GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/12/17/with-connecticut-horror-fresh-in-our-minds-tis-not-the-season-to-politicize/trackback/

  1. http://www.hlntv.com/slideshow/2012/12/15/sandy-hook-newtown-victims-complete-list-memoriam

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 17, 2012 @ 3:11 am - December 17, 2012

  2. Well said Mr. Blatt!!

    Comment by Steve Des Jardins — December 17, 2012 @ 3:57 am - December 17, 2012

  3. The left is out there working to take liberty, they are not saying this is not the time to be political.

    Comment by Richard Bell — December 17, 2012 @ 6:04 am - December 17, 2012

  4. This tragedy is heartbreaking. Now, can this two-faced administration, that put over 2,000 guns into drug cartel hands that killed over 300 Mexican policemen, 2 American agents and unknown numbers of innocents please recuse itself from this topic.

    Comment by David — December 17, 2012 @ 7:02 am - December 17, 2012

  5. I hope that Dear Reader has as much success with imposing gun control as he did with closing Gitmo. But I’m not waiting around to see what this fascist regime does; I’m buying a pistol this week and sending money to the NRA.

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 8:14 am - December 17, 2012

  6. Here we are again. I’ll say what I said the last time something like this occurred – it’s absolute cowardice for conservatives to insist that nobody debate gun control in the aftermath of shootings like this one. Conservatives feel the heat, so they just start whining and demanding special treatment, instead of having the balls to put forth their argument – which consists almost exclusively of saying “More guns!”

    It’s easy to imagine why the country might not find that the most palatable presentation at the moment, so here come the excuses. And the lecturing about how people are ‘too emotional’ about a story that involves 20 murdered 6-year olds. And a note about politicizing debate – if your stance on a political issue is the status quo, and you’re recommending shutting down all debate – you’re politicizing the issue! You’re advocating for something that is advantageous for your side, so you’re politicizing. So please, come on down off of your imaginary high horse.

    I for one happen to agree that after a shooting is not the best time to be talking about gun control – it’s before the shooting! And you know what? Today is before the shooting. Something horrible is creeping towards us and it will be here soon enough. If gun control is off the table because it can’t do anything to help these victims, why don’t we talk about gun control in the name of preventing future killings in the first place?

    Comment by Levi — December 17, 2012 @ 8:30 am - December 17, 2012

  7. Levi, no one cares what you think, because we’re all aware that leftist pigs like yourself want Obama to rule as a dictator, imprison political opponents, and murder them.

    Perhaps you ought to ask why Obama’s rhetoric makes his supporters so violent first. After all, the most violent places in the US are overwhelmingly Obama Party strongholds with draconian gun laws, like Chicago and DC.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2012 @ 8:51 am - December 17, 2012

  8. Also, Levi, you screamed that the FRC shooting was justified and that violence against Obama’s opponents was justified.

    Furthermore, pig child, you and your entire Barack Obama Party, “progressives”, and liberals call for Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Dick Cheney, George Bush, and their children to be murdered.

    Deal with your own violent behavior first, fascist pig.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2012 @ 8:56 am - December 17, 2012

  9. Also, since Levi has already made violent threats and stated that he will use any means necessary, including violence, to force people to give up their religious and political beliefs, clearly we should do what we can to prevent a future catastrophe and reveal Levi’s violent tendencies to his friends, family, employer, and law enforcement so that they can prevent what is clearly going to be a future massacre.

    Or is Levi’s point to restrain and disarm OTHER people, while he carries out his violence unimpeded?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2012 @ 9:03 am - December 17, 2012

  10. Horrified, as we all are, by what happened, they want to pin the blame on someone and choose an outfit of which they have long been critical. Perhaps, it makes them feel better. Or perhaps, it helps them make sense of actions which transcend the understanding of rational, civilized people.

    But ask the deeper question, of why they want to pin the blame on someone, or why it would make them feel better. I think such people want to maintain the illusion of being in control of their lives, which is a key conceit of statism/left-liberalism. Any of us could die tomorrow, whether by sheer ill fortune or by human malice. That can’t be changed, but some don’t want to face it. Identifying with the State and (falsely) proclaiming the State’s right, ability and urgent necessity to “do something” (take X from ‘other’ persons Y) is part of a psycho-ideological system by which these weak people avoid facing the truth. They favor gun control instinctively (pushing it every chance they get, no matter how tasteless or tragic) because they know instinctively that armed citizens are not fellow State-worshippers and are, as such (or just by existing), a moral, psychological and practical threat to their State-worshipping.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 9:29 am - December 17, 2012

  11. Case in point: Levi.

    why don’t we talk about gun control in the name of preventing future killings in the first place?

    You can talk about it all you want, but no, it won’t prevent future killings. If you were a good and healthy person you would face up to that, rather than aiming (so to speak) to destroy other’s God-given rights.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 9:36 am - December 17, 2012

  12. Which brings us to Levi’s straw man:

    it’s absolute cowardice for conservatives to insist that nobody debate gun control

    Who’s saying that? What people around here, at least, are saying is probably more that you can debate gun control to your heart’s content – AND, to the extent that your real aim may be to take away others’ pre-existing (pre-State) right of self-defense, your position will remain as stupid and wrong as it has ever been.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 9:45 am - December 17, 2012

  13. A couple facts that our resident fascist can’t handle.

    A pro second amendment state stopped a shooting spree on the same day. Local community, local officials stopped this from happening. The very anethma to the big government statist.

    Let’s also not forget how effective gun control was in Germany. Not 1939 Germany, but 2009 Germany.

    Better still, the totalitarian utopia Levi dreams of found gun control useless too. So is our little fascist going to call for knife control?

    Facts are anethma to Levi, which is why he’ll continue his cowardly streak of ignoring them.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 9:50 am - December 17, 2012

  14. 2009 Germany

    Yes; as your Ace link says, “They had tough gun laws; they had a school shooting. They tightened those tough gun laws; they had another school shooting… [someone] intent on mass murder is not deterred by… possession/purchase laws.” But law-abiding people are thus deterred; people who could (and often do) otherwise stop a mass-murderer in his tracks.

    As to the mass-knifing incident in China: One must concede that its outcome is better (i.e., less horrible) than in CT. But I think that murderer’s lack of access to a gun was more about the relative poverty of China. Guns cost money; as Chinese living standards rise, guns will become more available and Chinese gun control will become as ineffective as German gun control.

    Mass murderers are in every society; that’s part of why we need to defend ourselves. Of course, when mass murderers are in a Muslim society, the Left happily calls them freedom fighters or ‘minutemen’.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 10:06 am - December 17, 2012

  15. Overreaction is often the first reaction to the irrational actions that put us all off balance.

    Progressives reach for hyperbole and hug gun control like the scraggly teddy bear they can not bear to part with.

    Conservatives leap to the conclusion that the crazies are allowed to run loose and wild.

    We have a lot of gun control. Some of it is probably too weak and some of it is probably over complicated and silly.

    We have mental health departments in all of the states. We probably have been way too lenient is siding with the disturbed person who has not yet crossed the line and in other cases we are prone to send out fairly low skilled or case burdened competent people to do the winnowing.

    There is a time and place for addressing our strengths and weaknesses and to try to get a better system for understanding our dilemma and dealing positively with it.

    This is not a time for “debate” where the pro-gun and the anti-gun ideologues line up and hold their ground as in a tug-of-war. (When Levi calls for “debate” we know that the very last weapon he will bring is an open mind.)

    Comment by heliotrope — December 17, 2012 @ 10:12 am - December 17, 2012

  16. Who’s saying that? What people around here, at least, are saying is probably more that you can debate gun control to your heart’s content – AND, to the extent that your real aim may be to take away others’ pre-existing (pre-State) right of self-defense, your position will remain as stupid and wrong as it has ever been.

    Nice try, dipshit, but Dan is clearly doing that right here:

    Now is not even the time to consider political action lest we get carried about by our emotions. Now is the time to mourn the fallen. To hold their families in our hearts and keep them in our prayers. And to cherish our friends and our families.

    Comment by Levi — December 17, 2012 @ 11:09 am - December 17, 2012

  17. Wow, Levi fails reading comprehension, again. And has to resort to profanity. I think this speaks volumes about his education and maturity.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 11:30 am - December 17, 2012

  18. Six things People can do that Levi will be unable to understand as they don’t require the government. (From Michelle Malkin’s site)

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 11:35 am - December 17, 2012

  19. But ask the deeper question, of why they want to pin the blame on someone, or why it would make them feel better.

    Um, hello? It’s called problem-solving. If you consider it a problem that people can very easily walk into a kindergarten and kill a bunch of six-year olds, you try to solve it.

    I think such people want to maintain the illusion of being in control of their lives, which is a key conceit of statism/left-liberalism. Any of us could die tomorrow, whether by sheer ill fortune or by human malice. That can’t be changed, but some don’t want to face it.

    Of course any one of us could go at any time. But generally, I would say that people of my political leaning don’t want kids to have to face it. I can grasp the concept of being randomly murdered or disfigured in a fluke industrial accident just fine. I’m a grown up and I know about violence and death and the randomness of life. But again, it would be many people’s preference to not have kids ‘face it,’ as you so spitefully put it.

    Identifying with the State and (falsely) proclaiming the State’s right, ability and urgent necessity to “do something” (take X from ‘other’ persons Y) is part of a psycho-ideological system by which these weak people avoid facing the truth. They favor gun control instinctively (pushing it every chance they get, no matter how tasteless or tragic) because they know instinctively that armed citizens are not fellow State-worshippers and are, as such (or just by existing), a moral, psychological and practical threat to their State-worshipping.

    More boring anti-government crap that doesn’t even pretend to characterize any group of people in this country. What else is new?

    Comment by Levi — December 17, 2012 @ 11:40 am - December 17, 2012

  20. I see. Under Levi’s Hot! reading skillz, saying:

    Now is not even the time to consider political action lest we get carried about by our emotions. Now is the time to mourn the fallen.

    Is the same as:

    conservatives… insist that nobody debate gun control

    Perhaps someone should inform Dan of what he (in Levi’s mind) committed himself to?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 11:42 am - December 17, 2012

  21. Conservatives have already debated gun control; we won.

    Self-defense is a basic human right.

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 11:45 am - December 17, 2012

  22. The left’s idea of a gun control debate is to yell “Shut up, child murderer!” at anyone who opposes disarming the law-abiding.

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 11:51 am - December 17, 2012

  23. The little fascist takes Dan to task for writing:

    Now is not even the time to consider political action lest we get carried about by our emotions. Now is the time to mourn the fallen. To hold their families in our hearts and keep them in our prayers. And to cherish our friends and our families.

    The little fascist informs ILC that the words he put in bold are equivalent to the little fascist’s prior words:

    it’s absolute cowardice for conservatives to insist that nobody debate gun control

    Clear? Dan is an absolute coward. Here is the proof as delivered by the little fascist:

    “Now is not even the time to consider political action lest we get carried about by our emotions” = “(….) absolute cowardice for conservatives to insist that nobody debate gun control.”

    Or, to get at the core:

    “Now is not even the time to consider political action” = “insist(ing) that nobody debate gun control.”

