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
Sippy the Pinhead, Strongarm, et al: each time you voice that “you have to be a member of an organized militia to be covered by the 2nd Amendment” canard, you merely display your ignorance over the legal definition of the term – as well as your ignorance of the English language in general.
Here’s how you demonstrate your ignorance regarding the definition of militia. by Federal law, the US militia is defined (10 USC 311) as all able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 plus all persons who are members of either the Federal Reserves or the National Guard. (Collectively, these latter two form what is defined in Federal law as the “organized militita”.) One is not required to be a member of any organization to be part of the militia; if you’re an able-bodied male between 17 and 45, by Federal law you are – whether you want to be or not. Period.
And in fact, the 2nd Amendment does not even refer to “organized militia”. It merely states the obvious: a militia should be well regulated.
This definition of militia in Federal has remained generally the same since 1792, by the way. The sole changes have been to remove racial and gender exclusions that were present in virtually all laws during Colonial and early US history.
Second: to anyone who can read and understand English, the first part of the 2nd Amendment (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . .”) is clearly a declaration of intent vice an operative definition. I’m always amazed at the number of people who are apparently so unschooled (or so mendacious) as to be unable to recognize and/or acknowledge that fact. But if it makes you feel better, just go ahead and continue deluding yourselves on that point.
So your government can sell illegal weaponry to Mexican cartels, where firearms are illegal, and you trust them with to keep the peace on this side of the fence? Especially when the gun killed an AMERICAN CITIZEN. 4 more AMERICAN CITIZENS were killed in Benghazi, but your biggest worry is if someone has an AR to defend their farm from hogs, wolves, etc.?
You liberals have lost your collective fucking minds, sippy.
Kitchen knives and meat cleavers are similarly not toys, can be deadly, and require training for safe operation, Sippy. How about a legal requirement to (1) produce a certificate of training before buying one, and (2) to register them afterwards? Or maybe chainsaws? Or chlorine bleach? Or Drano? Or ice picks? Or fertilizer and diesel fuel and nails? Or any one of a myriad of other household/otherwise common products that can kill if misused or abused?
Just like firearms, these are all tools. Tools are neither inherently evil or good. They can all be used or abused.
And, to state the obvious: automobiles are indeed required to be licensed and registered, and pre-operation training is required. Yet automobiles kill more people annually than firearms in the US. So it’s rather obvious that registration isn’t exactly a panacea regarding the prevention of deaths from hazardous items.
Your argument is not logical when examined. But I long ago gave up expecting logic from you.
From Federalis # 29- a Well Regulated Militia
“It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority.” (See? Quote!)
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm
So, you’re just wrong when you say the Federalist papers did not describe the Militia as a military body.
@285: First off; you lost the argument by using the Brady Bunch as your source. They are less than truthful and allow a lot of hyperbole and hysteria to infiltrate their “facts”. 1- You have to be 21 to legally purchase a handgun per federal law. 2- I fail to see where your bedwetting diatribe on this means anything at all. 3- You are stating facts that are not in evidence and are disputed, since this is an ongoing case. Your bedwetting bias is showing. I suppose, in your mind, it was proper for Zimmerman to just let Martin beat and possibly kill him, instead? If someone threatens me in public and my life is in danger, I am not going to become a victim. You can if you want to, but I’m not. 4- So, bedwetters like you are threatened by the sight of a gun? How many criminals do you know that open carry? If you look at the Constitution, it doesn’t say anywhere in it, or the Federalist Papers, that you have the “right” to “feel” safe. 5- Have you ever been to a gun show? I didn’t think so. So, what you’re basing your “facts” on is more hyperbole and wishful thinking by your sources. 6- If properly trained teachers or other faculty members had been armed in Newtown, the outcome would probably been different, although I will concede, that is an assumption, same as all the bedwetters assuming many things based on their own bias and fears, not on facts. Everything you have listed is nothing more than an attempt to drum up fear and use emotion based on that fear as the basis for your argument. Nothing you have listed is based on logic or common sense, which is what I expect from anti-gun types. Maybe if we got back to personal responsibility, discipline, and accountability in this country, instead of blaming everything we do wrong on someone or something else, we could actually have less crap like this latest tragedy? The gun is an inanimate object. It has no feelings, no morals, no… Read more »
@348- Linking the article and using quotes from it is fine, as long as they are in quotation marks. Using someone else’s words without proper attribution, wether in a high school report, in a speech, or on a message board, is plagiarism. Just ask Joe Biden about that.
