ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

This is #GunControlNow

If you're not already following me on Twitter, this extremely illuminating discussion of gun control is the sort of thing you are missing.  Gun control advocates, note that this is what often passes for your 'reason' and 'common sense'. Colleen aka @mushadamama is a perfect example of the dialectically challenged individual Aristotle described as being incapable of following a chain of reasoning and therefore ineducable by reason.  As you will see, it is literally impossible to reason with them.

Note that I did not expect to convince the woman that she was wrong.  Telling a stupid person precisely how stupid they are is seldom a successful rhetorical device. But I wanted to see how far she would go before retreating into her rhetorical tortoise shell.  As it happens, she was willing to not only defy reason, but deny math itself, rather than even consider the possibility - or in this case, the undisputed statistical and mathematical reality - that her position on #GunControlNow was wrong.

voxday: Those who reject their own God-given and unalienable right to bear arms reject their own status as adult human beings.

fmudd101: I know right! Those child-like Europeans and Japanese with their low gun crime and murder rates.

voxday: Europeans have higher rates of gun ownership and much lower rates of gun crime and murder than African and Latin countries.

mushadamama: You can not compare their gun laws to ours. They are MUCH more restrictive. Wikipedia link.

voxday: The gun laws in Brazil and South Africa are even more restrictive. Yet they have far more gun deaths per capita.

mushadamama: Is that where you want to be? US is not first, so it's ok? Link to murders with firearms by country.

voxday: Don't be stupid. You can't compare absolute numbers between nations of vastly different sizes. Look at per capita.

voxday: Also, the nations ahead of the USA HAVE STRICTER GUN CONTROL LAWS. The problem is racial, as I've already shown. 

mushadamama: The numbers I've given ARE per 100k population. Perhaps the stupid one is one who doesn't read fine print.

mushadamama: Stricter gun control=less gun crimes. #fact

mushadamama: You've shown nothing. 

voxday: No, you stupid, stupid woman, they are not. The USA is #4 in absolute terms, #27 per capita.  Link to gun homicides and gun ownership by country.

voxday: That's not a fact, you stupid, stupid woman. That is absolutely and provably false. 

voxday: You're either lying or stupid, Colleen. White US rate=0.32/100k. Black US rate=12.5/100k. Link to US firearms homicide rate by race.

mushadamama: Yes, my chart is total gun murders @ 9369. Does not count accidents or suicides. US ranks 4th! My crime rate chart was per 100k.

mushadamama: Your chart, however, uses some kind of fuzzy math to come up with that ridiculous #. I can only assume it is more of a probability.

mushadamama: Of which, I am not interested. We're not playing lotto. People are dying. Your comments on race, I've tried to ignore...

mushadamama: Are we supposed to be relieved or delighted to know more black people are killed by guns than white people? I don't understand.

voxday: NO! The math is 9,369 gun murders divided by 310 million pop, multiplied by 100,000. That is the correct per capita number.

voxday: You are supposed to understand legal guns are not the problem. So banning them, as they are banned elsewhere, WILL NOT WORK!

mushadamama: You're a fool. If manipulating numbers makes you feel better, fine. But, it's not the truth.

mushadamama: We are not going away this time. Those babies did not die for nothing. We're going to stay loud until something changes.

voxday: Excellent. The more you talk, the less credible your position is. Everyone should read this exchange. #GunControlNow

Labels: ,

182 Comments:

Anonymous kh123 December 26, 2012 5:03 AM  

I always like to think you the reluctant optimist; your last word always seems geared to be both educational and enough to make anyone despondent over the situation laugh.

Anonymous Krul December 26, 2012 5:04 AM  

Note that I did not expect to convince the woman that she was wrong. Telling a stupid person precisely how stupid they are is seldom a successful rhetorical device.
voxday: Don't be stupid.
voxday: No, you stupid, stupid woman
voxday: That's not a fact, you stupid, stupid woman.
voxday: You're either lying or stupid, Colleen

I've got to ask, why don't you try to convince, instead of indulging this childish AWCA nonsense? It's difficult, sure, but writing in such a way as to only persuade the already persuaded is a waste of time.

Anonymous Anonymous December 26, 2012 5:09 AM  

The Guardian newspaper(!) actually published UN data earlier this year confirming no correlation (in fact a slight negative one) between gun ownership and gun homicide rates in countries:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list?commentpage=2

Anonymous zen0 December 26, 2012 5:16 AM  

Doing the math = manipulating the numbers to make you feel better.
Are you sure that's not Krugman?

There should be stricter controls on twittering. Then language and reason shall not have died in vain.

Anonymous anon anon December 26, 2012 5:21 AM  

We need liberal control, not gun control.

Anonymous Logan December 26, 2012 5:27 AM  

"Are we supposed to be relieved or delighted to know more black people are killed by guns than white people? I don't understand."

Bloody hell this bugs me! I know that I really shouldn't be surprised by comments like this, but I can't help it. To so many leftists, not only are some subsets of people (such as non-whites and women) victims, but they cannot be anything other than victims. For example, blacks and women can only be victims of racism and sexism, respectively, they can never be instigators of it.

"White US rate=0.32/100k. Black US rate=12.5/100k."

If those numbers were reversed, I can guarantee that Colleen wouldn't have any problem "understanding".

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 26, 2012 5:36 AM  

As I've said before, the conversation is simply not worth having with these people, if you have it on their terms. Here's what I do...

MYSELF: Clearly something must be done. These murders would never have happened if we had compulsory conversion to Christianity. Christianity teaches peace, non-violence, and love of one's neighbor. We must make it the state religion, and every American must be required to be a Christian.

LEFTIST: (sputtering in fury) But, but, the separation of church and state!!

MYSELF: What about it? We both agree that something MUST be done. People are DYING, remember? You said so yourself. In times of peril, clearly we must ignore the separation of church and state. Lives are on the line.

LEFTIST: But, but, the Constitution! The bill of rights! What you're saying is unconstitutional!

MYSELF: So is everything you're saying, and everything you've been saying for decades. Do we have law or not? Fully-grown male negroes are observably, measurably, the greatest threat to safety and security in our country. Clearly, we must ban fully-grown male negroes. The Constitution be damned! Liberty be damned! Something must be done! You said it yourself.

LEFTIST: [shifts into traditional "shaming" rhetoric, unable to process actual argument or remember who Dean Swift was]

You may as well just make them cry. It's all they really want to do, anyway, is have a good sob. Nothing you say will persuade them. Nothing you say will ever make them think you're anything except a monster, or a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews, or a klansmanwhowantstobringbackdeslavery. The cult of the Left consists simply of wanting whatever it is that you want. If they cared about reason or consequences, then they wouldn't be leftists. It's that simple. Well at least it's that simple for the ones on the wrong end of the puppet strings.

Anonymous VD December 26, 2012 5:39 AM  

I've got to ask, why don't you try to convince, instead of indulging this childish AWCA nonsense? It's difficult, sure, but writing in such a way as to only persuade the already persuaded is a waste of time.

It's not childish at all. It is an example of an Aristotelian principle. I commend to you his Rhetoric, which explains that trying to convince via reason in these circumstances is not difficult, but impossible. For further explication, visit Alpha Game and the post An Excursion into the Rhetorical.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 5:44 AM  

Andriod ni keyvoard or spekl chexk worth a dam. I used to have a liberal friend and was trying to learn how to get a long with hin an defered many times but when it came to gun contril and I sent your thoughts he used the pegoritive Amurican with a Bushmaster. Then made sure I was never welcome to talk to him again. I thoufht I could cut through the fog but was wrong. JM has delegated me to spam.

Anonymous VD December 26, 2012 5:46 AM  

MYSELF: What about it? We both agree that something MUST be done. People are DYING, remember? You said so yourself. In times of peril, clearly we must ignore the separation of church and state. Lives are on the line.

Excellent. I like it very much. It's exactly the use of rhetoric on the rhetorical that I advocate.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 26, 2012 5:50 AM  

I actually read this in a newspaper somewhere (I know, I know; it was a minor relapse) not so long ago. I paraphrase, but this was the gist...

"Latinos are naturally compassionate people, and that is why they like big government programs and lots of social services: to help those in need."