    Every sentient reader gets the point. The little fascist is perplexed as it all looks logical and air tight to him.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 17, 2012 @ 11:54 am - December 17, 2012

  24. I see. Under Levi’s Hot! reading skillz, saying:

    Now is not even the time to consider political action lest we get carried about by our emotions. Now is the time to mourn the fallen.

    Is the same as:

    conservatives… insist that nobody debate gun control

    Perhaps someone should inform Dan of what he (in Levi’s mind) committed himself to?

    Play dumb if you want! We all know this is how it works every time. Conservatives immediately accuse gun control advocates of politicizing, then pretend like they’re taking the high road by saying now isn’t the right time to debate. Dan did it yesterday, he did it after Aurora, he will do it the next time. This isn’t up for debate, this is how it works. If you want to argue that the sky isn’t blue, go whisper your opinions into a toilet.

    Comment by Levi — December 17, 2012 @ 11:55 am - December 17, 2012

  25. Levi continues to beclown himself. We now have this exchange:

    [ILC] But ask the deeper question, of why they want to pin the blame on someone, or why it would make them feel better.
    [Levi] Um, hello? It’s called problem-solving.

    So, in Levi’s mind, blaming people (the thing that my comment was explicitly talking about) is problem-solving. That explains a lot. Obama seems to feel the same.

    If you consider it a problem that people can very easily walk into a kindergarten and kill a bunch of six-year olds

    But I don’t. Rather, I consider it a problem that certain evil individuals would walk into a kindergarten and kill a bunch of six-year olds. Different problem. You see Levi, to the extent that I do believe in assigning some blame, I believe in assigning it where it belongs. It leads to clearer thinking, a realization that we need neither turn our kindergartens into fortresses, nor yield to your fascist agenda.

    I’m a grown up and I know about violence and death and the randomness of life.

    No, I don’t think you are, or that you do. Your comments would seem to make you a prime example of who I was talking about: the people for whom…

    Identifying with the State and (falsely) proclaiming the State’s right, ability and urgent necessity to “do something” (take X from ‘other’ persons Y) is part of a psycho-ideological system… They favor gun control instinctively (pushing it every chance they get, no matter how tasteless or tragic) because they know instinctively that armed citizens are not fellow State-worshippers and are, as such (or just by existing), a moral, psychological and practical threat to their State-worshipping.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 11:57 am - December 17, 2012

  26. Clear? Dan is an absolute coward. Here is the proof as delivered by the little fascist:

    “Now is not even the time to consider political action lest we get carried about by our emotions” = “(….) absolute cowardice for conservatives to insist that nobody debate gun control.”

    Or, to get at the core:

    “Now is not even the time to consider political action” = “insist(ing) that nobody debate gun control.”

    Every sentient reader gets the point. The little fascist is perplexed as it all looks logical and air tight to him.

    Uh oh, I’m being dressed down by the language police!

    Comment by Levi — December 17, 2012 @ 11:57 am - December 17, 2012

  27. Conservatives immediately accuse gun control advocates of politicizing

    No; they wait a moment until gun control advocates politicize, first. Which some gun control advocates were doing, within hours if not minutes of the CT shooting.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 12:03 pm - December 17, 2012

  28. Play dumb if you want! We all know this is how it works every time. Conservatives immediately accuse gun control advocates of politicizing, then pretend like they’re taking the high road by saying now isn’t the right time to debate. Dan did it yesterday, he did it after Aurora, he will do it the next time. This isn’t up for debate, this is how it works. If you want to argue that the sky isn’t blue, go whisper your opinions into a toilet.

    You can excoriate conservatives and/or Republicans all you wish as far as I’m concerned. I’m confident that both are capable of defending themselves without my help. Yet even if we except your premise here, I can see why such would happen: liberals have exploited each and every murder spree to blame conservatives in general and the NRA in particular as having “blood on their hands”. It’s quite clear that you do not want a legitimate discussion or debate, you’re looking to score cheap political points against your opponents and to ram through legislation you know very well would never see the light of day normally. Sorry, but while I personally am willing to discuss gun control I’m not about to be a part of something which intentionally plays with people’s raw emotions and exploits the blood of the fallen like this. I have a right to own a gun if I choose to do so and really don’t care what you think about that, nor does that mean I am somehow responsible for what happened in any of these murder sprees.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 17, 2012 @ 12:06 pm - December 17, 2012

  29. It is amusing to watch Levi spin and spin when the little fascist is cornered by facts.

    It is doubly so when he’s taken to task for his exact words, after he attempts to attribute meaning to someone else’s words.

    If he said this stuff outloud, his mom would have to come downstairs and tell him to be quiet, the neighbors are complaining.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 12:22 pm - December 17, 2012

  30. One last thing on this:

    Play dumb if you want!

    But we’re up to 5+ people now, who all fail to see how Dan’s “Now is not even the time to consider political action” equals Levi’s “conservatives insist(ing) that nobody debate gun control.”

    5+ means 5 thread participants, and probably more who are only reading. Would you like to say all of us are dumb, or playing dumb, Levi? I mean, we know that you do think all conservatives are dumb – but perhaps you would like to re-affirm it here, for the record?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 12:28 pm - December 17, 2012

  31. So, in Levi’s mind, blaming people (the thing that my comment was explicitly talking about) is problem-solving. That explains a lot. Obama seems to feel the same.

    Yes. Problem-solving frequently requires assigning blame. That’s impossible to disagree with, so let’s move on?

    But I don’t. Rather, I consider it a problem that certain evil individuals would walk into a kindergarten and kill a bunch of six-year olds. Different problem.

    ???????????????????????????????????????????????????

    Meaningless semantics. You’re clearly trying to set me up for some kind of ‘liberals don’t believe in evil’ line of bullshit, so let’s move on?

    You see Levi, to the extent that I do believe in assigning some blame, I believe in assigning it where it belongs. It leads to clearer thinking, a realization that we need neither turn our kindergartens into fortresses, nor yield to your fascist agenda.

    So grow a pair of testicles and say it how you mean it. You’d rather sacrifice a roomful of kindergartners every few months than your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The freedom to own a gun is so important and fundamental, in your opinion, that you’re willing to make this trade. That’s the thrust of your argument, right?

    Comment by Levi — December 17, 2012 @ 12:28 pm - December 17, 2012

  32. But we’re up to 5+ people now, who all fail to see how Dan’s “Now is not even the time to consider political action” equals Levi’s “conservatives insist(ing) that nobody debate gun control.”

    5+ means 5 thread participants, and probably more who are only reading. Would you like to say all of us are dumb, or playing dumb, Levi? I mean, we know that you do think all conservatives are dumb – but perhaps you would like to re-affirm it here, for the record?

    Oh gee, is it such a surprise that 5 people on GayPatriot are dismissing me?

    Like I said before, this is the tactic that Republicans use when these sorts of things happen. No pro-gun Senators on the Sunday political shows, for example. The NRA shuts down its social media. Conservative pundits all over newspapers and TV are urging restraint and telling people to only think of the victims. It happens everytime, and that’s not really up for debate.

    Comment by Levi — December 17, 2012 @ 12:35 pm - December 17, 2012

  33. You’d rather sacrifice a roomful of kindergartners every few months than your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

    Of course that violence is a declining trend doesn’t matter to Levi. So he sets up his last line of defence, walls of strawmen for him to burn.

    The case above in Germany (and the one in China) are completely ignored by him.

    Dismissing Levi? His very posts make it clear that he will dismiss facts that disagree with him.

    We’re mocking you Levi. You can’t use facts, so you rely on writing long screeds. You can’t argue, so you resort to profanity. You are afraid to truly express yourself, because you know that your words will be used to show how disturbed and wrong you are.

    So hush little fascist, the adults are talking.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 12:43 pm - December 17, 2012

  34. Fact about Mass shootings.

    Clearly these aren’t facts for Levi, since he’s already demonstrated facts don’t matter to him.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 12:45 pm - December 17, 2012

  35. You’d rather sacrifice a roomful of kindergartners every few months than your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

    As V predicted: “The left’s idea of a gun control debate is to yell ‘Shut up, child murderer!’ at anyone who opposes disarming the law-abiding.” V+1

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 12:53 pm - December 17, 2012

  36. Yes. Problem-solving frequently requires assigning blame. That’s impossible to disagree with, so let’s move on?

    Move on to what, exactly? It’s quite clear, from your own words in fact, that you wish to exploit their deaths for politics. I find that to be reprehensible. Not one of the gun restrictions I’ve heard from Dems thus far would have prevented this murderous spree. Not one. So all this really is is a chance to falsely blame Republicans/conservatives, pass some laws that may or may not be sensible but certainly wouldn’t have done anything in this case despite the rhetoric, and score points to win elections.

    So grow a pair of testicles and say it how you mean it. You’d rather sacrifice a roomful of kindergartners every few months than your interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The freedom to own a gun is so important and fundamental, in your opinion, that you’re willing to make this trade. That’s the thrust of your argument, right?

    How many of our rights are you willing to sacrifice to possibly save lives? Shall we do away with the 1st Amendment and outlaw the 24/7 vulture coverage of shootings, which arguably do contribute to copycat killings? How about the 5th Amendment so when we catch these killers they can’t hide behind it? For that matter, what about the 4th Amendment so we can just lock up anyone we even suspect might be capable of such evil? Shall we do away with the 6th Amendment to speed up punishing these killers or the 8th Amendment so we can bring back the rather gruesome punishment of draw-and-quartering to perhaps have some kind deterrence? Just how many rights shall we sacrifice and how much of a police state are you willing to accept?

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 17, 2012 @ 12:58 pm - December 17, 2012

  37. The larger point (and one that Levi can’t deal with, so won’t acknowledge) being that gun control laws take guns from the law-abiding, much more than from those who do evil.

    In other words, the Left would punish the law-abiding for the sins of criminals. It seems irrational… until you accept that it is precisely the Left’s aim: to disarm the law-abiding, who might otherwise threaten (i.e., potentially resist) the leviathan State that the Left worships.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 12:59 pm - December 17, 2012

  38. @ ILC

    And the little fascist likes to whine we don’t understand him. He’s understood all too well, that’s why we can predict him.

    Aside, a point I heard on the radio today. When’s the last time you heard of a nutjob shooting up a police station or a national guard armory? Seems they always go to where there are no guns.

    “I’m crazy Rupert, not stupid.” – The Joker, a Death in the Family.

    RL story. Years ago, we had a stalker come in looking for his estranged wife. He social engineered his way past the locked doors (Because there is no patch for human stupidity) and was apparently prowling. They told us to stay at our desks and report anyone suspicious.

    I told my coworkers. “Look on the bright side. We know he’s not armed.”
    One asked, “How do we know that?”
    I said, “Because we have all these signs saying it’s illegal to bring weapons in here.”
    At that moment, no one found the signs comforting anymore.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 1:00 pm - December 17, 2012

  39. No pro-gun Senators on the Sunday political shows, for example

    Would these be the talk shows from news networks that have a field day with “if it bleeds, it leads”? How much blood do they have on their hands, Levi?

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 17, 2012 @ 1:00 pm - December 17, 2012

  40. As V predicted: “The left’s idea of a gun control debate is to yell ‘Shut up, child murderer!’ at anyone who opposes disarming the law-abiding.” V+1

    Sigh…. I never called you a child murderer. I said that you don’t think that roomfuls of dead kids are a good reason to reconsider the 2nd amendment.

