Throughout human history, men, without any apparent reason, have done horrible things to their fellow men. Perhaps, the Greeks* attempted to consider the persistence of human evil through their most prominent hero, Heracles, who murdered his own wife and children in a fit of rage.
Diodorus attributes his diabolical deeds to a frenzy the Olympian Hera “sent upon” the hero, contending his saw his own family as his enemies. Who knows what demons lurked in the head of the Colorado shooter that caused him to believe he needed murder moviegoers he had never met.
These people had so looked forward to seeing the Dark Knight Rise only to have their anticipation turn to horror. Our hearts go out to the victims and their families. We pray for the survival — and speedy recovery — of those now hospitalized.
What this man did is evil pure and simple. He is in custody now. No punishment could be too severe.
*NB: Realized I had left out a key word in the original version of this post, the simple word “Greeks.” I hope some understood that through the context — and apologize for the omission.
Except for the tragic deaths and injuries caused by this crazy fool, the damnable thing is that this is fodder for the gun grabbers to want to abridge our Second Amendment rights. There will be a lot of pressure put on Secretary Clinton to sign the UN´s Small Arms Treaty. While the Senate would have to ratify this there are about 15 Republicans who are fence sitters. The conundrum is how to prevent mentally unstable persons from buying firearms without having gun control. Should part of the background check require the buyer to submit to a psychatric exam? This is a perfect case for the argument that guns do not kill, people kill.
And what a surprise; within hours, the Barack Obama Party and the Barack Obama Party’s spokespersons were claiming that the Tea Party did it.
With virtually no evidence whatsoever.
Now the sick, delusional and desperate Obama Party is trying to blame Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Congressional Republicans, and everyone else.
One should realize just how far Barack Obama will go to hold on to political power, and how disgustingly amoral his supporters are. Filth, every one of them.
This massacre is so saddening.
Replace “Tea Party” with “Jews” and it becomes pretty clear what the progressives are doing. It’s so low.
Yes, and what makes it worse is that this shooting, like all others of its kind, is an objective argument *against* gun control, or *for* an armed citizenry. These type of shootings produce the most casualties when they are done in “gun-free zones” (the shooter faces no effective opposition). Had the CO theater contained an upstanding (and trained) citizen who was packing heat, the incident may well have ended with far fewer casualties.
But none of that matters to the left-wing media, who preferred a disarmed citizenry. Lefties will never say the following, but they know it sort of unconsciously (_1984_-style) : A disarmed citizenry is a more easily raped by the kind of Big Government that left-wingers worship. Hence, disarm the citizenry at any cost – including the disregard of truth and logic.
NDT – So glad to see that you also denounced Drudge and Breitbart for announcing that the shooter was a registered Democrat.
Oh wait…..
What’s the truth? Is he?
I’m not sure we know yet. And we certainly didn’t know when Breitbart or ABC announced their suspicions. I’m merely pointing out that if it’s fair to call ABC (or Obama) sick, delusional, and desperate, it’s fair to say the same about Breitbart.com. I think both are reprehensible.
This is a tragedy, pure and simple. I don’t care what political affiliation this man is. Brian Ross & co. are wrong to try to pin this on a political movement. And each “side” calling out the other for slipping up does very little to improve matters. Everyone wants answers, but this divisive “reporting” doesn’t get you there. There are all kinds of deranged people on this planet who will do horrendous things. And the bottom line is that they are all mentally imbalanced to tragic degrees. Who they vote for, or what religion they follow, bears much less significance in the matter. How one is raised and the way it plays into their psychology says more. But, then, some people (i.e. Jeffrey Dahmer) were just born evil. This guy was studying for his PhD. The crazy gene doesn’t distinguish between social class, intelligence, race, sexuality, gender. Although, on the last one, it does appear that men tip the scales on murder.
Cinesnatch – Well said.
I’d have to dig into the links. without knowing more, it seems possible that ABC and/or breitbart could have merely engaged in bad reporting, while others went further in trying to make partisan hay.
@snatch There was a lot of interest in the Trayvon Martin shooting as long as George Zimmerman was a fat, white, racist Jew. As soon as it was determined that he wasn’t any of that and a registered democrat to boot, the interest evaporated.
But like the Obama campaign ads, the bullshit about the Martin shooting still persist long after they’ve been proven false. How long did the liberals blame Palin for the AZ slaughter? How long to liberals cling to bullshit and keep repeating it hoping like hell it becomes true? Why do liberals hold up the bullshit as reasons for us to give up our rights?
Better question: Why aren’t the liberals the laughing stock of this country? Lyndon LaRouche should get more attention than the moonbatshitcrazy pieces of shit like Obama & Co.
TGC – Well said.
This is a tragic event that should not be politicized. Those that do are only doing themselves and this country a grave disservice.
TGC >> My experience was that it was pretty evident he was Hispanic from early-on. Perhaps, I heard about it way after the news had broke, though.
TGC >> (cont) That is, I either saw the name “Zimmerman” and made no prejudgments (and maybe, also, Jewish tend not to indulge in mass shootings; or maybe I’m just stereotyping and/or have a poor memory) and/or I saw his picture immediately when I first heard about the story. I don’t remember. Is he Jewish? Does it really matter? Who thought he was Jewish?
I do recall referring to him as a donut-eating rent-a-cop who didn’t do as he was told. But I also first started commenting on the story with prejudgments about gated communities, which Helio helped give me a better perspective on.
But since your entire post is a screaming, crying whine about how you don’t think it’s fair to call ABC and Obama sick for posting a deliberate lie in order to smear the Tea Party, all you’re doing is demonstrating what a hypocrite you are.
Breitbart.com dealt with you and your bully Obama the only way that one can deal with a bully — by punching back twice as hard.
And now you’re having a meltdown that someone actually DARED to hit you back for calling them mass murderers.
You admit Obama/ABC lied about the Tea Party. You insist that if someone lies about you you have the right to say whatever you want about them back. In that case, you’re getting exactly what you deserve according to your own rules.
And you are condemned as unfair and reprehensible by your own standards.
Conservatives need to realize this. The only way to deal with bigoted moral relativists like Alan who have no sense of right and wrong beyond advancing their own personal agenda is to realize that you will never earn their respect for acting in a principled manner. Their only response will be to criticize your behavior and blame you, just like Alan tried to blame Breitbart.com for ABC’s/Obama’s behavior.
Alan does not care that ABC lied about the Tea Party. Alan does not care that ABC smeared Tea Partiers as mass murderers. All that Alan cares about is when pain is inflicted on his own Obama Party. He believes the Tea Party deserves to be lied about, smeared, and accused of mass murder because they oppose his glorious Obama.
NDT –
You missed the ending part of my comment where I said “I think both are reprehensible”. I think it’s totally fair to call out sloppy and inaccurate reporting wherever it occurs. ABC did a totally shitty job covering this story, they owe their listeners an apology, and I don’t think that Brian Ross deserves to keep his job.
What I have an issue with is your hypocrisy in only calling out the media that you disagree with. What Breitbart did was also sloppy and inaccurate, yet that doesn’t seem to warrant a peep from you. I’ve disparaged both. Seems to me that makes you the moral relativist, not me.
I do hope the irony of NDT calling my post a screaming, crying whine is not lost on the other readers.
ND30 >> All that was necessary was to discredit Brian Ross without throwing out more unvalidated information. Keeping the focus on Ross’ lack of integrity in reporting was key here. By stooping to his level, Joel Pollack did not do himself or anyone else any favors.
Today was a bad day to test my patience with the personal insults back & forth.
Comments deleted as appropriate.
Enough.
Alan >> I’m sorry to report per a previous thread that the irony meter is broken. But, no, the irony is not lost on one reader here, and I’d venture to say there’s at least another.
More in the irony department (based on individual assessment, as the meter is broken): a certain commenter questioning GP’s tolerance for other commenters and, yet, it’s his/hers that got deleted.
(yawn)
Look again. At least one of your’s hit the memory hole.
You never give up on your antagonism trip, do you?
Cinesnatch >> I missed that previous comment thread. Funny!
GayPatriot >> My apologies to you if any of my comments have offended you or the community at large. Am trying to stay civilized while defending myself against what I perceive as unnecessarily hyperbolic and bombastic attacks. Will do my best to keep the discussion civil and cool-headed.
Breitbart.com actually had good evidence that the shooter was a registered Democrat. All ABC had was that someone named “James Holmes” in the Denver area was involved in the Tea Party. I presume Breitbart.com wouldn’t have speculated on (or reported) his affiliation if ABC hadn’t been so irresponsible (according to Breitbart.com, someone named “James Holmes” in Denver was a registered Democrat. If ABC had discovered that, would they have thought it worth reporting? (maybe they did, who knows)), but it would have been contemptible if they had. Because Breitbart.com was likely just responding to ABC’s reporting and trying to get the facts out, I am indifferent to what they did.
Whatever the case, though, it doesn’t matter one bit what political beliefs the shooter had, and if anyone says it does, that person is contemptible.
Jman >> and I’m glad its gone.
Of course his religion doesn’t matter, but there are also many non-Jews with the surname “Zimmerman.”
Agreed. Evil is evil.
Having said that: I would like to see an objective – or at least, non-partisan – “mainstream media”, which reports well-established facts about people under a consistent standard, rather than a pathetically extreme, partisan double standard. (ILC waits for the guffaws to subside, finally joins in)
Rattlesnake sums it all up. Thank you.
No, I didn’t.
I simply pointed out how your response was to scream and cry and equivocate that “Republicans did it”.
Had you been opposing ABC’s actions out of principle, you wouldn’t have needed to bring up Breitbart.com. You could have simply stated that the ABC/Obama Media’s attempt to claim the Tea Party was responsible for mass murders was reprehensible.
But you tried to spin and claim that since Breitbart.com was doing it, that makes it OK — which neatly blundered you into your own trap, since that would justify Breitbart.com’s actions.
Clearly you don’t think lying is reprehensible; otherwise, you would have condemned ABC/Obama Media for lying regardless of what Breitbart.com did. You only care in this case that your Obama/ABC Media got caught red-handed doing it.
(If this is a repeat, it is becasue when I hit the send button there was a message the I timed out) I wonder if any reseacch has been done or is being done regarding shooters from columbine, Congresswoman Giffords, Ft, Hood, the several in other states like Ohio and Kentucky, and soon James Holmes to determine if there is a common thread in their behavior that might indicate a person is a likely mass murderer. This would be good to know in order to isolate them and treat them before they commit their crime. The information would prevent them from legally buying guns. Guns don´t kill, people kill people, whether it´s with guns, or knives, I haven´t heard anybody advocating for control of knives; if not with knives then machetes, or rocks. A person determined to kill will kill. I´ll be damned if I will give up my Second Amendment rights to satisfy liberals and paranoid dictators, who are anxious for the Small Arms Treaty from the U.N. to go into effect.
Clarification:
What I meant to say was: Maybe ABC discovered the same James Holmes that Breitbart.com found (who was a registered Democrat) but decided not to report it.
Yup.
Those who are criticizing Breitbart.com like Alan are less upset with what Breitbart.com actually said than they are with someone challenging the lies the ABC/Obama Media were telling about the Tea Party.
Breitbart.com learned from what Cinesnatch, Alan, and their ilk were doing during the Giffords shooting. Conservatives did not honestly believe that people like Cinesnatch, Alan, and the Barack Obama Party would actually claim that Sarah Palin caused the Giffords murder, that Loughner was a Tea Partier, and so forth. They believed that Cinesnatch, Alan, and their ilk were actually decent people who wouldn’t tell such a deliberate and obvious falsehood for political advantage.
They were wrong. And conservatives paid for it. Conservatives had to listen to pigs like Serenity, Levi, Cinesnatch, and Alan accuse them of murder, slander them, and blame them for something with which they had nothing to do, demand that they be silent, and insist that their criticisms of anything the Obama Party does were terroristic and racist.
So today, when the ABC/Obama Media started claiming that the Tea Party was responsible for mass murder, Breitbart.com punched back twice as hard. And now we get the spectacle of whining liberals running to the teacher, claiming that it’s not fair.
Sure, Cinesnatch.
ABC/Obama Media lied about the Tea Party and called them mass murderers, and the only thing you can do is wag your finger at Breitbart.com and talk about everything that they supposedly did wrong.
That betrays your utter bigotry in this. You don’t think in the least that what ABC did was wrong; your only concern, and the only people that you have any interest in criticizing, are those who called out ABC’s error.
Nio one cares. No one here seriously believes that you or your bigot friend Alan would have lifted a finger to contradict the lies your ABC/Obama Media were telling had Breitbart.com not made it so blatantly, patently obvious that they WERE lying. All you’re doing now is the usual pathetic, disgusting damage control that you Obama supporters pull when it’s made publicly obvious the degree to which you will lie about people to keep your grip on political power.
You know what is disgusting? Scores of people were injured and killed and your Obama Party’s first response was to try to use it to smear the Tea Party. And when that blew up in your face, your next response was to attack the people who pointed out that it was a smear.
You really will do anything to advance Obama’s political power and keep his grip on the election, won’t you?
