Right Wing trying to score politcal (Pro-Gun) points off national tragedy
I’m somewhat stunned and numb about the shootings in Virginia. And yet piercing the haze is the complete crap being peddled by wingnuts that more guns are the answer to this kind of tragedy.
No sooner had I returned home last night than I saw the truly vile and horrendous Michelle Malkin making that case, this morning I read at Kos that “Istapundit” Glenn Reynolds thinks more guns are needed in our nation’s classrooms, and to top all of that off – the normally sane Al Mascitti seemed to agree with a string on nit wits on this morning who think more guns would make us safer.
Honest to God, these people have no shame whatsoever. The fact that guns are so easy to get is at the heart of this devastating tragedy – but WTF!!! Let’s make them even EASIER to get.
UPDATE: The other rightwing Bullshit talking point going around is that the victims were a bunch of wussies who should have “fought back.” This one is sooo infuriating to me.
Where in the world do these conservatives pukes get off thinking that they would have been some kind of hero in this situation?
It’s nauseating.
Tags: wingnut-o-sphere
Just think of how much better yesterday would have gone if we actually had a shootout at VT. Madman shoots at students, students fire back.
This would be a wingnut wet dream. Just think of the savings in campus security. Then we could get rid of Air Marshals if we let all passengers have guns, too. We don’t need to get guns out of the classroom, we need more guns in the classroom.
I swear, these guys drive me crazy.
get a load of this comment by Newark Mike from the delawareonline.com comment area:
“I can’t imagine what pushes a young man to do this unless he is a terrorist.”
how’s that for wing nuttery
this is a comment from a co worker on this insane arguement:
“I guess some 18 y/o freshman in Concepts in Mechanical Engineering 202 was suppose to return fire. What are the rules of engagement in a Physics lab, I wonder. If a firefight starts in DuPont lab can Professor Einstein radio in an air strike?”
Get real. It is the left wing big government bunch marching lockstep in another decanal round of exploitive grandstanding over a violent tragedy.
It is clearly the far left social fixers trying to score anti gun points or just political points off this tragedy. Now you have joined them.
Someone goes crazy? Disarm all the citizens.
Typical fuzzy thinking from effete pointy headed pseudo intellectuals.
Like this nerdy stress case :
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/what-i-think-about-guns_b_46037.html
I think there is a lot of space between the cartoon figure you’d like me to be and the cartoon that you seem to be.
I would ask which is a more fuzzy thought:
Someone goes crazy? Disarm all the citizens.
or
Someone goes crazy? Arm all the citizens.
Is that what you would really like to reduce this discussion to, anonymous?
An Armed Citizen With A Permit Stopped The Last VA College Shooting Rampage (2002)
CNS News ^ | September 17, 2002 | By Christine Hall
Student Group Wants Campus Gun Ban Lifted
(CNSNews.com) – After two armed southwest Virginia law students stopped a campus shooting rampage in January, a Second Amendment group at a northern Virginia law school decided it was time to change their own school’s ban on guns.
“We are trying to build a detailed and persuasive brief that would include statistics on increases in safety, decreases in violent crime when you do have concealed carry permit holders in a jurisdiction,” said Orest J. Jowyk, president of the Second Amendment group at George Mason University School of Law.
“I think the middle ground is to allow concealed handgun permit holders to carry just like they can anywhere else in Virginia,” he said. “You provide extra safety to the student body that way.”
Jowyk began researching his law school’s gun policy following the January incident in which a disgruntled student at Appalachian Law School, Peter Odighizuwa, allegedly shot and killed the school’s dean, a professor and a student on campus before being subdued by two armed students, Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges.
Gross and Bridges reportedly ran to their cars to fetch their own guns and returned to confront Odighizuwa, who surrendered after allegedly initiating a fistfight.
Jowyk was heartened by the students’ intervention. But looking into GMU’s gun policy, Jowyk found to his dismay that the school’s board of visitors had in 1995 passed a ban on all weapons, concealed or otherwise, except by law enforcement officials.
Anyone who violates the school’s gun ban would face administrative repercussions but not criminal charges, according to Jowyk.
