Idiots in the gun control debate
Yeah, I’ve read some real stupid shit in teh interwebz today in regards to gun control, but this one just deserved a public answer. It’s from some shithole called Balloon Juice written by a guy named John Cole who explains that he was supposedly in the 11th ACR stationed at Camp Doha between the wars with Iraq;
So why am I telling you this? Because in the middle of one of the most dangerous regions in the world, even with clear Rules of Engagement, every time I went on gate duty, there was a piece of tape over my ammo clip on my M-16 and M1911 .45. Why? Because the most heavily armed military in the world did not want accidental shootings. If a situation arose, I would have to eject my ammo clip, remove the tape, and reinsert and work the action before I could fire.
This was in a combat zone. Yet I have spent the last two fucking days dealing with armchair commandos telling me they need unlimited firepower to be safe in… Connecticut.
If there are bigger pussies in the world than gun nuts, I don’t know who the fuck they are.
So, because he was such an incompetent boob that he needed to have his ammo taped in his magazine, gun nuts are pussies – yeah, I don’t see the connection either. Besides, he calls them “ammo clips” – who, with more than a day in the Army, calls box magazines “ammo clips”? So, I’m thinking that John Cole was a cook, or anything except someone his unit would allow to guard something. And, I’m pretty sure that between the Iraq Wars, the Army was using 9mm Barettas and not the M1911A1 .45 cal pistol.
And the reason any magazines were taped wasn’t to prevent the ammunition from loading. The Army did that when ammunition was passed between guard shifts for accountability. But, of course, any dingus who thought they’re called “ammo clips” wouldn’t know that.
So why do I call Balloon Juice a shit hole? Because all of their writers are gun grabbing facists, apparently. They write shit like this;
Bernard Finel: If it were in my power, I’d seize every fucking firearm in the country other than revolvers, shotguns, and bolt-action rifles and melt them all down.
mistermix: If you must own an AR-15 or Bushmaster or AK-47, it should stay locked in your personal gun cabinet at the range, never to leave. If you change ranges, a bonded courier can take it to the new one. The same is true of the high-capacity clips for your Glock, your 100-round drum magazines, and all the other expensive toys that let you bang off a couple of dozen rounds in a minute. Yeah, that’s expensive and a nuisance. So are the laws surrounding other potentially unsafe pursuits.
Mistermix, my Glock uses high capacity magazines, not clips. The ammunition for my M4 is in clips until I put the bullets in the magazine. If you’re going to talk the language of gun control, learn the language of guns first.
After posting the Wikipedia entry for events leading up to the UK’s gun ban, Imani Gandy (ABL) posts this;
Am I suggesting that we ban handguns? No, not really. I am suggesting we have a sensible discussion about gun-control laws that leads to, as President Obama put it, meaningful action.
If you weren’t suggesting that we ban guns, why did you have to tell us that the UK banned guns because of an incident somewhat similar to Sandy Hook? Every leftist gun grabbing fascist on the internet is talking about “a sensible discussion”, but their discussion of a sensible discussion is senseless.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Wow, such an unreasonable fear of firearms…
@299
Oklahoma City Bombings…No gun
9/11-No gun.
Mad men will find a way to murder you without a gun. The liberal illogic: A murderer is going to respect a gun law.
Where we can come together, Melle is on mental illness. I actually think the mental health parity in the PPACA is a good first step.
I also think another step is to inform people that are depressed or who are around people that are depressed- like the mother to NOT have guns in the house. The first question asked at a suicide hotline is “do you have a gun?” Can’t we ask that question BEFORE it gets to that point. I mean if we can warn parents about keeping cleaning products out of the reach of children can’t we warn people about keeping guns away from the clinically depressed?
@300
It isn’t about firearms. It is about them feeling good about something that makes them sad. You don’t see the same people ranting about the treatment of mental illness. You don’t see the same people calling for a ban on abortion; they consider that a right even though that takes a life so no ban. Because they don’t care about this right; they don’t care if it gets banned. And if they can feel good about themeselves in the process- you have a recipe for liberal self esteem.
Sure, beacuse over dosing, hanging themselves or cutting their wrists is a much more acceptable way of committing suicide. /Sarcasm
@302 I absolutely agree Insipid.
I also think (although the msm is largely inaccurate) based on what I have read that if I was the mother of this child, I would have removed my guns from the home- and gotten him some help.
