False choices
There was a dipshit convergence in New York City today when the self-proclaimed smartest man on the planet teamed up with the biggest crybaby nanny on the planet – Joe Bite-Me and Michael Bloomberg met the families of Newtown once again for another gruesome press conference. From the Washington Times;
“For all those who say we shouldn’t and can’t ban assault weapons, for all of those who say the politics is too hard — how can they say that?” Mr. Biden said. “When you take a look at those 20 beautiful babies and what happened to them, and those six teachers and administrators.”
[…]
“For all those who say we shouldn’t or couldn’t ban high-capacity magazines, I just ask them one question — think about Newtown,” he said. “Tell me how it violates anyone’s constitutional right to be limited to a clip that holds 10 rounds instead of 30, or in Aurora, a hundred. This is a false choice being presented to the American people by those who are taking on our position here. Look, folks, we have a responsibility to act.”
Wanna talk false choices, Joe? You’ve already admitted that a scary-looking gun ban will accomplish nothing, that a ban wouldn’t make us safer, that the only reason you’re pushing for disarming law abiding Americans is because you feel a need to “do something” – your words, you ignorant little toad.
Then they drag out the families of the victims, like this Neil Heslin who lost his son in the carnage at Newtown;
“No child deserves to be murdered, brutally slaughtered the way these children were”.
And those of us who oppose the ban on guns just because their appearance scares some people aren’t saying that they deserved their fates. Neither do the millions of law abiding gun owners who don’t commit these terrible crimes deserve to be punished for the acts of a handful of criminals. It’s intellectually vacant to conflate legal gun owners with the criminals and to insinuate that eventually all of our guns are going to jump out of our safes and start indiscriminately killing children.
The false choices are those choices being offered by the Gun-Grabbing Fascists to mollify the perpetually frightened and the ignorant.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
So more guns aren’t the answer but you want special people protected with them.
@47 You have a point about the “lightening rod” effect. But the criminal element will not go away because guns have been outlawed. The criminals, whether sane or not, will have guns. There can never be enough police, or even military, to stop armed criminals. We put some in jail, but again, there can never be enough jails, either. So that leaves an unarmed populace at the mercy of armed criminals.
Why don’t we just ask the bad guys to not do any murders, rapes or robberies? Seems to work for the Demolibs. /sarc off
You didn’t answer NR Pax’s question, Joe. You sidestepped it. How about answering the question.
Are you OK with ordinary people being murdered because they don’t have the means to defend themselves, while allowing the “high and mighty” or “public figures” the tools to protect themselves?
PintoNag: gentleness is one thing. Pacifism is quite another.
Gentleness is laudable, under appropriate circumstances. I hold that pacifism shows either detachment from reality or a latent suicide wish. Or perhaps both.
Whether Joe realizes it or not, he’s arguing the pacifist position. That POV works great in a convent or monastery. It doesn’t work so good in the other 99.44% of the real world.
@47 So your answer to the fact that violence is getting worse is to disarm everyone? Sparky said it earlier, CRIMINALS DON’T GIVE A F**K ABOUT THE LAWS! All this will do, is make it easier for them to commit crimes.
And as to your arguement that due to their position and exposure, that means that politicians are entitled to have weapons? Sounds like this old quote: “One man with a gun can control 100 without one”. Lenin would definitely approve of this.
You’re right people are tired, they are tired of criminals getting away with murder, literally in some cases, with a slap on the wrist.
How about we actually show criminals that there are consequences to their actions, and actually clear up some of the dead weight on death row? The only thing they get now is an all-expense paid trip to criminal graduate school. Also known as prison. Hell, They live better in jail than I have on Deployment.
THAT would be a better start on stopping this gun violence issue in my opinion.
@45 I guess it boils down to the fact that a lot of people feel that they would rather see guns eliminated and not be faced with the prospect of an unending procession of dead children
Look at the key word in your statement…”FEEL.” Not FACT, not REALITY, FEEL. IOW, not based on logic or truth, merely emotion. And FWIW, disarming law-abiding citizens will not end that “unending procession” as you put it. If anything, they’ll become WORSE.
@47 But Pinto, those are people in the public eye who are lightning rods for whackos, not everyday people.
Newsflash, Joey–where do most of these “mass killings” occur? Hint: think “Gun-Free Zone.” It’s now coming out that Lanza chose the elementary school SPECIFICALLY because he knew it would be undefended and could create the greatest carnage.
I choose not to become a victim, thanks all the same.
@55 I believe you are correct, Hondo. Joe is a pacifist. Some people, at the cost of their own lives, will not raise their hand to another human. It distresses me to see this thought process, because what they don’t realize is how brutal, cold, and final the evil they deny is.
Years ago, there was a 911 call from a woman who had locked herself in her bedroom when an intruder broke into her home. She talked with the dispatcher, who sent officers as fast as possible; but in the meanwhile, the man in the home proceeded to the bedroom, and forced the door open. The terror, the horror, in that woman’s voice was indescribable as the man advanced, took the phone away from her, and the line went dead.
