GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012/12/20/goproud-statement-on-the-aftermath-of-the-sandy-hook-shootings/trackback/

  1. Nice to see GOProud finally take a conservative position on something

    Comment by Kyle — December 20, 2012 @ 1:53 pm - December 20, 2012

  2. Kyle,

    Are you new to what GOProud stands for? Maybe you’re confusing them with Log Cabin Republicans?

    John

    Comment by John Williams — December 20, 2012 @ 2:11 pm - December 20, 2012

  3. these will be important and necessary debates

    But… but… according to Levi, conservatives including a GP blogger (Dan), want there to be no debates. What gives? Could it be that not everything is as Levi thinks? How? How could that be? :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 20, 2012 @ 2:46 pm - December 20, 2012

  4. Someone else just posted this Ann Coulter article in another GP thread, and I think it’s worth repeating.

    …William Landes at the University of Chicago and John Lott at Yale, conducted a massive study of multiple victim public shootings in the United States between 1977 and 1995 to see how various legal changes affected their frequency and death toll…

    Landes and Lott examined many of the very policies being proposed right now in response to the Connecticut massacre: waiting periods and background checks for guns, the death penalty and increased penalties for committing a crime with a gun.

    None of these policies had any effect on the frequency of, or carnage from, multiple-victim shootings…

    Only one public policy has ever been shown to reduce the death rate from such crimes: concealed-carry laws. [ed: laws allowing civilians to carry concealed guns in public]

    …most multiple-victim shootings occur in “gun-free zones” — even within states that have concealed-carry laws: public schools, churches, Sikh temples, post offices, the movie theater where James Holmes committed mass murder, and the Portland, Ore., mall where a nut starting gunning down shoppers a few weeks ago.

    Guns were banned in all these places. Mass killers may be crazy, but they’re not stupid.

    the media hide stories of armed citizens stopping mass shooters. At the Portland shooting, for example, no explanation was given for the amazing fact that the assailant managed to kill only two people in the mall during the busy Christmas season.

    It turns out, concealed-carry-holder Nick Meli hadn’t noticed that the mall was a gun-free zone. He pointed his (otherwise legal) gun at the shooter as he paused to reload, and the next shot was the attempted mass murderer killing himself. (Meli aimed, but didn’t shoot, because there were bystanders behind the shooter.)

    In a nonsense “study” going around the Internet right now, Mother Jones magazine claims to have produced its own study of all public shootings in the last 30 years and concludes: “In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun.”

    This will come as a shock to people who know something about the subject.

    The magazine reaches its conclusion by simply excluding all cases where an armed civilian stopped the shooter: They looked only at public shootings where four or more people were killed, i.e., the ones where the shooter wasn’t stopped.

    So much for the Mother Jones article. But, RTWT. Coulter gives more examples, that Mother Jones conveniently ‘forgot’ – and still without even mentioning the Colorado Springs example, that MJ also forgot.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 20, 2012 @ 3:21 pm - December 20, 2012

  5. But… but… according to Levi, conservatives including a GP blogger (Dan), want there to be no debates. What gives? Could it be that not everything is as Levi thinks? How? How could that be?

    Guess what? You’re still wrong.

    Every time something like this happens, the conservative movement, which is heavily invested in preserving the status quo, insists that now is not the time to politicize, now is the time for the victims, etc. This is a completely understandable and reasonable strategy on their part, because it casts them as above the political fray and because it buys them a little time when everyone is at their most emotional (and motivated to do something.) As far as gun control is concerned, Republicans have dictated its terms as a political issue for the past decade. This strategy of theirs, where they call for restraint and prayers out of one side of their mouths and accuse gun control advocates of rushing to exploit dead kids, has been a critical part of that strategy. When stuff like this happens, Republicans count on Americans’ increasing desensitization to violence to carry them through.

    Sometimes there is still a little part of me that is optimistic about the future, and that part of me is signaling that this strategy isn’t going to work anymore. I guess 20 dead kindergartners might meet some unannounced threshold for how much the American people are willing to continue accepting these Republicans’ bullshit excuses. Sure, conservatives can say the words and they can express the grief, but the end result has always been for them to say that nothing should be done about this kind of stuff. Some of us think we can do better.

    Comment by Levi — December 20, 2012 @ 4:48 pm - December 20, 2012

  6. Every time something like this happens, the conservative movement, which is heavily invested in preserving the status quo, insists that now is not the time to politicize, now is the time for the victims, etc. This is a completely understandable and reasonable strategy on their part, because it casts them as above the political fray and because it buys them a little time when everyone is at their most emotional (and motivated to do something.)

    Yup.

    Which “progressives” hate, because they know that, when people think through things based on logic, reason, and science, they reject the “progressive” response.

    Progressivism requires manipulation of emotion. It’s not based on facts, logic, or reason, as Levi admits; it’s based solely on manipulating people when they are at their most irrational.

    Conservative thought, which is based on facts, logic, and rationality, wins out when people actually consider things intelligently. Since it is good for society to consider things rationally, conservatives always suggest waiting periods for these type of things for people to calm down. “Progressives” oppose this, because “progressives” do not want people to think or act carefully; they want them to knee-jerk react based on emotions.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2012 @ 6:36 pm - December 20, 2012

  7. I repeat, this is not a gun issue. this should have no part in the national discussion. This is a mental health issue. Ryan Lanza, the Aurora, Colorado shooter, and the Arizona Shopping Center shooter who shot Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and killed six others, all apparently suffered from a mental disorder. The question then becomes; is it inherited, a birth defect, or is it environmental? this is what needs to be discussed, Not gun control. Is this a predisposition to kill or exhibit violent behavior or is it an accumulation of too much violence via via television, movies, and or video games. I remember an Academy Awards Ceremony, in the late 50´s hosted by Bob Hope. It was at a time when theaters were experiencing a decline in attendance due to t.v. In his opening monolgue he said words to the effect, ¨we´ll get ém back with more blood, guts, and gore.¨His words seem so prophetic. There has been so much talk about mental health after these incidents, and all that is being talked about are the symptoms, but not the cause. It has to be more than poor toilet training.

    Comment by Roberto — December 20, 2012 @ 7:09 pm - December 20, 2012

  8. Isn’t there an expression to the effect that making decisions under emotional stress tends to lead to negative outcomes? Is Levi actually trying to insist that the best time to make serious decisions is under the highest degree of stress?

    Comment by V the K — December 20, 2012 @ 9:23 pm - December 20, 2012

  9. If one were to respond to this incidents taking the course of action that logic, statistics, and historical evidence lead us to… the conclusion would be that the best way to reduce future shooting incidents is to eliminate gun free zones and encourage responsible people to get CCW licenses.

    Comment by V the K — December 20, 2012 @ 9:25 pm - December 20, 2012

  10. “I repeat, this is not a gun issue. this should have no part in the national discussion. This is a mental health issue”

    Agree 100%. This is not a gun control issue. We need to have adequate services for mental care. Its starts in the schools where kids with mental health issues get the care they need.
    — Now I think there is an argument that automatic/semi automatic weapons should be banned -like other weapons of mass destruction – but that would not stop these killings.