These jokers actually said that, ran with that. The fact that Latinos don't pay taxes and are themselves the ever-needy recipients of all this compassionate largesse was lost on the writer. They're compassionate, see; they just prefer to have other people pay for their compassion.

You can't argue with these people. To paraphrase an old Catskills joke: (KNOWING SIGH, THEN) Leftists. Ya can't live _with_ them, and ya can't beat them to death with a shovel.

Anonymous AdognamedOp December 26, 2012 6:15 AM  

These people are insane. And the more you break down and expose their logic the crazier they become.
A local rag here in NY state published the names and addresses of local gun owners, complete with a google map of their locations. Not people who own the dreaded "assault", "military style, semi-automatic weapon", but people who simply registered to own firearms. The rag cited the FOIA but failed to consider the exemptions (7c) and the divisive nature of the issue. No doubt, that parasite Cuomo and his pet subway tunnel rat Bloomberg had a hand in this.
These rodents know they cant win in the public arena of opinion.
But, fuk em.. gun sales continue to soar with every move they make so let em stay dumb.

Anonymous VD December 26, 2012 6:27 AM  

I tweeted this in your honor, Scoobius: End gun violence by requiring all Americans to convert to Christianity and attend church twice weekly. #GunControlNow #StopViolence

Anonymous Stilicho December 26, 2012 6:36 AM  

A local rag here in NY state published the names and addresses of local gun owners

Which one? When?

Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 6:44 AM  

Vox

There is as I now know as the scientific minded no way to compomise with a "liberal" (commie). I tried as hard as I could and I just sent one of your columns to him on gun control and that was the end. Did he think he was going to change me? Don't know? Was it my intentention to change him, absolutly not. It was an experment with a well established liberal columnist to see if we could just get along. It failed when I quoted you and had benn doing well for a year.

Conclusion:

You cannot compromise with the Devil or a "Liberal" and now suspect you can't with a Neo-con..

I suspect to be invaded soon because I gave a special forces neighbor a fruit basket and a DVD that told that the WOT (War on Terror) is a fraud and a never ending war meant to destroy the liberties of the American people.

Just kidding, he is a good man and would have never given it to him if I thought he would do such a thing.

Thinking is hard for some people, real hard.

I don't understand why some people can't think for themselves and it becomes ever more apparent during the holidays. He is invited to our belated Christmas lunch.

Anonymous Roundtine December 26, 2012 6:47 AM  

"Are we supposed to be relieved or delighted to know more black people are killed by guns than white people? I don't understand."

They have no idea what you are talking about because their brain stops functioning when any racial data is broken out. They believe guns are the cause of crime. When you point out that blacks have far higher gun deaths, or that racial factors are correlated to crime, but not gun ownership, they think you are being racist. Inside their head they hear: Newtown is OK if its black people.

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 26, 2012 6:50 AM  

Screaming: "THE NUMBERS SAY WHAT I WANT THEM TOO!!!"

Don't wave Lebesgue integration or diffeomorphisms between smooth manifolds around or heads might explode.

Also, may I direct you over to anonymousconserative's site about arguing with these people and his use of the term "outgrouping."

mushadamama: Is that where you want to be? US is not first, so it's ok?
mushadamama: Of which, I am not interested. We're not playing lotto. People are dying. Your comments on race, I've tried to ignore...
mushadamama: Are we supposed to be relieved or delighted to know more black people are killed by guns than white people? I don't understand.
mushadamama: We are not going away this time. Those babies did not die for nothing. We're going to stay loud until something changes.

There it is. The outgrouping. Notice the use of "we" over and over again.

Who the hell is "we"? Notice in contrast that Vox's comments are always directly at Colleen.

I've known tons of very liberal-liberal people, and they ALL do the outgrouping thing, without exception. That's really what sold me on that site, even if many of the posts are just conjectures at this point.

Anonymous AdognamedOp December 26, 2012 6:53 AM  

Stilicho, the 'NY Journal News', serving Westchester and Rockland counties. Yesterday, or day before.

Anonymous Roundtine December 26, 2012 6:53 AM  

I saw Piers Morgan say the AR-15 can fire 5 shots per second. As best I can tell, he took a machine gun rate of fire and divided by two, since it's SEMI auto. If you could get people to actually bet with you, even at $0.10 or $1, you could become a millionaire on twitter.

Anonymous Roundtine December 26, 2012 6:55 AM  

There it is. The outgrouping. Notice the use of "we" over and over again.

We are done letting the children run the show. Bye-bye Boomers, there's a new sheriff in town.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 26, 2012 7:00 AM  

VD: Heh heh, danke schoen.

The whole business has to be treated as sort of a variation on the old joke, often attributed to Churchill (though I'm skeptical on that) which has the punch line: "We've already established that you're a whore, now we're simply haggling over the price."

You have to say to leftists: We've already established that you're willing to trample the Constitution and violate the Bill of Rights; now we're simply discussing which rights ought to be violated. You want to tear asunder the basic legal and theoretical foundations of liberty, and your claim is that you want to do it to "protect the children." Very well. I think we can do a far better job of protecting the children by violating all the rights YOU hold dear, than by violating mine; and statistics will bear me out on this. You love statistics and studies, right? Okay. So, if my statistics and studies can be shown to be more accurate than yours, then we get to violate the rights that I choose to violate, not yours. That's the game, right?

Of course it's not really about any such thing. They aren't really concerned about public safety in the slightest, or else the obvious solution would be to disarm all male negroes with extreme prejudice, and permit guns to be carried by trained personnel in schools. Their real platform is their endless hate-filled animus against white, Christian, heterosexual, non-wealthy, law-abiding citizen gun owners. Because those are the people who are genuinely capable of resisting all their nonsense, and in their bizarre bed-wetting nightmares, those are the people who will magically transform like werewolves into instant Dachau commandants when the moon turns full. There's a very real sense in which one could say, only half-satirically, that the debate about gun control is really about the morbid paranoid fantasies of people who read The Diary of Anne Frank at too young an age.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 7:05 AM  

Don't wave Lebesgue integration or diffeomorphisms between smooth manifolds around or heads might explode.

They might, but what does it matter as it will all be dust, no nothing but black empty space as entropy takes us into that unknown, as of yet darkness. The nothing that is the universe. The simple laws of the scientific minded atheist knows is he will not be remembered in this universe and since there is no other he will never be remembered. Everything he does is in vain and his whole existence is just temporal vanity.

Such a sad life, Idle, such a sad place to be. All the money in the world won't stop the temporary death or the eventual universal death.

The atheist has no place to turn but to give up, and that is what they have already done without ever realizing it yet.

Maybe some have and if you are one reading this blog, please tell me your thoughts, Tad or others.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat December 26, 2012 7:10 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Kentucky Packrat December 26, 2012 7:13 AM  

If you want to stop the "raciss" calls when discussing race and danger, try this:

We have managed to create a black market class in the US, and large portions of the black and Latino people are stuck in it. People in a black market are forced to use guns and violence, since they have limited access to civilized tools.

To truly fix gun violence in the US, we need to end the War on Drugs and illegal immigration, and kill that black market.

My father's liberal brain almost got whiplash trying to process the paradigm shift without clutching....

(In case you are curious: I do happen to believe that most of the problem is culture and economics, not race, but that's because I have been exposed to both sides of the economy here in Kentucky. Our white trash has become more anti-education than (many) blacks, and that scares the crap out of me. YMMV.)

Blogger tz December 26, 2012 7:16 AM  

She has a point. Do you really want that stupid psycho bitch counter-tweeter to have access to weapons?

Perhaps Sam Colt's contribution to the equality between men and women wasn't such a good thing. The crossbow was banned for such a reason.

On a more serious note, one tweet that is even ambiguously a threat to the President will get the SS to arrive and throw you in jail. Yet schreeching wildly that you are going to shoot up a school, movie, or mall while ranting avout voices isn't enough. These are not edge cases. These massacres were by people who were known to be a threat and were acting strangely.

Anonymous Stilicho December 26, 2012 7:28 AM  

Because those are the people who are genuinely capable of resisting all their nonsense, and in their bizarre bed-wetting nightmares, those are the people who will magically transform like werewolves into instant Dachau commandants when the moon turns full.

The rabbit hindbrain recognizes the threat posed by k-selected groups to the coney commune and reacts...emotively.

Blogger tz December 26, 2012 7:33 AM  

And compliments to Scoobius Doobius.