    Comment by Levi — December 17, 2012 @ 1:05 pm - December 17, 2012

  41. You’d rather sacrifice a roomful of kindergartners every few months than your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

    Typical Levi/statist false assumptions embedded in that. One is that if only the 2nd amendment (or my interpretation of it) were “sacrificed”, then kindergartners would be saved. Wrong, as a practical matter.

    Another is more of a moral premise, that it is somehow morally valid to sacrifice liberty for security. “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 1:09 pm - December 17, 2012

  42. Sigh…. I never called you a child murderer.

    Perhaps not literally, but just how dumb do you think I am? Accusing someone of preferring to sacrifice roomfuls of kindergartners is *in effect,* accusing them of being a child murderer.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 1:12 pm - December 17, 2012

  43. Again, I understand that you didn’t literally say “You are a child murderer”… I am not about to, say, sue you for libel or anything.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 1:14 pm - December 17, 2012

  44. The little fascist brings out a strawman and does a piety dance:

    If you consider it a problem that people can very easily walk into a kindergarten and kill a bunch of six-year olds, you try to solve it.

    Actually, the question posed implies that we should ignore the “problem” if we do not have the solution.

    The little fascist is never capable of perspective. That little school in a very peaceful community of people in a small town in the liberal state of Connecticut was unique in its lockdown precautions in place. The kid had to shoot his way into the school through locked doors.

    The principal rushed him without carrying an equivalent weapon. The campus was not surround with concertina wire and windows weren’t bulletproof and there were no bars on windows and doors. There were no guard towers or German Shepherds patrolling the perimeter or armed drones hovering over the grounds. In other words, it was more like a school than a prison. Helicopter parents and no-mind citizens are overwhelmed by the “risk” of going to school these days. (Never mind how many kids were safe in kindergartens all across America on Friday as the Newtown demon did his mayhem.)

    It was far worse protected than the consulate at Benghazi, but the response was instant. Thank God for that.

    So, let’s play the little fascist’s game. I will set up the straw man, and you can play along with “solving the problem.”

    1) If you consider it a problem that people can very easily walk into a church and kill a bunch of six-year olds…….

    2) If you consider it a problem that people can very easily walk into a mall and kill a bunch of six-year olds ……

    3) If you consider it a problem that people can very easily walk into a playground and kill a bunch of six-year olds …..

    4) If you consider it a problem that people can very easily walk into a birthday party and kill a bunch of six-year olds ……

    5) If you consider it a problem that people can very easily walk into a hospital ward and kill a bunch of six-year olds ……

    Personally, I consider it a problem that people like the little fascist have the power to team up and apply their minds to fundamentally transforming America by smoking rope and worshipping demagogues.

    The first responders were on the case with amazing speed and they were coordinated and efficient. (Not much like Benghazi, was it?)

    Planes crash, but rarely is there a rescue team waiting at the site when it hits. Perspective. Obamacare promised the best care to everyone which is a total impossibility as everyone needing an organ transplant is dependent on a donor. Perspective. Someone needs to read Thornton Wilder’s The Bridge of San Luis Rey.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 17, 2012 @ 1:18 pm - December 17, 2012

  45. Sigh…. I never called you a child murderer. I said that you don’t think that roomfuls of dead kids are a good reason to reconsider the 2nd amendment.

    Ok, so this must mean that you don’t think that roomfuls of dead kids are a good reason to reconsider the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments. Guess that means you’re willing to let people die, children no less, rather than give up your civil rights. What a horrible person that makes you, right?

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 17, 2012 @ 1:19 pm - December 17, 2012

  46. “Now is not even the time to consider political action lest we get carried about by our emotions. Now is the time to mourn the fallen.”
    [When will the time be?]

    “Progressives dare not believe in evil, because to do so is a tacit admission of free will and the complications it brings to their reliance on moral relativism and their fascination with manipulating standards through situation ethics.”

    [Why? Why can't progressives believe in free will? Many Protestants don't; it doesn't stop them from taking moral positions. What complications do you understand follow as a consequence?]

    Comment by Passing By — December 17, 2012 @ 1:21 pm - December 17, 2012

  47. It’s amusing to watch Levi get hoist by his own petard.

    I think he’s just afraid that an armed citizen wouldn’t be easily dragged “kicking and screaming into the future.”

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 1:22 pm - December 17, 2012

  48. For that matter helio, what about Fast and Furious? Why folks like Levi preventing a look into that? Could it be because it involved brown people from south of the border? They’re not Americans anyways, so who cares? Or is it that it’s an embarassment to their hero so 300 Mexican lives are worth the price to avoid scandal? Where was gun control in that operation?

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 17, 2012 @ 1:23 pm - December 17, 2012

  49. The larger point (and one that Levi can’t deal with, so won’t acknowledge) being that gun control laws take guns from the law-abiding, much more than from those who do evil.

    Well here I am! And what do you know? It’s a point I can deal with.

    Yes, better gun control means that law-abiding citizens don’t have the same access to guns that they do now. In case you hadn’t noticed, but a law-abiding citizen was the source of the guns in this situation. The shooter in Aurora was law-abiding when he accumulated his arsenal, too. The point being that easy access to guns creates more and more opportunities for guns to be used in violence, and so yes, reducing gun ownership even among the law-abiding is an objective of gun control advocates.

    In other words, the Left would punish the law-abiding for the sins of criminals. It seems irrational… until you accept that it is precisely the Left’s aim: to disarm the law-abiding, who might otherwise threaten (i.e., potentially resist) the leviathan State that the Left worships.

    Okay, so I’m used to you going on these rants when the economy is under discussion, but this is stupid. If me and my lefty cohorts did happen to capture the government (this is a paranoid delusion, anyway), why would I care about some conservatives owning firearms when we owned tanks and drones and aircraft carriers?

    Comment by Levi — December 17, 2012 @ 1:25 pm - December 17, 2012

  50. Strangely enough, I don’t find any Levi comments condemning F&F. Maybe he figures Mexicans are like “Arabians” and innately different than everyone else, and thus don’t count.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 1:29 pm - December 17, 2012

  51. Yes, better gun control means that law-abiding citizens don’t have the same access to guns that they do now. In case you hadn’t noticed, but a law-abiding citizen was the source of the guns in this situation.

    The guns were stolen, blockhead. In fact, the shooter couldn’t get guns himself.

    So we’re back to Levi arguing that rights should be taken away from everyone, to prevent a few from abusing them.

    Now compare this to Levi’s stance on marriage, “Why shouldn’t gays/poly/children marry? It’s not like it’s not abused by straights.” Drug legalization, “Why shouldn’t it be legal? Sure some people might abuse it, but that’s no excuse.” or voting “We don’t need to have voter ID, hardly anyone ever commits voter fraud.”

    It’s amusing to watch the little fascist dig himself deeper. I assume if Levi actually believed what he wrote, he’d give up his car, since someone might steal it and use it as a robbery.

    (Yes, I’m being generous assuming Levi might have a car. a little tricycle with a bell on it is likely more accurate.)

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 1:33 pm - December 17, 2012

  52. So we’re back to Levi arguing that rights should be taken away from everyone, to prevent a few from abusing them…

    …he’s just afraid that an armed citizen wouldn’t be easily dragged “kicking and screaming into the future.”

    Bingo.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 1:36 pm - December 17, 2012

  53. Actually, the question posed implies that we should ignore the “problem” if we do not have the solution.

    The little fascist is never capable of perspective. That little school in a very peaceful community of people in a small town in the liberal state of Connecticut was unique in its lockdown precautions in place. The kid had to shoot his way into the school through locked doors.

    The principal rushed him without carrying an equivalent weapon. The campus was not surround with concertina wire and windows weren’t bulletproof and there were no bars on windows and doors. There were no guard towers or German Shepherds patrolling the perimeter or armed drones hovering over the grounds. In other words, it was more like a school than a prison. Helicopter parents and no-mind citizens are overwhelmed by the “risk” of going to school these days. (Never mind how many kids were safe in kindergartens all across America on Friday as the Newtown demon did his mayhem.)

    It was far worse protected than the consulate at Benghazi, but the response was instant. Thank God for that.

    So, let’s play the little fascist’s game. I will set up the straw man, and you can play along with “solving the problem.”

    1) If you consider it a problem that people can very easily walk into a church and kill a bunch of six-year olds…….

    2) If you consider it a problem that people can very easily walk into a mall and kill a bunch of six-year olds ……

    3) If you consider it a problem that people can very easily walk into a playground and kill a bunch of six-year olds …..

    4) If you consider it a problem that people can very easily walk into a birthday party and kill a bunch of six-year olds ……

    5) If you consider it a problem that people can very easily walk into a hospital ward and kill a bunch of six-year olds ……

    Personally, I consider it a problem that people like the little fascist have the power to team up and apply their minds to fundamentally transforming America by smoking rope and worshipping demagogues.

    The first responders were on the case with amazing speed and they were coordinated and efficient. (Not much like Benghazi, was it?)

    Planes crash, but rarely is there a rescue team waiting at the site when it hits. Perspective. Obamacare promised the best care to everyone which is a total impossibility as everyone needing an organ transplant is dependent on a donor. Perspective. Someone needs to read Thornton Wilder’s The Bridge of San Luis Rey.

    Well, right. The location of a shooting spree is going to be an unpredictable variable. So you can’t solve the problem that way.

    And while there are undoubtedly similarities in the psych profiles of these shooters, this is always going to be a variable that you can’t control for, either.

    But guns are the variable that you can control, and so that’s where there’s opportunity to address the problem.

    It doesn’t have to be this way. There are other countries that are conservative nightmares in every respect – they have more gun control laws, there’s more obscenity and profanity on radio/TV/public places, they’re less religious – and yet nobody comes close to the amount of gun violence that we have in this country. Along with our poor health, lagging education scores, and our incarceration rates, the amount of people we lose every year to gun violence is humiliating when the rest of the developed world is having such a better time of it.

    Comment by Levi — December 17, 2012 @ 1:43 pm - December 17, 2012

  54. It’s what leftist progressives like Levi always do, “Punish the law-abiding.”

    Meanwhile, if the shooter had lived, they’d be fighting to make sure he got the right to vote.

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 1:46 pm - December 17, 2012

  55. There are other countries that are conservative nightmares in every respect

    Well, Levi, you are free to emigrate to any of those socialist utopias any time you want. *We* would rather have freedom.

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 1:48 pm - December 17, 2012

  56. If me and my lefty cohorts did happen to capture the government (this is a paranoid delusion, anyway), why would I care about some conservatives owning firearms when we owned tanks and drones and aircraft carriers?

    Comment by Levi — December 17, 2012 @ 1:25 pm – December 17, 2012

    Gee, Levi, weren’t you the one who was screaming about how awful the destruction and casualties were in Afghanistan and Iraq, in which the US was using tanks, carriers, and drones against pastoral tribes with little more than small arms?

    And that was with COMPETENT leaders. Over the past four years, your Barack Obama, in the style of his idol Hitler, has ensured that what’s left in the Joint Chiefs are little more than brain-dead toadies who think Obama is the Lord and Messiah.