    But we have a chance in this country to do something about the mental health services of our society and I hope congress grabs it.

    Comment by mike — December 20, 2012 @ 9:28 pm - December 20, 2012

  11. Republicans… accuse gun control advocates of rushing to exploit dead kids

    That reminds me. Seems to me, there was a prog troll the other day who tried to exploit dead kids, in his comments. Was there?

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

    Why, yes there was.

    But V nails it: the best way to reduce future shooting incidents is to eliminate gun free zones and encourage responsible people to get CCW licenses.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 20, 2012 @ 9:41 pm - December 20, 2012

  12. #10: “Now I think there is an argument that automatic/semi automatic weapons should be banned -like other weapons of mass destruction – but that would not stop these killings.”

    If it wouldn’t stop the mass killings, then why should they be banned?

    Comment by Sean A — December 20, 2012 @ 9:57 pm - December 20, 2012

  13. “If it wouldn’t stop the mass killings, then why should they be banned?”

    For the same reason C4 is banned. They are weapons on mass destruction.

    Comment by mike — December 20, 2012 @ 10:00 pm - December 20, 2012

  14. Another prog troll trick: Destroy language. Destroy the meaning of words.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 20, 2012 @ 10:03 pm - December 20, 2012

  15. If it wouldn’t stop the mass killings, then why should they be banned?

    It would increase Government control, which liberals love. It would make liberals feel good about themselves.

    In the real world, more people would die, but libs are generally okay with that. While Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh were carrying out genocide in southeast Asia, libs were high-fiving each other because they ended the Vietnam War. Millions of people have died from preventable malaria deaths since DDT was banned, but liberals feel good that it was outlawed.

    Comment by V the K — December 20, 2012 @ 10:30 pm - December 20, 2012

  16. For the same reason C4 is banned. They are weapons on mass destruction.

    Comment by mike — December 20, 2012 @ 10:00 pm – December 20, 2012

    In that case, Saddam Hussein possessed millions of weapons of mass destruction.

    And Barack Obama lied when he said Saddam Hussein did not.

    Now watch as concern-troll mike screams and cries and refuses to answer why he and his fellow “progressive” trolls can’t stick to a common language term or apply it objectively.

    And it should scare the hell out of you that Obama cultists are talking about “mental health”, given that “progressives” like mike support and endorse declaring those who oppose or criticize Barack Obama to be mentally ill.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2012 @ 10:31 pm - December 20, 2012

  17. Another prog troll trick: Destroy language. Destroy the meaning of words.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 20, 2012 @ 10:03 pm – December 20, 2012

    Indeed, ILC.

    And that is why we just judo-threw “progressive” troll mike.

    Watch as the idiot mike refuses to answer why he screams that a single machine gun is a “weapon of mass destruction” that has to be taken from law-abiding US citizens, but that millions in the hands of a brutal dictator like Saddam Hussein were not.

    “Progressives” like mike have lost all grip on reality. They will say and do anything, ANYTHING, to take power. No facts, no rational behavior, no logic, just a screaming tantrum meltdown as mike demands we kneel before and kiss the feet of his Lord and Messiah Barack Obama.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2012 @ 10:34 pm - December 20, 2012

  18. We should also keep in mind that “progressives” like mike and Levi are screaming and ranting about “violence” while simultaneously making death threats to Republican leaders.

    That makes it rather clear that they’re not opposed to violence; they just oppose anyone being able to resist or defend themselves against “progressive” violence.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 20, 2012 @ 11:06 pm - December 20, 2012

  19. NDT and ILC, I have observed that a key difference between progressives and conservatives is that the former are obsessed with language and the latter focus on how things work out in the real world.

    Obama prattles on about “balanced approaches” to deficit reduction while offering no actual deficit reduction, and the left is fine with that.

    The left wants to ban “assault weapons” without defining what an assault weapon actually is; but “assault weapon” sounds scary and dangerous, so surely, they must be banned.

    And this whole notion that reality can be denied by changing language…. calling bums “homeless people,” calling any discomfort a terrorist complains about “torture” calling legislation that makes health care more expensive the “Affordable Care Act” … to me indicates that lefties simply aren’t people who deal with reality.

    Comment by V the K — December 20, 2012 @ 11:06 pm - December 20, 2012

  20. “I have observed that a key difference between progressives and conservatives is that the former are obsessed with language and the latter focus on how things work out in the real world.”

    This is true of ideologues on both sides of the spectrum – See the countless books on how folks on the right have tried to redefine “socialism”, “fascism” & torture while folks on the left use words like bigot to mean almost anything. (Also I would say ideologues and utopianistis on both sides have no idea how the real word works)

    NDT – I don’t think we should go into any country to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction. I think instead we should go in when our national interest is at stake. – For example, Iran. I can envision several scenarios where it might be in our interest to go in there like we did with Afghanistan which is 100% justifiable. (but from things I have been reading, sanctions where we attack Iran’s money supply might work better than any bomb we drop)
    – - Also thank you for agreeing with me that Assault weapons have no purpose except destroying lots of people quickly and should be taken out of civilized society – just like C4.

    However, its disappointing that you folks locked on to a throw away line I had on my personal thoughts on assault weapons. –Especially since I am not a strong advocate of gun control.

    Its just as Roberto said, a ban on these types of weapons would not stop these crimes. The only thing we can do is improve the mental health care of the society.

    Comment by mike — December 21, 2012 @ 12:06 am - December 21, 2012

  21. #13: “For the same reason C4 is banned. They are weapons on mass destruction.”

    So to review, mike, you DON’T think this is a gun control issue, but you DO think that automatic & semi-automatic weapons should be banned even though it would not stop mass shootings from occurring because they’re weapons of mass destruction comparable to the plastic explosive, C4.

    mike, I own a Glock semi-automatic handgun. Just to be clear, it’s your position that I have a weapon of mass destruction in my home that should be banned and confiscated by the government, correct? According to you, I might as well have a couple of bricks of C4 in my linen closet, right?

    Comment by Sean A — December 21, 2012 @ 12:37 am - December 21, 2012

  22. However, its disappointing that you folks locked on to a throw away line I had on my personal thoughts on assault weapons.

    Comment by mike — December 21, 2012 @ 12:06 am – December 21, 2012

    LOL.

    “Assault weapons” – another undefinable, unquantifiable phrase that means whatever the desperate Obama cultist mike needs it to mean at any given point in time.

    Why can’t you speak in rational, quantifiable, objective terms that mean the same thing, mike? Why do you and your fellow “progressives” always have to rely on changing the meanings and denying your own statements?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2012 @ 12:51 am - December 21, 2012

  23. Oh, and mike, one more thing: your being “disappointed” in us would have more meaning if we didn’t know that you support and endorse malicious and hateful lies such as your Obama’s claims that Romney was a tax cheat, a rape supporter, and a murderer.