I would just add:

For some reason, Liberals desire [prescription] drug crazed psychopathic killers to remain on the loose, so we need more cops, surveilance, and lots of laws, rules and regulations that say these crazies will break the law if they get weapons. Liberals are crazier than the killers since they seem to think laws prevent actions. They aren't that effective in sane people. Good people need no laws.

They also demand the right to kill if a newly conceived baby would inconvenience their sexual license. If they don't like dead babies the place to start is at the local clinic where the daily death toll is similar. Were all the children killed at Newton "planned and wanted?".

I forget which author said that people in mortal sin cannot think properly, i.e. are insane. It applies to both those who are slaves to lust on the left and to bloodlust - war, torture - on the right.

Anonymous Anonymous December 26, 2012 7:38 AM  

Damn. Looks like I'm finally going to have to join twitter now.

James Stephenson.

Anonymous Steve In Tulsa December 26, 2012 7:38 AM  

She is typical of totalitarian democrat fascists: she cannot do seventh grade math (Just like Obama!) and she cannot follow simple logic.

Why are democrats so poorly educated that they cannot reason? Because they make better tax slaves that way.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 7:44 AM  

Unless you are someone like Vox and have a 150 IQ and a strong command of the English language, why tweet? Never understood that, don't even text. If I want someone to know where I am for some reason, it would only be family (use the phone) and am incapable of transmitting my deepest thoughts in so few words.

I do have a twitter account, but only read it and rarely at that and never tweet. Never understood the concept as I live my life the way I live. But to each his own.

I could care less what my brother had for lunch today, and he don't tweet either. We probably talk on the phone about twice a month just to make sure everyone is doing Okay and to say I love you.

Blogger tz December 26, 2012 7:49 AM  

KP - tragedy is bringing out good sense as well as bad. I would add crony capitalism that exploits and cuts off the bottom rungs of the ladder. Government and Big Corpses (bailout zombies!) seek to crush entrepeneurs, and bribe people to indolence.

There is a built-in preference for our family, tribe, and race. That extends to Culture which we used to get from our churches and parents. Now the yellow bus takes the kids to their indoctrination camps.

It isn't racism. Koreans immigrants who speak less english and are visibly different thrive economically in poor black communities of those who can speak, read, and write english better.

The irony is Nature herself judges us on the content of our character - MLK jr's dream came true. We often judge on character properly and correctly. When he gave the speech, most black families were intact. Single motherhood (not from divorce or being widowed) was shameful.

The truth hasn't changed. It has been rejected. The truth incarnate is in heaven. Hell is the place for those who reject it, so it is no wonder they turn their environs into hell on earth.

Blogger IM2L844 December 26, 2012 7:50 AM  

The rabbit hindbrain recognizes the threat posed by k-selected groups to the coney commune and reacts...emotively.

Looking at the #GunControlNow tweets, it's phenomenal how many liberals allow their emotion to dictate their reason. This one made me laugh out loud:

Ben Margherita ‏@benmargherita
I wonder how many gun owners have justly and effectively defended themselves with a firearm. Probably like .01%. #GunControlNow


What's your point, Girly man? I wonder how many NON-gun owners have been confronted and effectively killed by a white man with a gun. Probably like <0.00000001%

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 26, 2012 7:52 AM  

Something else I noticed that is interesting...


Anonymousconservative links amgdala dysfunction with liberalism (which is childish a lot of the time), and also narcissism (also childish) very effectively.

Narcissistic Peronality Disorder (NPD) is equated with the person never really growing up mentally. Not in the sense of being/acting immature, or being retarded, but in the sense of a child stuck in an adult's body with moral reasoning, playing pretend constantly (reinforcing their false self).

Most of the annoying female behaviors are rooted in narcissism. Obviously women are more narcissistic on average than men... and more childish. Preening in front of the mirror (loving their reflection), gathering orbiters (narcissistic supply), solipsism (playing endless pretend), character assassination through gossip (malignant jealousy), going with the crowd for decisions instead of having an actual core (social proof). All narcissistic traits. Now, keep in mind you can have all of these traits without actually having NPD which is pathological. It's just to what degree.

This is all very speculative at this point tying together childishness -> narcissism -> women, but think about it...

Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 7:57 AM  

I think it brilliant, Idle. never quite thought about it that way, but see the pattern. Good job.

And no, I am not gay. Ha!

Anonymous Buck December 26, 2012 7:59 AM  

MrColionNoir on the privilege of being anti-gun and why somebody would want an assault rifle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kdkiLC06Nso
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0R3uLTnzs60

Vox, would these videos be a good example of rhetorical arguments? The more I watch of ColionNoir the more I like him, and him being black should ruffle the feathers of mush brains like mushadamama (I'm guessing she'd accuse him of being brain-washed, a paid shill for the NRA, or just a plain ol' Uncle Tom).

Anonymous zen0 December 26, 2012 8:10 AM  

NPD came up for discussion when Obama ran for POTUS the first time. In a recent eulogy for a deceased Senator from Hawaii, he mentioned himself 63 times.

"I come not to bury Caesar, but to praise ME."

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 26, 2012 8:11 AM  

And no, I am not gay. Ha!

It's ok, let it out. Straight pride.

We're here, we're not queer!
Only breasts, not men's chests!
Get used to it!

//claps

Anonymous Miserman December 26, 2012 8:27 AM  

Gun control advocates must operate under the assumption that because one person used a gun to kill children, every gun owner is a child killer. It's like saying that just because a small portion of gamers pirate software, ALL gamers pirate software.

Irrational. Completely irrational.

Blogger Lucas December 26, 2012 8:28 AM  

voxday: That's not a fact, you stupid, stupid woman.


4 years ago, I would be horrified to see a man treating a woman like this.

Now, I wish more men would have this atitude with the women who deserve it.

Anonymous Heh December 26, 2012 8:29 AM  

"Latinos are naturally compassionate people, and that is why they like big government programs and lots of social services: to help those in need."

The natural compassion of Latinos is expressed in that Guardian chart of gun homicides per 100,000 people. Exceeding the USA are Honduras, El Salvador, Venezuela, Guatemala, Colombia, Puerto Rico, Brazil, Panama, Ecuador, Guyana, Mexico, Paraguay, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Argentina...

Anonymous Cryan Ryan December 26, 2012 8:30 AM  

There is a giant, infected, syphilitic, pus-covered elephant sitting in the middle of the room here.

Women's suffrage.

In all these discussions, the obvious point to be made is that these women who cannot think - vote. (Thanks Grandpa)

The powers-that-be have a strategy, and that strategy is to alienate those women from white men, play with their emotions, and get them to join the minorities to vote for those in power, who will then continue to live high like the pigs in Animal Farm.

Once that is accomplished, they don't need to worry about what a few white guys think about anything.

As an aside, I've mentioned my nurse (Ratchet) sister, who has given thousands of vaccines to children, and is down with the whole keep-the-old-folks-alive-and-get-
the-Medicaide/Medicare-check-each-month concept for their local clinic.

She certainly would be willing to inject the same old people with cyanide if so instructed. Or to harvest fetal tissue, or sterilize white people, or whatever is on the schedule for the day.

Anyway............ I called her to wish her a Merry Christmas, and we talked for 53 minutes.

In all that time, she did not ask about my health, my wife, my kids, my grandkids, my current project, or anything whatsoever about me.

Instead, she talked for 53 minutes about patients at her clinic, her kids, her kids' families, her in-laws, some co-workers I've never met, etc etc.

In closing, she said "Merry Christmas - love you".


Ahhh .... Family.



Blogger IM2L844 December 26, 2012 8:34 AM  

Their real platform is their endless hate-filled animus against white, Christian, heterosexual, non-wealthy, law-abiding citizen gun owners.

Scoob, when I agree with you (which is probably more often than you might think), I really, really agree with you.

Anonymous Salt December 26, 2012 8:47 AM  

Damn! You got me onto twitter. I'm so ashamed.

So Mushadamama wants something to change. It recently did as I acquired a FN semi-auto evil handgun. Just doing my part.

Blogger JD Curtis December 26, 2012 8:49 AM  

OT-
MSNBC host Toure: Murder can be morally justified

Anonymous Stilicho December 26, 2012 8:51 AM  

Those limited to the rhetorical level of discourse are the Rabbit People. They cannot be reasoned with any more successfully than one can cure a rabid dog of rabies through discussion. All one can reasonably do is mitigate the damage they do to those around them by putting them down as soon as they show themselves to be a carrier.