Then in April, Virginia’s Democratic governor, Mark Warner, signed a law prohibiting local governments from using administrative rules to pass gun restrictions that go beyond existing state law.
Jowyk’s Second Amendment group is now investigating how that law might apply to GMU, though the group has not yet approached school administrators about changing the policy.
“There is a question that’s being bandied about in the Commonwealth whether or not this university qualifies under that law as a locality,” said Mike Lynch, chief of police for GMU law school’s police department. “Today, I don’t think we have the answer.”
If that legal question is eventually resolved in the school’s favor, Lynch says he will likely recommend that the weapons ban continue.
“The more people that have guns…on them, it is my opinion that that would increase the propensity for somebody getting hurt,” either through accident or mischief, said Lynch. “And I don’t want to see that.”
But the controversy surrounding gun bans on state colleges and universities isn’t limited to Virginia.
In January, the Utah legislature launched an inquiry into the University of Utah’s 25-year-old gun ban after state Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said state laws on concealed weapons prohibited agencies and schools from banning them from state property.
“We need to have the right to exclude weapons on campus,” University of Utah President Bernie Machen testified to legislators, describing the decision as a matter of academic freedom. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” he said. Machen has also argued that the ban fosters a safe learning environment.
On March 6, the Utah Senate passed a GOP-sponsored bill allowing the legislature to cut in half the school’s administration budget if the gun ban continues. The university responded two weeks later by initiating a court challenge, asking a U.S. District Court judge to uphold the school’s gun ban.
Also in March, Ohio University’s 2000 “workforce violence policy” prohibiting any carrying or displaying of weapons became the subject of controversy when a journalism professor was directed to remove a Civil War-era gun he had displayed on his wall for more than a decade. University administrators reportedly are re-evaluating the policy.
“I feel like I’ve really been fingered as a dangerous person,” Patrick Washburn told the University Wire.
Steamy – That story was from the cybercast news service which employed a gay prositute to ask softball questions during President Bush’s press conference.
If you dig a bit deeper it seems that the armed students were helped out by the fact that the shooter in that case was out of ammo.
Police reports noted there were two empty eight round magazines belonging to Odighizuwa’s .380 semi-automatic handgun. It is unclear whether Odighizuwa ran out of ammunition or if there was still a round in the chamber at the time that he dropped his firearm.
Maybe they stopped the guy from reloading, maybe not. But the idea that more guns on campus equals more saftey is insane.
Look at per capita gun homicide rates in Canada and the US if you are interested in reality.
If you favor fantasy – keep reading the CNS.
I liked to see the stats that show how many times people have “thwarted” an attack b/c they were armed
or we could compare the homicide rates in South Dakota and Washington DC
roughly eqaul populations, vastly different gun laws and crime rates.
or we could dig a little deep and ask why are all these school shooters on anti-depressants (prozak)? cause or effect?
donviti
try the research of John Locke
the guy from Lost?
The DC gun ban was struck down and the court said the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.
People in DC are fed up being menaced by gun toting maniacs with a lousy lazy police force and no way to defend themselves.
Thank God for those activist judges on that circuit court of appeals.
The Second Amendment is a full-carry permit for every citizen. I am personally not comfortable with this conclusion but I’ve read it up, down, and sideways and I can’t take away any other meaning.
but I’ve read it up, down, and sideways…
Did you read the part about a well regulated militia being, being necessary to the security of a free State?
Somehow a bunch of people packing heat and indulging in vigilante justice does not conform to my idea of a well regulated militia.
The first right taken away by fascist regimes has always been the right to own firearms. Hitler Stalin Mussolini and others have all done it. No government can rest easy in absolute power with a citizenry as well armed as in the United States. Thank God for people who still believe the Constitution matters including the parts they may not like. It is a shame to see liberals pick and choose amongst rights while bashing Bush for doing the same. They are just the other side of the same big government freedom hating coin.
ummm. DC and SD might have the same population, but they have vastly different population densities. Are you being intellectually dishonest, funny or dumb?