    But since we know you support and endorse Obama’s malicious lies as being good behavior, and Obama as being a good person despite being a malicious and vile liar, we know that your “disappointment” is not truthful and is, in fact, just an attempt to manipulate us for your own malicious and vile ends.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2012 @ 12:54 am - December 21, 2012

  24. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9ZEbyDee8A

    Gun control advocates for crime and advocate AGAINST citizens being able to defend themselves against crime. It’s quite simple. Some do it out of ignorace brought about by the criminals like mafia members, corrupt politicians, and MSNBC readers; some are criminals themselves.

    Comment by AZ Mo in NYC — December 21, 2012 @ 1:54 am - December 21, 2012

  25. you folks locked on to a throw away line

    Sounds like someone wants attention! Or a sense of superiority, or something.

    Sometimes, mike, what you post is boring… to those of us who have discussed (and possibly refuted) it before. And we know that you’re not interested in a real discussion anyway. For example, any time that I make a point, you just dismiss me (as an ideologue or whatever) rather than register, deal with, or answer my point. I don’t care – I see it as your loss – but it explains the futility and boredom of responding to you.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2012 @ 1:58 am - December 21, 2012

  26. ‘ that they will also remember our 1st Amendment right to free speech, our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, and our 5th Amendment right to due process” [and that these rights are not absolute but have limits].

    ““Assault weapons” – another definable, quantifiable phrase that means” [semi-automatic/automatic, detachable mags]

    Comment by Passing By — December 21, 2012 @ 2:14 am - December 21, 2012

  27. A few things to keep in mind, too: All weapons are assault weapons, they can be used to assault, that’s a knife, pipe, 22, 45, or AK47….even a dinner fork can kill. They can also be used as a means to PREVENT assault.

    We have to face this fact: gun control advocates have innoccent blood on their hands. We know that if the adults in that school had guns they would have had a chance at stopping the bloodshed, we know that Chicagoans are murdered daily by thugs because the citizens cannot arm themselves, we know that millions have been slaughtered by tyrranical governments that have disarmed their citizens, we know that all of the mass shootings that have happened happened in “gun free” zones. Gun control advocates actually aid and abet murderers.

    Comment by AZ Mo in NYC — December 21, 2012 @ 2:39 am - December 21, 2012

  28. What I’d really like to know, what I think really ought to be made clear, is just how easily (or not) this idiot got his hands on the guns he used? If he just had to reach into the back of the closet, there’s a case to be made for obliging legitimate gun owners to keep their weapons under lock and key (and e.g. their ammo in a separate box or an inner safe with a different keying) whenever their imminent use is not an issue. That might go a long way towards lessening the access to firearms of mentally unbalanced people who aren’t competent, stable or determined enough to go to the black market to obtain their weapons.

    If they ARE competent, stable and determined enough to obtain their weapons on the black market, forget trying to stop them with anything less than a bullet to the head.

    If there is ANY change to US firearms laws as a result of this, it should possibly be an onus on the owner to provide a reasonable degree of security for their guns (e.g. a purpose-made safe bolted to the wall or floor, such as Australia requires) or be liable at least under civil codes for what’s done with them. If you want to sleep with your revolver under your pillow, fine, but if you’re leaving it at home for whatever reason, it should be in a locked box such that it can’t be stolen and used without a lot of effort. I think that is a fair thing to ask – rights come with attendant responsibilities after all.

    Some states of Australia also mandate regular attendance at shooting events or hunts to justify ownership and I think that’s fair too. You can’t own a gun solely for self-defence in Australia, but if you could, I think it would be reasonable to be obliged to practise one’s technique on a regular basis. Then if someone starts going off the rails, maybe whoever he’s hanging out with can see the early warning signs and get him some help – or in extremis, get him arrested and thereby save some lives.

    Comment by perturbed — December 21, 2012 @ 3:39 am - December 21, 2012

  29. Sean – Yes. If I had my druthers, I would say that glocks and their ammunition would not be sold. Though I would guess that you having a glock in your house is as safe as me having C4 in my house. – Both would serve no risk to the general populace as neither of us are evil enough to use them in some attack. – And I wouldn’t advocate the gov take your gun away. But you should register it so they know where it is incase it gets stolen. Its 100% impracticable to take whats out there out of society. I would however, like to stop any new ones from hitting the shelves.

    “Assault weapons” – Look. I am not making policy here. I am just saying if I had my way, auto/semi auto wouldn’t be sold. revolvers/bolt or lever action/shutguns i have no issue with. But again, I will leave the definitions and policy to someone else as this is more of a general thought that these type of weapons need to be gone because they only have 1 use – killing lots of people quickly.

    Comment by mike — December 21, 2012 @ 4:38 am - December 21, 2012

  30. And again, no amount of gun control will stop these type attacks as Sandy Hook is not a Gun Control Issue.
    The only way to stop these attacks is nip them in the bud early and increase the Mental Health care in this country – especially the schools.

    Comment by mike — December 21, 2012 @ 4:42 am - December 21, 2012

  31. Gun control brings out all the worst in the progressive left; emotionalism, dogmatism, arrogance, and fascist impulses.

    Emotionalism: “OMG! Dead childrens! You have to agree with us now, or you support child murder!”

    Dogmatism: “I know all the facts, statistics, and historical records proved that banning guns is a bad idea, but we demand it anyway.”

    Arrogance: “*I* don’t see why anyone needs a [Weapon] to defend himself, therefore, no one does.”

    Fascism: “The only solution is to take rights away from the individual and increase the power of the state.”

    We see all of this on display from our leftist contributors.

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 7:58 am - December 21, 2012

  32. Isn’t a revolver technically “semi automatic” (Every time I pull the trigger, a bullet comes out.) Or how about a chu-kuk-nu?

    Are cars ‘assault weapons’? How many people die every year from being hit by cars?

    The simple fact is, a law abiding citizen is as dangerous with a Thompson sub machine gun (sold in Sears catalogs!) as with a butter knife. i.e. zero, until the guy who doesn’t care about the laws comes in.

    Until Levi sells his car, cuts off his dangly bits and gives up his cell phone (since someone might steal it and make a detanator out of it) I think we can continue to give the little fascist all the derision he rightly deserves.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 21, 2012 @ 8:00 am - December 21, 2012

  33. Now I think there is an argument that automatic/semi automatic weapons should be banned -like other weapons of mass destruction – but that would not stop these killings.

    Automatic weapons are already banned.

    What is your objection to semi automatic weapons?

    Assault weapons are all about cosmetics-there is no such thing as an assault weapon.

    I can see the argument for limiting the number of bullets in a clip, but in the case of Sandy Hook this doesn’t seem to be a good solution given the fact that it took the police 20 minutes to get to the school. Lanza could have been loading one bullet at a time and had plenty of time to kill 20 or more people.

    Comment by Just Me — December 21, 2012 @ 8:20 am - December 21, 2012

  34. Are cars ‘assault weapons’? How many people die every year from being hit by cars?

    How long before liberals start referring to SUV’s as ‘Assault Cars.’

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 9:05 am - December 21, 2012

  35. All weapons are assault weapons

    Great point. What would be an example of a non-assault weapon?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2012 @ 9:30 am - December 21, 2012

  36. But again, I will leave the definitions and policy to someone else -will admit I have absolutely NO idea what I’m talking about-

    Fixed it, for mike.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2012 @ 9:32 am - December 21, 2012

  37. “Can’t someone else do it” is one of the basic themes of progressivism.