@349- I don’t expect someone to be an expert on something in order to have an opinion about it. I do, however, expect a small ounce of knowledge concerning firearms from the people making laws about them. Just as I would expect the persons writing traffic laws to know a thing or two abnout driving.
Because progressives expect less of your representatives, we get half-wits like Hank “Guam will capcize” Johnson and Alan “runnin’ red lights” Grayson in office.
@354: I never said that the Federalist Papers didn’t describe a militia. I said that there is more in the Federalist Papers THAN a militia. Reading comprehension is your friend.
Aren’t you tired of embarasing yourself, Hondo? As i’ve pointed out in that same law it also uses the term called to service. Plus i’m not getting rid of all guns, i’m advocating responsibility. That if you’re going to have a gun that you should be trained with it. That you should be aware of its dangers. That it should be registered and that you should be required to report it if it is stolen.
Basically i agree with the standpoing of the guy who wrote the article i linked to. The people who want all guns taken away are unreasonable AND the people who see EVERY regulation on guns as this inevitable slippery slope to door to door confiscations are also unreasonable.
348,
There you go projecting again. Only someone with the traits you falsely proscribe to others can go through the immense feat of mental gymnastics it takes to irrationally defame and demonize people who had absolutely nothing to do with a horrific act of pure evil. You want to talk about a “fetish”? Let’s talk about the fetishes of demented vultures who wait breathlessly for every such evil act, only to swoop in for a pound of flesh and use the bodies of the innocent as a bully pulpit for their control freak agendas. Only a sick, pathetic and demented person like yourself could take the selfless sacrificial acts of these teachers, degrade their individual heroism by wrongfully imparting it upon uninvolved third parties based on a single tenuous connection who have not collectively shown this trait, and then suggest that anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t respect or honor their actions.
TL;DR version: Go eat a bowl of dick.
Also, Sippy “the Pinhead” actully was right when he told you that the mandate was a tax and that the SC would affirm the health care law based on that. I recall you were wrong on that one.
You also embarassed yourself when you couldn’t understand how something can be counted as a tax for one statute, but not another. Something so basic in law that you should really of ran with your tail between your legs from all further debate.
Then you embarassed yourself even more when you were incapable of even proving ONE element of fraud when you bloviated that Social Security was a ponzi scheme.
So basically, your cheering section not withstanding, if we were actually to take our debates before any real lawyers or judges, you’d be laughed at. In short, you know nothing about the law, and our quite an ignorant jack ass. But it is amusing to see you flail.
@359- We don’t have to wait very long for such “evil acts” do we? They’re pretty common thanks to so called compassionat conservatives whose only compassion seems to be for guns and sadism. You want a world where people like the killer have nowhere to go because you’ve taken away parity for mental health because- bootstraps. You want a world where pediatricians can’t even warn parents on how to properly store guns (the second amendment is so important we have to destroy the first to save it!). You want a world where the only recourse against the gun is the gun. I reject your world and find that world, and those who advocate it to be sick and demented.
Excuse me when you use the term “bedwetters” are you referring to the 6 and 7 year old victims of this horrible crime or liberals who are trying to stop further “bedwetters” from being shot in their schools?