That being said, no legislation would have stopped this. That would need to come from personal responsibility. You would have to open up people’s medical records to background check(ACLU would be all over that) and that still wouldn’t have precluded the mother from getting the guns. She wasn’t mentally ill.
Yes, and after Oklahoma city it became impossible for the average guy to buy fertilizer like that and since then, no more Oklahoma cities.
For the life of me i can’t understand this “can’t do attitude”. That unless if we can solve ALL problems in ALL instances we should solve NO problems.
I remember when New York City was one of the most violent cities in the world. Now it’s one of the most peaceful. Like it or not, a big part of that is extremely strict gun laws. Did they stop ALL murder there? No, but they stopped a lot. In fact they stopped most. So you want the perfect being the enemy of the good?
@286- I have a feeling some of the people trolling here would be the same ones to claim that “the Taliban are kicking your asses with stone-age weapons, just like the VietCong lolz” when they want to rile us up (you may not be one of those people, in which case, try not to take offense to what I’m saying). It does rile us up, however, because it is partially true. Rules and regulations keep our forces from unleashing hell on foreign populations, so asymmetrical warfare is the way to go. Terrorist groups and armies of other countries have understood that since Giap pointed that out to them. Yet somehow you think our government, whose soldiers are volunteer citizens of this country, would use A-10s and drones and tanks against their own population indiscriminately? You think a pilot from NY would drop bombs in NY without questioning that order? As for the rest- as a resident of NY, I saw what they’ve done to cigarette smokers here. They’ve criminalized legal behavior to the point that it has developed a black market for a legal substance. People are being killed and arrested over cigarettes. Police departments and state agencies are wasting tax revenue developing task forces to stomp out the smuggling of black market cigarettes. A legal substance. It’s asinine. Imagine what will happen with firearms. It’s for that reason that I won’t give them one fucking inch on firearms. Not one. I don’t want to see incrimental adjustments to what constitutes “sensible regulation”, until only those who can afford to pay the annual registration fees or $500/box ammunition taxes are the ones who have them. I don’t want my state to waste tax revenue on crack-down teams for something that is not only legal, but a constitutionally protected right. I don’t want to see an increase of black-market weapons and ammunition trafficking. I don’t want to see the deaths that would occur as a result. What happened to those children is a shame, and we should do everything to prevent another tragic event from happening. But we should not disrgard… Read more »
What the hell are you talking about Melle? We talk about mental illness all the time. In fact we do more than talk about it, we did something about it. Mental illness now has parity in the PPACA. This is perhaps the most crucial first step in recognizing schizophrenia, bipolar disease and clinical depression as diseases. Plus if you tune into ANY Sunday show you’ll see liberals talking about mental illness as much as gun control.
What we don’t like is your insistance that we should just accept this as the new reality.
@306 Not everyone lives in NYC where the police force is 5 minutes away. People live in rural areas where the police force is 45 minutes away. In Kentucky, there are families that rely solely on hunting to get their meat.
Life is not always like it is in the big city.
The only way that you would have stopped this tragedy is to ban all guns(not possible or Constitutional), and even then- that is theoretical-because someone who murders little children isn’t going to let a pesky gun law get in his way of getting a gun.
I personally don’t own a gun. I have a thirteen year old son who has been to gun safety classes, but I don’t feel is responsible to have access to guns- so I choose not to have one. That does not mean that I don’t support the RIGHT to own a firearm.
@308 Do you talk about mental illness or do you just medicate it? Do you support long term institulization of those that won’t take their meds?
You might find this hard to believe, but many people do not read the phrase “well regulated militia” and hear “I can own as many fucking guns as I want and it is a constitutional right”. I completely disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment and think that the language is extremely clear that it was not meant for individuals to be armed to the teeth with personally owned weapons meant for fighting armies.
As for your asymmetrical warfare comment, how about we don’t invade other countries? How would you react if Iranian armies were raiding your town and killing your neighbors? If you fought them and they called you a “terrorist”, would that make a difference?
Spare me the libertarian diatribe. If you want to shoot up heroin, go at it. If you want to smoke in your home, fine. But I’m not going to accept the idea that i can’t walk into a restaraunt without breathing poison. And i also don’t accept the notion that nothing can be done about guns.
Plus its by no means a “constitutionally protected right”. The “right” has always been dependent upon serving in a militia, up until the idiot Scalia and company changed 200 years of precedent. Small wonder the guy can’t tell the difference between murder and gay marriage.