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 9:39 am - December 21, 2012

  38. @Just Me

    Why a clip limit?

    For example, the PS-90 holds 30 rounds (part of the reason I’m looking at it.) It’s military brother, the P-90 (which I really want) holds 100 rounds. Note… The clips are interchangable.

    My (ex-)Father in law asked me once why I thought the SA Striker was the ideal shotgun to defend his daughter with. My reply was “I’m not a good shot. So I want as much lead between me and the intruder as possible. 24 rounds, no waiting, should put enough buckshot in the air to do it. The walls can be fixed and painted over. Your daughter, not so much.”

    Again, limiting capacity is a red herring. a criminal won’t care what the law says. He’ll find a ‘long’ magazine. And what about if there are multiple shooters (like in the AK school shooting, or Columbine?) The legal conceal carry person (true, a PS-90 isn’t concealable) will be the one wanting more bullets.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 21, 2012 @ 10:14 am - December 21, 2012

  39. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/16/governor-gunman-shot-self-first-responders-closed/

    ll the victims at the school were shot with a rifle, at least some of them up close, and all were apparently shot more than once, Dr. H. Wayne Carver, the chief medical examiner, said. There were as many as 11 shots on the bodies he examined. Lanza died of a gunshot wound to the head that was self-inflicted, the medical examiner said Sunday.

    All six adults killed at the school were women. Of the 20 children, eight were boys and 12 were girls.

    Asked whether the children suffered, Dr. Carver said, “If so, not for very long.” Asked how many bullets were fired, Dr. Carver said, “I’m lucky if I can tell you how many I found.”

    Parents identified the children through photos to spare them some shock, Dr. Carver said.

    Comment by rusty — December 21, 2012 @ 10:19 am - December 21, 2012

  40. Comment by rusty — December 21, 2012 @ 10:19 am – December 21, 2012

    Yawn.

    The exchange, during which Pratt remains admirably calm, pretty accurately reflects the general tenor of the current gun control debate, with raw emotionalism and invective pitted against skepticism and an attempt at rational argument. I am not saying that every supporter of gun control is a raving bully on the order of Piers Morgan, or even that Pratt is right. (You can judge that for yourself.) But proponents of new gun restrictions are counting on emotional appeals for victory, which is why they insist that action must be taken immediately, before the grief and outrage provoked by Adam Lanza’s crimes starts to fade.

    One you understand the Obama puppets like rusty and their desperation to exploit emotions rather than think rationally, their lies and whining and wailing become rather simple to ignore.

    Especially when you consider their own calls for murder in the name of gay-sex liberalism.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2012 @ 10:28 am - December 21, 2012

  41. I would also love a PS-90; in the hands of a responsible, law-abiding citizen, it’s no threat to anyone but a criminal.

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 10:31 am - December 21, 2012

  42. NDT, let’s not forget that rusty … like mike, Alan and Levi… are all proud adherents to the belief that human life can and should be terminated if it is not convenient to the mother for any reason whatsoever. rusty goes even further, and attacks people who care for children who, in his view, should have been murdered in the womb.

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 10:33 am - December 21, 2012

  43. ILC I could support a clip limit only because it is one of the few things that might help in some situations (when people rushed a shooter it was usually when they were changing clips or guns)-however I don’t think it would necessarily have done much to save people in situations like Sandy Hook (where it took the cops 20 minutes to arrive) and to be honest a shooter would just carry more guns to make up for the lack of extra rounds in the clip.

    But at least it is something clearly defined-”assault” rifles are all about cosmetics and not what the gun actually does. An “assault” rifle doesn’t shoot bullets any differently than a rifle.

    Comment by Just Me — December 21, 2012 @ 10:35 am - December 21, 2012

  44. Will be interesting to hear the NRA statement scheduled for today.

    Wont be surprised when folk start releasing the photos from inside the school.

    Comment by rusty — December 21, 2012 @ 10:38 am - December 21, 2012

  45. mike, my comment is not to be construed that there should be gun control, I am adamantly opposed to gun control, a member of the NRA, NAGR, and I own a Magnum 357. As for health care, theindustry has been treting the symtoms but not investigating the causes. to repeat, is there a predisposition, either by inheritence of as birth defect, to kill or commit acts of violence; or is it environmental as an accumulation from exposure to graphic violence on television, movies and/or video games. I would want to see more mental hospitals instead of allowing mental cases to roam freely and assume they take their meds. Most mass killings were by men who had mental health problems. Even the Ft. Hood shooter, was breainwashed by radical islam. That is another element that has to be discussed. it has been said you can´t hypnotize a person to commit an act contrary to their moral values. What kind of a person would allow himself to be brainwashed into mass murder? Does that kind of a person have a predisposition to commit violence? Mental health specialists need to get to the root cause(s), maybe then they will have made a contribution to society.

    Comment by Roberto — December 21, 2012 @ 11:45 am - December 21, 2012

  46. Libera Idiocy has spawned an idea, let’s use the adjective “assault” as randomly and irresponsibly as they do.

    GayPatriot will now be known as an Assault Blog. For Christmas, I won’t serve mashed potatoes, I’ll serve Assault Potatoes. I won’t practice bass guitar, I’ll practice assault guitar.

    Makes about as much sense as calling random guns liberals don’t like “Assault Weapons.”

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 1:03 pm - December 21, 2012

  47. V the K I think in general when liberal starts talking about banning “assault” rifles they have no idea what they are talking about and most of the time know nothing about firearms in general.

    Twenty seven people are murdered by a mentally ill young man, and the first answer liberals head for is taking away guns-or at least the “assault” type (which may or may not have been used in this shooting).

    As I said, limiting clips or even banning semi automatic guns wouldn’t have done much to stop 27 people from dying-it took 20 minutes for the cops to show up. He could have loaded several revolvers and still killed a whole slew of people.

    Comment by Just Me — December 21, 2012 @ 1:38 pm - December 21, 2012

  48. @47 -
    I agree that “assault” weapons can be an amorphous term. I personally read it as semi-automatic or automatic weapons with large magazine clips. And yes, that type of weapon was used in this shooting.

    I would have to disagree that the ban couldn’t have helped in this particular case. If someone has to stop and reload, that gives people a chance to charge the assailant or perhaps run for safety. Granted, he could have just brought a whole slew of revolvers, but even then, the time between changing out guns gives an opening for people to respond (charging or fleeing). Bringing 5 revolvers gives you 30 bullets. Bringing 3 large magazine clips (for example), gives you 90 bullets with just one gun. It makes it much easier to do more damage with less.

    I think it’s worth having the discussion of a cost/benefit analysis of having such weapons generally available. We also need to look at our mental health services, as others have said.