I hope we can all stop insisting “our” side is right.
I think we’re all in agreement that abc was in the wrong and should be held accountable (heads should roll).
“my” face. Sorry nd30. Reread my comments.
I’m on the side of (1) objective truth, and (2) human freedom. I hope I never stop insisting it’s right. (Though I may personally be wrong i.e. make mistakes, from time to time.) Never.
Comment #37 was in the context of this thread. Sorry for the confusion.
I hope we can all stop insisting anyone was in the right or wrong on the sidelines.
This was tragic. Politicization by anyone doesn’t help.
Thoughts and prayers with the families.
Nice climb-down. Doesn’t change much, though. There are still sideline actors who *in fact* were wrong (or right) to have done (or not done) X, Y or Z. Calling the discernment of truth “politicization” doesn’t help.
NDT >> You’re so cute. I love reading your descriptions of what you perceive to be my behaviors, beliefs, and intentions. I think it’s adorable. Seriously….gives me a chuckle every time. I’d write a longer response, but I’m just about to head out of the office and head home to spend time with my family. Hope you (and everyone here) have a delightful weekend.
Believe it or not ILC, I stand for the truth also.
I’ll be going with the “not” choice in that. for reasons known from other threads. ‘Nuff said.
LOL. What utter bullshit that is. Why doesn’t that ever happen? I mean Jesus, even if someone was carrying a handgun in that movie theater, how effective do you think he’s going to be against a guy with a high-powered assault rifle, a shotgun, a bulletproof vest, gas canisters, and the element of surprise? It’s dark in movie theaters and there’s bystanders all around – the hero with the 12 bullet handgun has to identify 1 target while the bad guy can kill indiscriminately…. how realistic are you being to suggest that another person firing a gun in that situation would be at all helpful?
The problem with gun rights assholes is that they think they’re in some kind of action movie. This is the same mentality that causes conservatives to support torture – they imagine their captive has a bomb on a bus that’s going to go off unless they can beat some critical piece of info out of a bad guy – just like they see in the movies! The conservative worldview has about the sophistication level of a 12 year old boy.
More guns gives us more George Zimmerman type incidents and doesn’t do a damn thing to prevent wanton slaughter like this. But hey, what the hell else can you say? There literally is no other argument that the pro-gun group can muster aside from, uh, maybe everyone should have more guns, uh, yeah. That renowned conservative rigidity means you have nowhere to go.
Also, learn to read. The amendment is a dated directive not to interfere with militias, and not so much about making sure people can easily obtain absurdly effective people-killing weaponry.
No, asshole, YOU learn how to read:
The 2 most recent U.S. Spreme Court 2nd amendment cases-
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER – Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008 –
http://www.guncite.com/Heller.pdf
MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL. – Argued March 2, 2010—Decided June 28, 2010 –
http://guncite.com/court/fed/McDonaldvChicago.pdf
Educate yourself on the FACTS, just once, you POS.
Feeling’s mutual, ILC.
since you stand for truth, please cite your source that it didn’t, ILC.
Levi >> I agree with most of what you said, but the a–hole, 12-year old boy, and learn to read references were uncalled for.
Cinesnatch, you’ve mistaken me for someone who cares about your agenda. Bye now.
Or people can just look at what your fellow Obama talking-points readers are saying.
So conservatives are all cowards and are responsible for these murders.
You’re a real piece of work, Alan. Puts the lie to all of your words, doesn’t it?
Even better, we can see what Obama supporter and representative Levi is saying.
So conservatives, and Dan in particular, are all cowards who are responsible for these murders.
That’s what Levi says, and according to Cinesnatch, Levi is a “voice of reason”.
So your attempts to pretend nicey-nice just blew up, Cinesnatch. Everyone can see what you, Alan, and your fellow Obama supporters are saying. Everyone can see how you, Alan, and your fellow Obama supporters are saying that conservatives are cowards who are responsible for these murders. Everyone can see how you lie when you claim these shouldn’t be politicized, given how you, Alan, and your fellow Obama supporters are mocking and attacking Dan for saying that.
Levi et al are just here to stir up hatred and trouble. If they saw a guy they didn’t like was hit by a car, they’re the types to spit on him or kick him as they walked by.
People are slaughtered, parents are now without children, scores are wounded, and all these guys can do is hurl political insults. Talk about evil, despicable behavior.
We need to be praying for the victims and for our country.
Or, aka, I can’t answer this question in a way that I won’t have to swallow my pride, so I won’t answer it.
I hope this means that if you choose to engage me in the future, then you’ll answer this question. Otherwise, you’d be someone who cares about “[my] agenda,” which you’ve now just asserted you are not nor will ever be mistaken to be.
Five years ago, at the Trader Joe’s on Pointsettia in West Hollywood, a man was tooling around the inside of his 1950s/1960s Ford truck. It was parked on the side of the road without any emergency break secured, while he stood on the ground bent over into the driver’s side of the cab. The truck pulled out into the street by itself and the back tires ran over the man’s legs. As I watched this happen, I jumped out of my car (I was in the middle of parallel parking behind him) into his truck and tried to slam on the brake (I had trouble finding it, whether it was because of the model or the fact that I was in a state of shock or both) before it hit a porsche on the other side of the street. I managed to slow it down, but not before it dented the porsche.
I ran to the side of a unkempt older man whose breath stunk of alcohol, held and comforted him until the ambulance arrived. Did I want to get anywhere near him? No. But, the man was in pain and bleeding, so it was a no brainer.
You don’t know me, Az Mo.
Please don’t front like you do.
Contrary to ND30’s lies,
1) This was a tragedy
2) ABC news was clearly in the wrong.
Please don’t misrepresent my words and beliefs, ND30.
Thank you.
ND30, I believe that was written by either your friend Bruce or BDB. Won’t you heed their rules for their site?
By all means, feel free to challenge 1) or 2). Or, are you in agreement?
What was that, Cinesnatch?
Oh, that’s right. You fully endorsed and supported THAT behavior.
Those are facts and direct quotes, Cinesnatch. And that’s why, despite your conveniently-manufactured story, we do know you. Quite well, in fact.
No, you don’t know me, ND30. Please stop misrepresenting my views. I called Levi out on three specific points and I stand by them. Either he will address them or not. That is up to him. And I hope that he does.
Again, feel free to challenge Post #50 and #57, or agree with them. The choice is yours.
Dan aka Miss Rita Beads. . .
Would it be too much to ask for you to refrain from you typical teen age petulant behavior.
Tis somewhat amusing for most, but puhlease, really!
Take time. Be close. With those who you love and love you.
LOL. Really?
I’m used to you being a hypocrite, rusty, but this one really, REALLY takes the cake.
Actually, you said Levi’s points were perfectly relevant, correct, and “valid”. You stated that you agreed with what he said.
So there we have it. You think Dan is a coward and a murderer. You think he is guilty for the killings in Colorado. You acknowledge that you agree with what Levi said about him and conservatives, and state that Levi’s points are “valid”.
So that’s that.
ND30, you are willfully being ignorant, lying, and/or lacking reading comprehension skills. And, I don’t find your tactics relevant or truthful. Nor do I find them entertaining, but I wish I could right now.
Sadly, ILC has defended your mistruthful arguing style in the past (and he is a self-designated Stander of the Truth) and I would doubt very much he would actually stand against your disingenuousness now.
Great company he keeps.
Um…. Hello? Dan??? Bruce??? That would typically get a liberal banned from here.
As all the Obama puppets say when you quote them directly and provide links.
Well, duh. Neither of them demonstrates that Dan and conservatives are cowards and guilty mass murderers like you and Levi want to state, so of course you’re not going to find them relevant or truthful.
Ah yes, yours and rusty’s tactics of crocodile tears over the poor helpless victims — who you were more than happy to throw under the bus this morning in your attempts to call Tea Partiers and conservatives like Dan cowards and mass murderers.
So your response to being confronted with quotes demonstrating how you have endorsed and supported as “valid” and a “voice of reason” a person who is calling Dan and Tea Partiers cowards and mass murderers is……to scream about other people allegedly being inconsistent.
LOL.
Oh really?
Name which ones have been banned for using that language.
And isn’t it interesting that you suddenly developed the vapors over this:
but couldn’t seem to muster the same degree of screaming and crying for bannings over this.
Now, Sonic, let’s play Truth or Consequences. You want people banned for calling others assholes? Fine. Demand that LEVI be banned for saying “assholes”, especially since he said it first.
Somehow, I have the feeling that your objections will suddenly vanish.
While I don’t agree with Levi’s use of “a–hole” in the general sense, I even agree less with jman1961 calling Levi an “a–hole” directly, which was further embellished with the “you.”
Feel free to distort that statement like you have everything else I’ve said, ND30.
Just shows how little you know me. Levi should be banned for the same offense.
We could argue based on semantics. Levi was calling an unnamed group of people “assholes” whereas jman1961 was calling a specific person an “asshole”, which in my book is a bigger offense. That said, if I was in a banning or deleting kind of mood on my blog, if I chose to take action against one, I would, in the name of consistency, take action on both comments.
And, just to be honest and consistent, I called Levi an idiot on the post above this. If Dan or Bruce decide to delete or ban me for such action, I would understand. Of course, people have called others much worse on the comments on GP and there has been no action taken. But the person who runs the blog has discretion over what to throw out and what not to.
A sure fire sign that internet conservatives are feeling extremely defensive is when they start clamoring for people to be banned.
Or, Levi, you could just tone down your language, rather than undermine your argument and give legitimacy to your detractors.
Another one who assumes the role of ‘Comment Cop’.
Then leave the ‘banishment’ decisions to THEM.
The only call for that on this thread came from Sonicfrog, and he’s hardly a conservative.
You, however, are still an a**hole.
This one broke ALL the irony meters still in existence.
You know, when I first got here I thought it was Cas, then I thought it was Serenity, but now I know without any doubt whatsoever that YOU are the biggest a-hole to post at this blog….by a country mile.
Thank you, NDT.
Nope. That would be NDT. I’m just asking for consistency.
Thank you, sonicfrog, for the clarification. 🙂
FTR, sonicfrog said something unfair:
No, it wouldn’t. Bruce and Dan are extremely generous about NOT banning liberals. Bruce has done a few bans, over the years, but only after many such offenses are sustained, and less than sf makes it sound.
Exactly. For a commentor to call out for the banning of another commentor, is in itself an act of incivility. Just an observation; NOT calling for sf to be banned. 😉
Jman1961:
If you can please point out where I should tone down my language, feel free.
I’m sorry you continue to conduct yourself this way, when GP made it clear yesterday they didn’t want to put up with this type of behavior (“Today was a bad day to test my patience with the personal insults back & forth”) But, maybe since it’s July 21 and not July 20 and no longer “today,” ILC has made his point. If you want to keep with the “personal insults,” jman1961, continue do so at your own discretion.
I don’t need YOUR permission, you obnoxious little pr**k.
Got that?
CineTwerp: Is there anywhere on you something commonly referred to as an ‘OFF button’?
If ‘yes’, then please press it and give the rest of us some relief.
I’m amused that Vince thinks calling people who disagree with him terrorists, then claims the high ground on civility.
Sorry, forgot the link where Vince calls conservatives terrorists/
Love it. Both Sonic and Snatchy have the vapors and demand banning over “asshole”…and then when confronted with their fellow Obama liberal Levi using it, discover new and innovative shadings to avoid actually having to equally apply the law to their fellow liberals.
And just like Levi screams that banning and blocking equals “defensiveness” even as GE blocks and bans people regularly from his online presence.
Which is also why gun control laws are such spectacular failures. As we see with Fast and Furious, Obama and his puppets like Cinesnatch, Sonic, and Levi actively PUT guns in the hands of criminals — while simultaneously screaming that law-abiding American citizens should be banned from owning guns.
It is nothing more than fascism. Levi and his bigot ilk oppose enforcement of gun laws against minority gangs and their bodyguards. They don’t care if illegal-immigrant thugs or Obama’s “sons” use guns to kill. Look at DC, where fascist pigs like Levi banned guns, then screamed that arresting black people for illegal possession was “racist”. It is solely a sick little power trip on their part to punish the law-abiding.
ND30 >> You have lied again. I never said anything about banning on this thread. In fact, I’ve dropped the whole “banning” idea months ago and when I realized it wasn’t for me to judge. Is it permissible at GP to learn from one’s mistakes, ND30? Again, I don’t believe you, Levi, or jman1961 should be banned. What I do believe is that Levi should retract the aforementioned. I can’t be any clearer.
Please, ND30, please stop lying. Please.
LiveWire, good point. And, if I have directly called anyone on here a terrorist, I apologize. I don’t believe that I have, however. And, if asking a president to answer for a grammar mistake by suggesting something obscene isn’t terrorism, than I apologize and used the word too loosely.
I would love for you to say those words to me in person. Open invite.
This is your idea of bravado, you little bitch?
I gave you your chance for that in the very first thread where I addressed you directly, and you turned me down faster then the speed of light.
You better watch yourself, a-hole. Reckless little c*nts like you can wind up getting hurt.