Shit, in SD no one actually lives in firing range of their neighbor.
packing heat and indulging in vigilante justice
Two different things. One is legal, one is not.
the part about a well regulated militia
Probably the most poorly written sentence in the entire Constitution.
Suddenly the libertarian Republicans return. Where ya’ been for five years anonymous? Conserving your strength.
Geek,
Alaska and Ft Worth Tx have the same population but more people get shot in Fort Worth, so gun laws must be suck.
Militia was defined in that era as all adult males not a military force. If you want only the police and the military to have guns you should consider relocating to countries that ensure this – like China or Russia or North Korea.
“Where ya’ been for five years anonymous?
Out buying lots and lots of guns.
Hey #22 –
Try harder. Nobody think the phrase “well regulated militia” means “adult males” in that context. It does not even make sense.
And anyway if they meant that why didn’t they say that? I love how you guys are strict literalists when it serves your purposes – but any words can mean any other words if you get backed into a corner.
By “corner” I mean McCormick reaper.
Nobody think the phrase “well regulated militia” means “adult males” in that context.
Only the people who wrote the Constitution. The militia was considered all able bodied male citizens not the military or police. Who do you think these revolutionaries were writing this amendment to oppose in the first place? I suppose the intentions of those people are as diposable as their constitutional amendments you don’t like. Your entitled to your own opinion but not your own historical facts. Do you also oppose the right to privacy? That is absolutely not literally or even figuratively spelled out.
BY the way “well-regulated” was simply saying there could be no private armies formed by groups of armed citizens.
Feh…
Don’t make it worse on yourself.
Well regulated milita = adult males in your fevered imagination and nowhere else.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw5&fileName=gwpage012.db&recNum=2
Feh…
Don’t make it any worse on yourself. “Well regulated Militia” = Adult males only in your fevered imagination and maybe some gun nut web sites that realize the “militia” requirement crushes your “right” to arm every psycho who walks into a gun store.
Jase: You know darn well both sides are attempting to make points. And the arguments put forth here about the 2nd Amendment are historically accurate, for the most part. But, that doesn’t mean there cannot be regulations on gun ownership, obviously. Every right, including the freedom of speech, has limits, and so does the right to bear arms.
I know you’re not for abolition of private ownership of guns, right?
Hube,
I am not in favor of abolishing that right. That being said there does need to be regulation. I suspect everyone agrees to that (We shouldn’t be allowed to own a bazooka, or at least not with the ammo). The question is where do we draw the line, at “you must have a compelling reason to own a gun” or “any lunatic with $250 should be allowed to purchase one.”
That being said there does need to be regulation.
Where have you been since 1968? Guns are well regulated under federal state and local laws across America. They simply do not work to prevent wackos intent on murder any more than Iraqis can stop suicide bombers intent on mass mayhem.
Tell me what law would have prevented this tragedy that does not infringe on lawful firearms ownership? Name one. I bet it is already law. I bet it is another failed attempt at gun control that only snares the law abiding and lawful.
The question is where do we draw the line, at “you must have a compelling reason to own a gun”
You mean like self-defense? That sure narrows it down.
or “any lunatic with $250 should be allowed to purchase one.”
Already illegal. Mental illness is a bar to firearms ownership. Check the BATF forms you have to fill out with every purchase.
Oh you didn’t know every legal gun sale has a federal form attached to it asking all kinds of probing questions at penalty of prison for lying?
Did you think they weren’t already registering guns? How did you think they trace a gun owner in every gun crime?
Sorry but defective human beings are no excuse for taking away constitutional rights from all. If that were the case cars would have long ago been banned for the horrid death rates they cause.
The short of all this is that when you make gun ownership a crime only criminals will be able to get them. The harder it is to do legally the bigger the black market.
You all have to deal with the fact that the only gun control that will work to your liking would be a total ban. Anything else is just foderoll for the political opportunists and a worthless pain in the ass for the law abiding. Nothing short of a total gun ban could have stopped the VT tragedy.
It’s really the same as the drug war. Drug trade will never be stopped so the more illegal it is made the more violent and dangerous the outlaw market will be to meet the unchanged demand.