    Hence why you need to disarm the populace. It’s nothing different than your Communist and fascist forbears have done before, especially since you’ve already got your Sturmabteilung screaming about how they’re going to go murder NRA members and their families.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2012 @ 1:49 pm - December 17, 2012

  57. Well, right. The location of a shooting spree is going to be an unpredictable variable. So you can’t solve the problem that way.

    Again, Levi misses the obvious. The shootings are in places where there’s a clear lack of firearms. Short of suicide by cop, you don’t see these lunatics walking into a police station.

    To paraphrase a famous bank robber, “Why shoot up schools, malls, theaters? It’s where the guns aren’t

    Aside Another Levi claim smashed by SCIENCE!

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 1:50 pm - December 17, 2012

  58. One Sandy Hook staff member with a CCW and training to use it could have ended the killing before it started.

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 1:52 pm - December 17, 2012

  59. “Why shoot up schools, malls, theaters? It’s where the guns aren’t” – Although in carry states, there is some chance that a gun will be there and the shooter will be stopped.

    The mass murders where an armed citizen stopped the shooter after 2, 1, 0 casualties are the mass murders you don’t hear about.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 1:53 pm - December 17, 2012

  60. @V the K.

    Careful, we’re bombarding Levi with so many facts, his head might explode.

    Oh wait, that would require him reading the links. Carry on.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 1:55 pm - December 17, 2012

  61. I could point out here, IF I were inclined to Levi’s tactics, that ***Levi*** would “rather sacrifice a roomful of kindergartners every few months than [his] interpretation of the 2nd amendment.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 1:55 pm - December 17, 2012

  62. Since Levi’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it doesn’t matter, the populace should be disarmed, etc. And since a disarmed populace means more of these horrific mass shootings where the casualty count gets up to 5, 10, 20+.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 1:57 pm - December 17, 2012

  63. @ILC it wouldn’t be the first time.

    Levi would rather see 3000+ dead than see a terrorist get wet.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 1:58 pm - December 17, 2012

  64. Interesting Op-Ed here.

    Short take away, mental health needs to be addressed, but a respect of the gun is part of the culture. It’s something I personally was raised with, a respect of what it means to have a weapon (be it my revolver, my shotgun or my blades) and when to use it.

    IIRC, one of the kids in the Arkansas school shooting helped take down the shooter because he recognized the gun, hunted with and was familiar with it, and knew when it was empty before the shooter did.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 2:18 pm - December 17, 2012

  65. The little fascist has not treated us to his hallucinations about how a dedicated citizenry might go about surrounding Chicago and then go room by room and crawl space by crawls space and hiding place by hiding place and rid the windy city of all firearms and ammunition. And while they are at it, they might just as well arrest everyone with an outstanding warrant and kill the cockroaches too.

    I am nearly certain that every single hoodlum and felon in Chicago has a legally obtained and registered weapon. Furthermore, I must be an absolute fact that all hoodlums and felons would give up their weapons voluntarily if the civil community were disarmed first.

    What’s your plan, Levi? Should they pick up the drugs and meth labs in the great weapons sweep as well?

    Comment by heliotrope — December 17, 2012 @ 2:27 pm - December 17, 2012

  66. Since Levi’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that it doesn’t matter, the populace should be disarmed, etc. And since a disarmed populace means more of these horrific mass shootings where the casualty count gets up to 5, 10, 20+.

    Not that I’m saying the populace should be completely disarmed, but it’s almost certainly the case that this shooting wouldn’t have occurred if we were. And here you’re saying that it would somehow have increased the number of casualties? That doesn’t make sense. If the shooter doesn’t have such easy access to his mother’s guns, it’s very likely that he wouldn’t have tried getting them some other way. So what are you talking about?

    Comment by Levi — December 17, 2012 @ 2:33 pm - December 17, 2012

  67. Not that I’m saying the populace should be completely disarmed, but it’s almost certainly the case that this shooting wouldn’t have occurred if we were.

    DUH!!!

    1) it’s almost certainly the case that this shooting wouldn’t have occurred if we were …. all passed out stoned.

    2) it’s almost certainly the case that this shooting wouldn’t have occurred if we were …. all paraplegics.

    3) it’s almost certainly the case that this shooting wouldn’t have occurred if we were …. all lobotomized.

    4) it’s almost certainly the case that this shooting wouldn’t have occurred if we were ….. all praying 24/7 to Obama.

    etc.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 17, 2012 @ 2:44 pm - December 17, 2012

  68. We need to pass a law to stop kneejerk passing of laws by democrats for 30 days after there is a mass murder.

    Comment by Richard Bell — December 17, 2012 @ 2:52 pm - December 17, 2012

  69. You know, this tragedy also wouldn’t happened if all those vulnerable children weren’t gathered in a public school. Maybe public schools need to be abolished.

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 3:25 pm - December 17, 2012

  70. “Chinese gun control will become as ineffective as German gun control [and US gun control].”

    firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year

    US: Total rate: 9.00 Homicide rate: 2.98
    Germany: Total rate: 1.10 Homicide rate: 0.06

    Comment by Passing By — December 17, 2012 @ 3:34 pm - December 17, 2012

  71. “Now is not even the time to consider political action lest we get carried about by our emotions. Now is the time to mourn the fallen.”
    [When will the time be to discuss it then?]

    Comment by Passing By — December 17, 2012 @ 3:40 pm - December 17, 2012

  72. Passing Gas makes the same argument Levi has. “Let’s give up our liberty to be safe! It works in Germany!”

    Except it doesn’t.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 4:08 pm - December 17, 2012

  73. Perhaps not literally, but just how dumb do you think I am? Accusing someone of preferring to sacrifice roomfuls of kindergartners is *in effect,* accusing them of being a child murderer.

    Sigh… no it isn’t.

    More diplomatically: You think it’s critically important that Americans be allowed to own guns, more critical than any conceivable public safety threat that may or may not come as a result of this gun ownership.

    Is that sanitized and generic enough for you?

    Comment by Levi — December 17, 2012 @ 4:11 pm - December 17, 2012

  74. DUH!!!

    1) it’s almost certainly the case that this shooting wouldn’t have occurred if we were …. all passed out stoned.

    2) it’s almost certainly the case that this shooting wouldn’t have occurred if we were …. all paraplegics.

    3) it’s almost certainly the case that this shooting wouldn’t have occurred if we were …. all lobotomized.

    4) it’s almost certainly the case that this shooting wouldn’t have occurred if we were ….. all praying 24/7 to Obama.

    etc.

    So when there are two people having a conversation, interject only if you can demonstrate that you’ve been following along. You clearly haven’t been.

    ILC made a statement regarding the disarming of the population, not me. He was arguing that a disarmed population would lead to more casualties in circumstances like these, which I countered by pointing out that this likely wouldn’t have taken place if the population was disarmed, which once again, was his premise, not mine.

    Comment by Levi — December 17, 2012 @ 4:14 pm - December 17, 2012

  75. US: Total rate: 9.00 Homicide rate: 2.98
    Germany: Total rate: 1.10 Homicide rate: 0.06

    Comment by Passing By — December 17, 2012 @ 3:34 pm – December 17, 2012

    And, as pointed out by the FBI and cited here, of the murders committed in which the race of the assailant was known, over half were committed by black people, despite their being only 13% of the population. Indeed, as is shown, there is a strong positive correlation between black people as a percent of the population and murder rates.

    So if Levi and Passing By really cared about saving childrens’ lives, they would demand that black people be disarmed and prevented from owning any type of weapons, since that would go the farthest in terms of reducing homicides in the United States.

    Two can play at the statistical fallacy game. And it also easily silences liberals when you force them to acknowledge that they really won’t and don’t want to disarm the Obama base. They have no intention of telling black Obama voters to stop shooting each other, or demanding that black Obama voters repudiate violence. Indeed, they openly celebrate rappers and others who glorify killing police officers, and worship celebrities like Jamie Foxx who praise Obama as Lord and Messiah and talk about how great it is to kill white people.

    I wonder why Levi and Passing By don’t care about black children? Indeed, I wonder why Barack Obama openly encourages this culture of violence in overwhelmingly-Obama-dominated cities like Chicago and Detroit?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2012 @ 4:16 pm - December 17, 2012

  76. “Indeed, as is shown, there is a strong positive correlation between black people as a percent of the population and murder rates.”

    “So when Klein says that America is an unusually violent country, he’s really saying that [when compared with Germans, folks in America, especially blacks] are … unusually violent…”

    US: Total rate: 9.00 Homicide rate: 2.98
    US: [9.00 Homicide rate:black 1.61 others 1.37]
    Germany: Total rate: 1.10 Homicide rate: 0.06

    [US "other race" homicide rate 18+ times > German rate]

    “So if Levi and Passing By really cared about saving childrens’ lives, they would demand that black [and all other racially identified groups] people be disarmed and prevented from owning any type of weapons [could we consider stricter gun control as an alternative to your extreme suggestion of outright banning, North Dallas Thirty?], since that would go the farthest in terms of reducing homicides in the United States.”

    Comment by Passing By — December 17, 2012 @ 4:33 pm - December 17, 2012

  77. Poor Levi, can’t comment on a single fact posted.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 4:57 pm - December 17, 2012

  78. The progressive left seems almost fanatical in their desire to disarm the law-abiding.

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 5:12 pm - December 17, 2012

  79. So, progressive snark works something like this:

    “Don’t like abortions, don’t have one.”

    “Don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one.”

    “Don’t like guns? Outlaw them so that no one can have them.”

    Did I get that right?

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 5:16 pm - December 17, 2012

  80. What’s really sad about this entire thread is that there isn’t actually really much discussion of any policies beyond blaming the other side. I was hoping that this tragedy would allow for real genuine discussion for gun rights & safety in our country. What I’m seeing is “it’s your side’s fault” (from both sides).

    I’m a progressive. I naturally fall on the left on most issues. But my partner is conservative, so I read this site trying to understand the views better. I’m also not a hunter and am not involved in the ‘gun culture’ at large. So naturally some gun control seems logical for me. But I understand that there is a large population for which it doesn’t. My questions for that group (ie: the people here) are as follows (and I ask these as legitimate questions to understand your position):

    What is the intention of the 2nd amendment? Does the 2nd amendment allow for any restrictions on gun purchases at all? If so, what are the limits of those restrictions? Does restricting the purchase of large magazine clips or automatic weapons restrict your freedom? What about gun show loopholes where background checks are not performed? Do you think that arming teachers is the best way to solve the threat?

    Thanks!

    Comment by Alan — December 17, 2012 @ 5:30 pm - December 17, 2012

  81. In case you hadn’t noticed, but a law-abiding citizen was the source of the guns in this situation. The shooter in Aurora was law-abiding when he accumulated his arsenal, too.

    No, Lanza was denied a purchase of a weapon when he tried so stole them from his mother so he was hardly “law-abiding”. Holmes did indeed obtain his weapons legally.

    The point being that easy access to guns creates more and more opportunities for guns to be used in violence, and so yes, reducing gun ownership even among the law-abiding is an objective of gun control advocates.

    They also create more opportunities for guns to be used in self-defense. This isn’t about sensible restrictions, Levi, to plug possible holes in the system in say the Holmes case, no you are looking for prohibition and confiscation. That’s a non-starter, especially when you won’t even name which other rights of ours you’d like to take away in establishing a “safe” police state.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 17, 2012 @ 5:55 pm - December 17, 2012

  82. Sure some people might abuse it, but that’s no excuse.” or voting “We don’t need to have voter ID, hardly anyone ever commits voter fraud.”