Care to race?
Please explain.
I seem to recall giving you the open invite and not getting much of a response. I gladly stand corrected if that was the case.
Hey, ND30, do you have that one in you LOL (Library of Links)?
You have it backwards, Cinderella. I invited YOU, and got turned down.
And maybe NDT has the link, and maybe he doesn’t, but I do:
http://www.gaypatriot.net/?comments_popup=48285#comment-679380
Please refer to comments #172-176 for a thumbnail on a textbook case of ‘backing down’.
And after that, grow the f*ck up.
Thank you.
This is what I do recall …
You suggesting I work on a “gay snuff film,” LiveWire calling you out, and then you not responding.
Oh, wait … Found it. Yes, Jman1961, you wanted me to incriminate myself by threatening bodily harm. That was your condition. And, nope, I am not that stupid, contrary to popular belief at GP.
My condition: let us meet. Either take me up on it or not. Your choice. Whether you want to call me the series of names to my face is up to you. Whatever you decide, we can take it from there.
If you want me to throw in the $0.50 bar of soap, I suppose I can rally a couple of quarters together, and you can do with it as you wish.
In that thread, I also noticed there was a more amicable energy between us. I hope we can return to that, or close to it.
Again, threatening physical harm against you would hold me responsible for committing battery with intent.
I invite you to meet with me and call me those names you spew fondly to my face. You want to take me up on it, feel free. If not, it sounds like your bark is more than your bite.
I also invited you over for some fava beans and a nice chianti and you never responded. How rude. (And I would have had to go out of my way to learn how to prepare fava beans) In fact, that is my condition: no bar of soap, but I will prepare dinner. I doubt you would call me those names anyway. And, if you did, I would probably laugh, especially if we were drinking chianti. I suppose I can learn to find your threats charming and not take them so seriously like I did in this thread.
Sorry for taking you so seriously Jman1961. By deductive reasoning, you are 50/51 years old, conservative, with a hot temper, and a lot of pent up energy. Totally my type. Dinner?
P.S. I have another condition. You do need to call me some names, if everything goes well. At some point in the evening, you *must* call me Cinderella and Cinetwat. TOTAL turn-ons.
Ok.
I figured I would let my silence be my admission that LiveWire was right (because I’ll certainly ‘speak’ my mind when I disagree with anyone here).
So, for the record, it was a shitty thing for me to make that remark that you cited, and that LiveWire called me on. It was uncalled for, and I’m sorry.
Uh huh, and that was initiated by ME, in spite of being the mean, nasty, vicious, unfeeling, uncaring, no good prick of a conservative/libertarian that I am.
You, however, broke that spell in the comments section of a post from yesterday, in a knee jerk response to a post where I had not mentioned your name, and I figured then that being nice to you was likely a waste of time (I also factored in many other comments of your’s that I’ve read, in context). I also think ILC (and others?) have been right on target with their assessment of your demeanor here as ‘passive/aggressive’ (an obnoxious and tiresome behavior that adults don’t care to tolerate, btw).
Based on that decision I gave you the treatment I give to other SOBs around here (whose posting monikers are well known), because in my estimation you asked for it.
If you want to return to ‘nice’, then the burden of proof is now on you to show that taking that time and making that effort won’t be wasted.
Makes sense, yeah?
Thank you. Yes, makes sense.
Look, Vince, just leave this particular thing alone, ok?
I grew up in different times, in a fairly rough inner city neighborhood. I learned how to fight (you know, fists and other shit) when I was young and I know for a fact that you just don’t understand ‘street justice’ and how some of the remarks you make are, well, reckless.
I have a certain amount of education, but I’ve learned far more in the real world than I ever could in the halls of academia.
And while I’ve shown myself well at fancy dinner parties, for example, I can still put bad actors up against the wall and kick the shit out of them if I believe it’s absolutely necessary.
And my bite? It’s far worse than my bark, but I almost never resort to it. All I ask of poeple is that they not poke and prod at it, then they need never find out.
You, and others here, may be thinking that I have some (lengthy) criminal record for battery, etc. Well, I don’t. I’m as clean as a whistle, and I intend to keep it that way.
Thank you for the invitation.
I’m a few thousand miles east of your location, so for that, and other reasons (I have two friends in England who I plan to visit in the next year or two) it’s not practical right now. But who knows? Maybe sometime in the future.
Hot temper? Yes, used to have one. But nothing more than I can manage, or that clean rap sheet I mentioned wouldn’t be so clean.
I’m not afraid of anger like most people. I find it a useful tool and motivator (for me), but like anything else, it has to be controlled. The mistake too many people make these days is to assume that expressions of anger equate to losses of control, and that’s just not true.
Pent up energy? Sometimes. It’s really a shorter fuse and a lower threshold. Life’s too short to suffer the barrage of bullshit that the world’s fools will throw your way, especially if you send signals to them that you’re more concerned with (phony) erudition and misplaced manners. I call them as I see them, and if a person is an insufferable prick, it’s not going to take very long for me to say to them, in the most unambigous and forceful way(s) possible. It cuts down on lost time dealing with life’s ‘jerk-offs’.
Oh, and you got the age thing right.
I’m retiring from this thread.
NDT, just wanted to let you know, I pointed out jman at that was the first instance I saw of a comment that I consider over the line. I mean, it was right there in your face. I didn’t see Levi’s err, because, well, i tend not to read his stuff very much. Sometimes he does have a valid point to make, but much of the time, it gets pretty liberal boilerplate and repetitive and overly argumentative. His comment on 46 was one I started to read but didn’t finish, and didn’t get to his “asshole” characterization.
1. The first instance? For someone who has posted for as long as you have, that suggests you don’t read most of them. Unless you mean ‘first instance in this thread’, but even then what I just said stands.
2. It would be nice if ‘etiquette monitors’ like you would get half as offended over people’s loss of freedom, liberty and property as you get over a very old and frequently used ‘anglo-saxonism’. This country is swirling around the bowl and you’re worked up over the word ‘asshole’. No wonder we’re in the situations we’re in.
Interesting priorities you have.
1. Yes. I absolutely meant the first in this thread. And seeing that I referenced that others have been banned for other comments, that would imply that I am aware of others who have been deleted or banned.
2. As if I’ve never posted anything on said topic. As you said: “Life’s too short to suffer the barrage of bullshit that the world’s fools will throw your way”. That “bullshit”, as you call it, for me includes people calling others assholes in comments. It doesn’t strengthen you argument, and makes you look as petty as Levi.
And here come ILC berating me for not retiring from this thread.
Or NDT.
Funny, because I recall more than once reading posts where you chide others for being too sensitive.
Who posted these exact words on this very day?:
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
Yahoo, we have a winner!
That’s right, Mr. Moderation, it was you.
My comment really got under your skin; so much so that you decided to mention ILC and NDT over it.
Take a 5mg V and pull yourself together.
Really?
‘Asshole’ brings on fainting spells for you?
Then you’ve lived a very charmed life, and consequently are a hyper-prissy pain in the ass.
Try a snappy rejoinder to my statement about the country’s degradation as oppossed to ‘asshole’. You know, in the category ‘Priorities and Perspective’.
Or are you REALLY retired from the thread this time?
One more thing: I take it as a compliment that while you say I’m ‘as petty as Levi’ , that you did read my post while claiming that you skipped right past his, so my contributions have some greater value to you than his do.
Thanks. That’s nice.
If you don’t like the 5mg V idea, take another bike ride in the snow or go to band practice and then you can flit in here real quick and leave some more of your pissy, whiny ‘hit and run’ comments.
But I’ll try to do better to live up to your lofty standards of civil discourse.
Despite the unnecessary rudeness of your post, it had substance. And it was concise – short and sweet and to the point. Levis… not so much.
On the other point… Gee, sorry I have a life and a job and other interests can’t hang here, or blog for that matter, like I used to. And obviously they are not “hit and run”, as I’ve responded to the comments.
Thank you for that.
As to unnecessary rudeness: I give as good as I get. If someone hurls shit (sorry!) at me, I hurl that much and then some back at them. If they want to do truth, logic, and facts, that’s even better.
As to substance: I’d like to think mine do (have it).
On concise, etc.: You might have read a long-winded one (or two) from me somewhere. 😉
I don’t dismiss your position on language entirely, sonicfrog. I just don’t believe it’s worth getting worked up over, considering all the other things there are in the world to be concerned about.
I wasn’t that angry about it. I just hink arguments are much better made without it.
On the meaning of the second amendment. It’s more than just what some judges say. Look at the way the colonials lived, whether at war or not. In order to eat and survive in that time period, you, or certainly someone in your family, HAD to be able to shoot and kill stuff for dinner. Also, during the Revolutionary war, the soldiers generally brought their own guns. These are indisputable facts. Why on earth would the writers of the Bill of Rights think that the average citizen should NOT be armed? An armed population was as much a part of the fabric of life as slavery was.
I “hink” I need to get a keyboard where the T works! 🙂
They wouldn’t and didn’t ever think that the average citizen should not be armed.
Besides the practical, everyday uses, most of the Founders knew that another important reason for an armed citizenry was as a defense against tyrannical governments, at all levels.
ILC at #4: “Had the CO theater contained an upstanding (and trained) citizen who was packing heat, the incident may well have ended with far fewer casualties.”
Levi at #46: “LOL. What utter bullshit that is. Why doesn’t that ever happen?”
It does, Levi. You’re just too ignorant or dishonest to admit that it does.
Armed woman saves a church full of people from execution in Colorado in 2007:
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/07/20/flashback_armed_woman_in_colorado_saves_lives_prevents_mass_shooting
And just three days ago, a man shot two masked men who were attempting to rob the patrons of an internet cafe at gunpoint. The elderly man’s brave actions thwarted the robbery, prevented the other patrons from being robbed or killed, and led to the two wounded suspects being captured by police:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/raw-video-fla-man-shoots-would-be-robbers/2012/07/18/gJQAOvKguW_video.html
Again, there is a mountain of evidence to support the conclusion that lives are saved by private citizens lawfully carrying firearms and being trained to use them. In contrast, there is NO EVIDENCE to support the idiotic assertion that existing or more gun control laws would prevent atrocities like the shooting in Aurora.
I’ll pick that Floridian gun-toting codger to be on my team anytime. He rules.
Sad that Jeanne Assam’s church, whom she helped save with her gun skills, asked her to leave after she came out out as (a super hot) lesbian. He that giveth, taketh away, I guess.
Thanks for sharing, Sean A.
Wrong, as always, Cine-Trash.
Aside from the fact that the assertion in your comment is off-topic and totally irrelevant to the issue presented by Dan’s post, New Life Pastor Brady Boyd has denied Assam’s account, calling it “absolutely untrue.” He also stated, “we welcome everyone at New Life,” and “we would never tell someone to leave because of their sexual orientation. Jeanne will always be a hero at New Life.”
Assam has confirmed that Boyd and others never used the exact word “unwelcome.” She stated, “they just made it very clear I was no longer welcome,” declining to elaborate.
So, your representation of the dispute is misleading, dishonest, and inconsistent with even Assam’s account, but what else should we expect from a confirmed liar like you?
Here is a murder rate chart from wikipedia.
I do wonder how exactly gun control laws plays into crime rate. And I have no idea as to the relationship. Isn’t every country different? I think social attitudes play a HUGE role. Look at Japan, a country that values honor above all, no? Deep down, are there not underlying issues that go beyond guns and gun control?
Perhaps the U.S. is a country that needs more armed citizens, because we produce people such as Holmes, etc. Levi (despite his poor delivery) did bring up good points about in this particular incident there was the gas canisters, semiautomatic weaponry, bulletproof vest, element of surprise in a darkened venue, where, indeed, patron’s expectations (to watch a movie) made the initial onslaught bewildering enough that it would catch just about anyone off-guard. But, still, what other choices do we have? Tighter security, I suppose. But, do movie theaters make enough money to pay for such costs?
These are all thoughts on my mind right now.
Sean A >> If someone tells someone else that they are no longer welcome, how different is it from saying they are unwelcome? Asking them to leave? If you visit someone’s home and they tell you, “you are no longer welcome,” do you stick around? Do you return?
If the difference is big enough, then I apologize for misinterpreting.
Geezus. I can’t do anything right here.
Excuse me, correction, “making it clear that someone is no longer welcome.”
So, #109, If someone makes it clear that you are no longer welcome in their home or church, Sean A, do you stay? Do you leave and come back? What is the importance exactly in the difference between being asked to leave and being given the signals that you’re not longer welcome? Please explain.
I MADE A MISTAKE. For f*ck’s sake.
IT WAS AN ASIDE. Upon exploring the stories on the woman, I can’t help it that I was SHOCKED that a woman who saved the lives of her fellow parishioners would be “made clear to that she is no longer welcome” only a few years later.
I mean, really, Sean A?
Cine-Rehash,
Your correction negates your argument completely. The church vehemently disputes that Assam was unwelcome because of her sexual orientation, and Assam herself will not elaborate beyond ‘they made it clear I wasn’t welcome.’ Taken together, it appears far more likely that Assam (mis)interpreted the ambiguous words or actions of people at New Life Church as personal slights or attempts to ostracize her because (a) she refuses to be specific and (b) religious institutions have no reason, inclination, or history of lying about their position on homosexuality.