This one had a happier ending than most. The police arrived in time to capture the intruder and save the woman’s life. What they weren’t able to save was whatever sense of peace or safety she may ever have had. And what if the police hadn’t arrived?
The silence of a dead victim is convenient to those who would rather ignore the physical trauma and the evidence of the rape kit. That same silence also allows the criminal to rationalize the violence they perpetrated on that same victim. In both cases, the victim loses. Permanently. That is what I’m trying to get across to Joe.
PintoNag: bingo. In a world where everyone was good, trustworthy, and altruistic, pacifism would be viable and violence unknown.
Unfortunately, only a tiny fraction of humanity is primarily motivated by altruism. The rest of the world isn’t. And among that overwhelming majority, there are those who are demonstrably and terribly evil – and willing to use force at the drop of a hat to satisfy whatever desires come to mind.
Pacifists deny that reality, or accept the consequences willingly. Thus my contention that pacifists are either out of touch with reality or have a latent death wish.
There’s a good reason every major religion of the world (with the possible exception of Buddhism) rejects pacifism and allows the use of violence in defense of self and others. All oppose evil, and realize that evil must sometimes be opposed by violent means for good to prevail.
“Pacifism is the religion of the protected.” Wish I could remember where I heard that one.
@47: Um, you are claiming a statistic not in evidence. The rate of gun deaths has been decreasing for the last 20 years in this country. You know that. The facts have been put up many times. Just because you want to ignore them doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
As for high profile people; sorry, but to me, their safety isn’t any more important than mine and because of that, I will be armed for my protection, same as a cop is armed for his protection. You can wave the bloody shirt of moral authority around all you want, but we’re tired of listening to you, as well, because we have heard it all before and it has all been thouroughly debated and debunked. Come up with something new for a change.
It distresses me to see this thought process, because what they don’t realize is how brutal, cold, and final the evil they deny is.
PintoNag–my experience with them has been they know there’s evil in the world, but they just don’t care because they have the “it can’t happen to me” mentality, as if not “embracing” it will somehow insulate them from the hard cold reality that some people are just fucking evil.
They’re sticking their heads in the sand, with the consequences of that ignorance very much in the terminal category.
NR Pax: didn’t find that particular quote, so I can’t help you there. My guess is that it arose as a variation of one of these 3 from Orwell:
“Ours was the one-eyed pacifism that is peculiar to sheltered countries with strong navies.”
“If [pacifists] imagine that one can somehow “overcome” the German army by lying on one’s back, let them go on imagining it, but let them also wonder occasionally whether this is not an illusion due to security, too much money and a simple ignorance of the way in which things actually happen.”
“The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle [World War II], while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security.”
I think Joey-boy’s argument is that since we all have flush toilets (in this country, anyway), we must all have evolved out of the predator stage that drove our distant ancestors to become successful, and the now-dominant species on this planet.
That argument doesn’t hold up at all, when you see the bloody massacres that came out of the Khmer Rouge’s extermination of Cambodians under Pol Pot, and the more recent slaughter of African tribes by other tribes, in addition to the ongoing slaughter underway in Africa now. Yes, it’s still going on, and blood diamonds are still being smuggled out and sold. Should I bring up the disappearances of Argentine citizens under the Peron regime?
No, it’s all distant and does not disturb his peaceful world, and won’t unless someone shoves it into his face. But pacifism is his only answer to everything, and I’m sure he’d rather starve and freeze in a gulag than stand up to the slime that put him there.
It has little or nothing to do with guns, or any other kind of weapon. Those are just the means of getting the job done. It is the people who do these things, whether they are ganbagers on Chicago’s southside, or a vicious bastard like Kony, who uses children as his slaughterers — just as Pol Pot did in Cambodia — or people who sell their children in to slave labor for the price of a carton of cigarettes in this country.
Yeah, Joe, that all goes on, everywhere in the world, and your asinine whine isn’t going to make it go away. and banning guns won’t do a damned thing but put them into the hands of crmiinals, you asshole.
NHSparky: also correct – which I hold is tantamount to being disconnected from reality.
It can happen anywhere. Just ask the surviving relatives of the mother and two daughters who were murdered in their home in Cheshire, CT, in 2007.
I don’t much care if Joe and his ilk want to take that risk; it’s their life and health. However, I have a huge problem with being forced to take that same risk against my will.
The world doesn’t change because some fool is frightened by reality. And precisely that is what Joe’s claiming will happen.
Imagining a different reality is how change starts.
Imagining a reality that is impossible because it ignores human nature is called “daydreaming” or “hallucinating”.
Yeah, that’s what they said about abolishing slavery, women’s sufferage, and anything else that scared them.
It’s not your ‘different reality’ that’s going to change your world, Joe. It’ll be the imagination of the guy with a rap sheet and a desire to take something of yours that’s going to change your reality.
Joe, there are a lot of countries out there that already forbid people from owning firearms. And a lot of their people try to come here instead. Maybe they know something you don’t.