Strongarm you silly person, America did not have a standing army at that time. Do you understand that the founding fathers meant for American citizens to spontaneously form an army, with their OWN weapons, in a time of war?
In fact, Americans were meant to be armed with personally owned weapons meant for fighting armies. That was exactly the reality.
@312 Please read the second amendment and note the placement of the comma.. Better yet, read some of the founders actual commentary on it. Start with Madison and Henry and work your way out from there…
Funny how YOU can find the right to gay marriage in the Constitution, but the right to bear arms which is listed as plain as day “shall NOT BE INFRINGED” suddenly is negotiable.
@311 Well then your interpretation is completely at odds with the founders. Take my advice and actually read some of their works.. mmkay.
It’s funny because the “well-regulated militia” is supporting reasoning to the right to bear arms, but you’d think from reading some of these comments that all we have is a right to form a militia.
(By the way, liberals like the ones running the SPLC are the first to cry about “dangerous” “radical” militias. In fact, if you let a liberal know that you belong to one, they will get the shivers right then and there.)
Yoshi you make absolutely zero sense. Thanks for the two sentence history lesson, so very informative. Now that we have a standing army, I guess there’s no reason for personal weapons? Or do you reserve the right to fight against the US Army? Should you be allowed to have a tank? Fighter jets and attack helis? Nukes? Where’s the line? After all, the 2nd amendment just says “Arms” and you don’t want that limited to muskets, do you? Fuggin nut job. I hope you don’t have any kids, because they’ll probably end up as the next Adam Lanza.
@insipid, ever heard of a non-smoking section?
@315: You have 4 years to wait out Scalia not croaking on the bench, otherwise your “constitutional right” will be interpreted like it was for 200 years prior: you can’t own any fucking weapon you want.
And your argument coming down to the placement of a comma? LOLLLLOOLLL!!! “well regulated militia” “i can have as many death toys as I want”
@317
Defense of self and Defense of Property were considered by the founders natural rights… And by the way, if the founders “meant” state militias which are in fact run by states then why would they have to put the second clause in there? “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Why would a state infringed on its own militia..?
And if we want to limit “arms” to the equivalent of today’s musket (used back then by the Army) then everyone would have an M-16 rifle.
I mean how absurd is that line of thinking. What you are saying is that the founders never envisioned the internet, television etc., so your first amendment right is restricted to a parchment and quill pen.
Strongarm, tell me if you think a tank is a personal infantry weapon. Or a nuke. Please. The slippery slope argument is merely a talking point for those who haven’t done the due diligence.
In case I didn’t make that clear, let me repeat: there is no traction with claiming the legalizing of a typical rifle will lead to the legalization of tanks.
@ progressive dipshits-
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.
The word I put in all caps appears frequently in the bill of rights. Am I to believe that, in only this one instance, it means something else?
Because anyone with their heads out of their asses would interpret that to mean the PEOPLE can keep and bear arms, because the people would form the well-regulated militia. The same PEOPLE whose government cannot tell them to worship a chosen god. The same PEOPLE who have the right to peaceably assemble. The same PEOPLE who are protected against illegal search and siezure.
Explain to me why, in just that one ammendment, the word “people” means something different.
And no, insipid, you don’t have the “right” to be in a smoke-free restaurant. A restaurant should be smoke free if the owner wants it to be. Don’t like it? Don’t eat there.
But it’s not about that with you lot, is it?
@295 I fear you are correct. Not to sure what the answer is for America as you are always going to have ~.001% of the population who are willing to do something as crazy as what has recently transpired, no matter what country you live in.
@319 Convenient way to gloss over the founder’s writings…
Typical liberal thought…the comma is sooooo tiny…it must not mean anything!
(there is also the founders’ writings on their intent, of course)
@322
You are forgetting for modern day liberal “people” now means the government. 🙂 For example, ” them people are going to pay for my car payment.” “Them people are going to pay for my welfare.”
If you aren’t a member of a “well organized militia” then you should have no right to a weapon. Yes, people make up a militia. So you, as a person who wants a weapon, need to join the national guard if you have to get your gun fetish on. Freaks infatuated with, and insecure without, their guns is disturbing. No wonder we have so many of these tragedies in this country. The 2nd amendment crazies and their subversion of our culture with their love of violence is to blame for all this violence. Guns are made for one purpose, killing. Why do you love death? Does the blood of 20 children on your hands not give you pause?