In fact, it’s the HONESTY Christians have exhibited regarding their views on homosexuality that has led to the gay left (your people) smearing and persecuting them. In short, if New Life church had a policy of asking gays to leave their church, they would admit it and provide some (erroneous) biblical or faith-related reason for it. Moreover, if New Life had such a policy, it would be anomalous and inconsistent with Christian doctrine and the overwhelming majority of Christian churches in America. Christians believe all people are sinners, not just homosexuals. Thus, they WANT homosexuals at church to minister/witness to them, which is the core obligation of their faith. I would make no sense for Christians to ban the very people they wish to minister to. What DOES make sense is that Assam became uncomfortable because the church didn’t suddenly decide to reverse the established Christian doctrine on homosexuality when she came out as a lesbian.
And you’re right. You CAN’T do anything right here because every comment you post is factually inaccurate due to your ignorance or intentional dishonesty (in addition to being TOTALLY OFF TOPIC). This thread is about the Colorado shooting but you’d rather steer it toward yet another Christian slam-fest so you can vent your boring and bigoted views about people of faith. Seriously, Cine-Tragic, are there really not enough opportunities on this blog for you and your ilk to trash Christians that you have to do it on this thread too? Is your seething hatred of Christians so all-consuming that you can’t just let one go by when the thread is reserved for the discussion of a topic of this magnitude and importance? Clearly, the answer is ‘NO.’
#108: “Levi (despite his poor delivery) did bring up good points about in this particular incident there was the gas canisters, semiautomatic weaponry, bulletproof vest, element of surprise in a darkened venue, where, indeed, patron’s expectations (to watch a movie) made the initial onslaught bewildering enough that it would catch just about anyone off-guard.”
No, they were not good points because they were (as always) based on the Left’s complete ignorance about gun owners. Levi (and every other imbecile on the Left) is arguing that lawfully armed/trained citizens with guns in the dark, smoke-filled theater would have caused more deaths because in their attempts to kill the shooter, innocent people would have been killed or injured in the cross-fire. At best, this argument is so weak that it should be dismissed out of hand because: (a) there’s no factual evidence to support it; and (b) it is based upon the ignorant assumption that law-abiding people who own guns fire them just as indiscriminately as shooters like Holmes.
“I do wonder how exactly gun control laws plays into crime rate.”
There’s no need to wonder. Areas with stringent gun control have an exponentially higher crime rate than those that don’t. See Chicago and DC. The statistics point to the unambiguous conclusion that more lawfully-owned guns=less crime. Liberals don’t like what the numbers prove, so they just pretend like they don’t exist. I’m sure you’ll do the same.
Full circle. Stop.
She was a gay patriot, just like the name of this site.
… and expressed the such.
And, your misinterpreting and assuming the worst about what I wrote is unsettling, Sean A. I wish I could just relax and take your ire … or, excuse me, are you not angry? Please correct me if I’m wrong. Because you’re certainly coming across that way. I’m really trying to have good humor about your overreaction, but I can’t.
Are you pretending that everything I wrote that you didn’t address doesn’t exist? The “I do wonder” sentence was the opening paragraph that discussed other countries, attitudes, etc, not states.
#114: “And, your misinterpreting and assuming the worst about what I wrote is unsettling, Sean A.”
It’s only unsettling to you because like all liberals, you expect others to assume the purity of your motives and the honesty of your assertions despite the fact that you have a history of lying and feigning objectivity/neutrality on this blog. We’ve been through this repeatedly. First of all, you’ve been caught blatantly lying about other commenters. That you thought you could do that and still enjoy a presumption of honesty shows how egregiously you underestimated the other people who frequent this blog.
Second, Levi commands more respect around here because he makes no attempt to conceal where he’s coming from. There’s at least a perverse honesty to his misguided arguments and his reliance on bull-sh*t left-wing talking points. In contrast, you’ve exhibited a pathologically consistent habit of trying to pretend to be neutral and objective while throwing out the same left-wing talking points and false propaganda Levi does, but claiming to be shocked and offended when you’re called on it. Your “so-and-so has raised the interesting argument that blahblahblah, not that I agree with them or anything” schtick is TIRED, insulting, and annoying. You use it to make leftist arguments and then disclaim any endorsement of such views when you’re challenged on them. It’s pathetic and you’ve used it to shriek that you’ve been victimized and ‘misinterpreted’ (as you’re doing NOW) for far too long.
“I wish I could just relax and take your ire … or, excuse me, are you not angry? Please correct me if I’m wrong. Because you’re certainly coming across that way.”
Like I said, as always, we’ve arrived at the stage of the debate where you weep and wail about how you’ve been victimized and unfairly persecuted for the comments YOU POSTED. No one is buying it. You’re not a victim. You’re just intellectually incapable of honestly taking an unequivocal position and defending it convincingly. If you could, every single one of these debates wouldn’t end with you whining about how evewyone is mean to you and huwt youw wittle feel-bads.
Imagine the scenario. You’re in a darkened movie theater that’s filled to capacity, with your handgun, and someone breaks in the exit door, throws some gas cannisters around, and starts shooting people, which sends them scattering and screaming all around you. Even if you are the coolest customer on the planet, you are going to have a near impossible time fighting back, especially while you’re trying to find any cover for yourself and the people you presumably went to the movie with. Between you and the shooter, people are running back and forth across the field of fire, and the gas combined with the dark is going to make target identification nearly impossible. You can’t narrow in on the sound because the movie is playing – hell, you’re not even sure if there is only one shooter. Could someone be behind you? If you start shooting, maybe the police mistake you for the bad guy, maybe one of the other movie goers mistakes you for the bad guy and bum rushes you. Are you scared of dying? Can you think clearly? Are your friends and family members okay?
To your points – A. There’s no evidence to support it because this kind of thing never happens. That’s entirely the point – conservatives keep telling us that if more people had guns, people would be less likely to shoot up public places because they couldn’t be sure that there aren’t armed citizen-heroes mixed in with the crowd. In a way, it’s blaming the victims. ‘Why didn’t you bring your gun to the movie theater if you didn’t want to get killed by a psycopath?’ This premise is also stupid because it ignores the fact that most of these rampaging losers have a death wish and aren’t at all deterred by the threat that someone may be carrying weapons. Finally, any reasonable amount of armament that a person could be carrying around was no match for what the shooter in this case was wearing. Most likely, you’d have ten or fewer shots to combat someone who’s using rifles and shotguns with extended magazines.
B. I’m not making any ignorant assumptions about anybody. You have to admit that in this situation, even the most skilled marksman is going to have a terribly difficult time making any kind of difference, and the opportunities for things to go wrong are numerous. I’ve known gun owners all my life, I’ve gone out with gun owners and shot guns myself, it’s not a comment at all on the many law-abiding gun owners who are responsible and yadda yadda yadda. All I’m saying is that the conservative fantasy about how these incidents could be stopped is ludicrous given how much is working against any potential hero.
LOL 🙂
First of all, just for a precise record… On May 31, 2012 – really more “weeks ago” than “months ago”, but I am willing to let it be called, two months – Cinesnatch called for NDT to be banned with “God speed”:
I took Cinesnatch to task for that, explaining the incivility of it in comments such as these:
By the way, I’m careful with my use of ellipses so that necessary context is not eliminated (meaning is not changed), unlike some. Anyway, with the facts now in mind, we can turn to this question:
Yes, it’s possible. But turning around and deploying it (the alleged learning) as a club suggests that you haven’t learned. Especially clubbing THE SAME PERSON. “Honey, I am so sorry that I hit you yesterday, that now I am going to smash your knickknacks, as your punishment for having hit me back.”
In other words, if you have really learned from your mistake, Cinesnatch, then you should want to humbly apologize to NDT, not club him as a “liar” (real or imagined).
Just as, if you have really learned something about waiting a day (at least) before spewing opinions when people have died, you should want to apologize to Breitbart’s widow and children, for your shameless indecency in that thread.
So again, I am left remembering NDT’s astute observation:
I am left asking myself the question, “Repentance? Or deception?”
Are we allowed to add ‘pre-pubescent game playing’ to your list?
(P.S. Please note that my objection is NOT to calling anyone “liar” in general. If the shoe fits them, they may wear it. I just think it’s a brazen – or unintentionally hilarious – practice, in this instance.)
jman, sure! 🙂
Sean A – Thanks. I wasn’t going to bother, since it’s only Levi. But I found your links well worth reading.
Someone should do a study of public shootings, looking at casualties where the shooter was stopped by a citizen on-scene, vs. not. Almost by definition, the former will show a far lower average casualty rate. But some people need to have the obvious explained in “a study showed that…” fashion.
Yup.
Cinesnatch, it is certainly possible for someone to learn from their mistakes.
But you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are not that someone. Instead, you are like the old story about the definition of chutzpah being a man who kills his parents and pleads to the court for mercy because he is an orphan.
Your only use for morality, decency, and other peoples’ goodness is to exploit them. You certainly do not respect them, and you certainly have no intention of practicing them yourself. That much is abundantly clear.
(continued) Conversely, the cases where the shooter was *not* stopped by a citizen on-scene, get far more publicity. Because, again virtually by definition, they have far more casualties.
I’m guessing that Levi just isn’t in the habit of thinking beyond the headlines.
#117: “This premise is also stupid because it ignores the fact that most of these rampaging losers have a death wish and aren’t at all deterred by the threat that someone may be carrying weapons.”
I wasn’t making the argument that psychopaths like Holmes are deterred by the possibility that their intended targets may also be armed. The fact that crime rates are lower in jurisdictions with fewer restrictions on gun ownership suggests that there is a deterrent effect regarding other types of criminals (thieves, rapists, etc.). However, your admission that psychopaths like Holmes are not susceptible to such deterrents weighs in favor of citizens being lawfully armed, not against it.
“I’m not making any ignorant assumptions about anybody. You have to admit that in this situation, even the most skilled marksman is going to have a terribly difficult time making any kind of difference, and the opportunities for things to go wrong are numerous. I’ve known gun owners all my life, I’ve gone out with gun owners and shot guns myself, it’s not a comment at all on the many law-abiding gun owners who are responsible and yadda yadda yadda. All I’m saying is that the conservative fantasy about how these incidents could be stopped is ludicrous given how much is working against any potential hero.”
No one is arguing that the circumstances in the Aurora shooting would have made it easy for an armed citizen to neutralize Holmes. The combination of the darkened theater and the smoke very likely might have made getting a clear shot impossible. But those circumstances are not present in every situation where innocent people are being threatened or targeted by gunmen. I gave you two examples where armed citizens used their firearms and saved lives as a result. And no innocent bystanders were injured, despite the factors ‘working against’ the heroes. However, Levi, you are advocating measures that would have left those two heroes unarmed and unable to take action even though they were (obviously) capable of doing so. It’s repugnant that your argument is that because ‘something could have gone wrong’ if an armed citizen had tried to take down Holmes, then NO ONE should be in a position to save lives like in the examples I cited.
Levi, since your argument hinges on the danger posed to innocent bystanders if citizens are armed and in a position to fire back, please provide PROOF that the actions of similar heroes have caused MORE civilian deaths rather than less. If you can’t provide examples, we’ll just have to assume that as usual, your point based on rank speculation.
Actually, Levi, the problem is your usual combination of projection and fascist desires.
First the projection. I have no doubt that you and your fellow “progressives” are limited from killing people only because you do not have the money. We know that “progressives” like you are extraordinarily violent people — witness Obama supporters and “progressives” calling for the murder of Republicans, calling for Republicans to be “taken out”, setting bombs to blow up conservatives and the military and their families. Even here in your rants you’ve been wishing harm on other commenters and hoping they suffer potentially-lethal injuries.
However, in the real, non-progressive world, there is an extraordinarily strong aversion to killing people. Religious belief, except for Obama favorite Islam, has a strong prohibition against killing people. Even the most agnostic of philosophers tends to agree that killing people is wrong.
It’s only you, Levi. Only you and your fellow “progressives” are mentally incapable of owning guns without trying to kill people. Only you and your fellow “progressives” would go out and shoot up a movie theater if you could buy ammunition. Only you and your fellow “progressives” would so readily go out and kill people because they disagree with you politically.
That leads us to your fascist impulse, though, which is that you fully endorse and support the use of guns and bombs to murder people of the wrong skin color and political affiliation. Look at Mumia, your Barack Obama Party’s saint and hero. Look at Bill Ayers, your Barack Obama’s political mentor and co-author. Look at all the deaths that occur in Chicago weekly at the hands of the Obama base that you say nothing about.
As that makes clear, Levi, you don’t support “gun control laws”, Levi, because you don’t have any intention of following them or applying them to liberals. You support disarmament laws, in line with the fascist “progressive” ideology you espouse that says people have no right to defend themselves and that murder in the name of Barack Obama and “progressivism” is acceptable.