    Comment by Alan — December 21, 2012 @ 1:56 pm - December 21, 2012

  49. V and K and NDF, very good. All points I would make as well, and have tried to make them at non-conservative sites, which have proved intolerant of dissenting views no matter how calmly and respectfully expressed, even after suffering repeated insults and ad hominem. I’m proud to say, my attempt at saying what you have here but over at Buzzfeed was met with a shadow ban. The kids there prefer their echo chamber, which is rather dangerous. It is rabid xenophobia. Which they hotly deny. It feels so hopeless trying to talk to them rationally that I’ve given up.

    The 2nd Amendment should enjoy the same liberal access and enjoyment as the 1st, which the liberals think should suffer no restriction of any kind. All misuses and abuses of which must be tolerated for the greater good. If so, then…….

    The sheer common sense of being superiorly armed such that being considered a target is immediately dismissed by the sane and unstable alike is stunningly prima facie. But, emotions and knee jerk gun hatred is doing its level best to smother it.

    It makes me fear for my country… even more than usual….

    Comment by ignatius — December 21, 2012 @ 1:58 pm - December 21, 2012

  50. #48/Alan, agree, this issue deserves honest, forthright discussion, not emotional zealotry. Regarding the high capacity magazine topic, I tend to agree that while I don’t see a “need” for such an item in the hands of anyone not in the military, I also don’t see the “need” for a lot of things humans can buy or make or have. That doesn’t mean they be denied them so long as they are law abiding citizens. Using an automatic weapon on wildlife is sheer cruelty in my opinion and anyone who thinks they should use an AR-17 to hunt with is incompetent.

    However.

    As long as totalitarian and fascist regimes exist on the planet, no people can be certain that it can never happen to them. Therefore, just because America has posse comitatus doesn’t mean it could never be summarily tossed aside or simply ignored by a determined administration knowing it will be met by no meaningful resistance. Exactly like a school.

    Bad men with guns commit evil. Good men with guns stop them. That’s how it has always worked and always will.

    I wish I could have this convo at liberal sites that I like, but, well, it is just not tolerated.

    Comment by ignatius — December 21, 2012 @ 2:13 pm - December 21, 2012

  51. #48/Alan, agree, this issue deserves honest, forthright discussion, not emotional zealotry. Regarding the high capacity magazine topic, I tend to agree that while I don’t see a “need” for such an item in the hands of anyone not in the military, I also don’t see the “need” for a lot of things humans can buy or make or have. That doesn’t mean they be denied them so long as they are law abiding citizens. Using an automatic weapon on wildlife is sheer cruelty in my opinion and anyone who thinks they should use an AR-17 to hunt with is incompetent.

    Well yeah. Any household item could be used to kill somebody. But nothing quite matches the efficiency of guns, which give people the capacity to kill dozens of people in a few minutes. Whenever you’re talking about giving people the potential to wreak so much havoc, I absolutely think there is a compelling state interest in regulating that product.

    However.

    As long as totalitarian and fascist regimes exist on the planet, no people can be certain that it can never happen to them.

    What, exactly, is ‘it?’ And how much should we do to avoid ‘it,’ whatever ‘it’ is? I assume you’re talking about a foreign army invading our country and marching through the suburbs. Is this a realistic possibility? Maybe. Is it so realistic that we ought to sit on our hands after people get massacred? I don’t think so. Especially when you consider that if ‘it’ ever does happen, the best self-organized militia providing its own firearms will be going against attack helicopters and ICBMs.

    Therefore, just because America has posse comitatus doesn’t mean it could never be summarily tossed aside or simply ignored by a determined administration knowing it will be met by no meaningful resistance. Exactly like a school.

    We live in a different world than the one that existed when that amendment was written. We’d just won a war that depended heavily on soldiers providing their own weaponry, but that’s not how wars are fought anymore. The third amendment (about quartering soldiers) is really useless, and demonstrates how the reasoning and justification behind the Bill of Rights is somewhat out-of-date. The framers could not have anticipated modern advances in firearms and warfare, so it’s not justifiable to interpret the amendment as saying that there shouldn’t be any restrictions on owning handguns or high-capacity magazines.

    Bad men with guns commit evil. Good men with guns stop them. That’s how it has always worked and always will.

    I wish I could have this convo at liberal sites that I like, but, well, it is just not tolerated.

    And never have bad men with guns been so enabled by machinery to commit unprecedentedly evil acts. I mean honestly, if you wanted to go on a murder spree in the 18th century, a gun is the last thing you’d want. If your goal was to kill a roomful of people, you’d be better off charging in there with a bow and arrow. Or throwing knives. With modern technology, you barely have to think about it. This is a significant difference, and I think it the amendment being seriously reconsidered. Times change.

    Comment by Levi — December 21, 2012 @ 4:03 pm - December 21, 2012

  52. What, exactly, is ‘it?’ And how much should we do to avoid ‘it,’ whatever ‘it’ is? I assume you’re talking about a foreign army invading our country and marching through the suburbs.

    Oh, not at all, Levi.

    For example, we have psychotic liberals like yourself who want to murder conservatives.

    None of us are naive enough to believe that Obama supporters like yourself will disarm; we see inner-city DC and Chicago, both Obama-controlled, both with stringent gun laws, and both with liberal police and liberals allowing gangs to rob, rape, and murder at will.

    Why should law-abiding Americans be disarmed to make it easier for criminal Obama thugs, the Obama Party gang-banging base, to prey on them? We already know that Obama thugs murder, rape, and steal on a regular basis all over “blue” cities like DC and Chicago; now you and yours are demanding that law-abiding suburban citizens be forced to disarm while your gang-banging Obama thugs keep their weapons.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2012 @ 4:19 pm - December 21, 2012

  53. So, if Matthew Shepard had had a Sig Sauer and blown the heads off those two meth-heads who robbed and beat him to death… that would have been bad, right?

    Comment by V the K — December 21, 2012 @ 5:53 pm - December 21, 2012

  54. “Are cars ‘assault weapons’?”
    [Only if they are automatics or semi-automatics...]
    “What is your objection to semi automatic weapons?”
    [I can put three high velocity rounds into a two cm center mass group in two seconds]
    “A [semi-automatic/automatic] “assault” rifle [does] shoot bullets differently than a [single shot] rifle [e.g., recoil, reconfiguring aim, etc].”
    “But you should register it so they know where it is incase it gets stolen.” [Agreed]
    “The 2nd Amendment should enjoy the same liberal access and enjoyment as the 1st, which [is constrained by a large number of exceptions]. If so, then…….”

    Comment by Passing By — December 22, 2012 @ 12:55 am - December 22, 2012

  55. It only makes sense that the same people who want women to kill their unborn babies, who don’t hesitate to send drones overseas to slaughter women and children, who incite racial hatred, who stand up for regimes that see women as second class citizens, slaughter homosexuals, and use children for shields, will now use the murder of children to advance and agenda to take away everybody’s RIGHT to defend ourselves from the monsters who would kill them.

    Also, isn’t it intresting that if you switch the “l” in Levi to the end you have, “evil” and he is someone who wants to disarm good people and drag us kicking and screaming into tyrrany, just like the rest of the Progressive scum.