    Actually that brings up a good question: why do we need to show valid ID to purchase a gun, obtain government benefits, etc. but not vote?

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 17, 2012 @ 5:58 pm - December 17, 2012

  83. But guns are the variable that you can control, and so that’s where there’s opportunity to address the problem.

    How, exactly? There are an estimated 100,000,000 million weapons legally owned in the country. Are you calling for confiscating them?

    It doesn’t have to be this way. There are other countries that are conservative nightmares in every respect – they have more gun control laws, there’s more obscenity and profanity on radio/TV/public places, they’re less religious – and yet nobody comes close to the amount of gun violence that we have in this country.

    Yet I’ve also seen where they have higher rates of burglaries, rapes and other violent crimes and punish the victim if they defend themselves. No thanks, I prefer to keep my right to self-defense.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 17, 2012 @ 6:03 pm - December 17, 2012

  84. What is the intention of the 2nd amendment?

    It spells it out rather clearly:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Does the 2nd amendment allow for any restrictions on gun purchases at all?

    Yes. But, as with all such restrictions, the intent is that doing so does not substantially impede the exercise of the right.

    If so, what are the limits of those restrictions? Does restricting the purchase of large magazine clips or automatic weapons restrict your freedom?

    Absolutely it does, because it infringes on the right of people to keep and bear arms.

    Does it fit the “substantially impedes” requirement above? Make the argument that it is justified.

    What about gun show loopholes where background checks are not performed?

    The vaunted “gun shows” are in fact on the order of swap meets and consist primarily of sales between individuals.

    In ALL cases, even Federal sales, private sellers are already forbidden under Federal law from selling firearms to people they believe to be felons or that they believe would otherwise not be allowed to buy firearms, i.e. the mentally ill.

    Ironically, given geographic proximity to Newtown, Connecticut and New York already require background checks at “gun shows”, and New Jersey requires them for handgun sales.

    Do you think that arming teachers is the best way to solve the threat?

    Comment by Alan — December 17, 2012 @ 5:30 pm – December 17, 2012

    Not necessarily. Armed security guards in schools would likely be more effective and consistent, although I fail to see why a trained and certified teacher should be denied the ability to carry.

    That being said, at what point is it going to be acknowledged that a twenty-year-old person who was denied the opportunity to buy guns, went and killed his mother to acquire hers, and then broke into a secured school and shot kindergartners is a) wrong in the head and b) not reflective of the vast and overwhelming majority of people?

    As the saying goes, nothing can be made foolproof because fools are exceptionally ingenious.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2012 @ 6:08 pm - December 17, 2012

  85. Look, Alan, if you don’t like guns, don’t own one. Simple as that.

    Why are you leftists always so keen to take away the basic human rights (i.e. the right of self-defense) from people who haven’t broken the law?

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 6:09 pm - December 17, 2012

  86. Actually that brings up a good question: why do we need to show valid ID to purchase a gun, obtain government benefits, etc. but not vote?

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 17, 2012 @ 5:58 pm – December 17, 2012

    Because voter and welfare fraud empower statists and liberals; gun purchases empower the people.

    Levi and his fellow statists viscerally hate guns for the same reason that they vilify the rich and loathe the Church; it represents a check on their behavior and a block of their desire to take whatever they want whenever they want.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2012 @ 6:10 pm - December 17, 2012

  87. Levi and his fellow statists viscerally hate guns for the same reason that they vilify the rich and loathe the Church; it represents a check on their behavior and a block of their desire to take whatever they want whenever they want.

    Yes. This is all about power… and the stubby little hardon Levi gets when leftists use the Government to take away the rights of people and property of those he doesn’t like.

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 6:14 pm - December 17, 2012

  88. What’s really sad about this entire thread is that there isn’t actually really much discussion of any policies beyond blaming the other side.

    What I saw was liberals like Levi come in and right away blame Republicans/conservatives. There wasn’t any talk about real discussion of sensible legislation, no it was all about blame, political advantage and then confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens despite their rights to own them.

    I was hoping that this tragedy would allow for real genuine discussion for gun rights & safety in our country.

    That’s a discussion I’m willing to have, but not in the immediate aftermath of murder spree like this when one side is manipulating raw emotions to obtain political advantage; not when one side is seeking to pin blame on the other not because it makes any rational sense but because they are a typical SOB for their side and seek to exploit matters in this manner; not when one side is talking about confiscation and eviscerating civil rights.

    So naturally some gun control seems logical for me. But I understand that there is a large population for which it doesn’t.

    You would be surprised to find support for some gun control measures even from some 2nd Amendment supporters if the left would knock off the asinine BS and actually seek a reasonable discussion. Thus far I haven’t seen that. Act like your going to take people’s rights away and they’ll react quite negatively, ignoring anything you have to say. One would think that a gay man who presumably supports civil same-sex marriage would understand this.

    What is the intention of the 2nd amendment?

    To prevent the Federal government from denying citizens their right to own weapons to defend themselves.

    Does the 2nd amendment allow for any restrictions on gun purchases at all?

    Yes. None of our rights are absolute without reasonable restrictions.

    If so, what are the limits of those restrictions?

    As with any proposed restriction it depends upon the purpose for it, the implementation of it, whether it is reasonable or not, etc. IOW, that’s addressed on a case-by-case basis.

    Does restricting the purchase of large magazine clips or automatic weapons restrict your freedom?

    Personally I would say no, although it depends how you define the former and the latter has been restricted since the 1930s.

    What about gun show loopholes where background checks are not performed?

    This is not true except in cases of private sales between individuals. Dealers at gun shows must still run background checks like everyone else, which I don’t have a problem with.

    Do you think that arming teachers is the best way to solve the threat?

    It’s not ideal but I see little difference between this and hiring security guards which most school districts claim to not have money for.

    Comment by JohnAGJ — December 17, 2012 @ 6:23 pm - December 17, 2012

  89. a twenty-year-old person who was denied the opportunity to buy guns, went and killed his mother to acquire hers

    I don’t know the details, but on its face, that would show the fallacy of gun control. It suggests he faced gun control and it worked as it was supposed to. But it didn’t matter; the kindergartners are still dead. Depriving the People of guns doesn’t stop the wicked, only the good.

    Do you think that arming teachers is the best way to solve the threat?

    Do you think there is an ongoing threat, under normal conditions? I don’t, but I know this much: Because depriving the People of guns stops the good more (perhaps far more) than it stops the wicked, depriving the People of guns is the wrong direction to go in, if you actually want to save lives. And you do, right?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 6:29 pm - December 17, 2012

  90. I was hoping that this tragedy would allow for real genuine discussion for gun rights & safety in our country.

    We can have that when left-wingers grow up enough to move beyond that style of debate, which V predicted here (“The left’s idea of a gun control debate is to yell ‘Shut up, child murderer!’ at anyone who opposes disarming the law-abiding”) – and which Levi then proceeded to use, right on cue (“You’d rather sacrifice a roomful of kindergartners every few months than your interpretation of the 2nd amendment.”).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 6:34 pm - December 17, 2012

  91. Maybe we can “move beyond that style of debate” when leftists move beyond taking away the self-defense rights of law-abiding people as their default solution to the problem of gun violence.

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 6:36 pm - December 17, 2012

  92. @ V the K

    Actually it’s not that hard to see Levi’s beliefs. If he actually believed it, he’d get rid of his car for fear that someone would steal it an use it in a robbery.

    As to ‘how do we keep this from happening again?’ I’d point out the school was locked down, the guy was legally barred from getting guns, and it still happened. Yet look at the examples I gave above. The other events were stopped by concerned armed citizens. I suggest looking a precedent for a start.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 17, 2012 @ 6:41 pm - December 17, 2012

  93. Exactly, ILC.

    And they’re not. It’s the Reichstag fire, and all the Obama Party, Barack Obama himself, and the rest of liberals are doing is screaming that if you in any way oppose them, you’re a child murderer who wants to gun down classrooms of kindergartners.

    Just like they did with Tucson. Just like they did with Aurora. And just like they did during the campaign when Barack Obama claimed Mitt Romney was a murderer.

    The Obama Party and the Obama Left are not intelligent or worthwhile adults; they are desperate, power-hungry fascists raised at the tit of Bill Ayers and fully in line with his belief that liberals must have absolute power in this country even if they have to kill all conservatives to get it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2012 @ 6:42 pm - December 17, 2012

  94. Thanks NDT and JohnAGJ for your responses to my questions. It’s informative and I appreciate you taking the time to respond.

    @V the K #91 – There’s always a lot of cross talk and people using phrases that mean different things to different people. When leftists use the term gun control, you hear taking away people’s rights to self defend by confiscating their handguns. I hear restricting automatic weapons and high capacity clips, which has little to nothing to do with handguns or a citizen’s ability to defend themselves at home. There’s obviously a large chasm between those two views and unfortunately a very hard one to discuss because everyone assumes the worst about the other side.

    From my perspective, I fully support the right for people to have handguns to defend themselves (or for hunting or sport or whatever). But I would be hard pressed to interpret that the founders meant the right to high powered military grade weapons when crafting the 2nd amendment. I do think it’s legitimate to have a discussion regarding the scope of the 2nd amendment and investigating policies that both respect the freedom while trying to reduce violent crime.

    At the end of the day, I think all people want a society where less mass murders occur (or really any murders). The question is how to get there.

    Comment by Alan — December 17, 2012 @ 6:56 pm - December 17, 2012

  95. BTW – I’m wondering if people here had a chance to read this article and if so, your thoughts on it -
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

    Comment by Alan — December 17, 2012 @ 6:58 pm - December 17, 2012

  96. I hear restricting automatic weapons and high capacity clips, which has little to nothing to do with handguns or a citizen’s ability to defend themselves at home.

    And just who are you to decide that?

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 7:11 pm - December 17, 2012

  97. Oh, that’s easy, Alan.

    It’s all in this paragraph right here.

    In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.

    Well, for starters, we know that’s not factual.

    How do we know? Easy.

    “It seemed like it was me, the gunman, and God,” said Jeanne Assam, describing her feelings as she confronted a man who charged into her Colorado Springs church Sunday firing a weapon.

    Assam, a church security guard with law enforcement experience, fired her own weapon at the invader and stopped his attack, police say.

    Police on Monday identified the gunman as Matthew Murray and said he was also responsible for an attack earlier Sunday at a missionary center some 80 miles away.

    Now Alan, if you look at Mother Jones’s exhaustive map, you notice something: the Colorado Springs shooting is not listed there.

    Why? Because it didn’t become a mass shooting, since the armed civilian shot and killed the gunman and prevented him from making it one.

    So of course they didn’t find any “mass shootings” (which they never define, btw – one person? two persons? twelve persons?) in which a civilian stopped the killing by using the gun — because they claimed in every instance where that did happen that it didn’t count as a mass shooting.

    So they lied, Alan.

    Why do you think they lied?

    Will you hold them accountable for their lie and ask why they didn’t include specific examples?

    Will you state that their methodology is flawed because they deliberately excluded any result that didn’t agree with their conclusion?