It is a shame to see this country so gripped with hysteria that constitutional rights can be up for grabs with every loony tune massacre. If this is how America does things imagine what the Iraqis have to look forward to. What an interesting analogy. 32 people is a slow day for the daily killing they live with because of homicidal maniacs. Do you think they want a gun ban? Or do they know that only the murderers will be armed then? Food for your thinking.
That is exactly the point. I never said anything about abolishing the private ownership of guns. Put aside all the militia malarky and the “Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini” mumb-jumbo and get real.
Tragedies like this raise a simple question:
Is it too easy to get guns in the United States?
Yes. Yes it is. Why, for example, should anyone be able to buy more than one gun per year?
Jason – actually, per the history courses I have had throughout life (including college), anonymous is at least partially correct in that part of the 2nd amendment. Keep in mind that is in a historical context, not today’s context. There is a lot of language there that doesn’t translate well to our current day lingo.
You are correct in that the accepted thought is that it didn’t say each and every male is part of a militia, something anonymous attempted to clarify with the ‘regulated’ comment.
Now I am really stretching the brain cells here, but wasn’t the use of ‘militia’ there translated to State militia, which is today’s National Guard?
Back to the verbage of the constitution, in today’s legal-ese…it’s a mess. Way too many “weasel” words, meaning too many vague terms and adjectives. Even to this day, there is so much flexibility for translating each article, amendment, and so on. That’s how we get into nasty debates over gun rights/gun control: too many interpretations of the constitution and each interpreter has a genuine claim to say they are right!
Somebody get Wayne Smith! Harry Themal claims him as our prized historian! Actually, he is a pro in that area.
Enough rambling…just got home from class and had immediate diaper duty. I am beat! Buenos noches!
Why, for example, should anyone be able to buy more than one gun per year?
Why, for example, should anyone be able to buy more than one gun per year?
Here we go with the totally arbitrary nonsensical restrictions on 100s of millions because of one loony murderer.
So that stops these incidents? this incident?
How did you calculate that little formula? A liberal fascist’s guide to constitutional pick and choose?
Malarkey? Brother this little made up nonsolution you just randomly pulled from your ass pretty much defines that word.
Get real. Get honest. Call for the ban you want but spare us these laughable stabs at solving sick demented violence by having big brother dole us out our rights piecemeal.
Eroding the rights of lawful Americans is not worth your utopian fantasy that doing so will somehow eliminate or even reduce the evil work of homicidal defectives.
No one owes you an explanation about how or why they peacefully and lawfully exercise their constitutional freedoms.
How many guns per year would be acceptable to you? 50? 100? 1,000?
Where in the second amendment does it say I have the right to own 50 guns? My “arbitrary limit” is not meant stop these incidents, but discourage them. If guns were not so easy to obtain in Virginia who is to say this incedent would not have been averted.
Look at it this way, if you child was playing by the edge of a highway would you shrug and say “he is going to play there either way so I’m not going to try and discourage him?” No, you wouldn’t.
Honestly, your NRA talking points are sharp, but you don’t have a leg to stand on. You are basically saying that we’d be safe from gun violence and fascism if everyone was armed to the teeth. As for the first part – that so insane it is not worth addressing.
As for the second part – I think of voting and freedom of association as our best hedge against fascism BUT if Bush does pull the trigger and decides to stay in office I’ll see you on the barricade. You can lend me one of your 50 guns.
As it was strongly pointed out in the Federalist Papers, written by the same guys who pretty much created our Constitution: giving your government more power is never the answer.
I would rather deal with a lone, crazy person with a gun than a troop of well-armed, government backed people who may or may not be led by corrupt politicians. Its way easier to deal with lone gunmen.
1) Are you arguing that people (including legal immigrants who have been here for 14+ years) should not be allowed to own a 9mm pistol and .22 pistol?? (How will we start high school track meets if people can’t own a .22 pistol???) We are not talking about assault rifles, grenades, bazookas, or cruise missiles.
2) If that is not what you are arguing then why are liberal gun grabbers talking about gun control?
The way I see it, only the extremists would argue for gun laws that would have prevented this guy from having his guns. So, it was improper and sick to see people using this tragedy to bolster their arguments against guns.