@354- lol. That piece that you quoted talked about keeping the populace trained, so that when they’re called up to form a militia, they can augment the army’s capacity to fight without much additional training. As in, the people that make up the militia should already have the basics down, like shooting, making a fire, and setting up camps so when they’re pressed into service to serve alongside the army, there is minimal training time needed to make them useful. You’ve no idea what you’re talking about. “It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense.” Means that it doesn’t take an expert to figure out that a baseline knowledge of military matters held by the people within the militia would be most beneficial when they were called upon to serve. I don’t recall what you said you did in the military, but it probably required you to learn how to fire a rifle. This passage means that if folks aready know how to shoot, the feds could skip that part when grabbing conscripts for a militia. ” It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness.” Tey’d be able to shoot straight and set up their own campsites. There would be minimal training required to make them functional on the battlefield. Probably training on rank recognition and marching formations. “This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority.” Means that states shouldn’t have their own rules concerning the preparedness of the populace to form a militia. The feds set the standards, because the feds run the army that the militia would have… Read more »
@381: Where did any of us state that we don’t want to properly store guns in our homes, when children are present? Where have we taken away mental health issues? You are projecting your bias, once again. Saying that our only compassion is guns an sadism? Really? Where the fuck do you disseminate that? You have yet to tie in how a gun causes crime, yet you want to go after the gun immediately as the focus. Why not go after alcohol, since there are more drunk driver caused deaths in this country than by guns shooting innocent victims. Using your logic, we could deduce that if we take away alcohol, then we wouldn’t have drunk drivers out there killing kids on the roads; true?
@362: LOL!! Nice try, dumbfuck. You guys will use anything you think will get an emotional response, because you are driven by emotion and that’s why I call you bedwetters. You live in fear and with the mental and emotional capacity of a 6-7 year old.
Re: 364
that should be @361
OT, let no crisis go to waste. People like instupid do it all the time.
361, you could go read the link I posted at 258 and learn that the facts don’t jive with your self-constructed view of the issue, or you can just keep on keeping on with your puffed-up buffoonery. I’m quite confident that you will take option 2.
As for the field of strawmen you just lit on fire:
1) I’m perfectly fine with mental health as a public health issue, so that the prison system isn’t the only place that deals with these situations. I was a cop for several years and worked in a jail for a time, so I guarantee I’ve dealt with more people that truly needed that needed this sort of help than your ignorant ass.
2) I don’t care if doctors advise this, as long as it isn’t a legal requirement and people who don’t need the lecture can find another doc. If you’re truly concerned about the need for physicians to impart safety wisdom for potentially dangerous tools, lets go whole hog and talk about cars and power tools too. Personally, I’d rather leave a doctor’s time as free as possible to focus on issues actually in their lane. My good friend and shooting range partner is a physician, and he agrees with me here.
3) As soon as strongly worded letters and chocolate chip cookies are demonstrably proven to stop the actions if deranged people or power-hungry tyrants, consider me signed on to the whole “no using the gun as a recourse against the gun” thing. I won’t hold my breath.
Sippy: quit lying and/or attempting to change the subject, dipstick. I said not a single word above about the Federalist papers, and you know that to be fact. In any case, your argument falls in the “true but irrelevant” category. the Federalist Papers were never Federal law. They were arguments produced to justify various points of view by various Founding Fathers. Some of those arguments made it into the Constitution and Federal law; some didn’t. And in point of fact, you’re obviously a bit ignorant of the history of the Federalst Papers and some of the authors. Or, and I suspect more likely, you’re deliberately “cherry picking” quotes out of context to bolster your argument – though it’s also possible you’re ignorant enough you don’t realize that. The Federalist Paper you quote was authored by Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton argued for many things that were never adopted in either the Constitution or Federal law. He actually argued at the Constitutional Convention in favor of making the office of President “for life”. He also produced a draft Constitution (never presented for debate) that would have in fact made both the President and US Senators lifetime offices. By most of the other Founding Fathers, he was considered somewhat of a monarchist and an advocate for dangerously big central government. It does not surprise me that Hamilton would argue in favor for a large, Federally-controlled organized militia. And in fact, the Constitution adopted part of what Hamilton proposed, while explicitly rejecting establishing a Federal militia. Though the Constitution does not create any Federal militia, it does authorize Congress to prescribe “organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States (emphasis added), reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress”. The Constitution also gives Congress the power to prescribe for calling forth the militia. Both authorities may be found in Article 1, Section 8, US Constitution. The Congress further clarified the situation in 1792… Read more »
Stupid iPad autocorrect garbled a few things on my last comment, but the point came across.