Why not be honest, Levi? You support using guns and bombs to kill conservatives and Republicans. The facts are there. You support using guns to kill brown and black people. The facts are there to support that as well. The thing that drives you and your fellow bigot “progressives” insane is the thought that law-abiding white people are armed and able to defend themselves from you.
Same here. An armed citizenry does NOT stop mass murderers by “deterring” them and I have never once, remotely invoked the concept of deterrence.
I am not sure if Levi chose to misrepresent me, or to simply not understand me to begin with. Either way, dragging in the question of deterrence is an Obama “straw man” tactic.
My comment’s obvious meaning (and my intention) was that an armed citizenry helps to stop mass murderers when some citizen ACTUALLY STANDS UP AND KILLS THE MURDERER, WHICH KIND OF INTERRUPTS the latter’s spree.
Again ditto, which is why in my comment, I only said that an armed citizen “may have” helped that particular situation.
Heroism is never easy. Some people don’t even believe in its existence.
Months ago includes the number “two,” ILC. But, fine, I relent. Weeks. ND30 has lied, committed libel, misconstrued the meaning of my words, and insinuated I stand for things that I don’t. And, you have falsely accused me of lying, ILC. So, we have different definitions of the word, ILC. And, no, this isn’t game playing.
Sean A, How about you take down the mirror and address Post #115. You’re a gentleman and a scholar for accusing me of ending things by personalizing, yet twice ignoring a valid issue.
Would you like consistency, ILC? I challenge you to catch me saying it ever again. Because you won’t. But keep staring at your clock if “May 31st” is such an important point for you to make. Seven weeks isn’t that long, but inevitably gets longer.
And feel free to admit your culpability in contributing to almost 1/3rd of the aforementioned infamous thread where you conveniently chose not to “litigate” (yet, you wouldn’t shut up and kept insisting on saying the same thing over and over again, even as I went into more detail over the Shirley Sherrod element). The 174 posts of that thread. No, ILC, you certainly didn’t build “that.”
Games, jman1961? Yeah, it takes two to play prepubescent games.
Did I suggest otherwise? Hint: NO, instead I stated that I would grant your language. Sheesh, you can’t even get that right.
And no, I haven’t “falsely accused” you of lying. Although yes, I have “truthfully accused” you of lying. Deal with it.
And no, NDT has not libelled you. But it is true that you have carefully stripped context from NDT quotes, to make it appear he has libelled you.
I could do this all day, Cinesnatch. I mean, I won’t… but you make it easy. The fact remains: If your repentance for calling for NDT to be banned were genuine, you would apologize to him for it… HUMBLY. (Not trying to club him with it. Also not using the standard evasions, “I’m sorry that you made me want to see you banned.”)
And, Cinesnatch: I did the right thing in the Breitbart. I defended Breitbart from your sick, lying attacks on his integrity. It’s not “culpability”, it’s the opposite. Your behavior in the Breitbart thread was disgraceful. Now live with it.
(unless, of course, you want to apologize for it; sincerely, this time, by composing a HUMBLE apology to Breitbart’s widow and kids, and asking Bruce to attach that to the thread)
No, it only takes ONE…..and most often, around here, it’s YOU.
Stop pouting and playing the poor innocent victim routine.
The way to do that is to grow up, a process that, for whatever reason(s), you haven’t completed yet.
ILC, I apologize for not being more succinct when responding to your remarks about Shirley Sherrod on the Breitbart RIP thread. Without going into detail about how everything transpired, I will just leave it with my behavior was in poor taste.
ND30, I apologize for ever asking you to be banned from GP.
Levi,
How do you envision getting the guns away from every nook and cranny in the United States and then keeping the entire country swept and clean of them?
No matter how I attempt to parse your point of view, I come up with a police state that rakes through every square inch of property without a sensitive regard to any guarantee of privacy or due process.
You are the proponent of “gun control” so I would be interested in knowing just how the government would go about controlling the guns. You might start by telling us how we could be sure that the drug mules crossing the border daily are not bringing in guns and/or ammo while being extraordinarily careful not to do anything that could even hint at profiling.
I am thinking that the gun police could cordon off several blocks and systematically TSA-style search every living thing and square inch. Everyone would be under the same perusal and all property rights would be violated equally.
A second line of gun police could surround the surrounded territory and stop everyone attempting to leave. After the targeted area was thoroughly searched, the people would be confined while the surrounding area was searched and the third phalanx of gun police surround and control the area surrounding the first surrounding area. As the area under search and control expands exponentially, troops of gun police will have to be moved in to control the control areas.
I wonder if there isn’t something in the Third Reich documents stored in New Jersey that might help us understand how to carry out such an exercise in control.
I’ve advocated nothing but more gun control – don’t pretend like I’m talking about taking everyone’s guns away.
I don’t see why that’s necessary. The bottom line is that what conservatives recommend when these kinds of things happen – more gun ownership and more concealed carry laws – is completely ineffective. That bystanders could have been hurt is only one obstacle; the darkness was another, the body armor of the attacker another. The point is that even if you had someone in the audience with a weapon, they more than likely wouldn’t have been very helpful. And if all you’re ever going to do is say that more people should carry guns around all day, you might as well just hope that the next gunman stumbles on a doorway and accidentally shoots himself in the head. It’s just not realistic to put all your eggs in the John McClane basket when there is no shortage of places that a person who wants to kill lots of other people to go. What if someone barges into a daycare – in your ideal world, does the kindergarten teacher carry around a gun in her waistband all day?
#136: “I don’t see why that’s necessary.”
Of course you don’t. Because you CAN’T.
“The bottom line is that what conservatives recommend when these kinds of things happen – more gun ownership and more concealed carry laws – is completely ineffective.”
I’ve given you specific examples where it WAS effective and lives were saved. You’ve responded by refusing to provide any evidence to support your baseless assertion that it is ‘completely ineffective.’ If that were true, you would be able to prove it with evidence. Consequently, you’re full of it.
“That bystanders could have been hurt is only one obstacle; the darkness was another, the body armor of the attacker another. The point is that even if you had someone in the audience with a weapon, they more than likely wouldn’t have been very helpful.”
Again, where is the evidence to show that bystanders have been hurt by armed citizens who take action to stop a criminal? You’ve argued that this is justification for leaving citizens in these situations unarmed, but you haven’t provided a single example it. Conversely, I’ve cited evidence where armed citizens have saved lives despite the conditions working against them and they have managed to neutralize the bad guys without harming innocent bystanders in the process. Therefore, the EVIDENCE weighs in favor of concealed carry.
And by the way, you’ve denied it but your position DOES rely on ignorant assumptions about gun owners. You assume that every person who owns and carries a gun would just start shooting indiscriminately under these conditions, exposing bystanders to harm. Once again, there is NOTHING to support your clueless assumption.
Yet you said in an adjacent thread that …”there is NO gun control”.
So which is it, Captain Asshole?
Is it that we have SOME gun control and you want MORE…..
or
Is it that we have NO gun control and you want SOME?
When you’ve drooled over it for a spell, get back to us and let us know what you’ve deluded… er, sorry, decided.
And when you do, throw in a couple of those rib-ticklers about the Constitution. You know, that founding document that you’ve studied all your life and know so much about………just for a few guffaws. You know, to amuse us.
Thanks!
#136: ” What if someone barges into a daycare – in your ideal world, does the kindergarten teacher carry around a gun in her waistband all day?”
The example Levi cites reveals everything you need to know about liberals and their views on firearms. He uses an armed kindergarten teacher as an example because to him, it sounds like an outrageous concept. But the fact is, to Levi it’s an outrageous concept for ANYONE to be carrying a firearm that’s not law enforcement. There is nothing wrong with a kindergarten teacher or any other private citizen carrying a firearm provided they: have no criminal record; have no psychiatric impairment; and are trained on how to safely carry and use their weapon. But this makes no sense to liberals like Levi because THE VERY PRESENCE OF THE GUN ITSELF CREATES A VOLATILE SITUATION. In his world, every person carrying a firearm (except police) could at any moment begin using it to blow people away. And even if they manage to resist such an impulse, if they found themselves in a situation like the Aurora shooting, their natural instinct would be to draw their weapon and just start shooting indiscriminately into the dark. Of course, these beliefs are irrational and baseless (just like everything else liberals believe), but they cling to them nonetheless because they need some justification for demanding infringements on our constitutional rights.
Lefties will never say the following, but they know it sort of unconsciously (_1984_-style) : A disarmed citizenry is a more easily raped by the kind of Big Government that left-wingers worship. Hence, disarm the citizenry at any cost – including the disregard of truth and logic.
You know, I think it is pretty dangerous for people to have knives in their houses. They could just start stabbing people. The same thing with cars. They could just run people over. And the presence of gasoline surely makes it difficult to resist pouring some on someone’s house, and the presence of matches and lighters surely makes it difficult to resist lighting it on fire. And pencils can be used to stab people in the eye, we wouldn’t want that, would we?
I say we ban knives, cars, gasoline, lighters, matches, and pencils. They’re just too dangerous.
And drugs.
Because, y’know, Government is always so judicious in the use of its authority and never takes things too far or abuses its power to the detriment of citizens. (Cough… TSA … Cough).
It’s astonishing to me that progressive leftists have so much faith that the Government will always do the right thing, against all available evidence.
There has never been a mass shooting at an NRA Convention or a Gun Show.
Ponder that, ‘cos Levi won’t.
What do you want me to say? Good for them? I know people have stopped crimes before with guns. This is beside the point. Have I said I want to take everyone’s guns away?
Pretend all you want, I don’t think you could get anyone to agree that it’s an outrageous idea to suggest that somebody returning fire in a crowded, darkened, smoke filled movie theater might accidentally hit somebody. Do I need evidence to back up a common sense assumption about a hypothetical scenario?
I’ve corrected you on this before – I’m not saying that all gun-owners are lunatics and I’m certainly not suggesting that they’d be firing indiscriminately. What I am saying is that even off-duty police officers and retired military sharpshooters would have a hard time fighting back in a crowded, darkened, smoke-filled movie theater. Do you disagree? Why do you think I need to provide evidence for something that we should all be able to take for granted?
You’re comparing a list of common household items to weapons that can kill a roomful of people in less than 30 seconds. Are you seriously presenting this as an argument?
To put that to the test, a thought experiment; just imagine one of these grief-stricken friends or parents of one of the victims is standing in front of you passionately suggesting guns be banned in this country. Would you offer this as a rebuttal? Would you say to somebody who just lost a loved one that banning guns is as ridiculous an idea as banning pencils?
The conservative shrugs, indifferently.
So Levi apparently believes that civilian ownership of firearms is so completely ineffective that he knows it works.
household items indeed.
Twenty-eight stabbing deaths have been logged this year compared to 27 of these deaths last year, RedEye determined. Stabbings have accounted for about 10 percent of homicides so far this year, compared to about 6 percent last year, RedEye data shows.
Oh, and Guns don’t kill people any more than spoons make Rosie O’Donnel fat.
Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.
#145: “What do you want me to say? Good for them? I know people have stopped crimes before with guns. This is beside the point.”
The fact that homicidal shooters on rampages have been stopped and lives have been saved by private armed citizens is beside the point of whether concealed carry should be expanded and lawful in all jurisdictions? Um…really? Are you kidding?
“Pretend all you want, I don’t think you could get anyone to agree that it’s an outrageous idea to suggest that somebody returning fire in a crowded, darkened, smoke filled movie theater might accidentally hit somebody.”
Of course that’s a possibility. However, you have decided that such a possibility categorically OUTWEIGHS the potential that lives might be saved by armed citizens carrying firearms.
So Levi, to summarize your position (so everyone can enjoy just how idiotic, irrational, and repugnant it is), you are against private citizens being allowed to carry concealed weapons in all jurisdictions because even though there is a multitude of both statistical and anecdotal evidence to prove that concealed carry laws reduce crime and save lives (examples provided by me), the POSSIBILITY that an innocent bystander might be hurt or killed in the course of a hero’s actions (ZERO examples provided by you) is a risk that CONCLUSIVELY OUTWEIGHS the potential of any benefit to be gained. Therefore, Americans should be prohibited from carrying concealed weapons because no matter how well-trained or skilled a marksman a citizen may be, and no matter how favorable the conditions may be for the citizen to take action, heroic behavior with firearms always presents the possibility of collateral injury or death to innocent bystanders. Consequently, when one is being targeted by a would-be mass-murdering psychopath on a shooting spree, it’s much wiser to try to take cover and hope for the best because the alternative–shooting back–is just going to get somebody killed.
Levi, the poison of liberalism really has turned you into a giant, steaming pile of epic life FAIL.
Boy are you ever barking up the wrong tree. I’ll leave you to it.
Seriously – is this why you think they wrote the 2nd Amendment into the bill of rights? So that citizens could take up arms against their government?
I don’t know what world you’ve been paying attention to, but the 2nd Amendment currently does nothing to stop the government from sending people into your house if they want to. You’re hilariously off base if you think the 2nd Amendment is ever a factor when police are deciding whether or not they’re going to raid your house. Even if they know you have guns, if they want to get you, they’re going to.