I also think it is stupid to argue that the students should have been armed, the professors should have the option but not the students.
That said, it was clearly the antigun nuts that tried to use this tragedy to their own advantage, FIRST. The NRA backers responded with some dumb arguments, but I challenge you to find any such statements that were not a RESPONSE to the gun grabbers.
Who do you blame when there is a car accident?? Do you blame the idiot driving 90+ mph and swerving through traffic? Or do you blame the car industry for making cars that go faster than 65 mph? Many more people are killed in car accidents than will ever be killed through gun violence and there is certainly no mention of cars in the Constitution. So where is the liberal outrage that automakers are making killing machines??
There is recurring fallacy in ya’lls argument that I’m a “gun grabber.”
Keep you guns. I’m just saying make it harder for people (including legal immigrants who have been here for 14+ years who are buying guns in order to kill people) to get guns.
My position makes perfect sense. You guys are the wacko extremists.
“Do you blame the idiot driving 90+ mph and swerving through traffic?”
Corzine?
Are you suggesting a law that would have made it impossible for this kid to get his guns?
If not, then why are we talking about gun control?
i find this all so fascinating, understanding that conservatives look “back in history” to make change and find answers that will help shape their beliefs you would think that there are plenty of examples “historically” that would lead everyone to believe (to Jason’s point) that it is too easy to get guns in this country and there is a real problem.
Why is it when it comes to gun control conservatives seem how to forget what it means to be conservative all of a sudden?
but you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Just the Constitution is all. You anti-gunners just don’t get it. The Constitution is not up for your quick edits. Speech, assembly, religion, press, self-arming for self-defense – personal or against tyranny, are rights that are fundamental to a free people. Your “one gun a year” ploy is just more unadulterated bullshit designed to reduce freedom in America. Had your desired gun ban laws been in place in the late 18th century this country wculd be still under the Union Jack and our founders slaughtered by Brit army regulars.
If “NRA talking points” are sharp it is because they have been refined over about 225 years by people who have defended freedom against loopy fascists like Jason330. Your anti NRA crap is not going to get you where you want to go. There is good reason the NRA is the largest and still strongest civil rights lobby in this country.
“DONVITI”, you better wake up that the gun issue is not something you can rack up with conservatism because you think it is some easy sideways slur. That’s not going to cut it. Nice try.
Most Americans are willing to risk the occasional homicidal nutcase because they know that gun rights are as essential to their safety and freedom as the rest of the bill of rights. Why you guys hate the bill of rights is no mystery to people who have seen your kind before – just before their rights were quashed.
You can lend me one of your 50 guns.
Sorry guy that is on you. When you suddenly need protection from illegal martial law you can ask the police or military to take care of you. No doubt they will. They love bleeding hearts on the barricade.
One more time – no one has to justify or explain to you their peaceful and lawful exercise of their constitutional freedoms. So get over it. You lose.
Wacko
Fascist
My hero.
“Most Americans are willing to risk the occasional homicidal nutcase because they know that gun rights are as essential to their safety and freedom as the rest of the bill of rights.”
Freedom courtesy of a gun…I must be an idiot then because there isn’t anything occasional happening in Philly these days
I am sure that those occasions are caused by otherwise law abiding people with legal guns too. Sure.
Why don’t you guys start with knives. They are too easy to get these days and are used in countless crimes. Ban the knives. One knife a year.
All these red herrings…knives, Cuba, Militia…
Guns are simply too easy to get. You need to confront that reality somehow. Until then, you just sound like a zombie NRA robot.
You are wacko-extremist-gun-nut-zealot with one answer to every problem: MORE GUNS!!!
Your gun ban groove is just a big red herring for the insane violence of a miniscule number of mental cases. Capitalizing on tragedy. You disgust me.
Gun laws are too restrictive. You need to confront the reality that one legally armed citizen could have saved a bunch of lives this week from an illegally armed murderous wackjob. But alas guns were banned at VT. Meanwhile the cops waited around for 2 hours while the nut was on the loose.