So, I see that after I retired for the night, John Cole’s worldwide fan club turned into…………drum roll…… INSIPID. Bwahahahahahahahahah.
I guess Sippy the Pinhead thinks Paul Krugman is an idiot, too – since Krugman appears to have publicly stated that Social Security has “Ponzi game aspects” and that “the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics”.
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR21.6/krugmann.html
Not to mention the fact that Social Security does indeed seems to meet several other definitions of “Ponzi scheme”:
http://www.verumserum.com/?p=28975
The sole reason Social Security is legal is because the Federal government passed a law allowing the Federal government to do it. If any private entity tried to do the same, those responsible would end up in cells next to Bernie Madoff.
“If there was any justice in the world, Wayne LaPierre would choke to death on filet mignon at
the next NRA fundraiser.”
Hear, hear! It looks like the real world broke into your gun fantasies, guys. Just for a bit. Surprised no one’s been shot yet 🙂
Fucking hippie shit everywhere.
@347 Hondo–congrats–you win 10 Internets.
Also the primary reason I hate going to the dentist to this day. Not that I DON’T go, trolls–I just don’t LIKE to go.
Please explain to me why you think you need things like high capacity magazines or automatic or semi-automatic weapons?
Zombies, man. They’re fuckin coming.
Jonn, at least TAH’s lawn should be really green next spring. (smile)
You don’t even know what a hippie is. I went to Vietnam three times as a volunteer (1967–71).
Three times in my life I have had a handgun pulled and pointed at me, close up. The first was at age 15. Each time I faced the gun nut down, that first time he forgot I was holding a garden hose in my hand, and he got soaked.
If I’d had a gun in my hand, he might have been dead. Ditto the other two assholes, who backed down when I didn’t.
At least it’s been confined to one stall, Jonn.
You’re quite a lucky guy, Calhoun. But you’re pushing the odds. You might not want to count on being that lucky again in the future.
Having a knife – or a water hose – when your opponent has a gun is not exactly a long-term winning strategy.
“I went to Vietnam three times as a volunteer (1967–71).” Photojournalism doesn’t count.
“You don’t even know what a hippie is.” Med issues?
Hey hippies and Balloon Knots,…
If I punched you in the face, would you blame me, or my fist?
Would it make my fist an “assault fist”?
What if I punched you in the face repeatedly in a fast manner?
Would it be a “high capacity” fist?
#377 Those are hippies, they smell similar, but are less producti-… Nevermind.
@345: Just because you don’t want “high capacity magazines” doesn’t mean you have the right to tell anyone else they can’t have them. If you are a shooter, as you claim, then your description of guns that “shoot really fast” is a really stupid statement. Semi-automatic is just that. There are a lot of hunting rifles that are semi-automatic, so I will pose the question to you; why do you need a semi-automatic, that shoots really fast, for hunting? Why do you need more than a single shot rifle for hunting? The thing is; it’s not about hunting and never has been. That you are fixated on what you perceive to be the issue shows that you aren’t at all what you say you are. If you were versed on firearms, you would know that there is a big difference between arms and explosives. That you mention the same old tired mantra framed as common sense shows that you haven’t the foggiest idea about the difference. If you want to own a cannon; go ahead, but good luck finding ammunition for it. Plus, if the round has any explosives in it, it isn’t considered an “arm”, anymore, but rather an explosive. Your argument falls flat on the face of it.