This is the proper use of rhetoric. Very few of the rhetorically minded can actually be persuaded of something they do not already believe. Rhetoric is mostly a conformation tool for their emotions.

Anonymous Rantor December 26, 2012 9:07 AM  

Similarly my neighbor, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America showed Piers Morgan to be a dolt... my favorite line, "the facts just keep bouncing off your head" or some such...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9z1wfgNf9E

Anonymous Viking December 26, 2012 9:31 AM  

Guns don't kill people... Stupidity does.

Anonymous Desiderius December 26, 2012 9:38 AM  

"We're going to stay loud until something changes."

This is a true statement.

What will change is the effectiveness of her loudness.

I don't see an increase likely.

Anonymous Krul December 26, 2012 9:43 AM  

Those limited to the rhetorical level of discourse are the Rabbit People. They cannot be reasoned with any more successfully than one can cure a rabid dog of rabies through discussion. All one can reasonably do is mitigate the damage they do to those around them by putting them down as soon as they show themselves to be a carrier.

This is the proper use of rhetoric. Very few of the rhetorically minded can actually be persuaded of something they do not already believe. Rhetoric is mostly a conformation tool for their emotions


I still think it's a waste of time. Accurate and conclusive as VD's statistics are (and incisive as Scoob's turnabouts undoubtedly are) what does all this accomplish? Far from convincing or shutting down the interlocutor, it only confirms their prejudices. I'm willing to bet good money that all mushmouthsmama and those like her took away from this is that VD is racist. All you've accomplished is to edify the convictions of those who already agree with you.

If they are truly "rabbit people", ruled by their emotions, then the logical response is not to harass or argue with them at all, but to seduce them. In a political context, manipulation would be far more effective than mockery.

Anonymous Mr. Pea December 26, 2012 9:48 AM  

We - is legion.

Anonymous Kickass December 26, 2012 10:01 AM  

Vox, please explain the picture. I really enjoyed the explaination behind the flaming sword one.

Second, you are the gift that just keeps giving. Don't you know you are wrong because you made her feel bad? Next time ask if she is Pro-Choice first. All the merrier.

Strange how the death of all those babies never spurs anyone to action.

As for the publishing of the addresses in NY, yep, lovely. So being a LEGAL gun owner is now a crime in the MSM.

I don't know how you have so much time to start so much trouble across so many mediums. Truly, you have a gift.

Anonymous Kickass December 26, 2012 10:03 AM  

@ Krul,

The point is that it is a GLARING example to anyone not on the fence or anyone who might be waking up.



Blogger IM2L844 December 26, 2012 10:04 AM  

manipulation would be far more effective than mockery.

There's more than one way to skin a rabbit, but some still need to be skinned alive in front of all the other rabbits.

Blogger Shimshon December 26, 2012 10:07 AM  

Krul, as Vox pointed out, the goal isn't always to convince them at all, dialectically or rhetorically.

"The more you talk, the less credible your position is. Everyone should read this exchange."

And even if nobody else is swayed, you can still revel in sending the hamster into overdrive and occupying her thoughts for hours (or even days) on end! She may even do less future damage that way too.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 26, 2012 10:19 AM  

Ah, "we". The unspecific, elusive pronoun of those who cannot stand alone. "We shall do this" or "we think that" or "we must act".

"We" never do anything; "we" never have thoughts of "our" own. "We" do not have moral agency as individuals. "We" are safe in "our" little cocoon of subservience, eager to follow the lead of those who appeal not to "our" higher thoughts, but "our" erratic emotions. "We" subsume "ourselves" into a larger whole, identical in all things save the irrelevant. This gives "us" the appearance of authority, which in truth is only mindlessly doing the will of the owners of "our" little flock.

"I" think. "I" act. "I" have responsibilities. "I" have rights. "I" must be eradicated, because "I" cannot be shaped into something more useful and still remain "myself".

When given to choose pronouns for himself, the independent man says "I". The submissive says "we".

I use this criterion to screen my minions, actually.

Anonymous mjb December 26, 2012 10:21 AM  

Vox, when did you go goth?

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 26, 2012 10:37 AM  

Yo soy Armando Alvarez! Y este es la casa de mi padre!

Blogger Lovekraft December 26, 2012 10:45 AM  

Like I've said, the Progressives only care about seeing conservatives frustrated. They are children who like to incite those on the right.

And like children, Progs are to be ignored UNTIL they approach a discussion with adult logic.

Anonymous antonym December 26, 2012 10:49 AM  

I wonder how many of these gun control advocates smoke pot

Anonymous Salt December 26, 2012 11:17 AM  

I think of Progressives as puffed up rice balls, perhaps conceived during a vaginal yeast infection.

Anonymous Daniel December 26, 2012 11:26 AM  

I wonder how many of these gun control advocates smoke pot

Not enough of them, dude. Not nearly enough.

Anonymous Azimus December 26, 2012 11:26 AM  

mushadamama: Are we supposed to be relieved or delighted to know more black people are killed by guns than white people? I don't understand...

...voxday: You are supposed to understand legal guns are not the problem. So banning them, as they are banned elsewhere, WILL NOT WORK!


I understand the premise that gun violence is cultural. But doesn't the cultural data piece point to A) banning guns for violent subcultures or B) banning the violent subcultures themselves in fact WOULD BE effective?

Anonymous The other skeptic December 26, 2012 11:29 AM  

Corrected link on An Excursion into the Rhetorical

Minus the stray quote ...

Anonymous The other skeptic December 26, 2012 11:34 AM  

I wonder how many of these gun control advocates smoke pot

I am a gun control advocate. Both hands on the gun, trigger finger indexed until the target is in sight, and bring the gun back onto target before shooting a second time.

I do not smoke pot. I also do not touch my guns when I have been drinking alcohol.

Gun control is a very serious subject.

Anonymous Stickwick December 26, 2012 11:37 AM  

I had a more reasoned version of this debate on FB with a physician. Got him to contradict himself in the space of a few sentences, and when I shot down every one of his "factual" arguments with ease, he brought out the big rhetorical guns: "Okay, so gun laws don't have any effect on the homicide rate, but I still think this would be a better world if there were no guns. If I could have one miracle, it would be that all guns would magically disappear. I'm tired of seeing kids accidentally shot. I'm tired of treating gunshot victims in my ER."

A twofer!

In response to his first statement, I told him: "We already know what the world would be like with no guns -- the Middle Ages. Do you really want to go back to a time when big men with swords have all the power? As a woman, I sure don't. Without a gun, I'm no match for a 220-lb man who wants to rape and assault me."

He cannot possibly respond to this without looking like he's in favor of women being raped and assaulted. I win.

For his second statement, I responded: "Far more children drown in swimming pools every year than die by accidental gunshot wound. I understand you have a visceral response to treating gunshot victims in your ER. The problem is you don't see all the victims of swimming pools, because they're DEAD before the ambulance even arrives. If you really want fewer children to die, wish for every backyard swimming pool to magically disappear."

I appeal to his own experience (or lack thereof) and turn his childish wishing tactic back on him. He cannot possibly respond to this without seeming like he doesn't care that more kids die by drowning than shooting. I win.

He didn't have a response to any of this and left the discussion.

It occurred to me afterward that dialectic is like boxing, trading blow for blow. That's fine if your opponent is also a boxer; but otherwise it's ineffective. Vox's rhetorical fighting style is like Judo -- you use your opponent's energy against him; and the great thing is, the harder he's willing to throw himself at you, the easier it is to get him on the ground. Before Vox's instruction in debate, I would have kept trying to engage this guy with dialectic, and it would have gone on forever. Not this time. Not only was the rhetorical Judo far more effective in shutting down the debate, it was way more fun.

Anonymous Anonymous December 26, 2012 11:41 AM  

@ Azimus,

you're forgetting something. banning guns will usually lead to higher crime rates. so banning guns amongst blacks and latinos is doing nothing more than disarming those law abiding blacks and latinos. secondly, such an act would set the precedent for disarming any group based upon fact or fiction. pretty soon, you'd fall victim to your own law as it slowly expands to eventually be levied against your "group".

lastly, if you disarm someone, then you become responsible for their defense as you've taken away something God gave them.