Jesus you people gotta learn your history.
Oooh, I missed this:
Nope. Still not it, Cinesnatch. Because it’s NOT. ABOUT. ME. (Or you, for that matter.)
You still don’t get it. Remembrances are for the dead person’s survivors. When Ted Kennedy died, I didn’t go to a blog where his supporters/mourners gather and slander his integrity in a 3-digit comment stream, because that would have been repulsively vicious and insensitive… to his survivors. Breitbart was a GP supporter, and a colleague of Bruce’s on the GOProud board. You don’t own any apology to me. You owe it to Bruce, and to Breitbart’s widow and kids. Compose a humble apology to them, and ask Bruce to attach it to the end of the thread where your did your damage. Apologizing to *me* (and in a side thread, that they will never read) MISSES. THE. POINT., and so you continue to evade your responsibility.
Sean A – has anyone ever told you that you write very well, and present cases concisely and with strength? I hope you’ve heard it before, because you certainly do (write and reason) with considerable skill.
I think it’s regrettable that you waste those skills on a know-nothing nobody like (you know who).
You’re not going to budge the needle with him….not ever.
He’s a textbook example of ‘a complete and utter waste of time’.
I’m always interested in what you have to say, and I look forward to reading more of your posts.
Thanks!
(continued) So to spell this out as explicitly as possible: No, I don’t accept your fake/misdirected apology that manages still to completely miss the point. Because it’s not my place to. I’m not the offended party. I’m not in a position to accept any apologies, on behalf of the offended parties. Make a real apology where it’s due, Cinesnatch. And until then, take your misdirected/fake one and cram it up your rear end.
jman, Sean A = Lawyer (the good kind 😉 )
Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Whoooooooo doggie!
Thanks for that! That was a real knee slapper. Yessirree!!
Got any others?
I was going to take some night classes at the nearest Fascist Indoctrination Center, but the tuition was too high, and the class I was most interested in “Speaking Truth to Power: Living on the Street and Pissing and Shitting on Random Vehicles While Whining About How Unfair the World Is” was booked solid for the next 5 semesters, so I gave up in the idea.
Sorry!
jman, good one 🙂
Thanks, ILC!
A**hole , etc. gets old after a while……even for me. 😉
Yup. Why does someone who’s in a high emotional state have the right to make those type of decisions for me?
Now, Levi, let’s put THIS to a hypothetical: one of these grief-stricken friends or parents of one of the victims is standing in front of you screaming about how they a) want to firebomb the station in which Holmes is being held, b) shoot up the house of a Tea Party member in revenge, or c) sign a piece of paper making a major financial decision that could materially affect the remainder of their lives.
Would you allow them to do all of those things? Would you criticize their choices? Would you insist that any contracts they signed during this period of grief should be voided because they have a high likelihood of not having considered things properly?
And yet you scream and piss yourself that they should be allowed to set major public policy during this time of grief and that anyone who criticizes them is awful when it suits your gun-grabbing “progressive” fascist ideology.
What a piece of desperate, manipulative filth you are, toad. You are truly a hypocritical liar, a fine sign of the depravity of Barack Obama and the fascist “progressive” movement you represent. You depend on lies and you depend on manipulating peoples’ emotions. You can’t make a rational argument; all you can do is try some sick necrophiliac ritual of dragging out peoples’ bodies to get your way.
You don’t care about the victims, Levi. You just care about getting your way through whatever means necessary. This is your Reichstag fire, and you and your sick, delusional Barack Obama thought you were going to use it to finally get rid of those Tea Partiers.
Now it just blew up in your face and exposed you as the sick, twisted little Holmes and Loughner wannabe that you are.
Thanks for that! That was a real knee slapper. Yessirree!!
Got any others?
Comment by jman1961 — July 23, 2012 @ 11:18 am – July 23, 2012
Yup, jman.
During the Bush administration, Levi and his fellow “progressives” advocated violent overthrow of the government and screamed that dissent was the highest form of patriotism.
Now they scream that dissent is treason and should be punished with torture, imprisonment, and confiscation of property.
Levi would be hilarious if he weren’t such a desperate little ideologue. As I’ve pointed out, he and his fellow Obama pigs like Dan Savage, Jimmy Hoffa, and the like have ZERO qualms about calling for the deaths of their political opponents. They are violent, sick people who have already proven, a la the Sterling Hall bombings, the Weather Underground bombings and murders, and the Fort Hood shootings, that they think it is perfectly OK to kill people, even innocent bystanders, in the advancement of their glorious leftist causes.
Thought I’d touch it up a bit for ya, NDT.
Hope you don’t mind. 🙂
If banning guns is an unreasonable proposal, certainly you’d entertain the notion of putting a few more rules in place in the hope that future massacres are less deadly and maybe, just maybe, preventable entirely?
But no, that conservative intransigence won’t let you. Better to just, you know, not do anything, and preach personal responsibility. Making it even a little bit harder to obtain so much armament in so little time with so many lethality-boosting modifications – these are ideas you aren’t even willing to entertain, huh? If people don’t want to get murdered in a movie theater, they should just not go to the movies – is that the sum total of your response? Don’t think the community should take any action at all, on account of them being too emotional, huh?
Ditto. That a person suffered a tragic loss may be an excuse for them offering a messed-up policy suggestion; but it must not become an excuse for letting messed-up suggestions dominate the public square and ultimately be put into practice.
Let’s do another thought experiment. Suppose that an Aurora victim’s parent, or perhaps Cindy Sheehan, stood in front of you and passionately advocated that because of their extreme personal loss, gays should be put into death camps. Should we let that pass? Hell, no. And my point is that banning guns in this country makes NO sense, just as putting gays into death camps would make no sense.
Why don’t you conduct an experiment, with you as the unarmed target, so that we can evaluate your proposals?
Were you born an ignorant, obnoxious POS, or is it something you picked up along the way?
We’re dying to know the answer.
Later!
Levi just wants to reserve the right to defend oneself to him and him alone. *shrug* This surprises anyone?
#152: Thank you so much, jman1961. What a kind thing to say. Much appreciated.
You’re welcome, Sean A! 🙂
#162: “If people don’t want to get murdered in a movie theater, they should just not go to the movies – is that the sum total of your response?”
No, Levi, that is the sum total of YOUR response. According to you, madmen are not deterred by anything when they are committed to doing evil, and private citizens carrying firearms are “completely ineffective” at stopping them (all cited evidence to the contrary, of course). So, our options are: stay home or take cover and hope for the best.
Giant, steaming pile of epic life FAIL–> Levi.
Then again, maybe the resident Leftist Crash Test Dummy has sustained so much damage due to negligence and overuse that he actually enjoys the sematic/verbal/logical/moral floor wipings that so many hand him every time he pops off.
You know, a masochist.
ahhh, sema(n)tic.
Sean A, as long as you’re here… I’m really sorry that I dropped the ball back when, on us connecting… my handle at hotmail.
Ah, but Levi, mere minutes ago, you said it WASN’T.
Indeed, Levi, made it clear that you thought banning guns was perfectly reasonable and if you thought it wasn’t, that you were spitting in the face of these people and mocking their hurt.
Now, little puke, you’re going to answer directly: is it reasonable to ban guns in this country or not?
If it is, you’ve just exposed your fascist agenda.
If it isn’t, then you’re spitting in the face of the victims and mocking their guilt BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS.
What this means is that you’re now going to run away. “Progressives” like you always run away and refuse to answer when they know they’re beaten. You don’t have the balls to stand up and own up to your own irrational puking, so your failure to comment and respond proves that I’m right and you’re a hypocrite.
I’m sorry, ILC. But YOU are making it about YOU. If YOU weren’t, why is it my responsibility to inform YOU that I already have apologized to Breitbart’s widow (the woman YOU want me to apologize to has a name, Susannah, by the way) and her four children. Please explain that. So, if I want to apologize to YOU, it’s my choice. And, if YOU don’t want to accept my apology that is YOUR choice.
And, P.S., ILC, I apologized to Bruce (and BDB) months ago in an email back in the Spring. And, correct me if I’m wrong, ND30 (from your LOL-Library of Links), but I recall mentioning the such in a previous thread. Perhaps YOU missed it. But, whoops, this isn’t about YOU, right?
And here we see again how Cinesnatch whines and cries and screams that he’s not wrong, that ILC is wrong, that NDT is wrong, that it’s everyone else’s fault and how mean and evil we all are.
What a liar you are, Cinesnatch. No wonder you’re lonely; no sane person would put up with an abusive idiot like yourself who is mentally incapable of admitting he’s wrong without trying to blame and tear down other people.
Well come on, what’s your response? What would you recommend we do in the wake of this attack? Do you propose we loosen existing gun control laws? Do you recommend we do nothing? If so, how exactly do you tactfully explain to a victim’s parents that their children should have been exercising their rights to carry concealed weapons if they didn’t want to get slaughtered in the dark?
ND30 said:
I’d propose we not let emotion rule the day. But that runs contrary to Levi’s beliefs.
Then again, Levi’s statements run contrary to Levi’s beliefs.
At least he’s back to admitting he wants all guns banned. (Well unless he has them)
LOL…notice how the desperate screaming and flailing Levi tries something, anything, to turn the discussion away from the trap he’s set for himself, in which he claimed anything less than a complete and total ban on all firearms was disrespectful to the victims.
Furthermore, notice how Levi’s only response is to ban law-abiding citizens from owning guns. Levi doesn’t seem in the least interested in requiring mental-health evaluations for college students and recipients of government grants, which Holmes was. Levi doesn’t seem in the least interested in allowing family members to involuntarily commit individuals that are undergoing psychotic breaks, as Holmes apparently was. Levi doesn’t seem in the least interested in equal enforcement of CURRENT gun laws, which he opposes as “racist” since it disproportionately seems to catch minority gang members in Chicago and DC. Levi doesn’t even seem to care about guns being used in mass murders, given his endorsement and support of the Obama Fast and Furious program that bypassed existing laws to ensure that guns ended up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
It’s all about banning guns and preventing law-abiding citizens — particularly white ones — from owning guns. Levi is obsessive about the need to keep “bitter clingers” from owning guns.
Yup, Cinesnatch, I said exactly that.
And I stand by every word of it.
Your game is to appeal to other peoples’ decency and the commenting rules to shut them up.
Decency and rules which you regularly ignore yourself and badmouth.
Once again, it’s your little game of whining and crying about how mean everyone else is to you and how everyone else should be forced to follow the rules you won’t.
For the first time in your life, you are facing people who are on to you, on to the games you play, and not willing to let them slide.
No wonder you’re getting more shrill and desperate.
From the Focus on the CO victims thread (for which there seems to be little focus on the victims, which I am just as guilty of):
Works for me.
Problem is, Cinesnatch, what was it you said about Levi’s statement?
Too bad your attempts to present yourself as fair keep blowing up with examples of your outright anti-conservative hate and bigotry, Snatchy.
ND30 (or anyone) >> Can you please explain to me what HTML you used to do that last link? It would be really helpful.
How entertaining. A liberal who screams that all conservatives are ignorant fools who know nothing about science or technology begging for conservatives to help with his HTML.
And this was hilarious:
According to your fellow Obama supporter Levi, focusing on the victims was just cowardice and admission that conservatives, particularly Dan Blatt, were responsible for the murders.
And what was it you keep saying about Levi?
Oh, that’s right:
What’s the matter, Cinesnatch? Your attempt to portray yourself as a moderate blowing up when we see the left wing bigots which you call voices of reason?
I’ve already identified myself as a liberal a couple of times in the last couple of months. Check your LOL (Library of Links). Perhaps ILC can help you find the references.
My, my, the little Obama puppet Snatchy seems quite upset by someone actually having the ability to fact-check him and hold him accountable for what he says.
That’s what makes you funny, Snatchy. You scream about how rational you are and how you want facts and links, but when someone actually provides you facts and links, you mock and tear them down for doing so.
It just shows what desperate liars you and your friend Levi are. You’re not actually rational or intelligent people; you’re bigoted little narcissists who will say and do anything, including exploiting the dead, to get people to give you what you want.
I’ve tried google, as well as all of the HTML listed on the comment instructions, and still by brain hasn’t wrapped itself around the answer. And it has been almost two years for me on here (wow). It would just be nice to know.
Your point is?
I’m not sure why that would change my argument. Seriously, I don’t (nor should any principled person) care what scenario in which they are arguing their position. Their argument, and position, should always be consistent (unless they have reconsidered their position or argument).
It’s to prevent tyranny, not defend yourself from the police when they have reason to search your house or whatever. Of course, tyranny would very difficult to establish in an armed society because the citizenry wouldn’t take it.
Levi wrote:
Wow! You guys are so distracted by the personal attacks on each other, no one bothered to ask the obvious follow-up question – Levi, what do believe was the reason the framers of the Bill Of Rights wrote the 2nd Amendment with the language they did?
Now, to the crux of Levi’s entire comment:
“but the 2nd Amendment currently does nothing to stop the government from sending people into your house if they want to.… He is absolutely right here. If the police or other law enforcement establishment decide they have reason to arrest you while you are at home, they will do so, whether you have guns or not. If they know you have guns and are well armed, they simply send more police with more guns and fire power than you could possibly match. The fourth amendment specifically covers that.