You’re acting as if the only part of the Constitution that mentions the Militia is the second amendment. The Constitution also mentions it in article one section 8:
“To provide for organizing arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; — Article 1, Section 8, Constitution of the United States”
Unless if you can show me a piece of paper that can show me that you’re “employed in the service of the United States” and that you’re subject to military discipline and military rank, you’re NOT part of the militia.
And i know you’re going to come up with a lot of dumb-ass quotes, mostly from anti-federalists, stating what the founders “really” meant. I’m not interested. This is the PLAIN language of the Constitution which CLEARLY states that the militia is an organized, military body. Not some yahoos in a pick up truck.
While it’s true that there was no standing army at the time, it’s also true that the militia of the Constitution was thought of as a MILITARY body. Unless if you’re willing to concede that the President can call up ANY gun-owner at will to fight in any war he chooses- a power the constitution clearly gives the President the right to do to the “militia” then you must concede that the militia of the Constitution is a military body.
@327- there you go again, being an ignorant douche. I own a hammer, but I’m not a carpenter. I have wrenches, but I’m not a mechanic. I have an AR, but I’m not a mass-murderer. Nor am I crazy.
Also, the weapons used by the national guard are kept by the state, not the people. Or am I to believe that you have to join the national guard if you want to peaceably assemble as well, you fucking idiot?
@327
Now you have really jumped the shark.. You aren’t very bright, and so you go all emotional blackmail and demonization… Face it, you don’t know the founders writings and are wrong about their intent.
You would get more respect from me if you were just honest and said that you really don’t care that it is a Constitutional Right.
BTW,are you an abortion supporter? Bet you are.. Bet you think that is a right and guess what that sole purpose is? mmmmm Killing..
@327 & 328
How can both of you be so illiterate about the Constitution and the founders. Get off the talking points, put down the koolaid, get off the leftist blogs and read some of the founders original works. (Not what some leftist Professor etc. tells you it said.)
Please point out where in this sentence it requires me to be a member of a “well organized militia” to peacefully assemble:
“the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
Oh, right, it doesn’t. That language is reserved EXCLUSIVELY to bear arms. No well organized militia — no arms.
You know what, better yet look up the earlier drafts of the 2nd amendment and why they were rejected.
@328- Article 1 Section 8 says congress has the ability to call forth the militia, and also to organize, arm, and form the militia. They can also form armies, and a navy. I wonder… what is the difference between the army and the militia? Could it be that the militia are… regular people? The same people who, previously stated, have the right to keep and bear arms?
With what, pray tell, would the militia train with prior to getting their federal weapons? Why would the militia be a different entity than the army, if not because of their status as citizens and not government property? Or are you now arguing that only militia members are considered people, because the government gave them their arms that they have a right to bear and keep?
@332- you’re not that stupid, are you?
Explain to me the difference in the definition of the word “people” in the second ammendment as compared to all of the others. Why does the word “people” in the 2nd ammendment mean something different to you than the word “people” in, say, the first ammendment?
Also, if the militia is considered a government body by you guys, then why would there need to be an ammendment in the bill of rights protecting their right to keep and bear a federally owned firearm?
Yup, right alongside the ability to worship whatever you want, criticize the powers that be, and the right to not have your property stolen by the government, they’re listing the ability to keep and bear arms that the government gives you upon joining the militia. DERP.
Does that mean I get a shiny new A4W reactor plant to play with, courtesy of Uncle Sam? Or will they just give me an entire Nimitz-class carrier that I can keep and bear?
The foundere HAD gund control laws, Melle. They had laws mandating that you had to have a gun, you had to have it inspected and you had to have it registered. We’ve had gun control laws since the founding of our country. The idea that the founders believed guns could not be regulated, in fact well regulated, is a fiction.
Not only did the founders have gun control laws, but in some places in the country it was a major felony for certain people- slaves or women to own guns. It was also illegal for law-abiding white men who did not swear loyalty to the revolution to own guns.
The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
If you want to submit to registration and yearly inspections, that is fine with me. It was certainly fine with the founding fathers.
280,
You’ve finally said one honest thing in your laughable and pathetic tenure as a commenter here, Sippy. You aren’t interested in any reasoned conversation. You never were, and for a few hours at least you have a small gaggle of likeminded oxygen thieves with which to share your intellect-free written diarrhea.