    Comment by Paul — December 22, 2012 @ 12:56 am - December 22, 2012

  56. *to defend themselves…

    Comment by Paul — December 22, 2012 @ 1:03 am - December 22, 2012

  57. ““The 2nd Amendment should enjoy the same liberal access and enjoyment”

    Let’s just say that … “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” and that individuals can “keep and bear” guns. Now, … there’s no contorted stretch of definitions that can make “keep and bear” mean “buy and sell.”

    That’s where Article 1, Section 8 comes in. It’s the Commerce Clause, and it gives Congress the power “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” That pretty clearly says that when it comes to buying and selling, there can be regulations. It’s a direct correlation – selling something? That activity can be regulated.

    Justice Scalia, … wrote in his Heller majority opinion, “[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” So one of the only mentions of the sale of guns in the opinion pretty much says, “Yeah, go ahead and regulate it. That’s your … jobs.””

    Comment by Passing By — December 22, 2012 @ 1:56 am - December 22, 2012

  58. What part of “shall not be infringed” do parrots like Passing By miss?

    The courts have been… inconsistent to say the least.

    The Supremes ruled that a sawed off shotgun can be banned because it’s not a ‘military weapon” link. Yet they also allow the banning of automatic weapons, but they are military weapons.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 22, 2012 @ 10:04 am - December 22, 2012

  59. “What part of “[keep and bear arms (as opposed to buy and sell)]” do parrots like [...] miss?”

    Comment by Passing By — December 22, 2012 @ 4:25 pm - December 22, 2012

  60. #29: “Sean – Yes. If I had my druthers, I would say that glocks and their ammunition would not be sold. Though I would guess that you having a glock in your house is as safe as me having C4 in my house. – Both would serve no risk to the general populace as neither of us are evil enough to use them in some attack. – And I wouldn’t advocate the gov take your gun away. But you should register it so they know where it is incase it gets stolen. Its 100% impracticable to take whats out there out of society. I would however, like to stop any new ones from hitting the shelves.”

    mike,

    You say you would not ‘advocate’ the govt confiscating my gun, but we all know that you would support (and have supported) politicians who entertain that possibility as a way of ridding the world of evil and creating the utopia of their leftist dreams.

    Also, it’s funny that you would bring up the hypothetical of my gun being stolen. If you had your ‘druthers,’ Glocks and their ammunition would be banned ‘to stop any new ones from hitting the shelves.’ Consequently, if my gun were stolen, I would be prohibited by law from replacing it. Thus, you’ve pledged your full support for measures that would create a scenario in which a criminal has my gun, I’m unarmed, and I’m not allowed to buy another one. That’s a brilliant plan, mike. You’ve probably heard (and scoffed at) the saying “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Well, congratulations, you’ve just unequivocally demonstrated that it’s TRUE & that you support gun restrictions that would help bring that reality to fruition.

    Honestly, leftist O-bots like mike are equal parts raging narcissism and blazing stupidity. They presume to be the smartest & most reasonable people on Earth, but they’re really just stupid, arrogant control freaks.

    Comment by Sean A — December 22, 2012 @ 9:14 pm - December 22, 2012

  61. #51/Levi:

    “Well yeah. Any household item could be used to kill somebody. But nothing quite matches the efficiency of guns, which give people the capacity to kill dozens of people in a few minutes. Whenever you’re talking about giving people the potential to wreak so much havoc, I absolutely think there is a compelling state interest in regulating that product.”

    Cars, airplanes and derailed trains are staggeringly efficient. And none of those conveyances are rights.

    “What, exactly, is ‘it?’ And how much should we do to avoid ‘it,’ whatever ‘it’ is? I assume you’re talking about a foreign army invading our country and marching through the suburbs. Is this a realistic possibility? Maybe. Is it so realistic that we ought to sit on our hands after people get massacred? I don’t think so. Especially when you consider that if ‘it’ ever does happen, the best self-organized militia providing its own firearms will be going against attack helicopters and ICBMs.”

    I didn’t talk down to you, don’t do it to me, I don’t deserve it. I didn’t spell “it” out because I thought you were intelligent enough to figure “it” out. My bad. “It” is totalitarianism or fascism or the like. Got “it”? I am not talking about an invading foreign army at all. I am talking about our very citizens, voters, voluntarily handing over the republic to such oppressive regimes, unwittingly. I have never proposed we sit on our hands, do nothing. Quite the contrary, I argue that we do the *right* thing in response to such tragedies, address, at last, the true causes. In this case, in many rampage killings, it is the mental health of the perpetrator, or inadequately dealt with lack thereof.

    “We live in a different world than the one that existed when that amendment was written.”

    But wasn’t the 1st Amendment written at that time, too? Don’t we still use it with gusto, not thinking for one second that it might be outdated, no longer useful? See, the guns the writer’s of the Constitution wielded were considered state of the art and highly technically advanced. Some day, the guns we wield now will be seen as rather ho-hum.

    “If your goal was to kill a roomful of people, you’d be better off charging in there with a bow and arrow. Or throwing knives. With modern technology, you barely have to think about it. This is a significant difference, and I think it the amendment being seriously reconsidered. Times change.”

    If your goal? Just how many law abiding citizens have that goal? You continue to ignore the fact that bad people with horrible intentions will do what they want how they want and get away with it so long as we make it easy for them to do so. I remind you of the worst slaughter of American school children: by a bomb. Bath, MI, 1927. See, a whole lot of helpless babies killed by one determined man, long before AR-15s. Focusing on the tool instead of the toolmaker is a classic, tiresome mistake. And more babies will die as a result of the lack of honesty by such as you to employ the most direct, most honest, most effective solution: make the soft targets hard. Arm the guardians. Watch how fast a different soft target gets picked next time. Hello shopping malls.

    Comment by ignatius — December 22, 2012 @ 10:48 pm - December 22, 2012

  62. #54/Passing By:

    ““The 2nd Amendment should enjoy the same liberal access and enjoyment as the 1st, which [is constrained by a large number of exceptions]. If so, then…….”

    You think the 1st Amendment is constrained by a large number of exceptions? Please, do list those numerous and prohibitive constraints on our speech, which exert the same restrictions on mere access to it as that exerted on firearms. Do you require a license to speak?

    As for your regulation of commerce suggestion in #57, it sounds as if you think the government should be using regulation to reduce commerce. Is that what you’re suggesting?

    Comment by ignatius — December 22, 2012 @ 11:00 pm - December 22, 2012

  63. I neglected to add, I believe the Constitution writer’s intended that the regulation of firearms by the government would lean toward easing citizen access and use of the 2nd Amendment, not away from it. I think they envisioned that our government would regulate subsidized training in firearms, like a dairy subsidy, see that guns would be easy to buy, not priced so high that only rich people could arm themselves. As in the government should regulate standardized levels of competence in all citizens so that should a militia require formation, additional training would not be needed. Collateral benefit of the easily obtained training and easily acquired firearm is triumphant self-defense and defense of others.