It’s also what was said for years about Communism, Joe. Ask folks who spent some time in the former USSR, Eastern Europe, Communist China under Mao, Vietnam post-1975, or North Korea how that “communism thingy” worked out for them.
And if you look at history, I think you’ll find a strong debate regarding both and slavery and women’s suffrage. Neither was as universally accepted as being good (slavery) and bad (women’s suffrage) as you imply.
PintoNag: bingo. Certainly worked for Carl Rowan.
@72 If you would, Hondo, I’d appreciate if you would expound on your thought about Carl Rowan. I was thinking more the back-alley, knife- or gun- wielding assailant type situation. Rowan’s situation was more…complex.
Carl Rowan was a huge anti-gun zealot in the media in the 1980s. Then in 1988 he was faced with an intruder in his own backyard (literally). He shot the guy.
Obviously, Rowan either was a cynical, lying, hypocritical bastard from square one; or he changed his mind when circumstances rubbed his nose in reality. I’m guessing it was some of both, but primarily the latter.
Yes, Rowan later still claimed to be in favor of gun control. To that I say: deeds speak louder than words.
NR Pax,
Perhaps there were just a few other things that attracted them to the US despite the obvious gun problem. I certainly doubt they relish the idea that they and their children have a much better chance of getting shot to death here in the US than their own country (unless they came from Yemen or Colombia, a couple of our soul-mates gun-wise) but there may be other overriding factors in their decision.
No, I can see where Rowan was coming from. No sense in turning in your gun if you’re gonna be the only one to do so, that won’t change history. But if, say, a law were passed to make gun ownership illegal for everyone, a guy like Rowan might be the first in line to turn his in. Get the difference?
Actually, Joe – at the time Rowan was living in exactly such a place. In 1988, DC had a total ban on lawful private handgun ownership. That ban had been in effect since about 1976, if I recall correctly. And the fact that Rowan had a handgun at all under those circumstances kinda refutes your contention that he’d be the “first in line to turn his in”, doesn’t it?
Further: if you’ll bother to research things a bit, you’ll find that DC’s handgun ban didn’t exactly stop criminals from possessing them. DC’s murder rate during those years was legendary. And it wasn’t legendary because it was low.
Fail. Try again.
Hondo, Rowan was entitled to have his gun, he was one of those “people in the public eye”, the kind of good folk who attract the “whacko” that Joey the Idjit says deserve to have a gun or three.
I’d bet that Joey thinks that Doomberg deserves his armed protection detail, but a citizen who lives in a rural area, where the nearest police officer or deputy is 1/2 hour away, needs to step up and turn in his gun right now. Even though the meth-head breaking in to John Q’s house, hasn’t turned his in.
We’ve got about 300,000,000 guns now. In twenty years we’ll have, what, 500,000,000 – 600,000,000. How is that gonna make us safer.
There he goes again – sidestepping the issue under discussion.
You still haven’t answered NR Pax’s earlier question, Joe. Or mine immediately above. I’ll restate them for you:
1. Are you OK with ordinary people being murdered because they don’t have the means to defend themselves, while allowing the “high and mighty” or “public figures” the tools to protect themselves?
2. Since Rowan was living in a place where possession of handguns was illegal, why didn’t he turn his in?
And finally, the underlying implied question:
3. If criminals aren’t going to turn in their guns, why do you want law-abiding citizens to do so – and thus render themselves easy prey for sociopaths?
I guess you missed my question earlier, Joe, so I’ll repeat it; who, exactly, is safer when you take my guns from me?
You say: “We’ve got about 300,000,000 guns now. In twenty years we’ll have, what, 500,000,000 – 600,000,000. How is that gonna make us safer?”
I say: “Holy crap, I only have 6 rifles and 5 handguns … shit I better buy more!”
Jonn: sorry, missed your question or I’d have included it in my recap above to Joe too.
None of this has anything to do with choice. It has to do with some folks demanding that others conform to what they want, without justification or anything resembling logical thought processes.
Joe – if you wish to be unarmed, why should any of us care? If you want to remain defenseless, that is your business. No one expects you to come to my defense should I ever need defending. That is my business. Your wanting me to be defenseless IS my business. So hows about you tend to your business and I will tend to mine. Deal? No, of course not because you want me to only make the choices you decide are best for you, or someone other than myself. No thanks.
TGIF
Joe, you liberal opportunist, shitbag- What do think about the 3 year olds killed with the “Fully Automatic Transmission” equipped Automobile? One hell of a lot more of deaths by the use of that mechanical tool than with firearms. Have you parked your Prius yet? Ready to protest to ban them? Commenting on driving blogs about the indiscriminate deaths from the “Fully Automatic Transmission” equipped cars out there?
@#79:
Using YOUR numbers, how many deaths per year can be attributed to those weapons?
How many cars are there in the US? How many deaths can be attributed to them? Where is the outrage?
I am fed up with you liberal dopes playing on the mis-fortunate to advance your socialist agenda.