I'm sure that there have been many who have passed away and thought they were golden before the Lord, only to be told that they were accountable for numerous murders.

however distasteful it may seem, you have to respect another man's rights, lest you put your own at risk.

frenchy

Anonymous Mina December 26, 2012 11:43 AM  

It kind of looks like you brought a gun to a knife fight.

In 12+ years of debating and fighting human and civil rights violations on two very different topics, what I have found is that the camp on the side of "banning", "taking", "doing" is always manned with the dumbest, most ignorant and impossible to reach with science, math, history, logic, reason (or anything else.) It's frustrating to try to debate with them when all they bring to the party are their feelings and personal anecdotes whilst rejecting out of hand any data or facts you may bring to bear (probably because they are so incomprehensibly stupid that it is impossible for them to understand their relevance.)

What I found is that online debates are totally pointless if you really expect to win anyone over to "your side" but fun if what you are after is just to give them enough rope to hang themselves and then stand by and cheer them on while they do it.

They are also good for helping to solidify your own position in your mind (if you hadn't already completely fleshed it out yet) and to practice arguing it with the dumbest of the dumb, the ignorant and the incomprehensibly obtuse - like the ones you'll be running into when the debate really matters in official meetings or when attending your local Government councils.

Anonymous Faust December 26, 2012 11:44 AM  

Not to pound on this woman more than she's already getting, but one thing in her last comment.

She said, "Those babies did not die for nothing."
What did they die for, then?
They died so that she could push her political views on people?

Anonymous Mina December 26, 2012 11:53 AM  

... And also no one ever wants to talk about the impossible logistics and historical failures surrounding "banning" or "taking" things from people when there is a certain demand for them. There are tons of good examples Prohibition being a great one today's Drug War being another. So many topics to explore there and history clearly shows this strategy to be a failure over and over and over. But just try to get the opposition to spend any time discussing it. Always a non-starter.

Anonymous Axe Head December 26, 2012 12:02 PM  

It's plain they want to disarm us so that the negroes can have a field day.

Anonymous kaflick December 26, 2012 12:23 PM  

>I understand the premise that gun violence is cultural. >But doesn't the cultural data piece point to A) banning >guns for violent subcultures or B) banning the violent >subcultures themselves in fact WOULD BE effective?

A - The problem is that the data show that those cultures are just as bad even with almost total gun control.

B - How do you ban a culture? I think that is spelled genocide. The thing to do is to not let them get a foothold in the first place. It is too late for that now.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 12:33 PM  

Guns don't kill people... Stupidity does.

Actually bullets do, 1/2 mv^2. A gun over the head might kill, but the dang bullet is the thing that has the energy to kill. It is why I choose the 40 smith over the 45. Also more bullets in the 40 smith

Anonymous Jack Amok December 26, 2012 12:40 PM  

Bloody hell this bugs me! I know that I really shouldn't be surprised by comments like this, but I can't help it. To so many leftists, not only are some subsets of people (such as non-whites and women) victims, but they cannot be anything other than victims.

Why yes, they're victims of conservaties not letting caring liberals stuff them back onto the plantation. Which, in caring liberalville, doesn't actually have any borders, so we all have to live on it.

In the antebellum South, at least a slave who made it to the Underground Railroad could escape his bondage and flee north (or west). And it used to be that even plain girls who had some common sense and a decent upbringing could live happy lives, grow old with someone who loved them, and live out their latter years surrounded by grandkids instead of cats.

Liberals screw everything up. Liberal control indeed.

If they cared about reason or consequences, then they wouldn't be leftists.

A late, but strong, entrant for best comment of the year.

It's a frustrating situation, dealing with these effing morons. Krul's point is valid, but so are the responses. Ultimately with the current political constellation, I'm not sure there's any useful strategy. The would-be neo-nobility that stir up the rabbit rabble (rabbit rousers?) and give them their #talkingpoints get to promise the moon and never be held accountable. Until we can either hold the Krugmans and Bloombergs accountable for their failed promises and prophecies, or stop the rabbits from voting, we're stuck.

Which is why the ground is comming up so fast.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 26, 2012 12:43 PM  

Vox, my dear fellow. I have had similar discussions lately, but I must admit this is not a new experience. I would refer you to a book that may have missed your notice....The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer. What we are all having to deal with are FANATICS....and their fanaticism is based on fictions that are myths....myths that go unchallenged*, in spite of all the facts, and smothered in a thick layer of "political correctness" nonsense.

I have had similar discussions about the American Civil War, Marxism, egalitarianism, feminism, racial equality, socialized medicine and a few other topics. Once someone feels, like the Israeli spies, that they have a duty above that of civic duty, or reason, or the dictates of logic, or historical fact, or scientific knowledge, they may argue at great lengths without the benefit of facts surprisingly on emotional terms or by warning their opponent to be careful to avoid those awful labels reserved for those who do not agree. Being cast as a racist, a bigot, a sexist, a rightist, a nativist, or even (heaven forbid) a conservative....completely destroys the credibility of the speaker and creates a duty of all like-minded people to shun them and deny them the ability to infect others with their mental illness.

(*JFKs commencement address at Yale in 1962, where he said the myth is worse than the lie, because the myth goes unquestioned. A lie can be simply disproven with the facts.)

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 12:44 PM  

Anyone who is going to dispute the utility of banning high capacity magazines is either an anti-government nut job who thinks the black helicopters are coming after them or is a danger to society. There's no getting around this. And if you think you need such a piece of equipment to hunt animals then you should probably move out of the zoo and into a regular home.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 26, 2012 12:44 PM  

"'We' never do anything; "we" never have thoughts of "our" own. "We" do not have moral agency as individuals."

You forgot to add, "We" love to read Evgeny Zamyatin.

"I wonder how many of these gun control advocates smoke pot"

Wins the thread. Irony to pithiness ratio is impressive indeed.

Only problem is, when you're _that_ Zen, you risk having your point sail straight over a lot of people's heads, who are gonna think you're characterizing your opponent, not demonstrating something.

"no one ever wants to talk about the impossible logistics and historical failures surrounding "banning" or "taking" things from people... history clearly shows this strategy to be a failure over and over and over."

In the spirit of skepticism, I have to say, Not always. I believe the "sword hunt" which effectively disarmed most people in Tokugawa Japan was pretty successful. Successful, that is, in seizing weaponry and putting people at the complete mercy of the samurai, who were the only ones left still armed. Naturally the samurai were then free to abuse and ride roughshod on the ordinary people, which they quite naturally proceeded to do. Hmm I'm starting to get some insight into the true motives of these elites alluvasudden...

I'm not certain but I would expect that the premodern Korean kingdoms were similarly disarmed (can anyone confirm or correct?), but of course, regardless, life as a lowly disarmed peasant in premodern East Asia was neither pleasant nor dignified. We know from the sheer number of bandit gangs and petty warlords that it didn't work in imperial China, but I bet they tried and succeeded in at least certain sectors. Again not sure on this though. Social historians of Asia, here's your chance to shine!

The other factor of course being that in those days, well-made steel was expensive and hard to come by. This is not true about guns however. Grist for the mill.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 26, 2012 12:50 PM  

kaflick...."B - How do you ban a culture? I think that is spelled genocide. The thing to do is to not let them get a foothold in the first place. It is too late for that now."

Overly dramatic. I find my own Scot-Irish culture being banned in this country short of genocide, by a combination of public school brainwashing, public policy, political correctness, revisionist history, and Hollywood. Do you not think that has been effective?


Anonymous DonReynolds December 26, 2012 12:53 PM  

kaflick...."B - How do you ban a culture? I think that is spelled genocide. The thing to do is to not let them get a foothold in the first place. It is too late for that now."

You give up too easily. It is never too late to correct past mistakes. Once people actually become convinced that the other cultures will never assimilate and that they constitute a real danger to their own survival as a people, you may get your wish.


Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 12:56 PM  

(*JFKs commencement address at Yale in 1962, where he said the myth is worse than the lie, because the myth goes unquestioned. A lie can be simply dis-proven with the facts.)

Yeah, they shot his @ss and it wasn't a myth but a lie who did it and the facts don't matter. I guess he was wrong and dead because?