    Will you state that their purpose clearly is not factual, but to propagandize?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 17, 2012 @ 7:15 pm - December 17, 2012

  98. “I support restricting pornography and censorship of offensive literature, which have little to nothing to do with free speech or a citizen’s ability to participate in the political process.”

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 7:17 pm - December 17, 2012

  99. As if one can expect objective analysis from ‘Mother Jones.’

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 7:18 pm - December 17, 2012

  100. I would be hard pressed to interpret that the founders meant the right to high powered military grade weapons when crafting the 2nd amendment

    The 2nd amendment begins, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state…” In other words, the Framers envisioned the People self-organizing into militias as needed to protect their communities, particularly their State. And automatic rifles are the modern equivalent of what would surely be needed/used in such a militia.

    You can make an argument that the People self-organizing into militias is (1) little-practiced and (2) a bad idea, since the Civil War. Fine. Go ahead and make that argument. But the Constitution says what it says. If we are to take the Constitution’s text seriously (and I understand that most left-liberals prefer not to, talking about a “living constitution” instead – but I reject that theory), then you should have to pass a constitutional amendment to get your ideas implemented.

    Please note that the 2nd Amendment goes on to say, “… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s unconditional, as written. The Framers started the sentence with the militia argument as one rationale worth noting, but they finished the sentence with an unconditional guarantee. The unconditional guarantee reflects, logically, the individual’s God-given (i.e., pre-State / pre-government) right of self defense. Again, if you want to argue that it’s a bad idea, you do that; but the constitution says what it says, and if you want it to say something different, then you should have to convince your fellow citizens in 3/4 of the States, under the amendment process.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 7:24 pm - December 17, 2012

  101. if you look at Mother Jones’s exhaustive map, you notice something: the Colorado Springs shooting is not listed there. Why? Because it didn’t become a mass shooting, since the armed civilian shot and killed the gunman and prevented him from making it one.

    Exactly. I made a similar point, earlier. Civilians stop mass shootings. In so doing, they prevent them from becoming mass shootings; they’re the ones we rarely hear about in the media. Colorado Springs was an exception (it got some media). If MJ overlooked it, it’s a good sign that their entire ‘research’ effort is tainted (i.e. only allowing in the evidence that will support their predetermined conclusion).

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 7:28 pm - December 17, 2012

  102. @96 V the K -
    Good point. I’m not the one to decide that. But I think we as a community can decide that through our elected officials. Is that truly the intent of the 2nd amendment? Does restricting those impede on the 2nd amendment? Those are entirely valid conversations to have.

    Comment by Alan — December 17, 2012 @ 7:28 pm - December 17, 2012

  103. (continued) And why would MJ do such a weak effort? Because, as I’ve been saying in this thread, leftists *want* gun control to be the right answer, and gun rights to be the wrong answer; leftists know instinctively that armed citizens are not a help to Big Government; she is that much harder to “drag kicking and screaming into the future”, as our leftie friend Levi once said he wanted to do to people.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 7:33 pm - December 17, 2012

  104. (sorry, “she is…” should be “an armed citizen is…”)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 7:33 pm - December 17, 2012

  105. There is much call today by the ignorant anti gun mob for the banning of the rifle that was used in the murders this past Friday and many are comparing it to the US Army M16 rifle. The only similarity between an M16 and the AR15 rifle used in this case is at first glance. The .223 AR15 is almost the same as the 22 calibur rifle that is probably the most common calibur in the country. Trying to compare the two is trying to create hysteria.

    The second amendment wasn’t created with hunters and sports shooters in mind. The second amendment was created so that citizens might have a defense against their gubmint going rogue and killing them for not buckling under to it’s tyranny.

    I’ll start a little hysteria of my own and say that citizens should have the same fire power the gubmint has and any infringement on the 2nd amendment that doesn’t allow it should be struck down because it gives an advantage to a tyranical gubmint over the citizens.

    Comment by Richard Bell — December 17, 2012 @ 7:34 pm - December 17, 2012

  106. The second amendment wasn’t created with hunters and sports shooters in mind. The second amendment was created so that citizens might have a defense against their gubmint going rogue and killing them for not buckling under to it’s tyranny.

    Exactly. And that’s why lefties (or Big Government advocates) hate it, instinctively.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 7:37 pm - December 17, 2012

  107. @100 – I have no problem with the amendment process. I know it wouldn’t go anyway, but at least the cards would be on the table (on both sides).

    It’s an interesting read of the amendment. You read the first part as just one rationale. I read it as the sole reason. The rationale is to protect the people from government tyranny, not to ensure individual self defense (which is the common reason I hear these days). Assuming that you’re right that it’s completely unconditional, I think the fact that we have weapons significantly more powerful (and much more capable of inflicting massive damage) than muskets and the weapons available at the time of the bill of rights suggests (to me anyway) that we should revisit the amendment.

    Comment by Alan — December 17, 2012 @ 7:40 pm - December 17, 2012

  108. @106 – My issue with the 2nd amendment is that it allows a man to walk into a school and murder 20 kids. I have yet to deal with any government tyranny that involved armed resistance. But I do have to deal with school shootings, movie theater shootings, etc. And to be honest, given the overwhelming firepower of the government (with drones and what not), if they really wanted to suppress us, do you really think your guns are going to be enough? (That’s really a whole separate conversation, but figured I’d through it out there….)

    Comment by Alan — December 17, 2012 @ 7:48 pm - December 17, 2012

  109. #108 – Alan

    Perhaps that’s because you are comfortable with the current gubmint but what if George Wallace was POTUS?

    Comment by Richard Bell — December 17, 2012 @ 7:53 pm - December 17, 2012

  110. @108 – Same. Perhaps I’m naive, but I truly believe that if a leader really tried to do something tyrannical, there are enough decent people in power (cops, army, bureaucrats, etc) that respect the rule of law to prevent it from happening. Maybe that’s entirely unreasonable….

    Comment by Alan — December 17, 2012 @ 8:00 pm - December 17, 2012

  111. The rationale is to protect the people from government tyranny

    And of course we don’t have that nowadays. (ILC coughs)

    “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” – That’s about as clear and unconditional as the Constitution gets. Had the militia argument been “the only” rationale for it as you suggest, instead of “a” rationale for it as I suggest, they would have said something more like “just to the extent necessary for such militias, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” They didn’t.

    not to ensure individual self defense (which is the common reason I hear these days)

    With good reason: because SCOTUS recognized it in the _Heller_ decision.

    The Supreme Court held:[43]

    (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

    (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

    So, not to argue from authority, but in this instance I cite the SCOTUS as a place where my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is affirmed and explained at length.

    I would add that it comes from natural rights theory. Individuals have fundamental rights which, morally and logically, precede government. A just government merely recognizes and codifies those pre-existing (moral) rights – while an unjust government tramples them. We can argue over what’s included, but traditionally recognized natural rights include life, liberty (not limited to freedom of speech, conscience, and association) and property. And those rights include and imply, because they mean absolutely nothing without, a right of self-defense.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 8:02 pm - December 17, 2012

  112. My issue with the 2nd amendment is that it allows a man to walk into a school and murder 20 kids.

    No, it doesn’t. Murder is a crime. NOTHING in the Constitution does “allows” crimes, not the 2nd amendment nor anything else.

    In claiming that the 2nd amendment somehow does allow it, you defame the 2nd amendment, thus exhibiting the left-liberal’s instinctive hatred of the 2nd amendment, that I’ve been talking about.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 8:06 pm - December 17, 2012

  113. #111 – ILC

    Excellent series of posts, ILC.

    Comment by Richard Bell — December 17, 2012 @ 8:08 pm - December 17, 2012

  114. ILC – Thanks for the info from the Heller decision. I wasn’t familiar with the details of that case. I stand by my comments in #107.

    Comment by Alan — December 17, 2012 @ 8:08 pm - December 17, 2012

  115. But I do have to deal with school shootings, movie theater shootings, etc.

    Really? It happened to you?

    Or did you just see it on TV? If all that you, personally, have ever done is see it on TV, then you should consider it every bit as theoretical as government tyranny, when you said “I have yet to deal with any government tyranny that involved armed resistance.”

    BTW, I disgree with your latter statement also; it would be more accurate to state that whenever government has trampled your rights, you have simply made the choice neither to see it that way, nor to engage in any armed resistance to it. But that’s a digression.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 8:13 pm - December 17, 2012

  116. RB, you’re welcome! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 8:16 pm - December 17, 2012

  117. Poor choice of words on my part. I’ll revise it to “My issue with the 2nd amendment is that it makes it *significantly* easier for a man to walk into a school and murder 20 kids”.

    Comment by Alan — December 17, 2012 @ 8:16 pm - December 17, 2012

  118. And Alan too!

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 8:19 pm - December 17, 2012

  119. ILC – Because it wasn’t my child that was murdered, it didn’t happen to me? I have no right to grieve? I have no right to worry about my own child, or my friends that are teachers? And yes, I do have a child, and my behavior towards him and towards his school has changed as a result of this. That’s like saying if you weren’t in NY or DC on 9/11, it didn’t happen to you. It’s a somewhat silly statement.

    As for your second comment, that would actually be a really interesting conversation to have, but not one that I think is possible via a comments thread.

    Comment by Alan — December 17, 2012 @ 8:21 pm - December 17, 2012

  120. @118 – Are you thanking me, or wanting me to thank you? Or just including me in the excellent series of posts comment? You got me all confused now :-)

    Comment by Alan — December 17, 2012 @ 8:22 pm - December 17, 2012

  121. I’ll revise it to “My issue with the 2nd amendment is that it makes it *significantly* easier for a man to walk into a school and murder 20 kids”.

    Revision accepted. My answer now is what I’ve been saying this whole time: That gun control does far more to injure the designs of the law-abiding, than it does to injure the designs of the wicked. I question (if not reject) the premise that stricter gun control would have stopped Adam Lanza; and conversely, the premise that insufficient gun control enabled him.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 8:22 pm - December 17, 2012

  122. @120 – I got confused myself! Leave it that I tried to say “You’re welcome”, to both your and RB’s thanks.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 8:24 pm - December 17, 2012

  123. Thanks for accepting the revision. The premise as to the outcome of stricter (or looser) gun control) is really the crux of the matter (to me anyway). I think we (society at large) can have a legitimate discussion about that without resorting to the “You want to murder children” vs “You hate personal freedom” bombastic shit-throwing (pardon my language). Because in the end, it really does come down to balancing the freedoms on the individual with doing what is best for society.

    Comment by Alan — December 17, 2012 @ 8:29 pm - December 17, 2012

  124. I would argue that the freedoms of the individual (natural rights to life, liberty and property) are by definition what is best for society. A society that survives/functions by the violation of natural rights is one that ought to die.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 17, 2012 @ 8:32 pm - December 17, 2012

  125. ILC – I’m about to head out for the night. It’s been a pleasure chatting with you. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my questions and thoughts in such a respectful manner. Hope you have a great evening.

    Comment by Alan — December 17, 2012 @ 8:37 pm - December 17, 2012

  126. “it really does come down to balancing the freedoms on the individual with doing what is best for society.”