Take your phony indignation, take the false premise that your line of thinking is the only one capable of sympathy and compassion, and cram it right up your ass.
“The fear inspired by black people with guns also led the United States Congress to consider new gun restrictions, after the summer of 1967 brought what the historian Harvard Sitkoff called the “most intense and destructive wave of racial violence the nation had ever witnessed.” Devastating riots engulfed Detroit and Newark. Police and National Guardsmen who tried to help restore order were greeted with sniper fire. ”
From insipid’s article. Proof that gun control activists are fucking racist pricks. Also, I’d like to point out that insipid is plagiarizing from the article. Used two whole paragraphs of it before posting the link in #339.
insipid- with all the “this is what the founding fathers meant” talk you’re doing, are you suggesting that Obama pass a law requiring everyone to purchase a gun or else face a fine? Because I’m down with that, but it doesn’t seem like something you’d dig.
Please explain to me why you think you need things like high capacity magazines or automatic or semi-automatic weapons? Certainly not for hunting. Nor for self-defense. Wouldn’t a normal handgun, shotgun, or rifle be sufficient to defend your home or property against a hostile intruder? Perhaps you want it for the sport of target shooting. Do you really think that it makes any sense that society as a whole should be put in more danger because a tiny fraction of the population can’t get their jollies by shooting a regular gun at stuff, they need one that shoots really fast, and for a ludicrously long time. Seriously, how pathetically self involved are you that you think something as frivolous as being able to shoot really quickly or for an extended period of time before you have to reload trumps the ability for others to not have these things easily accessible to the population at large. I actually enjoy target shooting, but don’t see the need for the kind of weapons or accessories that people seem to defend as sacred. Finally, perhaps you think you may need these things in case the gov’t ever turns ugly, and you need to fight back with more advanced weaponry. Fair enough, I actually think that the folks that wrote the second amendment saw this, as well as outside invasion as a possibility. However, if this is your position then let me point out that it wasn’t about bearing guns, it was about bearing arms. At the time this included the most up to date weaponry. Many people at the time owned their own cannons, particularly those that owned ships, so they could protect their interests from privateers. So, if that is what the 2nd amendment is about, should everyone be allowed to own RPG’s or tanks, or SAM’s? Should a private citizen be allowed to keep anthrax, or even nukes? Because those are the arms of today. Does everyone have a right to “bear” arms or not? If you say that people shouldn’t be able to have such weapons, then you really don’t believe… Read more »
You first.
Explain to me why you need Twitter, Facebook or even the internet as a whole in order to exercise your 1st Amendment rights (If you’re a US citizen that is). The founding fathers never imagined a scenario where anyone’s writing could instantly reach someone on the other side of the world, and even incite mass violence or cause terrible tragedies with false or inflammatory information. With your logic, it’s perfectly reasonable to think that you can exercise your free speech rights just fine by talking on a street corner, or going to the time preferred method of ink and quill.
Get back to me on those points when you’re done lighting that field of strawmen you set up and doused with linguistic gasoline in your last comment.
@342- try paragraphs. Also, I’m not entirely convinced that I should be letting people who can’t tell the difference between a machine gun and a rifle write gun laws for me. Just like I don’t want someone reffing the superbowl who thinks scoring a home run on fourth down from the red line is possible. Call me crazy, but I believe “reasonable” gun control laws, written by people who have no fucking clue about firearms, would turn out to not be reasonable at all.
The 1994 “assault weapons ban”, for instance, banned cosmetic features of certain guns. Bayonet lugs, flash suppressors, pistol grips, etc. None of those devices make a firearm less deadly. It’s like banning the use of spoilers on those Japanese import cars. You could still own an AK-47, as long as you bought the furniture to make it look like an SKS. There was no ban on the rifle itself, just on all the stuff that made it look scary to ignorant lawmakers. Ridiculous, yet many people considered that to be “reasonable”, because they have no fucking clue about the subject that they’re legislating.
I live in NY. High capacity magazines are illegal here. NYC still sees more than it’s share of murders. Shall we ban all box magazines now?