9/11 was not a myth we all saw the planes fly into the buildings but was a lie, yet we got soldier boys playing whack a mole with terrorists in Afghanistan in the never ending war, where are the facts that disprove the original lie?

I also cut Eisenhower no slack in his farewell speech he was complicit in it all. There is only one truth, but many lies and almost everything you hear is a lie.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 26, 2012 1:02 PM  

"Anyone who is going to dispute the utility of banning high capacity magazines"

The utility to achieve what, exactly?

"is either an anti-government nut job who thinks the black helicopters are coming after them or is a danger to society. There's no getting around this."

[CHECKING MY OLD-TIMEY POCKET WATCH] Aha, here comes the Old 97 round the bend, right on schedule. What is it with the leftist obsession with personal smears and absolutist assertions? ["always the 'musts'" -- Frank O'Hara] All who disagree with X, MUST be Z! And we know what happens to those who are Z!

All anti-government nut jobs must be put in giant government prisons! That'll teach 'em that the government is really their friend! Ask Harry Belafonte, he'll tell you! You remember him, dontcha: nice old guy, sang that calypso song you like, wants Obama to imprison all the enemies of the state, says so in public, is not contradicted by Obama. That guy.

I used to joke that I'd be quite happy to ban guns, in exchange for banning leftists from using words like "therefore".

"And if you think you need such a piece of equipment to hunt animals"

The Second Amendment is not about hunting animals. You should read it some time. I thought you were the big-brained constitutional scholar around here, lecturing us about our ignorant abyss of darkness.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 1:04 PM  

Anyone who is going to dispute the utility of banning high capacity magazines is either an anti-government nut job who thinks the black helicopters are coming after them or is a danger to society. There's no getting around this. And if you think you need such a piece of equipment to hunt animals then you should probably move out of the zoo and into a regular home.

Tad if you will answer my question I will be happy to answer yours. Bet you won't, but if you do expect the fire. The question is posted below. But you will have to scroll up if it is not too much trouble.

Outlaw X post on this thread. December 26, 2012 7:05 AM

Anonymous Azimus December 26, 2012 1:05 PM  

Tad December 26, 2012 12:44 PM
Anyone who is going to dispute the utility of banning high capacity magazines is either an anti-government nut job...[a]nd if you think you need such a piece of equipment to hunt animals then you should probably move out of the zoo and into a regular home.


Tad I don't think the 2nd amendment is about hunting... it's about being anti-government and not allowing the "authorities" to muscle the electorate into submission... call it "mutually assured destruction" if it helps you understand a little better. Meeting force with force to preserve peace. It's worked pretty well for the last 200yrs+, IMO.

Anonymous DonReynolds December 26, 2012 1:11 PM  

Tad..."Anyone who is going to dispute the utility of banning high capacity magazines is either an anti-government nut job who thinks the black helicopters are coming after them or is a danger to society. There's no getting around this. And if you think you need such a piece of equipment to hunt animals then you should probably move out of the zoo and into a regular home."

I have resisted the urge to reply to Tad's comments in the past, but this particular one is just so silly, that I cannot resist. (Not that the others were not, just mostly Liberal rants.)

1) Firearms are NOT SOLELY for the purpose of hunting animals. Self-protection in many states is another lawful purpose.

2) High capacity magazines can be very important, even though they are often unreliable....based on my own experience, and I hasten to add, in the experience of some of the recent high-profile shooters. I personally do not prefer them for this reason. Besides, there is no agreement on what is high capacity. Is ten too many? Does it matter if they are pistol or rifle? Does it depend on the calibre? There is no clear line that says some is enough and more than that is too many. Most especially, that will not be left to those who know nothing about firearms, or hate firearms, or have no use for firearms.

3) Persons who do not agree with Tad are unlikely to be "anti-government nut jobs" or a "danger to society". I am more likely to attach these insults to those who DO AGREE with Tad.

Anonymous Mina December 26, 2012 1:14 PM  

The talking heads and Government folks who are being quoted as saying: ... "the 2nd amendment is good thing: people have a right to hunt and to self-defense" - I believe are knowingly participating in a mass brain-washing propaganda campaign.

I think they know that's not what the 2nd amendment is about and are all just repeating it endlessly to convince the listeners.

Most people don't do any of their own research. They accept what they hear on TV and radio. If that's what everyone is saying on TV and radio, then that must be the truth.

Anonymous Mina December 26, 2012 1:20 PM  

Sorry I should have buttoned up my comment with:

It will be much easier to get the gun control passed if people believe that the 2nd amendment is about hunting and self defense.

There is a huge contingent of people who really believe that Government is their friend / nanny / big brother / Mommy and that it is "here to help". They believe what Government tells them and they believe when Government does something it's because it's in the people's better interest.

They cannot CONCEIVE that the Government is actually always acting to its natural entropy to seize power that should belong to the people for itself and that this is a bad thing that we should be guarding against.

Hence, the real meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 1:26 PM  

Why bother, Tad has no meaning. He is a piece of the primordial sludge that grew legs and all he has will die in the dust of a dying universe. He has nothing but his own arrogance and will die like the rest of us and will never be remembered and his life has no meaning. He is just a collection of atoms organized in such a way to be a complete dumb ass in the randomness of life.

I wonder sometimes how it feels to have no meaning and to just be some random collection of atoms arguing with anther random collection of atoms.

Because if I thought that way I would just move aside for anything I had to say had no eternal meaning. Actually I would think a frog was just by chance a frog and could not argue with me, or my dog who thinks I have a magic food box and a storm stopper when he is afraid as I pet him.

No, what Tad fails to realize is life has meaning and individuals have purpose and anyone who gets in the way of that is a damn evil bastard.

I am not playing the game anymore. I am done NOW!

Anonymous catahoula December 26, 2012 1:30 PM  

Dear Tad,

I saw a black, unmarked helicopter hovering over my house and vegetable garden one summer afternoon. I went outside, stood akimbo, and stared at them.

The next day there was a huge drug bust in my rural county.

Tomatoes, marijuana, they look the same from the air.

Anonymous bw December 26, 2012 1:30 PM  

mushadamama: Are we supposed to be relieved or delighted to know more black people are killed by guns than white people? I don't understand.

No. No, you do not. And you are a liar. Like the media that exists to cover up the inner city jungle that has been created and enabled by Govt policies, it is YOU who not only do not care about blacks dying by their own hand, using firearms, which are simply inanimate objects with no will whatsoever, save that given to them. You cannot deal with the human actions brought about by your own religious dictates.

Black Abortion - you know, the special right of the female to commit murder of the most innocent children among us? It is also against Nature. Nothing Natural occurs at an Abortion clinic.
Black Illegitimacy rates?

These things are Feminist religious precepts, encouraged and carried out by the murderous, raping, thieving State.
It is females who hate Nature and Children.

Think Of The Children!!

Anonymous DonReynolds December 26, 2012 1:31 PM  

Amendment 2. Right to Bear Arms
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.

It does not say that people have the right to hunt wild animals or that arms are needed for self-protection. It does say that a well regulated Militia is necessary for security of a free State. Such Militia, in their understanding, would necessarily be drawn from those persons who are proficient with firearms. And that ability with firearms is not limited to a select few but open to any and all. It does not limit the opportunity to become proficient and effective with fireams to white men, or to wealthy landowners, or to voters, or to the weak. Thus, we find it shall not be infringed.

Anonymous Difster December 26, 2012 1:48 PM  

Over on Huffington Post I posted the homicide rates of blacks vs. whites. I made no suggestion about what to do about the problem. I made no disparaging racial remarks either.

In a matter of 10 minutes, my comment had been flagged by users and thus removed after lots of replies calling me a lair, a racist and asking me to state my real intentions (presumably genocide from what they were implying I wanted to do).

Of course I didn't expect anything less from them; it's just amusing to watch.

FYI - I comment at HuffPo as LibertyDeathWatch.

Anonymous bw December 26, 2012 1:49 PM  

"Those babies did not die for nothing."

Yes, they likely did. Now, if something good comes from this, it will be the exact opposite of what the Statists desire, so in that case, something good most certainly would have come from it.

Of course, those were individual lives that were lost, not collective ones. They came in on an individual basis, and went out on one. Nature shows the way.
And their parents handed them over to other people who did not consider it their ultimate duty to be prepared to protect their lives at all cost. Shame on those Parents and Guardians. Where were the Human Beings? Think of the Children!

