drove it home, he drove it deep in Johnny
The boy disappeared, Johnny fell on his knees
Started crashing his head against the locker
Started crashing his head against the locker
Started laughing hysterically
When suddenly Johnny gets the feeling he's being surrounded by
Horses, horses, horses, horses
Coming in in all directions
White shining silver studs with their nose in flames
He saw horses, horses, horses, horses, horses, horses, horses, horses
Do you know how to pony like bony maroney
Do you know how to twist, well it goes like this, it goes like this
Baby mash potato, do the alligator, do the alligator
And you twist the twister like your baby sister
I want your baby sister, give me your baby sister, dig your baby sister
Rise up on her knees, do the sweet pea, do the sweet pee pee
Roll down on her back, got to lose control, got to lose control
Got to lose control and then you take control
Then you're rolled down on your back and you like it like that
Like it like that, like it like that, like it like that
Then you do the watusi, yeah do the watusi
Life is filled with holes, Johnny's laying there, his sperm coffin
Angel looks down at him and says, “Oh, pretty boy
Can't you show me nothing but surrender ?”
Johnny gets up, takes off his leather jacket
Taped to his chest there's the answer
You got pen knives and jack knives and
Switchblades preferred, switchblades preferred
Then he cries, then he screams, saying
Life is full of pain, I'm cruisin' through my brain
And I fill my nose with snow and go Rimbaud
Go Rimbaud, go Rimbaud
And go Johnny go, and do the watusi, oh do the watusi
There's a little place, a place called space
It's a pretty little place, it's across the tracks
Across the tracks and the name of the place is you like it like that
You like it like that, you like it like that, you like it like that
And the name of the band is the
Twistelettes, Twistelettes, Twistelettes, Twistelettes
Twistelettes, Twistelettes, Twistelettes, Twistelettes
Baby calm down, better calm down
In the night, in the eye of the forest
There's a mare black and shining with yellow hair
I put my fingers through her silken hair and found a stair
I didn't waste time, I just walked right up and saw that
Up there -- there is a sea
Up there -- there is a sea
Up there -- there is a sea
The sea's the possibility
There is no land but the land
(up there is just a sea of possibilities)
There is no sea but the sea
(up there is a wall of possibilities)
There is no keeper but the key
(up there there are several walls of possibilities)
Except for one who seizes possibilities, one who seizes possibilities
(up there)
I seize the first possibility, is the sea around me
I was standing there with my legs spread like a sailor
(in a sea of possibilities) I felt his hand on my knee
(on the screen)
And I looked at Johnny and handed him a branch of cold flame
(in the heart of man)
The waves were coming in like Arabian stallions
Gradually lapping into sea horses
He picked up the blade and he pressed it against his smooth throat
(the spoon)
And let it deep in
(the veins)
Dip in to the sea, to the sea of possibilities
It started hardening
Dip in to the sea, to the sea of possibilities
It started hardening in my hand
And I felt the arrows of desire
I put my hand inside his cranium, oh we had such a brainiac-amour
But no more, no more, I gotta move from my mind to the area
(go Rimbaud go Rimbaud go Rimbaud)
And go Johnny go and do the watusi
Yeah do the watusi, do the watusi ...
Shined open coiled snakes white and shiny twirling and encircling
Our lives are now entwined, we will fall yes we're together twining
Your nerves, your mane of the black shining horse
And my fingers all entwined through the air
I could feel it, it was the hair going through my fingers
(I feel it I feel it I feel it I feel it)
The hairs were like wires going through my body
I I that's how I
That's how I
I died
(at that Tower of Babel they knew what they were after)
(they knew what they were after)
[Everything on the current] moved up
I tried to stop it, but it was too warm, too unbelievably smooth
Like playing in the sea, in the sea of possibility, the possibility
Was a blade, a shiny blade, I hold the key to the sea of possibilities
There's no land but the land
Looked at my hands, and there's a red stream
That went streaming through the sands like fingers
Like arteries, like fingers
(how much fits between the eyes of a horse?)
He lay, pressing it against his throat (your eyes)
He opened his throat (your eyes)
His vocal chords started shooting like (of a horse) mad pituitary glands
The scream he made (and my heart) was so high (my heart) pitched that nobody heard
No one heard that cry
No one heard (Johnny) the butterfly flapping in his throat
(His fingers)
Nobody heard, he was on that bed, it was like a sea of jelly
And so he seized the first
(his vocal chords shot up)
(possibility)
(like mad pituitary glands)
It was a black tube, he felt himself disintegrate
(there is nothing happening at all)
And go inside the black tube, so when he looked out into the steep
Saw this sweet young thing (Fender one)
Humping on the parking meter, leaning on the parking meter
In the sheets
There was a man
Dancing around
To the simple
Rock & roll
Song
Oh, you'd be surprised what a nice combination of drugs can do.