    Sanest words typed on this blog. You are right of course, and I call this good governance. Which is the recognition that being part of a group of other humans means you have to rules which restrict your rights. As I have said before the best part of our democracy is it allows the citizens itself to balance these restrictions AND allows for a mechanism for dissent.

    But in the end, the only thing we can do here, is help those who appear to be mentally sick and try to stop these folks before they strike. Its a horrible tragedy and its too bad that folks on the left use this as a “call to ban guns” when really it should be a “call to improve the accessibility of mental help” because that is the only way to truly get in front of these problems

    Comment by mike — December 17, 2012 @ 9:47 pm - December 17, 2012

  127. It’s not merely a matter of Freedom versus anti-Freedom; to put it in those terms is to buy into the left’s false narrative that we have to choose between gun rights and public safety. That is an utterly false premise. We can have both because responsible gun ownership enhances public safety. Responsible gun owners with CCW or open carry have the capacity to stop mass killings before they happen; or at least before they become mass. A trained and armed teacher or school volunteer could have stopped Adam Lanza before he even got to a classroom.

    Comment by V the K — December 17, 2012 @ 9:55 pm - December 17, 2012

  128. I hate how this turns into a call to ban guns. – Personally I wouldn’t mind seeing all automatic / semi automatic guns bans leaving only .22′s shotguns, bolt/lever action rifels and revolvers. – But that is not the answer to this tragedy.

    Because V is correct, MORE guns could have slowed this tragedy too.

    However as I said above, the only way to truly get in front of this is the mental health of our society.
    Here is an interesting article, that I am sure many here have seen:
    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/am-adam-lanza-mother-blog-post-galvanizes-public-211428137.html
    The best part about it is the comments where countless people state their story about the challenges of raising a mentally disabled kid. Something must be done here.

    This is national conversation we should be having, not the stupid “us vs them” gun control gotcha bullshit.

    Comment by mike — December 17, 2012 @ 10:04 pm - December 17, 2012

  129. I’ll start a little hysteria of my own and say that citizens should have the same fire power the gubmint has

    I would like to agree with this, but doesn’t the US government have nuclear weapons? Tanks I can see, and certainly automatic weapons, but allowing individuals to have nuclear weapons just seems insane. As does nuclear disarmament. This seems like a conundrum. If you have a solution, I would love to hear it.

    And those rights include and imply, because they mean absolutely nothing without, a right of self-defense.

    This.

    It doesn’t matter what the law (the U.S. Constitution, Supreme Court precedent, the Canadian Constitution, or any other law) says. The rights people have are unchanging and universal, and can be determined only through reason. Which is why I also have the right to bear arms even though I’m Canadian.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — December 17, 2012 @ 10:21 pm - December 17, 2012

  130. #128 – “This is national conversation we should be having, not the stupid “us vs them” gun control gotcha bullshit.”

    Have you forgotten the country is broke? That’s probably why no one talks about it.

    Comment by Richard Bell — December 17, 2012 @ 11:05 pm - December 17, 2012

  131. “, but they finished the sentence with an unconditional guarantee. The unconditional guarantee reflects, logically, the individual’s God-given (i.e., pre-State / pre-government) right of self defense.”
    [Having a nuclear device for personal defense is sensible under this formulation]

    “So, not to argue from authority…”
    [You do, given Heller is from 2008, and overturns precedent from earlier cases, in favor of a conservative conception. One might as well argue that Roe v. Wade makes sense as well, since it supports a liberal conception...]

    Comment by Passing By — December 17, 2012 @ 11:13 pm - December 17, 2012

  132. Another point of view.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 18, 2012 @ 7:59 am - December 18, 2012

  133. “It doesn’t matter that violent crime is at an all-time low; ban guns anyway!”

    Comment by Typical Liberal — December 18, 2012 @ 8:47 am - December 18, 2012

  134. Liberal Nutcase: The Newtown Massacre happened because the rich aren’t taxed enough.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2012 @ 8:53 am - December 18, 2012

  135. [You do, given Heller is from 2008, and overturns precedent from earlier cases, in favor of a conservative conception. One might as well argue that Roe v. Wade makes sense as well, since it supports a liberal conception...]

    Someone is trying to wear big boy pants and sound like he knows what he is talking about while tossing names and terms around with no concept of what he is saying.

    What prior Supreme Court case (a la Brown overturning Plessy) did Heller upend? Hmmmmmm? The fact is that the Supreme Court is pretty much in the business of overturning or fine tuning lower court cases. That is in large part why they hear them.

    What part of the Heller decision was based on justices finding a “right to privacy” directly stated in the Constitution from which they were able to determine the case? They did not need such an invention, as the simple words of the second amendment speak loudly and clearly on their own.

    In Roe, the justices relied upon the right to privacy they has just previously discovered in Griswold wherein privacy is found “emanating” from the “penumbra” of parts of amendments lurking the the Bill of Rights.

    Well, Passing Gas, if “privacy” was good enough for Roe and good enough for Lawrence why isn’t it good enough for people whose right to keep and bear arms not being infringed upon by government?

    Not that I would ever want to rely on the house of cards and the quicksand it rests upon as my reasoning, but if it is good enough for Roe and Lawrence why isn’t it good enough for Heller too? Thank God Heller was settled on sound reasoning and not some desired permission found emanating from selected penumbra as received by moon bat special delivery through the tinfoil hats of certain justices.

    Best you review your mental constipation and I think you better think it out again before you go finger tapping without a clue.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 18, 2012 @ 10:14 am - December 18, 2012

  136. VtheK @ #133 links to an ideologue who has traded in all of his marbles for an Alinsky generated talking point to support the demagoguery he has to hear in order to walk zombie like through his day.

    For most Progressives, reason is a waste of time over the shortcut of just taking power and imposing jihad against the kaffir.

    That is not to say the Progressives ever employ reason. It is striking that there is no reasonable Progressive out there who can sit down and make his case through reason. They have to name call, demagogue, shift the topic, lie, lie through omission, distort, appeal to pity and generally play all the fallacy subsets to mask the bankruptcy of their utopian ideals.

    Joe Lieberman is as close to an honest Progressive I can name and he has been sullied out of his own party as a result.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 18, 2012 @ 10:28 am - December 18, 2012

  137. [You do

    No, actually. As usual, PB misunderstands what I’ve said. I don’t argue that my position is correct, *because* SCOTUS supports it. (Which would be arguing from authority.) Rather, I argue that my position is correct for reasons both logical and legal, some of which I have set out – and some of which I have not, because they happen to have been presented and explained effectively elsewhere, which is where people can go for more info (the majority opinion in _Heller_). Furthermore, according the majority writing in _Heller_, no it didn’t overturn precedents – and, as heliotrope points out, it would be OK even if it did, because updating (sometimes overturning) precedent is part of why we have a SCOTUS.

    PB: Please try to get it right for once, could you? A sentence that isn’t wrong for 2 or 3 or 4 reasons at once?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 10:39 am - December 18, 2012

  138. As for Roe, Griswold, etc.: I believe there is a constitutional right to privacy, not because of penumbras or emanations, but because of enumerated powers, i.e. the fact that the Constitution was written precisely to limit government and thus to maximize the private sphere. Having said that, Roe is questionable on many grounds, not least of which is that it was pretty badly reasoned and written, and/or that the right to privacy is not a license to take life.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 10:48 am - December 18, 2012

  139. ILC,

    Not to quibble, because I believe the “right to privacy” is reserved to the people. [Article the eleventh - Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. + Article the twelfth - Amendment X:
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.]

    Article the sixth through Article the ninth (Amendments IV through VII) have privacy rights which “emanate” in the “penumbra.”

    All that being noted, the Supreme Court has by and large limited “privacy” to issues concerning medical records.

    The word “privacy” is one of those many words such as “justice” and “fair” and “obscene” and “normal” and “welfare” and “tranquility” and “probable” and so forth that is more concept than a status condition that can be easily defined.

    One has to enter a civil suit in order to claim “privacy” and in reality, very few cases of “privacy” are ever enjoined. Ask the paparazzi.

    Poor old Florida want to include “privacy” in their Constitution article of Declaration of Rights and here is what they ended up saying in perfect government double-talk:

    SECTION 23. Right of privacy.—Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.
    History.—Added, C.S. for H.J.R. 387, 1980; adopted 1980; Am. proposed by Constitution Revision Commission, Revision No. 13, 1998, filed with the Secretary of State May 5, 1998; adopted 1998.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 18, 2012 @ 11:37 am - December 18, 2012

  140. ILC, I find that Passing Gas’s juvenile responses have grown tedious, and no longer feel compelled to respond to them.

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2012 @ 12:09 pm - December 18, 2012

  141. Yeah, I only noticed it from heliotrope’s comment. (No knock on heliotrope there.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 1:11 pm - December 18, 2012

  142. For most Progressives, reason is a waste of time over the shortcut of just taking power and imposing jihad against the kaffir.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 18, 2012 @ 10:28 am – December 18, 2012

    Bingo.

    One should always remember that “progressive” philosophy is espoused by this statement of Levi.

    I’m smarter than most conservatives, this is beyond any doubt. I’m also a better person – you guys have given up any claim to that argument with your morally decrepit positions on torture and wars. If that sounds condescending, it’s because it is. And you should probably spend more of your time teaching yourself things and thinking, rather than complain about the mean people that make fun off you for not being very smart.

    People like you need people like me to drag you kicking and screaming into the future.

    Comment by Levi — February 8, 2010 @ 11:22 pm – February 8, 2010

    Notice this.

    Levi does not refer to academic achievement, to papers written, to scientific discoveries produced, or to anything of the sort.

    Instead, Levi makes it clear that intelligence is judged solely by degree of adherence to the “progressive” worldview – AND that dissidents must be forcibly brought to the “progressive” worldview.

    That fails the basic test of intelligence in several regards. Furthermore, by definition, reason, logic, rationality, and science not only allow, but actually require, diverse viewpoints, questioning of dogma, and a strong aversion to suppression — under the theory that difference from the norm is not necessarily incorrect or wrong.

    From that alone, one can clearly see that “progressivism” is not based on reason, logic, rationality, or science. Instead, it is based on absolute adherence to a specific dogma that cannot be challenged or questioned.

    Add to that Levi’s fanatical statement that violence must be used to suppress opposing viewpoints, and what we see “progressivism” as is akin to medieval Catholicism or current Islamic fundamentalism.

    This is part of the virulent hatred that Levi and his fellow “progressives” have for religious belief — less an opposition to religion on philosophical grounds than the fact that it represents a challenge to their absolute authority.

    This is also the downfall of “progressives”. They have no capacity to think, because they have never been taught to think. Once one recognizes that their prime motivation is to take more power, ensconce themselves in power, and then abuse that power to destroy anyone who disagrees with them, they become ridiculously easy to outmaneuver.