It is not about life for these parasitic Feminist, Hegelian politicos - it is about anything but life and the protection and preservation thereof. After all, they "take care of" the most innocent among us without even giving them a chance to become independent, personally responsible, and self-determinate. Hmmm, maybe there's something more to that in their totalitarian psych...


Anonymous tron3dfx December 26, 2012 1:52 PM  

I like the part about you "manipulating" the numbers by doing simple calculation, that's freaking priceless.

Anonymous Jack Amok December 26, 2012 2:09 PM  

Where is Lodi when we need him? He'd show you folks how to deal with trolls like Tad.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 26, 2012 2:13 PM  

Anyone who is going to dispute the utility of banning high capacity magazines is either an anti-government nut job who thinks the black helicopters are coming after them or is a danger to society.

Oh, I concur wholeheartedly. Nothing is more irritating than trying to storm a government office or a supermarket and losing most of my minions to rapid-fire weapons. They cost quite a bit to replace, in terms of time and funds (training and equipment and whatnot).

Those of you who enjoy your assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are truly a danger to the perfect society that will come to pass under my reign.

Anonymous bw December 26, 2012 2:14 PM  

"I" must be eradicated, because "I" cannot be shaped into something more useful and still remain "myself". Loki of Asgard

This. Right. Here.
High Psych and Spiritual Identity. (note it reflects Christianity in a nutshell as well). The micro is the macro is the micro is the macro.

What are you exactly (Identity) and do you threaten the State/Evil or are you used by the State/Evil to threaten the sovereign and collective alike?



Anonymous WaterBoy December 26, 2012 2:15 PM  

AdognamedOp: "A local rag here in NY state published the names and addresses of local gun owners, complete with a google map of their locations."

The appropriate response to that would be to counterpublish a list of all the other addresses in that area, which do not have such a registration, as a Notice To Burglars:

Places You Can Break Into Free From Being Shot

After all, FOIA is available for the use of all citizens, is it not?

Blogger IM2L844 December 26, 2012 2:16 PM  

There's a rumor going around that zen0 is thinking of starting a new blog called "Shut up, Tad". I can't wait.

Anonymous WaterBoy December 26, 2012 2:24 PM  

scoobius doobius: "LEFTIST: [shifts into traditional "shaming" rhetoric, unable to process actual argument or remember who Dean Swift was]"

I like the basis of your counterrhetoric (it is to laugh), but I fear the end will not go quite as you describe. The next response from the Leftist will be that Christianity (and religion in general) is more violent as evidenced by all those religious wars so religion needs to be abolished...and so on down this road as you have no doubt seen before.

Anonymous Anonymous December 26, 2012 2:32 PM  

Don't you just love when abortion-loving lefties bring out the "so these babies won't have died in vain" line??

Hahaha!! Just when you thought the hypocrisy couldn't get any thicker...

Anonymous Mina December 26, 2012 2:32 PM  

... In keeping with the theme of the original post:

"Anyone who is going to dispute the utility of banning high capacity magazines is either an anti-government nut job who thinks the black helicopters are coming after them or is a danger to society."

First and second lines of defense: Name-calling and accusations of Paranoia. Sometimes the best answer is a combination of "stick and stones" and "just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they aren't coming for me".

"There's no getting around this."

This is a version of "I said it, so it must be true." which is usually pretty safe to ignore as it's not really actionable. It is funny how in love people are with their assertions, no matter the fact they are built on nothing. In this case his assertions are that we are nut jobs and that we're paranoid. Both pretty unprovable with facts or data of any kind, since they are just biased perceptual judgements about people other than himself.

"And if you think you need such a piece of equipment to hunt animals then you should probably move out of the zoo and into a regular home."

Third line of defense: Obfuscate. Another obvious attempt to link the 2nd amendment right with hunting in the reader's minds. Propaganda.

I'd say in the big picture of things the last line was the real payload of the post. The rest of it was just a delivery vehicle.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 2:38 PM  

Where is Lodi when we need him? He'd show you folks how to deal with trolls like Tad.

Why do you think you need anyone to deal with a random collection of atoms? Meaningless twit of no account, better his momma aborted him. He just takes up space and gets in my damn way on the road.

You need to consult your atheist bible, bud.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 2:50 PM  

@Scoobius

The Second Amendment is not about hunting animals. You should read it some time. I thought you were the big-brained constitutional scholar around here, lecturing us about our ignorant abyss of darkness.

Neither is it about unusually dangerous killing machines in the hands of individuals.

Anonymous Kommandant von Tadowicz; Sanfransisklag December 26, 2012 2:53 PM  

The womens' barracks know all about one unusually dangerous killing machine in the hands of this individual. Achtung, baby.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 2:53 PM  

@Outlaw

The simple laws of the scientific minded atheist knows is he will not be remembered in this universe and since there is no other he will never be remembered. Everything he does is in vain and his whole existence is just temporal vanity.

Such a sad life, Idle, such a sad place to be. All the money in the world won't stop the temporary death or the eventual universal death.


And yet countless friends, family members, acquaintances, and others, who were avowed atheists, are remembers still by the living, long after their lives ended. And so often are they remembered for how they improved the quality of life for those still living and how they left a mark that is still felt and appreciated.

Odd that you can't see that.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 2:58 PM  

@DonReynolds

And that ability with firearms is not limited to a select few but open to any and all. It does not limit the opportunity to become proficient and effective with fireams to white men, or to wealthy landowners, or to voters, or to the weak. Thus, we find it shall not be infringed.

It's not an issue of whether we have the right to own arms. However, there are limits. You know that. But don't feel ready to admit it. Too bad. it's common sense...and the law.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 3:02 PM  

Odd that you can't see that.

Odd that you can't see it matters not what a random collection of atoms do? Who is odd after all?

Anonymous LES December 26, 2012 3:04 PM  

Speed kills. Nobody needs a car that looks like a race car.
Nobody needs a car that has the horsepower to go faster than 60 mph.
Actually, no car should be able to go faster than 50 mph. Obviously, the registration and licensing and training with regards to driving is not enough to prevent traffic deaths, injuries and property damage. The NASCAR lobby must be stopped!

Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 3:06 PM  

I am still trying to figure out why a random collection of atoms cares if I have a gun or a 30 rnd clip. Why should it be any concern of theirs?

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 3:07 PM  

@Outlaw

Odd that you can't see that.

Odd that you can't see it matters not what a random collection of atoms do? Who is odd after all?


And yet, your contention that we (atheists) are forgotten is untrue. Move on and find another way to assault reason. I'll be here for your next attempt.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 3:08 PM  

@outlaw

I am still trying to figure out why a random collection of atoms cares if I have a gun or a 30 rnd clip. Why should it be any concern of theirs?

Put down your bible. Move away from it. Clear your mind of that excess nonsense. And give it some thought. You'll get there.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 3:14 PM  

If 20 children die in a school or 50 million die in an abortion clinic why should I care after all we are just primordial sludge with legs and monkeys without all the hair? Tad, you got to get with the program here. Life is spit puked out by a sperm and an egg and nothing more.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 3:17 PM  

Put down your bible. Move away from it. Clear your mind of that excess nonsense. And give it some thought. You'll get there.

I just put it down and think you are right. Life is cheap, random and worthless.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 26, 2012 3:18 PM  

Neither is it about unusually dangerous killing machines in the hands of individuals.

Do tell, is your concern the danger or the relative novelty of the "killing machine"?

Further, I note that you have no objection to said "killing machines" being in the hands of the precise category of people (i.e., government agents) who are known for using them to commit crimes for which there can be no redress.

Not that I wish to disabuse you of your beliefs. In fact, I would have them become universal. Then, while you and yours whinge about how unfashionable my minions are with their "unusually dangerous killing machines", I can laugh and admire how well the skin of your neck complements my new boots.

Anonymous Daniel December 26, 2012 3:24 PM  

unusually dangerous killing machines?

As opposed to what? Commonly safe killing machines? So, is that why abortion clinics are still legal? They kill, but not in an "unusually dangerous" way?

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 3:27 PM  

@loki

Do tell, is your concern the danger or the relative novelty of the "killing machine"?