    Comment by ignatius — December 22, 2012 @ 11:44 pm - December 22, 2012

  64. “You think the 1st Amendment is constrained by a large number of exceptions? Please, do list those numerous and prohibitive constraints on our speech,”

    [Ignatius]
    [Fighting Words; treason; shouting "fire" in a cinema, copyright, etc]

    “it sounds as if you think the government should be using regulation to reduce [and stop] commerce [in specific types of weapons that are designed primarily to kill indeterminate numbers of people quickly and efficiently]. Is that what you’re suggesting? [Yes]“

    Comment by Passing By — December 23, 2012 @ 2:05 am - December 23, 2012

  65. I didn’t talk down to you, don’t do it to me, I don’t deserve it. I didn’t spell “it” out because I thought you were intelligent enough to figure “it” out. My bad. “It” is totalitarianism or fascism or the like. Got “it”? I am not talking about an invading foreign army at all. I am talking about our very citizens, voters, voluntarily handing over the republic to such oppressive regimes, unwittingly.

    And so the moment arrives: Iggy, meet the real Levi.

    Focusing on the tool instead of the toolmaker is a classic, tiresome mistake. And more babies will die as a result of the lack of honesty by such as you to employ the most direct, most honest, most effective solution: make the soft targets hard. Arm the guardians.

    Agreed. Well said.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 23, 2012 @ 11:49 am - December 23, 2012

  66. Leftist O-bots like mike are equal parts raging narcissism and blazing stupidity.

    When people admit that their ultimate goal is to prevent private citizens from owning firearms, I don’t see why we should see any policy they advocate as anything other than a step toward that goal.

    Comment by V the K — December 23, 2012 @ 11:51 am - December 23, 2012

  67. Nice job, Ignatius; you forced the fascist idiot to out itself.

    “it sounds as if you think the government should be using regulation to reduce [and stop] commerce [in specific types of weapons that are designed primarily to kill indeterminate numbers of people quickly and efficiently]. Is that what you’re suggesting? [Yes]“

    Comment by Passing By — December 23, 2012 @ 2:05 am – December 23, 2012

    The fascist Passing By admits that the fascist wants to strip people of their rights when they have committed no crime and to violate their right to arm and defend themselves when they have done nothing wrong.

    Meanwhile, as is seen in cities like DC, Chicago, and LA, the fascist Passing By has not called for wholesale enforcement of existing gun laws against the Obama Party base, and instead has demanded that non-Obama voters in the suburbs be forced to disarm further instead.

    Nothing more needs to be said. The fascist Passing By does not respect the Constitution or Constitutional rights, and the fascist Passing By wants to use the power of government to punish the law-abiding who do not agree with the fascist’s worldview. The fascist Passing By clearly does not enforce or believe in the enforcement of existing gun laws against the Obama base, and instead is demanding that the innocent be disarmed.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 23, 2012 @ 1:29 pm - December 23, 2012

  68. If there are restrictions on the 1st amendment on the books, that is abhorrent. The freedom of speech and thought is universal, and has been abhorrently restricted in Europe and Canada. These restrictions are illegal and they are bad enough already; they shouldn’t be used as justification for more restrictions on human rights.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — December 23, 2012 @ 1:42 pm - December 23, 2012

  69. And it’s official: Obama puppet Cuomo acknowledges that the Obama Party and Barack Obama intend to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens.

    Now, where are the fascist defenders here? Passing By? Concern-troll mike? Levi? What do you have to say about the Obama Party and Obama’s plans to confiscate guns from law-abiding citizens?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 23, 2012 @ 1:46 pm - December 23, 2012

  70. #64/Passing By: “[Fighting Words; treason; shouting "fire" in a cinema, copyright, etc]”

    So you are a fascist. Ok, well now we know your agenda.

    Seriously? Rather short list, ain’t it. None of the examples you list are restrictions of lawful conduct. And even then, none of them require license. And when was the last time the Westboro Baptists were tossed in jail for their speech? But that’s not your point, is it.

    “it sounds as if you think the government should be using regulation to reduce [and stop] commerce [in specific types of weapons that are designed primarily to kill indeterminate numbers of people quickly and efficiently]. Is that what you’re suggesting? [Yes]“

    Not surprising. If you have legitimately considered all the ramifications of that position, you left out all evidence of having done so. Let’s see if you mean it. Let’s apply it to something else… you know where this is going, right? Because it–where this is going, just to spell it out for you–is exquisitely vulnerable to the exact same challenge. Abortion. Because it is designed do to one thing, and one thing only: kill. And kill only the very, very young. OOOOPS!

    Ok, then you MUST tolerate the liberal and uninfringed access to a much longer lived logical, natural, civil right, under Constitutional protection since long before the medical tool for tossing off the yoke of careless pregnancy. See, to me, the difference is gargantuan: one defends innocent life and national sovereignty, even at ease, while the other attacks innocent life, by personal fiat.

    You otherwise want to prevent the loss of innocent life, correct? Restrict and reduce the sale of cars. Allow no one under the age of 18 to drive. Will that save lives, many more than rampage killing, or not?

    We all know the answer.

    And I’m stopping here because I don’t think you’re really interested.

    http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/04/13/12_ways_to_use_saul_alinskys_rules_for_radicals_against_liberals/page/full/

    You just want me to waste my breath on you. But, maybe I’m wrong. If I am, you’ll bother to flesh out your arguments. If you don’t, then like all fascists, you are a fraud. I’ll let you figure out what kind of fraud.

    #65/ILC — Levi is as interesting as olive loaf. And thx. I think some schools will quietly install armed guards anyway. Over at B5, it is heartily suggested and I agree, that we hire returning veterans (most of whom do not suffer anything except being resented by ingrates). Ding. Gov Christie is just wrong about that. Kids are not idiots. They see that mostly it’s them who get mowed down, not the adults. They’d love having an armed guard (who looks and acts like a warrior, not a mall cop). They’d be so relieved. And, frankly, stoked.

    #67/NDF — Agreed.

    Merry Christmas all.

    Comment by ignatius — December 23, 2012 @ 4:19 pm - December 23, 2012

  71. #69/NDF, and so it begins. Which is exactly what haters of the republic are after, all the time distracting us with pseudo reasoning and assurances that it isn’t what it appears to be, we mustn’t be paranoid. Uh-huh.

    Comment by ignatius — December 23, 2012 @ 4:57 pm - December 23, 2012

  72. “The fascist [North Dallas Thirty] admits that the fascist [North Dallas Thirty] wants to [misrepresent arguments Passing By never made and ignore the legal enforcement of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution].”

    “Nothing more needs to be said. [Amen to that!]”

    [Ignatious],
    “Seriously? [Seriously]. Rather short list, ain’t it. None of the examples you list are restrictions of lawful conduct. [Consider continuous talking loudly on a cell phone in a cinema--do the owners/others have the right to expect them to quiet down? Why?]”

    “Abortion. Because it is designed do to one thing, and one thing only: kill. And kill only the very, very young. OOOOPS!”
    [If you assume that a fetus is a human being, you are right. If you assume not, you are not right. You assume the thing you wish to prove. Both sides of the abortion do this. Sorry.]

    Comment by Passing By — December 23, 2012 @ 5:59 pm - December 23, 2012

  73. #72/PB: Ridicule/Alinsky Rule #5. If only we didn’t know.