You are a mushy headed fascist bully. A freedom-hating-Constitution-torching-Bush-clone. You and W should get together. Between the 2 of you all our rights can be taken away in one fell swoop.
Nazi thug.
You are a mushy headed fascist bully.
You put the “moronic” in oxymoronic.
We should all feel safe with guns only in the hands of law enforcement like Jason wants.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-04-17T192809Z_01_N17445050_RTRUKOC_0_US-WHITEHOUSE-INCIDENT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
You put the bull in bully.
I must have missed the other industrialized countries across the globe that have these senseless tragedies.
Constitution – Neither Jason nor I have suggested that guns should be banned. There should be restrictions, and you have said as much. The question is where does one draw that line? You claim that Jason’s 1/year number is arbitrary. But any restriction would likely be arbitrary.
Where should the restrictions be? Should it be a limit on caliber? How about the number of bullets that you can buy? Or are you really suggesting that there should be no limit on our gun ownership?
Your little knife or car analogy is weak, since knives and cars are regularly used for non-violent acts, and so we classify them differently.
I would be happy to debate where the lines should be drawn, but denying that there should be lines is problematic to a discussion.
I must have missed the other industrialized countries across the globe that have these senseless tragedies.
You mean like Switzerland, maybe?
Well, in Switzerland, you may purchase 3 guns and you must have a gun purchase permit. Presumably, once you buy your 3 guns you are done. It appears that you can also buy guns from individuals, without much regulation. Of course, 3 guns per person does keep the levels reasonable. Also, ammo sales are recorded.
Is 3 in a lifetime the right level?
I’m not certain of Switzerland’s regs, but yeah, that sounds reasonable to me, personally.
Actually, after doing some more research, it is not clear that the 3 limit isn’t only for handguns. Either way, I think Hube and I are closer to agreement than ever before…
Are you suggesting a law that would have made it impossible for this kid to get his guns?
If not, then why are we talking about gun control?
Anyone?
bc: To answer your questions:
No,
and
It’s a good topic to discuss considering recent history.
I agree that gun control is always an interesting topic and I personally think our laws are a little too lax right now.
However, the hypocrisy of the original post is just mind boggling.
Actually, If you scroll all the way up…
I’ll wait…
You can see that the reason that we are discussing this is that some people were using this as a jumping off point for why we need more guns, not less. So I think some people were, in fact, saying that more access to guns might have averted this tragedy. Jason challenged that notion and I second that challenge.
Hey everybody, did you miss me?
I really got my Second Amendment panties in a bunch when I learned that this guy cleared the background check and all the other hoops and bought his weapon legally. Huh, maybe the gun control advocates are right. I really thought that for a while, but then I learned that back in 2005, this kid was officially considered a stalker, but the female students didn’t want to press charges. I’m no lawyer, but if charges had been brought and a conviction for terroristic threatening or whatever been reached, wouldn’t that have prevented his legal purchase of a handgun? First enforce all the laws already on the books, then maybe we can talk about new laws.
As for Switzerland, every able-bodied Swiss citizen IS considered to be a member of the militia, since they don’t have a standing army. (The Swiss Guard at the Vatican don’t count.) As such, they are required not only to have a weapon but to be prepared to use it. This includes assault rifles.
Geek: And as I said, Jason’s concentration on those on the right, while understandable considering his politics, is disingenuous. Lefties are jumping on the bandwagon for more gun control now, too.
From what i saw yesterday, the first people trying to “use this as a jumping off point” were people saying we need more gun control.
Also, from what I saw most of the IDIOTIC statements from NRA types were in response to the cries for more gun control.
My point is this: When only the most extreme level of gun control would have prevented this particular incident, I don’t think it is proper to use this tragedy as a springboard for tighter gun laws either.
Thanks Hube,
I think if you look at the original post I state that the folks I’ve seen trying to make politcal hay out of this tragedy are right wing gun nuts.
bc says he see that those folks (malkin et al) were responding to calls for gun restrictions. If that is the case I missed those calls. (Maybe Malkin anticipated what “liberal” were going to say and responded in advance – it could happen. Wingnuts are all about pre-emption)
As far as #2 goes, trying to have a reasonable conversation with him about guns is like trying to have a reasonable conversation with a klansman about race.
Kucinich Seeks To Ban Hand Guns In America
WTAM ^ | 04/18/07 | By Darren Toms, Newsradio WTAM 1100
Congressman drafting legislation to make owning a hand gun illegal. Cleveland) – Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich wants to ban hand guns in America. Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer or possession of hand guns by civilians. A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill. Kucinich announced this move in the aftermath of Monday’s deadly shooting at Virginia Tech. Kucinich noted in a speech to congress that about 32 people die each day in America due to hand gun related incidents. 33 died at VT. Kucinich says it’s becoming “painfully obvious” that the…
Hence the pre-emptive strike by the wingnuts.
Thank you for making my point.
Holding the line for the Constitution against the Jasons of the world is akin to appealing to the Nazis over the final solution. They arent having anything but the final solution. Dianne Feinstein was right out in front calling for new gun controls. So were the other gun-banners. JasonLiberal is just a lemming following suit. No tragedy is too devastating for you all to start scoring your political points from. Wretched. Putrid.
Hey Amend,
Why is it that as soon as someone discusses limits, they are labeled as a gun-banner? It seems to be you who is reflexively against compromise. Please point out where either Jason or I said that we want to ban guns. Talk about a lemming…
Your little knife or car analogy is weak, since knives and cars are regularly used for non-violent acts, and so we classify them differently.
So are firearms. Self-defense is not an act of violence. Or do you believe otherwise?
Knives and cars are statistically involved in far more acts of violence than firearms. Ever heard of road rage? Armed bank robbers don’t drive off on tricycles. Rapists almost always use knives.
I understand the analogy can be drawn to absurdity. But your selective arguments about firearms which are essentialy just machines as potentially deadly or useful as knives or cars goes to the core of why you have to ban them all to end all misuses of them.
If there was a rational gun control measure that didnt deny lawful people their rights while never nabbing the nasty ones I would be on board in a heartbeat. Experience and nearly 40 years of gun legislation has proven otherwise over and over.
GREX is right. Start enforcing the laws on the books or come clean in calling for a total gun ban.
Liberalgeek – you cannot honestly be calling me out on this blog for making hyperbole of an opponent’s position. This blog wouldn’t exist without this tactic and Jason would be mute 90% of the time.
Yes, shooting someone in self defense is an act of violence. I do have to stand on that point. just like stabbing someone in self defense is an act of violence. It may very well be justified, but claiming that an act isn’t violent because of its motivation is the definition of absurd. Sometimes the only way to deal with violence, is violence. I am not a pacifist, nor a gun-hater. But you cannot reasonably believe that the firing of a gun at another person is not violence.
I am indeed calling you out, but for being intellectually dishonest. Hyperbole is fine, but if you want to make a stupid argument, expect to be bitch slapped. Now that there is some justifiable violence.
This blog wouldn’t exist without this tactic and Jason would be mute 90% of the time.
When it comes to hyperbole you are 2000% wrong.
Ha!
Nicely done. You may be a crazy gun banning fascist but you also have a great sense of humor. I think it all balances out.
Liberalgeek : whatever. If you think defending one’s self by any means necessary is an act of violence there is no rational discussion left with you.
“When it comes to hyperbole you are 2000% wrong.”
Okay, now I’m convinced you’re the real Jason. Good to have you back!
Snared by your own logical trap, eh. My 10 year old has the same sort of comeback when is is wrong too. Please don’t shoot me to compensate for your weaknesses.
There’s a fundamental difference between “Predatory violence” and “defensive violence.” It’s sad that some of you can’t see that.
I should also add that defensive violence is an instinctual behavior of virtually all living creatures.
I suggest everyone read these two excellent pieces on the subject of violence.
http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2004_06_01_archive.html#108619407558263312
They illustrate “predatory vs. protective” in detail.
http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2004/06/its-most-important-that-all-potential.html
But I already know many of you won’t read them. They are posted for the benefit of the fence-sitter who isn’t grossly ignorant and might actually learn something from our little debates.