Even the LAPD was horribly outgunned in the North Hollywood shootout of 1997, so much to the point they had to borrow high powered weapons and high capacity “clips” from a local gun shop. The world is not a nice place, never really has been. Turning your head/burying it in the sand and repeating over and over “it just ain’t so” whilst dreaming of skittle farting unicorns and chocolate rivers with a chorus of singing ladybugs won’t change a thing, any more than the false notion that choosing to become a victim will somehow gain you moral superiority. Criminals don’t follow laws, that’s why they’re called criminals. Gun control will only diminish a law abiding citizen’s ability to defend him or herself against better armed criminals. Think it’s the same old rhetoric, well the theatre in Colorado, Virginia Tech, the school in CT were all “gun free zones”. I honestly think some of you believe anyone carrying a weapon into a so called gun free zone will instantly vaporize. Trust me, I’ve heard crazier shit from some of you folks. But I digress. Law abiding citizens will follow such a sign. Criminals, well, we’ve all seen the result of putting our faith in a fucking sign.
NHSparky: the “Iz it zafe” quote is from the Gell? Zell? character in Marathon Man. He repeated the question at intervals as he was torturing a guy via drilling his teeth without anesthetic in order to elicit info from him.
Geez – teh stoopid was strong on the interwebz last night, and paid us multiple visits.
But I have to give Sippy the Pinhead kudos; he did come up with a novel bit of lunacy. I do believe that’s the first time I’ve ever seen governmental abuses from the pre-Constitutional era of US history actually used to justify undercutting the Bill of Rights – which was adopted precisely due to fears about such governmental abuses in the future. Making that argument is semantically equivalent to arguing that “the British used to prosecute people for treason for insulting the king, so we need to change the definition of treason in the Constitution to allow prosecution for treason for insulting Federal officials today.”
Bravo, Sippy. New and ludicrous idiocy is always entertaining.
@312: “Plus its by no means a “constitutionally protected right”. The “right” has always been dependent upon serving in a militia, up until the idiot Scalia and company changed 200 years of precedent.”
The usual response about the Constitution from the anti-gunners is a tired and disproved argument. If you were to go further into it, you would see in the Federalist Papers, you know, the ones that explain the language of the Constitutional Amendments, that it did not just cover militias. By your standard, abortion is illegal, because it isn’t covered in the Constitution, either, as a right. So, no, you are wrong, as usual, no matter whether you think it has been settled law for 200 years. The next tired, lame, argument would be “it only covers muskets”. Well, the 1st Amendment doesn’t cover radio, tv, telephones, or the internet; so according to that logic, none of those mediums are protected vehicles for free speech, either. Also, in the 1st Amendment, schools aren’t mentioned as being Congressional departments that make law, so praying in school, or having the Ten Commandments or Nativity Scenes displayed isn’t covered since Congress isn’t recognizing it as official State religion; correct?
I know that it sucks for you that you don’t even understand the Constitution and your arrogance insures that you never will.
@341- generally speaking if I link to something after I wrote something it is precisely BECAUSE i “lifted” it. Generally speaking we don’t use words like “plagiarism” on a message board anyway. It’s a message board, not a treatise. At the most you can accuse me of not using quotation marks correctly.
Even my harshest critics here would have a hard time maintaining that i don’t give my sources. In fact, probably the criticism raised against me the most is that my sources are all supposedly “liberal” (another name for not-right-wing-propoganda)
@340- It’s not “phony indignation” it’s very real. And yes, i do firmly believe that you do not give a shit about those kids or the “Union thugs” who gave their lives protecting them. I believe all you care about is your guns. You’re not protecting your right, you’re protecting your fetish. You’re sick, pathetic and demented.
Well you PLEASE stop it with the idiotic talking-point that you have to be complete experts on munitions in order to have an opinion about guns.
People have opinions on all sorts of things without being an expert on it. They have opinions about abortions without knowing the first thing about the female body as is evidenced by former Cognressmen Akin and Walsh, much less on how to perform and abortion, people have opinions about violence in movies and music without knowing how to record a song or film a movie, people have opinions on nuclear arms without being able to explain nuclear physics.
We know that guns kill about 9k people a year and that very few of those people are killed while committing crimes.
I do actually recognize that gun confiscation is impossible. However, i, and the founding fathers, did believe that gun ownership entailed some responsibilities. I don’t think registration is unreasonable, i don’t think training is unreasonable. It’s a deadly weapon, not a toy, and people should be aware of the dangers of this weapon and how to use it and when you should NOT have it in your house. I don’t need to know the type of steel in each model in order to have an opinion that they should be treated with care.