    “Progressives” like Levi are not intelligent people. The only thing that protects them at this point is conservatives’ own moral strictures and aversion to certain types of behavior. Yet we are reaching the Augustinian point of the “just war”, at which our failure to act in a fashion that we deem evil unleashes an even greater evil.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2012 @ 2:06 pm - December 18, 2012

  143. Levi being such a troglodyte – so deeply antiquated, ignorant and backward – and seeming to believe the opposite, I hereby nominate him as a potential poster child for Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 2:25 pm - December 18, 2012

  144. ILC, I had never heard of Dunning-Kruger syndrome before, so I clicked on your link out of curiosity. It cites Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot further describing the condition. Separately, it lists the following people as examples of the D-K syndrome: Sarah Palin, conservative personality Andrew Schlafly, and a creationist group. It’s funny for you to nominate him as a poster child, when there’s at least a couple other possible nominees from the entry whom you have defended, respect and/or are a fan of.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 2:38 pm - December 18, 2012

  145. Shorter Vince: “Haha, leftist idiots mock your point, therefore it is invalid.”

    Comment by V the K — December 18, 2012 @ 2:49 pm - December 18, 2012

  146. Actually, no, VTK. ILC can make his argument, but it’s just odd he’d use a link that disparages Sarah Palin and (indirectly) Rush Limbaugh, when I know he admires those figures.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 2:53 pm - December 18, 2012

  147. “I find that [Passing Gas]’s juvenile responses have grown tedious, and no longer feel compelled to respond to them.”

    Comment by Passing By — December 18, 2012 @ 3:15 pm - December 18, 2012

  148. Separately, it lists the following people as examples of the D-K syndrome: Sarah Palin, conservative personality Andrew Schlafly, and a creationist group. It’s funny for you to nominate him as a poster child, when there’s at least a couple other possible nominees from the entry whom you have defended, respect and/or are a fan of.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 2:38 pm – December 18, 2012

    Of course, Cinesnatch.

    Because your concern is not dialogue; it is browbeating and attacking other people.

    What unravels your game is our knowledge that you yourself are a stinking hypocrite who will never hold himself to any of the standards that he demands others hold themselves.

    Hence, you are exposed as little more than a manipulator and a wannabe abuser whose game is to exploit the decency, fairness, and honesty of others for your own personal advancement.

    A con’s game only works for as long as people don’t recognize him as a con. And you have been recognized as a con. With that knowledge, your demands now are visible transparently obvious attempts to manipulate others into performing piety dances, rather than any real or objective concern for rationality and decency, and thus peg you nicely as a typical “progressive” whose only concern is getting whatever he wants with no regard for anyone else.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2012 @ 3:43 pm - December 18, 2012

  149. The jokes are just writing themselves today.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 3:54 pm - December 18, 2012

  150. big boy pants
    [You're scaring the sh** out of me...] :)

    Comment by Passing By — December 18, 2012 @ 4:25 pm - December 18, 2012

  151. it’s just odd he’d

    You know wayyyyyyy less about me than you think. (I, otoh, learned *enough* about you – Not everything, but as much as I would need – in the Breitbart thread + aftermath.)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 5:02 pm - December 18, 2012

  152. Well, ILC, I thought you were the type of person who dots his i’s and crosses his t’s. But, since I “know wayyyyyy less about [you] than [I] think,” I guess you didn’t read the entire article you linked to and made a mistake.

    P.S. Since you brought up the Breitbart thread + aftermath, I thought I would mention it crossed my mind when reading ND30′s response to Rusty’s thoughtful words on the most recent Newtown, CT post. In fact, he actually references the WBC by pointing out an error(s) (tying a single act to a single failure) of theirs. He only does this after extolling the virtue of prayer, the general exercise of theirs he tacitly endorses and would fully support if only they weren’t so specific in their scope (“single act to a single failure”).

    This all comes after ND30 mocks Rusty’s heartfelt and thoughtful words regarding the incident and the debate involving solutions which ensued.

    ND30′s words in his comment struck me as those that might come out of the mouth of a Westboro Baptist. But, maybe it was just me. You claim that you know enough about me, so I’m sure you’d feel the same way. Well, I mean not that I know anything about you. But, I imagine you’d catch my drift. Or would you? Or do I? So confusing. LOL. Please clear things up!

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 5:30 pm - December 18, 2012

  153. I guess you didn’t read the entire article you linked to and made a mistake.

    You guess wrong! Flat-out wrong.

    As I said, you know wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy less about me than you think.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 5:38 pm - December 18, 2012

  154. ND30′s words in his comment struck me as those that might come out of the mouth of a Westboro Baptist

    Operative word is “you”: just meaning that it’s your job (not mine) to scurry on over to the other thread, and try to make that point.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 5:45 pm - December 18, 2012

  155. ILC, You were actually using the entry ironically (if I’m using the term correctly). The actual definition is here, but you were using a leftist version of it against a leftist. I get it now.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 5:52 pm - December 18, 2012

  156. Or: perhaps I just didn’t care if it made unnecessary leftist interpolations.

    Now you can go back to not engaging me or whatever that was.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 6:00 pm - December 18, 2012

  157. ILC, you argued recently that I was indirectly responding to one of your comments even when I was not. (While, to my knowledge, I was choosing to not engage you, directly or indirectly, sometimes I would start reading your comments by accident, as the GP comments viewer doesn’t show who wrote what comment until the very end of the comment and some comments are very long and fill up the entire window without the reader knowing whose words they’re reading unless they scroll to the bottom of the comment before scrolling back up. And, yes, I’m lazy in this regard.)

    So since, according to your argument, I’m not engaging you even when I am, there is no point in me ever assuming I’m not engaging you. You know me *enough*, right?

    So, despite the things you’ve said about my personal character (false and otherwise), I figure you of all your previous nastiness (unwarranted and otherwise) from earlier this year.

    Please go ahead now and profess how you don’t care what I do. Or how it does nothing. Or how you think you know *enough* about me to know this is meaningless, I’m insincere, I have nothing to forgive of you, etc. Am I leaving anything out?

    No matter. It’s public record. I forgive you. I’m ready to open a new chapter. And it’s okay if your opinion of me never changes or worsens.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 6:22 pm - December 18, 2012

  158. Sorry champ, you’re babbling. Can’t make head nor tail of the first 5 paragraphs, and not buying your last, given your track record.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 7:17 pm - December 18, 2012

  159. I understand

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 8:01 pm - December 18, 2012

  160. Doubtful.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 18, 2012 @ 8:02 pm - December 18, 2012

  161. As I stated above, Cinesnatch, you are a con.

    Because your concern is not dialogue; it is browbeating and attacking other people.

    What unravels your game is our knowledge that you yourself are a stinking hypocrite who will never hold himself to any of the standards that he demands others hold themselves.

    Hence, you are exposed as little more than a manipulator and a wannabe abuser whose game is to exploit the decency, fairness, and honesty of others for your own personal advancement.

    A con’s game only works for as long as people don’t recognize him as a con. And you have been recognized as a con. With that knowledge, your demands now are visible transparently obvious attempts to manipulate others into performing piety dances, rather than any real or objective concern for rationality and decency, and thus peg you nicely as a typical “progressive” whose only concern is getting whatever he wants with no regard for anyone else.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2012 @ 10:09 pm - December 18, 2012

  162. More anonymous disparagement of someone’s character from ND30.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 10:24 pm - December 18, 2012

  163. More anonymous disparagement of someone’s character from ND30.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 10:24 pm – December 18, 2012

    Mm, yes, and “Levi”, “mike”, “Little Kiwi”, and “Passing By”, are common names, easily identifiable, directly linked to a specific person, identity fully disclosed.

    LOL.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2012 @ 10:33 pm - December 18, 2012

  164. ND30, when you anonymously hide behind your computer and throw nasty personalized lies in MY direction when I’m using MY real identity, you’re going to hear about it from ME. Period. I’m not interested in you playing the victim card and asking why I don’t get involved in matters I wasn’t invited to. You attack me anonymously, you receive my identity-certified response. If you can’t handle it, then I suggest you dabble in an art not affiliated with cowardice.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 10:49 pm - December 18, 2012

  165. Mm, yes, and “Levi”, “mike”, “Little Kiwi”, and “Passing By”, are common names, easily identifiable, directly linked to a specific person, identity fully disclosed.

    LOL.

    Piety dance twice denied.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2012 @ 11:01 pm - December 18, 2012

  166. By ND30′s logic, if someone is attacked on the street by a hooded person, they can’t defend themselves unless they fight every hooded person in the world attacking others.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 11:13 pm - December 18, 2012

  167. By ND30′s logic, if someone is attacked on the street by a hooded person, they can’t defend themselves unless they fight every hooded person in the world attacking others.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 11:13 pm – December 18, 2012

    Pretty much, especially when you use the hood as your excuse for attacking them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2012 @ 11:18 pm - December 18, 2012

  168. Um … in this example, I’m not the one wearing or using the hood. You are. And all your aforementioned. Capice? If YOU attack me personally, I will respond accordingly. If you stick to the argument at hand, I will respond accordingly. If you weren’t anonymous, my guess would be that you would stick to the argument (you’re a pretty smart guy, and sometimes even lucid), instead of dipping into personal attacks. Or, am I mistaken?

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 11:24 pm - December 18, 2012

  169. If you stick to the argument at hand, I will respond accordingly.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 18, 2012 @ 11:24 pm – December 18, 2012

    Doubtful.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2012 @ 11:56 pm - December 18, 2012

  170. Very funny response and callback to ILC’s earlier comment. Props to you, ND30. I’m glad to see you have a sense of humor. And, I look forward to our future interactions that will be free of anonymous personal attacks.

    Comment by Vince Smetana — December 19, 2012 @ 12:07 am - December 19, 2012

  171. [...] Gay Patriot – With Connecticut horror fresh in our minds, ’tis not the season to politicize [...]

    Pingback by Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Getting Ready For Christmas Edition — December 19, 2012 @ 4:28 am - December 19, 2012

  172. [...] Gay Patriot – With Connecticut horror fresh in our minds, ’tis not the season to politicize [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Getting Ready For Christmas Edition » Virginia Right! — December 19, 2012 @ 5:31 am - December 19, 2012

  173. Levi’s mom must have taken away his internet access again.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 19, 2012 @ 7:55 am - December 19, 2012

  174. [...] Gay Patriot – With Connecticut horror fresh in our minds, ?tis not the season to politicize [...]

    Pingback by This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations | therightplanet.com — December 19, 2012 @ 9:01 am - December 19, 2012

  175. [...] Gay Patriot – With Connecticut horror fresh in our minds, ?tis not the season to politicize [...]

    Pingback by Watcher’s Council Nominations – Getting Ready For Christmas Edition | therightplanet.com — December 19, 2012 @ 9:02 am - December 19, 2012

  176. [...] Gay Patriot – With Connecticut horror fresh in our minds, ’tis not the season to politicize [...]

    Pingback by Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Getting Ready For Christmas Edition — December 19, 2012 @ 12:07 pm - December 19, 2012

  177. [...] Gay Patriot – With Connecticut horror fresh in our minds, ’tis not the season to politicize [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Watcher of Weasels Nominations — 12.19.12 Edition — December 19, 2012 @ 12:15 pm - December 19, 2012

  178. [...] Gay Patriot – With Connecticut horror fresh in our minds, ’tis not the season to politicize [...]

    Pingback by Watcher Council Nominations Are Up! | Independent Sentinel — December 20, 2012 @ 12:11 am - December 20, 2012

  179. [...] Gay Patriot – With Connecticut horror fresh in our minds, ’tis not the season to politicize [...]

    Pingback by Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council wisdom for the week — December 21, 2012 @ 1:41 am - December 21, 2012

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.652 Powered by Wordpress