    “[If you assume that a fetus is a human being, you are right. If you assume not, you are not right. You assume the thing you wish to prove. Both sides of the abortion do this. Sorry.]” Alinsky Rule #11.

    What other kind of being is it? Frauds are easy to unmask. FTW.

    Comment by ignatius — December 23, 2012 @ 7:02 pm - December 23, 2012

  74. “The fascist [North Dallas Thirty] admits that the fascist [North Dallas Thirty] wants to [misrepresent arguments Passing By never made and ignore the legal enforcement of the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution].”

    Wrong, fascist liar.

    You want to confiscate all guns from law-abiding citizens, and we have you and your Obama Party on record as saying it.

    You want to confiscate private property from law-abiding citizens, yet refuse, absolutely refuse, to enforce laws against Obama supporters in inner cities who gangbang and use/purchase/sell illegal guns in activities such as Fast and Furious.

    And now you sit here and blather that the Commerce Clause gives the fascist Obama Party the right to completely overrule the Bill of Rights.

    You are a desperate and sick fascist, aren’t you, Passing By? You don’t believe people have the right to do anything with which you disagree. You claim that the Commerce Clause gives the Obama Party the absolute power to rule dictatorially, and that all rights listed in the Constitution are subject to whether or not Barack Obama and the Barack Obama Party decide to grant them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 23, 2012 @ 7:56 pm - December 23, 2012

  75. “Wrong, fascist liar. [North Dallas Thirty]. … we have you on record [lying about me saying] it.”
    “You are a desperate and sick fascist, aren’t you, [North Dallas Thirty]? You don’t believe people have the right to do anything with which you disagree.”

    Comment by Passing By — December 24, 2012 @ 2:16 am - December 24, 2012

  76. NDT. It’s clear that Passing Gas has nothing substantiative to add.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 24, 2012 @ 9:18 am - December 24, 2012

  77. Livewire, that’s been clear from the first time she posted.

    Comment by V the K — December 24, 2012 @ 12:29 pm - December 24, 2012

  78. “NDT. It’s clear that [The_Livewire & V the K have] nothing substantiative to add.”

    Comment by Passing By — December 24, 2012 @ 4:19 pm - December 24, 2012

  79. And isn’t it fun to see that Passing By and the Obama Party are now calling for assassinations.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 24, 2012 @ 7:23 pm - December 24, 2012

  80. “NDT. It’s clear that [The_Livewire & V the K have] nothing substantiative to add.”

    Us Passing Gas, like, eight years old or something?

    Comment by V the K — December 24, 2012 @ 8:02 pm - December 24, 2012

  81. “And isn’t it fun to see that [North Dallas Thirty is lying again].”

    “Us Passing Gas, like, eight years old or something?”

    Comment by Passing By — December 24, 2012 @ 8:37 pm - December 24, 2012

  82. [Is] Passing Gas, like, eight years old or something?

    I was thinking the same thing when I saw that comment.

    Comment by Rattlesnake — December 24, 2012 @ 9:59 pm - December 24, 2012

  83. So, here’s a good question: Are the calls for mental health/defect screening going to lead to the renewal of leftist eugenics in America? How many will be imprisoned because some bureucrat just doesn’t like them? Will women be sterilized again? Cas Sunstein, after all, was a big proponent of forced sterlization and it happened in several US states in the 1930s.

    Comment by Paul — December 25, 2012 @ 1:37 am - December 25, 2012

  84. What I want to know is, if the left enacts legislation preventing anyone who has received mental health counseling from owning a firearm, would that prevent a domestic abuse victim who received counseling from owning a weapon to defend herself from the man who beat her?

    Comment by V the K — December 25, 2012 @ 11:24 pm - December 25, 2012

  85. Good questions both of you.

    Don’t forget the cries from the left that Conservatism is a mental disorder.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 27, 2012 @ 9:32 am - December 27, 2012

  86. Meanwhile, under the First Amendment, a Westchester County newspaper, The Journal News used its Freedom of Information “rights” to target the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    How?

    The Journal News submitted Freedom of Information requests for the names and addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam. By state law, the information is public record. …….

    Then, the Journal News created an interactive map showing each permit holder and when you click on the dot, you get the name of the permit holder and the address.

    The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.

    ….Putnam is still putting together its records and could not immediately provide any data. The map will be updated when that data is released.

    Wow! This real journalism. It is not, of course, an invasion of privacy in any way, whatsoever. Anyone who ever, ever thought that gun registration would help the enemy know exactly where the guns are is still an insane, paranoid lunatic. (Attention Progressive reader: The foregoing statement is pure sarcasm. Now, however, you might understand why gun owners fight the concept of gun registration. Your self-righteous friends at The Journal News have made the point.)

    An abused woman with a licensed pistol who has moved and is in hiding from her abuser is perhaps placed at risk, but the public’s right to know what she has hidden under her bedroom pillow is of far greater importance. (Attention Progressive reader: That is more sarcasm. She has the right to be a lesbian, but not a lesbian with a gun. Clear?)

    If a person has a permit, but has not bought the weapon, well …. intent is 99% of the problem anyway. (Attention Progressive reader: If a person has a permit for a gun, then the person is already guilty. Not having purchased the gun is minor stuff, the big stuff is that the scum-bag thought about buying a gun. Right? It is always the seriousness of the charge that warrants the full investigation, not the facts.)

    Rifles, shotguns, long barrel guns do not require a permit. Maybe, they are not assault weapons. Maybe just pistols are assault weapons. I don’t know, because I can’t think like a Progressive. (Attention Progressive Reader: If I hold a rusty razor blade to your jugular, is it an assault weapon? Then, why, pray tell, did you invent the term assault weapon for some guns, but not all guns?)

    So, now the crooks wanting guns know where there are females with pistols. Or, on the other hand, maybe crooks will just rob the house next door on the assumption that it is a gun-free zone. (Attention Progressive reader: Actions have consequences. Some unintended consequences are worse than the intended actions. Please try to learn to think of more than one plane at a time. OK? Think, for instance, about attacking millionaires over your petty covetousness, greed, cupidity, and small mindedness.)

    And maybe, the crooks will head out to the counties where gun permits are miles apart. (Attention Progressive reader: Do you guys ever have a plan or do you just act on emotional impulse?)

    But in the final analysis, what need to know was the Journal News actually pursuing?

    Now that a blogger has published an interactive map of all the reporters and editors and publisher of The Journal News do you suppose he will be excoriated for violating their rights to privacy?

    How about someone publishing an interactive map on women who have had abortions and how many they have had? After all, these are people who have had to protect their health in extreme ways and some have had to do it more than once. Shouldn’t the public need to know who they are and where they live?

    And, shouldn’t the public also know the names and addresses of women who did not get abortions, but are relying on welfare to raise their children? Since we are trying to bring down the costs of medicine, what better way than to keep women from having babies they can not afford?

    Am I getting any warmer in trying to think like a Progressive?

    Comment by heliotrope — December 27, 2012 @ 5:09 pm - December 27, 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.

0.373 Powered by Wordpress