That said, the government will go after you if they think you have weapons and are a threat to the government in any way. See Waco Branch Davidians. That probably never would have happened if the cult didn’t arm themselves to the teeth.
And no NDT, I’m not suggesting that the Government was right to do what they did because they were armed, I’m saying what I said – Had the Branch Davidians not been armed, they probably would not have been on the Governments radar.
I don’t know… If you put either “The War On Drugs” or “The War On Terror” in front of it, we seem to be pretty accepting of a lot of laws that take away our freedoms and are tyrannical in nature.
Honestly, I think the same ‘wow!’ when I see people constantly engaging him in debates.
It’s equivalent to shoveling shit against a tsunami.
Ergo, a complete waste of time.
And to continue to do it is…….what’s an appropriate adjective here?……how about ‘silly’.
Face it, sonic, asking that turd the question you suggest just invites more of his leftist incoherence, historic illiteracy, moral idiocy, prodigious self contradictions and emotion drenched whining (and that’s assuming that he even bothers to address it, which he doesn’t do in the overwhelming majority of cases).
What comes from that exercise that you think might be worthwhile?
(It’s a serious question; no snark and no setup.) 🙂
I just want to know exactly, succinctly (if possible) what he thinks the 2nd Amendment is for, why the FF’s would think this way, and why he thinks that is the case. For me, learning what other people think, and how they differ from my understanding of the world…. that is very much not a waste of time for me.
Thanks for your answer, sonic.
His answer would be of no benefit to me, regardless of it’s content, because it would be WRONG, and since I already know the right answers to that specific question, I’d learn nothing that I didn’t already know (that I know the right answers to that question and he doesn’t).
That’s an exercise in futility.
And not to be argumentative, but you did say yesterday in the ‘a–h–e’ mini-brouhaha, that you yourself tend to skip over his posts.
And sonic, that was two days ago at your #94.
On # 196… Did he ever say what he thought the 2nd Amendment was for and why? If so, I missed it.
On # 197… That’s why I wrote: “I just want to know exactly, succinctly (if possible)“
@sonic,
Your flawed assumption is that Levi thinks. The boy is a petty child with delusions of adequacy, who has in the past argued that the founders could amend the Constitution only for ‘good reasons’, that in a republic that referrs to majorities those majorities don’t matter, that the surpreme court is designed to tell if a law is good or bad (apparently constitutionalism is optional.) and that the elite don’t need to honour the rights of the majority, instead draging them kicking and screaming into the future.
Levi is for disarming the populace, because he believes that he’s part of the elite who should have the guns.
These are just a few of Levi’s greatest hits. If you want I’m sure I can find more.
No, but the reasons he said it WASN’T ratified for are the reasons it WAS ratified for, so what options does that leave him?
As to ‘succinct’:
1. he almost never is
2. you’ve been around here a lot longer than me, and I figured you would know that
3. it’s why I heap ridicule on him, because he beggars it, and deserves nothing better than that
4. you’re a very optimistic and hopeful person if you think anything he spouts will help you learn anything useful
5. good luck with him (sincerely)…because he’ll never change
Yes on 4.
He may not change, but that doesn’t mean I can’t try and flesh out more info than he usually contribute. I got my teaching credentials in part in the hope of being able to get some students to move in directions intellectually that they might otherwise. I know Levi is not a student, but I still would find it useful to explore his rationals.
When I have had to teach evolution, even though I was a short term sub, I never-the-less got challenged by a student who was very set on ID and Creationism. She asked why she should learn anything about evolution. Isn’t it pointless since she doesn’t believe it? She did challenge me a bit. I told her that though I’m agnostic (she asked, I don’t have a problem identifying that) I had no problem or quarrel with her beliefs. I explained that knowledge of evolution theory would help her to better express herself when debating on this topic, and maybe even become better at arguing her position. I asked her if she gets annoyed by people who rail against her religion, and yet it’s obvious they don’t know a thing about it. My job ended before I could see if she concentrated more on the work, but i think she got the idea. Knowledge of your opponents positions in detail help you argue against them. Gives you a more solid footing. That is why i never approach an argument by simply stating that ________ is a liberal, or conservative, so therefore, they are automatically wrong.
Have to go cook dinner now.
Thanks for the details, sonic, and bon appetit!
I don’t do that, either.
Too many on the left make statements so absurd, so outrageous, so far from any recognizable reality that, after many years of going through the explanations step by step, and getting disappointing results, I now use my time and energy for more productive purposes.
Thank man. We had chicken wraps. Yum!
My point is that they’re different. An assault rifle that can kill a roomful of people in 30 seconds is not the same as a pencil. It’s easy to kill lots of people with an assault rifle, it’s damn near impossible to kill someone with a pencil. Hence, one of these items should be regulated more tightly.
This was a decent essay from the pro-2nd amendment side:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/07/23/response-jason-alexander-guns
Americans with their own firearms organized into militias to help fight the British. In the early days of American government after the Revolution, there was a great deal of justifiable concern that the British or some other European empire would attack the country, and the framers thought it would be handy if the militias could help out again in that scenario.
It’s all right there in the language. The framers wanted well regulated militias, citizens owning firearms was pretty much incidental to that. Nowadays, the entire amendment is obsolete, because citizen militias aren’t necessary anymore. Between our huge military, its reserves, the National Guard, federal and state law enforcement agencies, and municipal police departments, there are more than enough organized fighting units to deal with any kind of invasion. Given how modern warfare is different from back then, a militia of today would be completely useless if it consisted of a bunch of guys showing up with their personal firearms. Where is the militia’s armor? Where is their close air support? Where is their artillery? They’d be about as effective in thwarting an invasion by a modern military if they showed up in plate mail brandishing swords and spears.
They certainly didn’t put the amendment in to empower the citizenry to resist the tyranny of the government, or so that people could defend their property, or whatever other fabricated notions the gun lobby has instilled in the public. It’s also worth noting that ‘arms’ back then meant a bayonet and a musket that could inaccurately fire a tiny little bullet at the rate of one per minute.It was the 1700s. Getting shot wasn’t even the worse part of getting shot – it’s the infection that you had to worry about. How can people think they intended for us to be able to buy the kind of weaponry that Holmes procured? If you wanted to shoot a lot of bullets back then, you had to get like 80 people together, have them shoot a volley or two at the bad guys, then you’d tell them to run in there and stab whoever was left. Now you can carry as much firepower in a dufflebag as an entire regiment of minutemen from their era- and this was their intention? Yeah right.
“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.” –Thomas Jefferson, 1803.
“It is more a subject of joy [than of regret] that we have so few of the desperate characters which compose modern regular armies. But it proves more forcibly the necessity of obliging every citizen to be a soldier; this was the case with the Greeks and Romans and must be that of every free State. Where there is no oppression there can be no pauper hirelings.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813.
“[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms.” –Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.
“Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, the only force which can be ready at every point and competent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as formed into a militia. On these, collected from the parts most convenient, in numbers proportioned to the invading foe, it is best to rely, not only to meet the first attack, but if it threatens to be permanent, to maintain the defence until regulars may be engaged to relieve them.”
–Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334
In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right was protected by the 2nd Amendment.
“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
–Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.
“Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.”
Samuel Adams
“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
“The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts — U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation… Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, Federalist Papers, #46 at 243-244
“Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense.”
John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America, 1788
And just for Levi:
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
John Adams (1735-1826) Founding Father, 2nd US President
source.
Levi, failing history since 2001
I should point out that Samuel Adams was one of the founding fathers. Else Levi will wonder why I’m including quotes from a beer company.
Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.
@sonic,
I admit your desire to educate people like Levi. However as has been shown many times, you can lead a Levi to water, but you can’t make him think.
Aside, one big difference between NDT and myself is that he prefers to use a shotgun approach (though I have seen him be more direct) using the tactics of the left, Breitbart style. That rubs some people the wrong way. I prefer the sniper rifle approach, making sure to link to the original words when needed to show the target for the amoral person he is.
Oh, and for Principled libs who comment? I highly recommend Pat. 🙂
You should post on the Constitution, and especially the 2nd Amendment, a whole lot more.
It’s always good for a long, loud laugh.
Hey, how’s about doing your schtick on the 1st Amendment next time?
I really like the part where you say that the Framers intent was that saying things that hurt other people’s feelings should be forbidden.
You know, like: you are a one dumb sonofabitch, Levi.
Yeah! Do your 1st Amendment riff next time!
Thanks!
I particularly love how the delusional boy Levi blabbers that the right to own weapons was never intended to allow their use against a tyrannical government….while simultaneously blathering about the need to resist the tyrannical British government.
Basic problem here is that OWS Boy Levi is terrified that the “bitter clingers” that he and his Obama Party Sturmabteilung intend to rob, loot, and intimidate will be able to defend themselves.
Levi, thank you for responding.
Yes, but as you point out, in order for the militias to be armed, the citizenry must be armed. Note that the founders did not put into place in the Constitution a structure to provide the approved arms to the citizenry. The citizens armed themselves, with whatever they could. The government in place during the Revolution did provide some firearms, but the use of those arms were not a requirement.
To the meat of the thing here…. You say about the second amendment: “It’s all right there in the language. The framers wanted well regulated militias, citizens owning firearms was pretty much incidental to that.”
Here is the amendment:
First, lets do away with the silly “comma” controversy. It doesn’t matter much if there is a comma between the words “militia” and “being” or not; it doesn’t change the meaning. Also, the appearance that the “militia” no longer seems to be a necessity is irrelevant to the second amendment. The Bill of Rights was written specifically to clarify how the citizenry would be protected from the power of the government. Tyranny and all that. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” is filler. The rational stated is not the important part of this amendment.
Why?
Take it apart. If you only include the first part of the amendment “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, it makes absolutely no sense. It’s a subordinate clause. Here is the meat of the thing:
There is no stated mechanism that says that , if the conditions of the subordinate clause go away, the entire amendment changes or goes away too. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is, as long as no amendment is passed to repeal that specific line, permanent. The fact that the average trial is not, and probably can not be done in what was considered a “speedy” fashion back in the day, does not by any standard make the sixth amendment obsolete. It is what it is.
You might be correct that the militia, as practiced during the colonial period, is not due to our huge Federal completely obsolete. However, that is irrelevant. We have no idea what the future holds. If another country were to plan to deploy an effective EMP attack on the US, making most of our conventional high-tech weaponry useless, and ten invade our shores, an armed citizenry would once again be needed to help repel that force.
First, you have to put things into perspective. Projectile weapons, muskets included, were not considered “ho-hum”. They were lethal weapons. Everyone knew it. Plus, the Colonials were the top dog in the arms race at the time due to the skilled manufacturing of the rifle, a great improvement over the ball and musket. Yeah, compared to what we have now, those guns looks like chump change. But then, in their time, those rifles were their version of high-tech weaponry. Note that there is no provision to regulate the ownership of a rifle.
Lastly, if you took a bullet from a musket to a vital organ, you died before infection set in. And even if you die from the secondary infection rather than the original gunshot wound, it is still the act of getting shot that leads to your demise.
Must go work now.
I was being facetious with the pencil, but my point is that there are a lot of dangerous items that aren’t heavily regulated. What about gasoline, matches, vehicles, bleach, aspirin, knives, etc? You can kill a lot of people without guns. Say, for example, you set fire to the room with the people in it and locked the doors, or mixed a bunch of bleach and ammonia in the room and locked the doors? Or you could drive a car into a crowd at high speed. Where do you put the line between something that needs to be regulated and something that doesn’t?
Just something noticed: All the items you listed have a primary purpose that is practical, aside from its usefulness for self-defense and inflicting harm.
If I actually lived off the land, a rifle would come in handy. (i would stubbornly try bow and arrow first, but probably would finally give in to a firearm) But, like most Americans, I don’t. But I do eat, so knives come in very handy. And I do drive. And I do light candles in my house, as well as the pilot light. And I do take notes at the movie theater and I do get headaches. Like most Americans.
Vince, and I own a gun like most Americans.
Any tool is useful in certain situations. My cell phone is useless in the middle of the Saraha and my car is useless in the middle of the Atlantic.
Weapons are tools, and they have very specific purposes.
And like any tool, they can be abused.
There are lots of good reasons for gun ownership and the founding fathers understood that. I provided a number of quotes above showing that. Noted Constitutional Failure Levi won’t be able to find one to back his absurd pronouncements.
Fair enough.
Thank you, Livewire.
Missed this line:
percentage of Americans who own guns.
And did you ask them to attach it to the thread, for any GP-related Breitbart mourners to read? The thread is where you committed your offense. Any time someone re-reads it, with no apology from you visible, your offense will be re-committed. Last time I checked, there was none.
So no, I’m not impressed. It would appear, Cinesnatch, that you have done everything you could do except *actually try to fix, or make up for, your behavior in the thread*. You have made every apology, except the one that is needed.