JP, you simply would not be able to. Pretty confident about that 🙂 I’m in pretty good shape for 65.
“Photojournalism doesn’t count.” We sure can count on you guys for the ad hominen. It’s your first reaction. Part of how you stay so isolated from reality, shooting (ahem) the messengers 🙂
“LTC Dave Grossman had it right in “On Combat.” Guns=loud=scary. Guns are no more or less deadly than knives or bats, they are just louder and scarier.”
Guns are not just “louder and scarier”, douchebag. Try killing 27 people with a knife or a gun and see how far that gets you. Guns can kill more people faster than any other weapon civilian citizens might have–aside, maybe, from some kind of bomb–and they can kill from farther away. You can’t beat somebody to death with a baseball bat or stab them to death from across the room, let alone from hundreds of feet.
You people really are beyond help. You’re so fucking scared of every little thing. As John Cole put it at his blog, you’re scared to go shopping without your guns. You’re scared to go to church without your guns. You really are the biggest pussies on God’s green Earth. It must be sad to be you. But as sorry as I feel for you, well, still, fuck all of you.
@387…
It was a rhetorical question, I didn’t really expect any of you to get it.
@379: Good for you. I have actually been shot. I have also been stabbed. I have been in car accidents and have permanent hardware in my body. I, also, have permanent remnants of being shot. And yet, with all of that, I still don’t see the need to ban high speed cars (you really don’t need a high speed car), knives, or guns.
Nice visiting your tribe. Bye now.
@389: Nice retort, there, sport. Fuck you very much. When you or your boyfriend are getting your ass kicked and robbed, just remember that you are holding the moral high ground. And please don’t come back with the usual “I’m in really good shape, so I ain’t worried about getting beat up”, because you ain’t all that.
Ok who hurt the dentist’s feelings? I bet someone’s gettin a fucked up root canal because of this douche bucket’s anger issues.
@392: What’s wrong? Are you not able to have a reasonable discussion like you came here pretending to wanted? Is it because you are reacting with emotion versus logic and common sense? That tells me all I needed to know about you.
* forgot to add “have” in between to and wanted.
Sippy was up all night bitch slapping anyone who disagreed with him about anything he/she/it said?
Wow. Either Sippy’s unemployed and now has too much time on his/her hands or the acid indigestion that comes from being a harpy overpowered the box of baking soda in the kitchen cupboard.
It was amazing, the amount of sheer hatred that generated Strongarm’s vilification of people who disagree with him: “you cellar-dwelling, cheeto-addicted weirdos”. That doesn’t make any sense, since no one who usually visits here lives in a basement, not even Sippy. And Cheet-ohs? Must have been out of his favorite food.
And then he quotes two of Rupert Murdoch’s tabloids, not the original sources that I used, one of which is from a local TV station, and by local, I mean the Chicago area, which is where I live. The worst quote is from WND, an online tabloid which has been sued for libel and lost, and has routinely made false statements to generate PR for itself.
And then instupid charges in and spends the entire night in a bitch-slapping contest over words, words, words.
WAYYYY too much time on Sippy’s hands. Sippy should put more time into finding a job.
Pretty good shape for 65 means you don’t shit in a bag Terry. Nothing to brag about really…
Your rant (and particularly your obsession with Cole’s referring to magazines as “ammo clips”) would have carried a lot more weight if you could spell Beretta correctly.
Damn, Zap–you might wanna hit the nitrous this morning. You seem to be wound up awful tight.
Actually, I had more issues with his characterization of Camp Doha as the most dangerous place on earth in 1991 & 1992. Grafenwoehr was more dangerous than Camp Doha. And, yes, me misspelling an Italian word carries a lot of weight in this discussion. Hippies everywhere.
Fuck, from the people I know who were at Doha in the early 90’s, it sounds like Guam was a more dangerous place at that time.
Finally, pay the spelling Nazis no mind–and no, hippies, Godwin’s Law was not just officially invoked.