So, you're a recovering addict. who knew!
Time to go beddy-bye, Jon.
Thanks, no.
Your annual odds of being killed in a car crash-- 1 in 6700
Your annual odds of being killed mountain hiking-- 1 in 15700
Your annual odds of being struck by lightning-- 1 in 960,000
Your annual odds of being killed by rifle fire-- less than 1 in 1,000,000
Unfortunately facts have no influence on the left. That is because preventing murders is not what drives the anti-gun liberal. What they really, truly, deep-down hope to do is to punish their political rivals by taking away something that their political rivals like. Plus, it decreases the chances that their political rivals will rise up in force and overthrow the fascist left, which they have so painstakingly constructed by sabotaging the basic principals of constitutional governance.
Lets consider the possibility of a dialogue.
Let's not. Go sing songs with you-know-who and contribute some run-on sentences to the mix.
Discussions with people who prefer to speak with fists and bullets don't go anywhere. And aren't intended to.
The gin boat must have docked. Ritmo is here.
Car crashes - generally relegated to willing drivers and passengers.
Mountain hiking accidents - relegated almost entirely to people who decide to climb mountains.
Lightning strikes - acts of nature that can nevertheless be mitigated by staying inside a grounded shelter during storms.
Rifle fire? The one thing that we have control over making more or less likely and that ammosexuals like Tyrone Slothrop, etc., want to pretend has anything to do with the others. Republicans simply like making society more dangerous. It helps bring a charge into their otherwise very boring and subservient lives.
Other people are less easily entertained.
The gin boat must have docked. Ritmo is here.
What did I just say about boring people who are easily entertained?
Pull that visor down tighter, Rusty cunt. It's not cutting off as much of the circulation to your head as it usually does.
I leave it to you. Numbers have absolutely no influence on R&B. His hate has overwhelmed his reason, such as it was.
"The dumbest thing I heard lately is AG Lynch saying we need to love terrorists to get them to change their evil ways not shoot them"
Oh Oh. The late shift at MacDonalds is out. G'nite.
More sex=guns & shooting from Ritmo. Get some help. Seriously, dude. I have known some serious gun nuts and none of them had as intense an emotional reaction to firearms as you do. Maybe you should get a bumper sticker that says "I WILL Pry Your Gun Away From Your Cold, Dead, Fingers!" or maybe "Anti-Life, Anti-God, Anti-Gun."
Ritmo, I cant help but agree with some here. You are quite hostile today. Anyway, I am a buwaya of peace, with no gun and no fists.
A musical buwaya though, it is not to be. I am the only one in the family with no talent. Everyone else plays instruments, sings, dances. I am the audience. We who sit and listen also serve the cause of art I guess.
buwaya puti said...
Ritmo, I cant help but agree with some here. You are quite hostile today. Anyway, I am a buwaya of peace, with no gun and no fists.
6/22/16, 9:45 PM"
Funny how he blames a tool used by terrorists in pursuit of their ideology and thus ban the tool but not ban the importation of potential terrorists and their ideology.
rusty cunt, rusty cunt la la la la la-la
Sheesh,
I keep tellin' ya, A REASONABLE MAN does not know what a speedball is.
Or what A REASONABLE MAN is.
He sounds like he's been through it.
Have pity.
Bow down to the DEA man.
See A REASONABLE MAN, Ritmo needs to shoot up again. It's not... uh, emanating sparks of... uh transcendent wisdom, like a few... uh periods of time ago. JUST YOU WAIT! It'll be back and kicking asses and taking names.
Weekends coming, so connections are plentiful, and it won't need to act too rational as the weekend approaches, then WHAM! everything is beautiful, or terribly rotten, or it sees Horses...
There is no "compromise" "lawprof". What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
"Give up your rights so the terrorists can't have them!"
"Give up your rights so the terrorists can't have them!"
Gee, I wonder why the collectivist totalitarians are letting the terrorists in? Two plus two... What does that equal again...
mockturtle said...
Even if certain types of firearms were 'banned', the components could easily be purchased over the internet.
Or simply print them.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा