Deep Thought Of The Day
When this Arkansas criminal/gun nut lover turns out to have a bunch of Ralph Nader books and Noam Chomsky tapes in his apartment I guess I’ll have a more than a bit of egg on my face.
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.
Again you are tying together “gun nuts” with a criminal who murdered someone. Just because some asshole criminal used a gun to murder someone doesn’t mean you can equate them with me, or the 80+million other gun owners who didn’t commit a crime yesterday.
That’s just as stupid and bigoted as lumping all blacks in with gangsta rappers or all muslims in with radical islamic terrorists.
The guy was fired from Target because he wrote on the wall. Whatever it was, it was serious enough that they called police and fired him on the spot, and washed it off immediately.
Hopefully it is in a police report, or somebody at Target could be persuaded to tell what it was (sounds like a job for the National Enquirer).
Going out on a limb I will say it was some kind of a threat.
“I love Walmart”
Or some kind of racist, sexist or homophobic slur, perhaps it was even a swastika.
“here I sit all brokenhearted tried to…”
“for a good time call”
“there once was a man from nantucket who…”
“Or some kind of racist, sexist or homophobic slur, perhaps it was even a swastika.”
probably wouldn’t call the cops about that
yep, you a right Tom…who cares about hate crimes anymore. so 90’s
In addition to the gun he used he had two in his car. That says “gun nut” to me, but I maybe wrong.
What is the PC term for people who have lots of guns Mike? Gun lover? Gun enthusiast?
“defender of liberty and from tyranny” I believe
That’s not the point Jason. You are equating this shooter, a CRIMINAL, a MURDERER with folks like myself and 80+ million law-abiding gun owners who aren’t out killing people.
I don’t care about being PC, but what I do care about is continually being lumped in with criminals & nutjobs just because they happen to use the same tool which I and tens of millions of other law-abiding americans also own.
I thought I made that point clear in my 1st comment, but I’m guessing you didn’t read it.
Do you think when the guy woke up this morning he knew before the day ended he was going to be a criminal or,murderer? The tool made it easier for him to achieve that status.
Most workplace shootings or crimes of passion are perpetrated by upstanding, normal members of society who just so happen to be gun owners. Read the papers, watch the news.
Right H. and what about the 99.99999999% of gun owners who didn’t commit a crime yesterday despite having a gun avaliable and have in fact never committed a violent crime in their lives?
Violent crimes are perpetrated by people with objects other than guns all the time (knives for example). Blaming the gun, even tangentally, is patently ridiculous.
Also, you and others keep making the mistake of conflating law-abiding gun owners like myself with criminals. All men have penises, does that make it OK for me to lump you in with rapists or label you a “potential rapist” everytime there’s a rape in the news? Just because you possess the equipment doesn’t mean it’s acceptable to equate you with those who use said equipment to harm others. We don’t consider every women who posts here a “potential prostitute” just because she has the required equipment.
“Gun lover” then?
I’ll correct the post.
Again Jason – Why do you insist on conflating law-abiding gun owners with criminals and murderers?
why do you insist on calling a law a ban?
why do you insist someone that wants a law is anti gun?
annoying huh…
I call it what it is. I already explained it to you DBB. LAWS which BAN things are called BANS. Shocking I know.
Likewise, if you support laws which ban guns, you are anti-gun. What in the hell is so confusing about that? I suppose you’re going to tell me that since Obama supported DC’s now overturned gun ban he’s not “anti-gun” but rather “pro-law?” Using your dazzling logic the KKK weren’t “anti-black” just “pro-law” and the Nazi’s werent “anti-jew/anti aryan” just “pro-law.” Your argument is ridiculous.
If you supported laws which discriminated against and infringed upon the rights of blacks I’d call you “anti black” If you did the same with gays i’d call you “anti-gay”
Why do you insist on conflating law-abiding gun owners with criminals and murderers?
Because you “law-abiding” gun owners support easy access to any type of firearm to anyone, whether they have a history of violence, mental illness, or substance abuse or not.
That’s why. Is that clear enough for you?
Perhaps, if you and your fellow gun fetishists took just a small amount of responsibility and endorsed common sense measures that made it a tad more difficult for felons, crazies, and drug addicts to get their hands on firearms–we’d have just a little respect for you.
Ah, good old Jadegold has found his way to DE Liberal!
Why should I give up my rights and take responsibility for the actions of criminals? My rights are NOT dependent upon whether the criminal element of society chooses to misuse them.
My personal shithouse pulitzer:
I
WE
TODD
DID
“Perhaps, if you and your fellow gun fetishists took just a small amount of responsibility and endorsed common sense measures that made it a tad more difficult for felons, crazies, and drug addicts to get their hands on firearms–we’d have just a little respect for you.”
And what of the flat out gun BANS you anti’s managed to get in Chicago & DC? How would you propose the “law-abiding” further concede their rights in those communities to combat gun violence? Guns are banned, they’ve surrendered their rights entirely, and criminals are still shooting people.
They’ve given up their 2A rights completely. What more do you want from them?
This of course ignores the obvious fact that it is NOT their fault nor should they have conceded their rights because of the criminal actions of others. Only now, because of 30 years of a failed gun ban and a win in Heller are DC residents finally re-taking a right that was always theirs.
Welcome, Jadegold!
Jadegold is VERY well known in the gun blogging community. He’ll fit in perfecty here at Delaware Liberal.
Honestly, I thought Jadegold had disappeared.
Thanks, Pandora.
Why should I give up my rights and take responsibility for the actions of criminals?
When your actions make it much easier for those who shouldn’t possess weapons to get them–you bear the responsibility.
Nobody has said you have to give up your rights. In fact, another gun fetishist lie is the belief that there are groups calling for a total ban on guns. To date, no gunloon can identify any group that calls for a total gun ban.
I have to agree with Mike about grouping the legal and responsible gun owners with wackos like the guy in Arkansas. But with that said, a law restricting ownership or weapon type does not equate to a ban or quashing 2A rights…unless it’s a total ban.
Mike,
It’s a pure cost-benefit analysis. The costs of a lack of gun laws, as we see in this scenario and so many others, even here in Delaware at Del State in September, way out justify the benefits, which I’m sure you could rattle off.
The only way it becomes justified is if the costs are somehow decreased, i.e. gun control, to make them equal to the benefits.
A lack of sensible gun control laws is just ridiculous in a society where we are driven by impulses. People that have been admitted to psychiatric centers and are cleared still have relapses, and a gun should never be able to be an enabler in such an event. Human life is too sacred.
Yes, you and most may be responsible gun owners, but as some are not, guns need to have strict regulation in the general scheme of things.
While I’m not entirely familiar with your particular stance on all facets of gun control, you personally should be for it, as if you are a responsible gun owner like you ingeminate, then gun control laws wouldn’t affect you, no?
Jadegold. Let me prove you dead wrong. Here’s Pete Shields. Former chairman of HCI – now called The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a group you’re intimately familiar with.
“We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, “This is a great law. The problem is solved.” And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with a half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.”
Nelson T. “Pete” Shields
Chairman, Handgun Control, Inc. 07-26-1976
Oh, and so much of what you’ve spewed over the years has been thoroughly disproven Jadegold.
http://mglv.blogspot.com/2007/11/jadegold-lying-about-statistics.html
And what of the flat out gun BANS you anti’s managed to get in Chicago & DC?
Unfortunately for your argument, neither DC nor Chicago had gun bans, To say otherwise is just lying.
Perhaps you’d care to explain why Chicago’s homicide numbers have dropped every year for the last 15 years?
OTOH, cities with lax or no gun laws tend to lead the nation in violent crime. So your “more guns produces peaceful utopias” schtick is so much gas.
Que – IT’s not cost-benefit. It’s liberty-risk.
Liberty involves risk. We allow personal liberties in this country even though they involve risk and cost lives.
We could completely ignore the 4th & 5th amendments in the name of “public safety” and imprison a hell of a lot more people, but we don’t. We don’t because preserving our individual liberties is worth the risk that some people will abuse those liberties.
Unfortunately, MikeW. digs up a quote from someone who hasn’t been associated with any gun control group for over 25 years. The group he cites (the BradyCampaign) clearly sets forth its agenda–and it does not include a total gun ban.
Jadegold – Chicago homicide rates.
http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/2156.html
Just this year Chicago entertained the idea of using the National Guard to quell violence in the city. That gun ban has been working so well.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93522120
And your comment that neither D.C. nor Chicago banned guns is pure and simple bullshit and you know it. Why do you think DC’s “BAN” got overturned?
The Brady Campaign did in fact grow directly out of HCI, of which the Brady’s were members. This fact is found directly from the Brady Campaign website. Jadegold’s claim that the 2 organizations are totally unrelated it completely false.
“In 1985 Brady and his wife, Sarah became active members of Handgun Control, Inc. and began a campaign to pass the Brady Bill.”
http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/federal/pages.php?page=6fedlaws
Brady Campaign = Handgun Control Inc. (whom I quoted)
This is directly from The Brady Campaign website under “History”
“In honor of Jim and Sarah Brady and their commitment to make America safer from gun violence, Handgun Control is renamed the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence is renamed the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.”
http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/history.php
Go spread your blatant lies somewhere else Jadegold!
Actually, Mike, Jadegold never claimed the organizations were unrelated. He/she cited your Pete Shield’s quote. But I guess that didn’t fit your point.
a law restricting ownership or weapon type does not equate to a ban or quashing 2A rights…unless it’s a total ban
not according to Mikey it isn’t. Any law is a ban and that means anti gun.
sorry VC you are wrong.
If I’m wrong, DV, you’re wrong-er! 😛
Donviti is right. There is no room for rational thought in the gun lover’s worldview.
When did I ever say that any law is a ban DBB? Oh that’s right, I didn’t.
I cited several examples for you and you chose to ignore them.
Oh, and by the way, when a law has the word “BAN” in it guess what? It’s a ban! If a law prohibits all citizens from carrying firearms (as in DC and Illinois) that’s a BAN.
Do any of you (other than Jadegold) honestly believe DC’s gun laws that were overturned in Heller were NOT a ban? Hell even DC officials referred to their policy as such.
If a blanket prohibition on something is not a ban I’d love to hear what you’d consider the correct definition of the word.
Pandora – Do you see what I mean about liberals changing definitions of words to suit them (just as some conservatives do)
“He/she cited your Pete Shield’s quote. But I guess that didn’t fit your point”
So you’re saying the words of Pete Shields, chairman of HCI don’t speak for The Brady Campaign? It’s quite clear that he does, that the 2 orgs are fundamentally intertwined.
It’s all right in the history posted on their site. Why include Shields and HCI if he’s not part of your group. Hell he’s the damn founder. Do you see where the history starts? It starts with Shields & HCI.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/about/history.php
saying the words of Pete Shields, chairman of HCI don’t speak for The Brady Campaign?
sort of like when McCain said his campaign doesn’t speak for the candidate
You pulled out a quote older than you and then insist that the organizations platform has never changed. Supply a new quote, or stop assuming. All groups change/evolve over the years.
If this group hasn’t… prove it.
You know, Mike, you have no problem stereotyping people as anti-gun, but then scream how you’re an individual. Think about that.
HCI is The Brady Campaign DTB, and Shields founded it.
MikeW: Your Chicago homicide reference supports my assertion. Thanks.
Again, Pete Shields hasn’t been associated with any gun control group for over 25 years. Does this fact not sink in?
Or do you believe we should have slavery because Thomas Jefferson said it was ok and we should never change? After all, Jefferson was a Founder of the USA.
If The Brady Campaign has “evolved” as you believe why did they enthusiastically support the DC gun ban? If they’re not about banning guns anymore why support bans?
You do realize The Brady Campaign supports every enacted and proposed gun control law in the country? Nothing they have ever said or done would suggest that their goals have changed.
Until Heller they were still parrotting the fallacy that the 2A was a “collective right”
I don’t necessarily believe anything – especially you. So unless you can show me that their platform is the same… you got nothing.
And citing Chicago and DC doesn’t count for anything except what’s inside your mind.
You constantly accuse people of not addressing your specific point – which is exactly what you excel at.
Parroting??? How ironic for you to use that word.
“And citing Chicago and DC doesn’t count for anything except what’s inside your mind.”
How so oh enlightened one?
Support for gun bans is support for gun bans.
BTW, Mike W. is engaging in a common gunloon tactic–selective quote truncating.
In 1981, the then-chairman of HCI, Pete Shields, wrote in his book, “Guns Don’t Die–People Do” on pages 47-48:
“It is important to understand that our organization, Handgun Control, Inc., does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable.”
As anyone can see, Pete Shields is only addressing handguns–not rifles or shotguns. Thus, Mike W. has failed to show any group calling for a total gun ban.
“You know, Mike, you have no problem stereotyping people as anti-gun, but then scream how you’re an individual. Think about that.”
Do you seriously believe my calling “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence” an “anti-gun” organization is “stereotyping.” I hope not because that is truly insane.
“It is important to understand that our organization, Handgun Control, Inc., does not propose further controls on rifles and shotguns. Rifles and shotguns are not the problem; they are not concealable.”
OK then, so why does The Brady Campaign support Assault Weapon Bans and 50 cal. bans at both State and Federal Levels Jadegold?
Show me ONE gun law that the Brady’s said “Oh sorry, that’s an infringement of the 2nd Amendment, it goes too far?” They’ve supported every gun law and BAN in this country, including the DC ban overturned by the Supreme Court.
And although I know most of you wont read it I’ll give you Brady II (supported by guess who?) that would have banned a whole plethora of weapons and ammunition and as a whole would have amounted to a de-facto ban on gun ownership in this country.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/brady2.html
Again… selective quoting. Read your gazillion comments here at DL. You know, the ones about liberals or Obama supporters or maybe about those of us who agree with some gun laws. Go read your own words and then get back to me.
But, nah, why would you do that when it’s so much easier to deliberately misunderstand the point.
Pandora – Selective Quoting! You’ve got to be fucking kidding me?
I just used the same exact quote Jadegold did QUOTED IN FULL from his comment. Learn to read please.
“yep, you a right Tom…who cares about hate crimes anymore. so 90’s”
Its graffiti, do you honestly think the police would rush over if a target manager called them up and said “someone wrote a naughty word on one of my walls”
Due to police involvement it would be reasonable to assume the writing was something more substantive, perhaps a violent threat directed at someone. Or maybe cops in that town just don’t have much to do and needed to pick up some socks on the way home anyway.
Its graffiti, do you honestly think the police would rush over if a target manager called them up and said “someone wrote a naughty word on one of my walls”
ummm yes, because in a lot of places it IS actually considered a hate crime.
or maybe cops in that town just don’t have much to do and
can’t think of any towns in delaware that would fit that description.
Harrington
Frederica
Leipsic
Felton
Would the gun control proponents here be OK if the same constraints on guns be applied to speech or even abortion?
You’ll say they are not analogous because guns kill people where speech does not. Suppose the umbrella of “fighting words” was extended so broadly that;
Bloggers had to be licensed by the state
Bloggers must take extensive training courses costing hundreds of dollars administered by government officials before being licensed.
Blogging equipment must be turned off and locked in a safe or disassembled when not in use
You may only post one per month
Anyone with a history of mental illness, drug abuse or under the age of 18 may read, post or have access to your blog
You may not blog from a portable device or in public
etc.
FWIW most political interest groups left or right, become more radical over time, not less.
Duffy – It’s true. if you apply their “reasonable restrictions” on guns to Free Speech it becomes immediately clear just how patently ridiculous gun control is.
I should also point out that dissemination of political ideologies has resulted in the deaths of MILLIONS throughout history.
even abortion
you mean all kinds of abortion are legal? SWEET!
Would the gun control proponents here be OK if the same constraints on guns be applied to speech or even abortion?
Hate to break the news to you, Duffy, but the constraints are there. Various forms of speech are constrained; for example: libel, slander, threats, disclosure of classified info, etc.
As DE’s Brilliantist Blogger accurately notes, abortion is rife with constraints and prohibitions.
Yes, but the libel, slander etc. restrictions all criminalize one’s ACTIONS after such harmful speech is uttered. They do not prevent you from speaking because you “might” libel or slander someone.
Just as the 1st Amendment doesn’t allow you to verbally threaten someone’s life, the 2nd doesn’t allow you to threaten someone with a gun, to point a gun at someone, or to shoot someone. We don’t restrict someone who has done nothing wrong under the presumption that they “might” use Free Speech to harm someone. (even yelling fire in a crowded theater is OK if there’s actually a fire) Gun control laws do exactly that, they impose a priori restrictions under the presumption of guilt.
Unlike gun control laws, 1st Amendment restrictions are not a priori restrictions upon individual rights. That is a fundamental difference that invalidates your arguments.
“you mean all kinds of abortion are legal? SWEET!”
In Delaware? Yes.
We probably have the least restrictive abortion laws in the country. All the other states around us have more reasonable laws and so we get all the creepy 30 year olds bringing in their 13 year-old partners. Because we bring in so many abortion vacationers we have the second highest abortion rate in the country.
mike w. – I think the word you were looking for is “conflation”. It is, indeed, a logical fallacy, though a rather ingenious and slippery one, when applied effectively. Unfortunately, this time it was used like a proverbial ton of bricks, and was just as easily detected.
Yes, conflation. What did I say?
Just not that, is all :). Took me years to find that word, and from your first comment, I figured that was the one you were looking for.
Look folks it appears that this argument has gone full circle.
I believe in the 2nd amendment the right of citizens to bear arms. So my choice of arms is a A BOMB why won’t the courts honor my request????
Jade,
Mike sort of stole my thunder. Guns have prohibitions so strict they are effectively bans esp. in places like DC where one may not even possess a handgun and carrying any form of rifle is prohibited.
If that same standard were applied to blogs you’d have a massive blanket of prior restraint applied across the board. Such a restriction would be so broad and reaching it would effectively kill the First Amendment as DC has killed the Second.
FWIW, I’ve lived in very restrictive cities/states and very very liberal ones. It’s not 1:1 comparison but my personal experience leans towards the latter than the former.
Yes, but the libel, slander etc. restrictions all criminalize one’s ACTIONS after such harmful speech is uttered. They do not prevent you from speaking because you “might” libel or slander someone.
Again, untrue.
We certainly restrict access to classified material to those with the appropriate clearances and a need to know. Further, we can legally restrain individuals who have abusive histories from making threats, etc.
Guns have prohibitions so strict they are effectively bans esp. in places like DC where one may not even possess a handgun and carrying any form of rifle is prohibited.
Please research your claims before posting. The fact is people legally could–and did–possess both handguns and long guns in DC.
“Effectively” is a weasel word; the fact is people in DC or Chicago can and do legally possess firearms.
so glad you are here Jade…in the spirit of sucking up to commenters (ala Mike W)
Very well said teeeheheheheee, now can I be your friend?
WOOOHOOOOO #69 AAAAAAWWWWOOOOOOGAAAAAAAA
blah blah blah blah blah pry it from my cold dead fingers blah blah blah blah blah socialists blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah criminals blah blah blah blah blah blah blah liberty blah blah blah blah blah i fucked a gun once blah blah blah blah blah
TT,
what kind of bomb? an assault bomb? or pipe bomb?
You are truly DE’s Most Brilliantist Blogger!
JadeGold –
I’m glad we have a full time “Specious Gun Nut Argument Debunker.” (At least for today.)
“Please research your claims before posting. The fact is people legally could–and did–possess both handguns and long guns in DC.”
Classic! Jadegold telling me to do research! Handguns were BANNED in DC from 1976 onward. If you legally had one prior to the ban you were allowed to register it, but since 1976 no citizen has been able to legally own a handgun in the district. If by chance you were one of the people who had one pre-76′ and registered it you still weren’t able to carry it, transport it within the district, or even CARRY IT WITHIN YOUR OWN HOME.
Yes, people could own long guns, but since there were no licensed gun shops in DC you could not legally buy one. If by chance you were lucky enough to have acquired one prior to 1976 you could keep it in your home, but it had to be locked up and disassembled at all times. Ammo had to be locked in another container separate from the gun.
There was NO exemption in that part of DC’s law for use of the gun in self-defense. That’s assuming of course that you’d be able to unlock and assemble the gun, unlock the ammo, and then load the gun in time to be able to defend yourself.
“Please research your claims before posting. The fact is people legally could–and did–possess both handguns and long guns in DC.”
I have. Any handguns registered in the District prior to 9/24/76 were required to be reregistered by 2/5/77. After that date, no more handguns could be registered.
Shotguns and rifles were legal so long as they were not carried anywhere outside of your home. The only exception was going to and from a range or competition and in doing so, the weapons must be unloaded, wrapped and in plain sight.
“Effectively” is a weasel word; the fact is people in DC or Chicago can and do legally possess firearms.
Well, before Heller there were no handgun permits issued for 30 years. Zoning laws prohibit gun shops throughout the District. The law also requires that gun owners keep their weapons unloaded, disassembled or secured with trigger locks, unless they face a “threat of immediate harm.”
If those same restrictions were placed on you as a blogger or as a woman trying to have an abortion I think you’d agree this was a ban. This reminds me of the old country clubs that would admit a token Jewish or Black member and then claim they didn’t discriminate.
Jason asked:
How about: American?
How about “Free Man?” Unarmed men are slaves. Armed men are citizens.
JadeGold (and shouldn’t that be JadeGreen?) wrote:
So, I take it that, by buying automobiles, and helping prop up the market for cars, you are responsible when a drunk driver runs over someone, right?
“JadeGold –
I’m glad we have a full time “Specious Gun Nut Argument Debunker.” (At least for today.)”
Oh look, Jason is proud to have our old buddy JadeGold around.
Dana – Every time I buy a 12 pack of Newcastle someone dies. Because I buy beer to consume in my home I should be held responsible (and punished) for all alcohol-related deaths.
That’s Jadegold/DTB/Jason’s argument against guns.
JadeGold also wrote:
Poor example. You are talking about crimes that can occur when people speak freely; gun control legislation is designed to keep people from having guns in the first place. For your illustration to have merit, you would have to refer to people who were forcibly silenced by government (“prior restrint”) because they might say something slanderous.
If someone is punished for slander, then he is being punished for something he said which had harmful consequences; the proper comparison would be punishing someone who used a gun to commit a crime.
I suggested, maybe a month ago, that if our friends on the left really believe we ought not to be allowed to own firearms, because some people might misuse them, they ought to propose an amendment to the Constitution:
Yet, for some reason, our friends on the left thought that a crazy idea. None of the people who disagree with the notion that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” were willing to say, yeah, repealing the Second Amendment is a good idea.
Mike: I am a free man, and I choose not to have a firearm at home. But that is part of freedom as well: I am not compelled to have a gun.
Dana – What you’ve said is why it’s appropriate to say that gun control is paramount to cutting out my tongue prior to my entering the theater so that I cannot yell “fire.” In fact, it’s paramount to cutting out the tongue’s of all theater-goers as a prior restraint.
Our legal system is not based upon prior restrains / a priori restrictions. It’s based upon the presumption of innocence.
“Mike: I am a free man, and I choose not to have a firearm at home. But that is part of freedom as well: I am not compelled to have a gun.”
Quite true, which is why folks who wish not to own guns should exercise that choice and leave the rest of us alone to choose for ourselves.
I should have stated that I was making the “armed men / slaves” comment in a historical context. Any oppressed group in all of human history, and any men forced into slavery were first denied access to personal weapons, including guns.
Dana – Re- #82. My response to those who call for repealing the 2nd Amendment is simple and concise. The fact that they think they can repeal part of the BOR shows their complete lack of understanding of the very nature of individual rights.
“Repealing the 2nd Amendment doesn’t make it go away anymore than repealing the rest of the Bill of Rights would allow the government to kick in my door and rob, beat, imprison and torture me with impunity. The 2nd Amendment is inherent and inalienable just like the rest of the Bill of Rights. Words on ink & parchment don’t “grant” me the right to keep & bear arms, they merely codify a pre-existing right. My rights, all of them, exist independent of the Constitution.”
jason330 // Aug 14, 2008 at 11:08 am
In addition to the gun he used he had two in his car. That says “gun nut” to me, but I maybe wrong.
What is the PC term for people who have lots of guns Mike? Gun lover? Gun enthusiast?
I’d just call him a NUT who has guns. I have guns. I don’t commit crimes. Nor will my guns. Even though we hear all the time, in the MSM, now guns just “go off” or magically turn people into killers. No, those people are killers, who happen to use guns in their crimes.
In fact, I’m going to shoot one of my guns tonight…like 150 times. And guess what…..nobody’s going to get hurt. I am a nut for my guns.
Mike, they just don’t want to believe. They think we’re as crazy as Martin Luther King being Republican…
“Unfortunately for your argument, neither DC nor Chicago had gun bans, To say otherwise is just lying.”
Jadegold – I guess there was no racial discrimination in the south at one point either. I mean hell, blacks were treated equally to everyone else, they were just separated from the rest of society. The way you define things that’s not “discrimination” huh?
The party that hated the blacks was the Democrats.
http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000143/NBRA%20Newsletter%20-%20Obama%20v%20McCain.pdf
► Obama wants to raise taxes. Obama wants to
raise taxes even above the levels of the Clinton
era. Obama wants to tax poor people, dead people
and small business people. He wants to raise the
payroll tax that would hurt working people. He
wants to raise the death tax that would tax average
Americans twice–once while they are alive and
again after they die. He wants to raise the capital
gain tax that would make many small business
people go out of business. He wants to increase
domestic spending massively and create a costly
healthcare plan that would plunge our government
into an economically disastrous budget deficit.
This is change that we do not need.
It’s funny DJK – They’ve historically been racist against blacks, and their adherence to gun control continues that long history of discrimination. Rights are for “other people” they say, not folks in inner cities, who happen to be predominantly black.
It’s what these people DON’T know that makes me laugh. Go to my blog…read the post about my neighbor… same stuff.
No clue about his own history.
So, I take it that, by buying automobiles, and helping prop up the market for cars, you are responsible when a drunk driver runs over someone, right?
No, the problem isn’t the purchase of cars (or guns); it’s allowing those who are unsuitable to drive (or possess firearms) to do so.
Quite simple.
The party that hated the blacks was the Democrats.
Quite true. Then, in the mid- to late-1950s, the Dems decided segregation and racial divisiveness were anathema to American principles. At which time, all the segregationists found a snug, comfy home in the GOP.
I think your dem racists are still there….they’re just closeted. They need the vote.
In his book “Unfounded Loyalty”, Rev.
Perryman states: “History reveals the
Democrats didn’t fall in love with black
folks, they fell in love with the black
vote knowing this would be their ticket
to the White House.”
http://www.trustedpartner.com/docs/library/000143/NBRA%20Newsletter%20-%20Obama%20v%20McCain.pdf
Here’s how the bad guys get the guns:
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/08/fedex_workers_c.php
The good guys don’t sell them to them, Get this…..THEY STEAL THEM. Criminals stealing….who knew?
If someone’s a convicted/known criminal….they can’t buy a gun from a dealer. It’s simple.
In contrast, however, the car dealerships DO sell the cars to the criminals/dui drivers/bad drivers/etc.
Wayne Perryman, GOP huckster, is free to spew his opinions. They don’t jibe with history, though.
Let us not forget Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond were leaders in today’s GOP.
If someone’s a convicted/known criminal….they can’t buy a gun from a dealer. It’s simple.
Untrue.
Hey Jadegold – Saying “Untrue” to anything you disagree with isn’t a valid debate tactic.
backup what you say or leave.
Jadegold is welcome on this blog, Mike. Do NOT presume to tell anyone to leave DL.
You may make those decisions on your blog, and your blog alone.
Please stay, JG… your comments are welcome and appreciated.
Mike, at #86:
No, I think you’ve got it wrong there. We like to say that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights, but simply recognizes the inalienable rights that all men possess. However nice that sounds, the legal fact is that our laws and their enforcement are based upon the way in which the Bill of Rights is written. If the Second Amendment were repealed, you might hold that you had an absolute right to keep and bear arms, but the state would not necessarily agree, and you could be fined or imprisoned for having firearms.
JadeGold wrote:
Then it ought to be obvious that you agree with Mike W and with me! We believe that people who are not convicted felons have an absolute right to keep and bear arms. Not to speak for Mike, but I would hold that those who are convicted felons have lost some of their constitutional rights, and therefore do not have the right to keep and bear arms.
Yet, reading what you have written, it seems as though you would put restrictions on people who have no criminal records, because you fear that legal possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens makes it more probable that criminals will get guns.
It can be reduced to a bumper sticker: when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.
We believe that people who are not convicted felons have an absolute right to keep and bear arms.
That worked out well for the guy in Arkansas
Dana: Please note criminal backgrounds aren’t the only thing that may render a person unsuitable for possessing firearms. Mental illness, substance abuse, physical limitations, etc. all apply. I believe felony convictions are a pretty low bar; after all, one who has a history of misdemeanor assault and the like probably is poor candidate for gun ownership.
I’d also add that since firearms are designed and intended to kill, it would behoove those who would possess such weapons to know and to demonstrate they can properly use, maintain, and store firearms.
Again, the fact remains many gun fetishists are of the odd belief that just about anyone should have whatever firearm they desire. In doing so, they ensure those who are least suited to gun ownership are getting them. Bumperstickers are for those who really cannot articulate reality.
DBB – Liberty involves risk. Funny thing about rights, one of the things about having inherent, inalienable individual rights is that some people will abuse them and you can’t know who they are if they’ve never done anything wrong.
Unfortunately there’s no way to keep guns out of the “wrong hands” without putting blanket prohibitions on everyone. How do you suggest keeping someone with no recorded history of mental illness and no criminal history from getting guns without infringing upon the rights of everyone else?
Jadegold – Physical limitations do not prohibit a person from owning firearms. Rights ARE NOT subject to whether a person is deemed “suitable” to exercise them, nor do people in this country have to prove a level of “Need” before enjoying their rights. If you have to demonstrate “need” and ask government permission it’s not a right, it’s a privilege.
DBB and Jadegold. What gun law(s) would keep guns out of the hands of folks like the Arkansas shooter, who had previously not committed any crime?
Do you folks really think it wise to restrict Constitutional rights based on how they “might” be misused? Do you understand that such a concept would destroy every civil liberty we enjoy as Americans?
a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch unfortunately
gun fetishists? Do people actually get jiggy with guns? I just shoot mine.
I’m off to the range… I can’t believe the shit these people come up with. Strawmen…all of them.
Lots more like this where it came from:
http://www.vimeo.com/1321327
Donviti wrote:
Are you saying, then, that because some people commit crimes, everyone’s rights must be curtailed?
Mike W wrote:
That’s just it, Mr W: they don’t care that their policy preferences would infringe upon the rights of everyone.
And therein lies the problem. I WILL NOT give up my rights because of the criminal actions of others, and I will speak out against those who claim that I should. (like our old friend JadeGold here) The whole concept of compromising my rights away because of the irresponsibility of others is absurd.
You folks wouldn’t want to give up your rights because of the war on terrorism (neither do I) How are my 2nd Amendment rights any different?
in the mid- to late-1950s, the Dems decided segregation and racial divisiveness were anathema to American principles. At which time, all the segregationists found a snug, comfy home in the GOP.
Which is, of course, why George Wallace ran for President as a Republican in 1972
Mr Newton wrote:
Except, of course, that Mr Wallace ran for the 1972 Democratic presidential nomination.
Demagoguery works better when you get your facts straight.
“You may make those decisions on your blog, and your blog alone.”
Pandora – Who said anything about my making a “decision? ” I have no authority to make him leave DE Liberal, so where am I making a “decision?”
JadeGold is making comments in this thread that are 100% irrefutably untrue, as such, it is perfectly acceptable within the scope of this argument to tell him to “backup what you say or leave.”
If you’d like I can change “leave” to “refrain from commenting” if you’d like.
Oops, scratch the 2nd “if you’d like”
Pandora,
Mike W. may have gone beyond your personal comfort level but telling someone to put up or shut up is common in the Blogosphere. If we were thin skinned about it there would be very few Blogs and nearly no dialog.
As for JadeGold; That Troll’s reputation preceeds it. In time you will see how disruptive and obnoxious this one is. I only hope you will remember what you said to Mike W. when he called it on it’s normal posting pattern.
Ok, I’ll go back to lurking now.
Max
Max – Exactly. This is particularly true when a certain commenter jumps in and immediately starts posting things that I know to be 100% FALSE. Jadegolds comments were beyond laughable, which might explain why he was immediately received so warmly by Pandora and other DL contributors.
In that situation, saying “put up or shut up” as you put it, is appropriate. As you can see, he didn’t put up, he shut up.