But it isn’t, Cinesnatch. Oh my God, you still don’t get it. Your responsibility isn’t to inform ME of ANYTHING. Your responsibility is to ACTUALLY APOLOGIZE TO BREITBART MOURNERS WHO WOULD COME ACROSS YOUR WORDS ON GAYPATRIOT. Not here. Not in this thread, I mean. And not in private e-mails. But in the thread where you did your damage.
THEN, if it happens that I’m going on about it, you can have the satisfaction of going “Voila! I did it, fool!” to me. That’s your opportunity. Not your responsibility; your opportunity. To summarize:
1) Your responsibility is to apologize to any Breitbart mourners who might come across your disgraceful insensitivity and lack of decency in the Breitbart thread. By apologizing there. And humbly, with an admission that you were seriously out of line. If the thread is closed to new comments, send it to Bruce or Dan and ask them to add it.
2) Upon doing so, you will then have the opportunity – not the responsibility, but the OPPORTUNITY – to inform me, rubbing my nose in what a great guy you are.
Responsibility to Breitbart mourners in general. Upon its exercise, opportunity to rub my nose in your wonderful deeds.
Until then, NDT’s comment is right:
NDT, as to your invoking some aspect of Cinesnatch’s personal life (real or imagined): Not cool. I don’t approve. You may stand by it; you may have a point that Cinesnatch, lacking decency, exploits ours. But some rules are (in a particular context) too important; they must remain rules; bending or breaking them breeds too much confusion, and disrespects the larger community. Please don’t do it again.
(continued) Obviously, it’s my just opinion that respecting people’s privacy, keeping their personal lives (real or imagined) out of blog discussions and not using their lives (real or imagined) as a club, is a very important rule to keep. But there it is: I didn’t approve when Eric didn’t it, I didn’t approve when Cinesnatch did it, and I’m not going to approve if you do it.
(typo: “when Eric -did- it”)
Interestingly Gallup has different numbers and personally I’d expect those numbers to be higher IRL.
Wanted to read the internals. It’s only good out to 2 sigma, and gives a +/- four points. So it’s possible that we’re in a minority (which actually means, per Levi Logic, that gun rights are sacred and should be protected from the minority) but I still believe that Gallup under estimates.)
I think I’m going to start a count for Levi to provide quotes to back up his statement, “They certainly didn’t put the amendment in to empower the citizenry to resist the tyranny of the government, or so that people could defend their property, or whatever other fabricated notions the gun lobby has instilled in the public.” Given that he’s (not usrprisingly) completely wrong.
“…It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control…The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.”
Samuel Adams
I’m not sure if he’ll beat his 104 days to admit that there are no ‘successful socialist nations’ despite his claims to the contrary.
Isn’t all of our data based on percentage of households? Wouldn’t that mean for households greater than one person, which only have one gun (two or more people per one fire arm), that would bring down the percentage of “total Americans who own a gun”?
OMG is that ever ignorant / wrong / contradicted by the historical record. And contradicted by Levi’s own opening sentence:
Because the American Revolution (against the British) had nothing to do with overthrowing a tyrannous government, or establishing the primacy of the individual’s rights and the individual sphere **over** the government. Oh, no. It was to establish a socialist Utopia, where we will all be dragged “kicking and screaming into the future” per Levi.
Heh – I said “my just opinion”, when I meant “just my opinion”. Freudian slip? 🙂
my just opinion. . .too funny, way too funny
sonicfrog –
I have to go to work, too, so I’ll be brief as I can be. Stripping the first half of the amendment serves what I presume to be your side, but the intent behind these amendments is just as important as the amendments themselves, otherwise the framers wouldn’t have permitted changes to the Constitution to be made. Militias are a a relic from a bygone era, and that’s the last thing I’ll be concerned about if the apocalyptic scenario you described ever comes to pass. It’s not as if the amendment reads ‘I like the smell of my own farts, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The first half of the sentence does have significant meaning, and in my opinion serves as a big indicator that it needs to be amended, as was the founders’ intent.
And it needs to be changed not only because the militia is obsolete on the modern battlefield, but because the definition of arms between 1787 and 2012 has changed so dramatically. Sure, muskets were lethal, and you could kill someone with a musket. Someone. Even the most maniacally deranged psycopath would have considered himself lucky to kill one human being on a musket-shooting spree. The weapons you can buy and the modifications you can make today are too differen; trying to apply a rule about weapons available before the Industrial Revolution is completely meaningless.
Shorter Levi,
“Sonic, I’m running away because I can’t defend my wild made up quotes. It’s clear from reading the founders words that the founders did mean for people to have weapons to protect themselves from their government. I can’t admit that because I don’t want to look even more stupid, so I’m going to run away. Oh, and who cares what the Constitution says because it was written by people who weren’t as smart as me, and I think that entire amendment process is too hard to understand, so why don’t we just throw it out. Because I’m right.”
Now hush Levi, the adults are talking.
Still ruminating on the “using personal info as a club” thing… sorry if nobody cares. Just want to make sure that I’ve been clear, and fair. And since it came up in this thread.
I haven’t meant to suggest 100% certainty or agreement that NDT did anything bad here. I miss a lot of comments, and Cinesnatch, if he is single and/or lonely, may have stated it at some point. The bad examples, the examples I have really objected to in the past, involved a commentor being clubbed with information (real or imagined) that they hadn’t volunteered.
I throw in “real or imagined” because the person doing that type of clubbing may not know what they think they know. I don’t care if they do know. My objection is to the clubber’s ill-intent. The ill-intent of revealing private (unrevealed) info makes the blog less safe for everybody. As well, if it’s coming from someone who is supposed to be one of the good guys (use Eric as an example again), it breeds confusion about who the good guys are. The classic “blackstaff” debate.
I understand. You will not hold nd30 to the same standards you hold some others. You’ve made that abundantly clear.
Just noticed your ‘households’ comment Vince,
Yes, and it also depends on who they’re asking. When I was a kid *horrors* I had my 4/10 (which my sister then had) and mom and dad had their own firearms. So it’s hard to estimate.
Plus rural vs city ownership makes a difference. so agian, where were they asking? Ask my home town, and you’ll get in the high 90’s 🙂
#232 – No Cinesnatch, you have not understood. That is abundantly clear.
FTR, I’d like to correct Cinesnatch’s mis-quote of me at #180. The background of that quote: Cinesnatch had been trying to club NDT with something or other about his mother. Here is what I said then (multiple comments, meant to run together as one):
So I clarified THEN, as today, that my main objection is to someone intending to expose private info about a fellow commentor. At #180, Cinesnatch has left out my clarification, giving a false impression of my point.
Having said that, I did (and do) also object to changing the subject to an attack on someone’s family situation (real or imagined). But what Cinesnatch quotes of NDT here, in that regard, seems like thin gruel:
That is an attack on Cinesnatch’s family situation? Really? His family? It could be; and taking Cinesnatch’s word that it is, I gave it my conditional disapproval. That stands. Before I can give it my *un*conditional disapproval, I must ask: Is that all there is? Or is there more, that I’ve missed?
Yikes… *this* was the full edition of what I said, that Cinesnatch quoted from too selectively:
Substitute at the beginning of #235.
Or in other words, Cinesnatch, he’s acting like you.
When you state that holding people you support to different standards is acceptable, then you won’t be a hypocrite for trying to force ILC to a standard that you won’t follow yourself.
Oh, wait — you still would be, because you are trying to scream that ILC is a hypocrite for HIS allegedly holding people to different standards.
This is what everyone eventually realizes about you, Cinesnatch; you have no solid, unchanging, or objective principles other than your own self-gratification. You do whatever you want at the moment, and then state that objection to or criticism of your behavior constitutes “hate”. Even when you acknowledge that something you did was wrong, you rationalize it as being the other person’s fault.
Would you tolerate being around a person who blamed you for all of their problems and their mistakes? Would you tolerate someone who demanded their way, all the time, and said you hated them if you didn’t do so?
And who thinks he’s scoring a point on you, when he misquotes you.
Thanks for the followup Levi.
Oops.
Levi wrote in 205,
Before we go any further, Levi, let me ask you a few questions:
What is a general definition of an assault rifle? And if it’s not a synonym, what’s a general definition of an assault weapon? General means that rough terminology or a little inexactness isn’t a problem here, just whatever answers seem to fit best.
What does “semi-automatic” mean, and what makes semi-automatic firearms so dangerous and so in need of restricting or prohibiting for civilian use?
And what kind of firearm can “spray” bullets?
Just so you know, these aren’t trick questions. Just answer them off the top of your head if you can.
Levi wrote in 207,
Militias weren’t just a quick ad hoc invention at the time of the War of Independence. The militia was a concept that came out of England and meant the whole of the male population, functionally all able-bodied men who were old enough to fight, truly a popular body. There were sometimes “select militias”, with arbritary membership restrictions, in one case that each member had to have at least 100 pounds sterling to his name. However, select militias violated the concept of the militia as a universal popular body, so “select militia” was always synonymous with “bogus militia”.
Completely wrong. Militiamen were to provide their own firearms, and for quite a while there was a requirement that each able-bodied man have a suitable weapon (though that wasn’t necessarily ever well-enforced, and I think much of the time wasn’t enforced at all). The government did not provide the militia its weapons, though it might or might not provide it ammunition.
And “well regulated” very likely did not mean what gun-phobic, neighbor-fearing modern Americans would assume it meant. When the 2nd Amendment was drafted and ratified, well regulated also meant well functioning (a clock’s mechanism was “regulated”, or adjusted, so the clock would keep time more accurately). That meaning of “regulated” is now archaic, but that doesn’t allow honest modern people the luxury of assuming that now only modern word usages apply to the Bill of Rights. The framers of the Bill of Rights wanted a popular body that functioned well as a military union, not a heavily restricted group of men whose only justification for keeping and bearing combat-ready firearms was to do the government’s bidding with them.
Back at the time of the American Revolution, many of the Founding Fathers opposed the idea of any standing army, and wanted our armed forces to be only the militia. They feared and distrusted the idea of a standing army intensely, considering them to be a continual danger to the liberty of a free people. But it was impractical not to have an army to fight the British along with militia forces, so those who were viscerally opposed still grudgingly accepted the necessity of forming the revolutionary army.
The militia was already in existence since before the Revolution. It was the militia who fired on the British as they first marched to, where was it, Lexington? And our militia’s gunfire was so witheringly effective that the British were twice on the verge of surrendering, but British military discipline enabled them to continue on.
As I understand it, the Viet Cong were essentially a militia force, a locally-raised light military formation carrying whatever rifles they could scrounge, buy off the black market or steal, though the NVA I’m sure provided them with some firearms, and whatever few other weapons they were able to carry readily on foot. Militias are by definition a light infantry force. They only carry small arms, and in modern times maybe some small mortars.
Given all their disadvantages, I don’t think it’s pushing it to say that the Viet Cong against our armor, air power and artillery did quite well, if at times taking grievous losses.
No, that’s exacty why they did put the 2nd Amendment in, and why they put it immediately after their prized 1st Amendment. I’m quite sure they said at the time that the 2nd Amendment existed to safeguard all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights.
No, they fired a big ol’ ball that makes today’s bullets look tiny and little. And though the rate of fire was slow (1 per minute is somewhere in the ballpark) it was still a faster rate of fire than the much more accurate contemporary black powder rifle, which was accurate up to 100 yards. The musket’s gross inaccuracy was its design concession that allowed its relative ease of loading. Musket’s were intended to be fired by groups of soldier at the same time, like one huge shotgun.
Oh no, those musket balls could do plenty of damage ploughing into a human body at their relatively slow rate of speed.
I think they had two rows of men, one standing and one kneeling, so one row could fire while the other was reloading.
But rifle-armed miliitamen were able to function in a much more loose and flexible fashion, often as what we now call guerillas, and could be very effective in that way.
I think that might be a slight exaggeration. But I’m sure the Founders would have salivated over the possibility of having modern firearms technology. Even so, I don’t think they would changed a single thing in the 2nd Amendment. They really did believe in Americans being a free people and they implicitly trusted us with firearms.
—————————–
As I’m rather tired, I suspect that my attempts at editing left some things I’ll cringe at when I read this again tomorrow. My apologies in advance for any grammatical, syntactical or historical howlers you might find above.
Assault rifles…. I couldn’t tell you an exact definition, but I know one when I see one. They can be semi-auto, automatic, fire in bursts, I think they generally have a decent balance between range and stopping power.
Semi-automatic means you get one bullet per squeeze of the trigger.
Automatic weapons spray bullets.
I’m glad to see Levi admit he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. That’s progress.
So you’re screaming for a ban on something even though you can’t define what it is.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the ignorance of fascism. Little wannabe tyrant Levi screams that he needs to take away our Constitutionally-guaranteed rights because of magic weapons that he can’t define or identify, but that cause him and his fellow liberals to go into insane murderous shoot-em-up rages whenever they touch one or it’s ammunition.
Which he and Obama then use taxpayer money to give to Mexican drug lords so that they can take out Border Patrol agents.
In short, Levi believes that law-abiding American citizens shouldn’t be allowed to own guns, but that the US government should sell them to criminals.