All guns are killing machines. All are dangerous. Some are unusually dangerous. What's the problem with making the unusually dangerous killing machines somewhat more difficult to obtain. Let's face it, if you can't defend yourself or hunt with a simple pistol or rifle, then you don't have any business with a gun. On the other hand, if you need to imagine a scenario in which you need to possess a machine that will file off numerous rounds in seconds, then join the military.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 3:28 PM  

So, is that why abortion clinics are still legal? They kill, but not in an "unusually dangerous" way?

Abortion clinics don't kill.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 26, 2012 3:28 PM  

Here's what you need to know. Despite not believing that some invisible being living in the clouds give my life meaning, I still not only find meaning, but celebrate the lives of others that came before me. Some how you can't wrap your head around that. If you accept this simple truth, then go about your interesting obsession with trying to understand what motivates an atheist, you'll find even more amazing truths to ponder. Go ahead, you can do it.

No thanks, you have convinced me of atheism, but I choose to be a rational one instead of an irrational one.

Anonymous kh123 December 26, 2012 3:29 PM  

"And if you think you need such a piece of equipment to hunt animals...

So is that how liberals are self-identifying these days. Not surprising, since most are some form of Dawkins/Gould evolutionist.

"...then you should probably move out of the zoo..."

Again, how liberals label their own cosmopolitan enclaves of vibrancy when either the Freudian slips or their Prius is broken into.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 26, 2012 3:29 PM  

Tad December 26, 2012 2:50 PM
"The Second Amendment is not about hunting animals. You should read it some time. I thought you were the big-brained constitutional scholar around here, lecturing us about our ignorant abyss of darkness."

Neither is it about unusually dangerous killing machines in the hands of individuals.


Tad, please enlighten me as to what exactly the Second Amendment IS about.

You've been rather vague about which weapons DO NOT apply, so I will ask you to be specific, please, with the answers to these next questions:

Which types of firearms (if any) do you, Tad, believe Americans have the Right to own as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment?

Which types of firearms (if any) do you, Tad, believe Americans have the Right to carry on their persons as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment?

Thank you,

Anonymous Daniel December 26, 2012 3:29 PM  

And yet, I can and do remember those who came before me and who positively impacted my life and who were atheists. So, that claim doesn't stand up. What next??

Only for the next 35 years, dude, and then you die and they will be forgotten. Out of the billions who have lived, can you please simply identify 3 atheists who died in 1205 whose life still provides you with meaning and whose memory you hold dear?

Oh that's not fair. Let's bump it up a few centuries. 1705? No good. 1805? Heck let's go to 1905? Can you even name one?

All die. All are are forgotten. Your memories die with your brain, and you don't pass them on like a flame. The fact that you have the minimal mental capacity to remember a few dead atheists means nothing in the grand scheme.

Nothing.

Anonymous Daniel December 26, 2012 3:30 PM  


Abortion clinics don't kill.

Oh, that's right. People in abortion clinics kill.

Anonymous Kommandant von Tadowicz; Sanfransisklag December 26, 2012 3:35 PM  

The giftgas merely puts the untermensch to sleep. Painless really, and humane; although it would be preferable to see them at least with a wheel barrow or a spade in hand, doing something useful for the 5 Year Plan before kicking the bucket.

Anonymous realmatt December 26, 2012 3:38 PM  

I've got to ask, why don't you try to convince, instead of indulging this childish AWCA nonsense? It's difficult, sure, but writing in such a way as to only persuade the already persuaded is a waste of time.

This entire blog is one giant attempt to convince. The twitter posts before the insults were attempts to convince. When they show themselves to be ridiculous and unreasonable, the only thing left to do is whatever you feel like doing. Vox felt like insulting her.

Maybe Spacebunny's shopping or something.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 3:39 PM  

@winston

Which types of firearms (if any) do you, Tad, believe Americans have the Right to carry on their persons as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment?

Good question. How about we start with this baseline: Any hand held weapon that existed at the time the Constitution was written. That would be a purely Originalist (even "Textualist") approach to interpreting the Constitution, wouldn't it.

Anonymous Salt December 26, 2012 3:42 PM  

@tad

Shut off your computer and get yourself a quill and inkwell. No car for you. Get a horse. How's your candle supply?

Anonymous Scintan December 26, 2012 3:43 PM  

The real question is whether Vox uses "Tad" as a sock puppet or it's just someone else trolling.

Anonymous snickers December 26, 2012 3:46 PM  

Roundtine December 26, 2012 6:53 AM

I saw Piers Morgan say the AR-15 can fire 5 shots per second. As best I can tell, he took a machine gun rate of fire and divided by two, since it's SEMI auto. If you could get people to actually bet with you, even at $0.10 or $1, you could become a millionaire on twitter.


I emptied a thirty round clip in less than 6 seconds in a AR-15. This depends entirely on the speed of your trigger finger.

Of course your not getting any kind of accuracy at that speed.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 26, 2012 3:46 PM  

All guns are killing machines. All are dangerous. Some are unusually dangerous. What's the problem with making the unusually dangerous killing machines somewhat more difficult to obtain.

I agree. Once the "unusually dangerous" ones such as automatic weapons are beyond the reach of anyone not on a government payroll, the most "unusually dangerous" ones will be semi-automatic. Ban those, and then the ones that require less than a full stop-stand-load-and-fire will be dangerous. Finally, one can take away bows (oh yes, bows must be illegal), then knives, then plastic forks, then martial arts. Each, in turn, would become "unusually dangerous", you see.

Let's face it, if you can't defend yourself or hunt with a simple pistol or rifle, then you don't have any business with a gun.

Agreed. Anything capable of penetrating body armour or preventing one's death by mob violence or invasion is excessive (not to mention inconvenient to conquerors and warlords such as I).

On the other hand, if you need to imagine a scenario in which you need to possess a machine that will file off numerous rounds in seconds, then join the military.

Agreed. Surrender your individuality and your freedom. Then, and only then, under the auspices of your betters, may you wield "unusually dangerous killing machines" against those you are ordered to slay in droves, maugre their innocence.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 26, 2012 3:48 PM  

Tad December 26, 2012 3:39 PM

"Which types of firearms (if any) do you, Tad, believe Americans have the Right to carry on their persons as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment?"

Good question. How about we start with this baseline: Any hand held weapon that existed at the time the Constitution was written. That would be a purely Originalist (even "Textualist") approach to interpreting the Constitution, wouldn't it.


No, it would not. You are adding the artificial metric of "hand held weapon". If you will recall the history of the American Revolution, the first shots fired at Concord were due to the British government attempting to dispossess the American militiamen of their artillery:
Orders from General Thomas Gage
to Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment 'Foot
Boston, April 18, 1775
Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment 'Foot,
Sir,
Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provisions, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will take care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property.
You have a Draught of Concord, on which is marked the Houses, Barns, &c, which contain the above military Stores. You will order a Trunion to be knocked off each Gun, but if its found impracticable on any, they must be spiked, and the Carriages destroyed. The Powder and flower must be shook out of the Barrels into the River, the Tents burnt, Pork or Beef destroyed in the best way you can devise. And the Men may put Balls of lead in their pockets, throwing them by degrees into Ponds, Ditches &c., but no Quantity together, so that they may be recovered afterwards. If you meet any Brass Artillery, you will order their muzzles to be beat in so as to render them useless.
You will observe by the Draught that it will be necessary to secure the two Bridges as soon as possible, you will therefore Order a party of the best Marchers, to go on with expedition for the purpose.
A small party of Horseback is ordered out to stop all advice of your March getting to Concord before you, and a small number of Artillery go out in Chaises to wait for you on the road, with Sledge Hammers, Spikes, &c.
You will open your business and return with the Troops, as soon as possible, with I must leave to your own Judgment and Discretion.
I am, Sir,
Your most obedient humble servant
Thos. Gage.


In light of this, I ask you to remove your baseless modifier and answer my direct question with a direct answer, please:

Which types of firearms (if any) do you, Tad, believe Americans have the Right to carry on their persons as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment?

Thank you,

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 3:50 PM  

@Daniel

And yet, I can and do remember those who came before me and who positively impacted my life and who were atheists. So, that claim doesn't stand up. What next??

Only for the next 35 years, dude, and then you die and they will be forgotten.


Really? Forgotten?

Frida Kahlo-Atheist-Not Forgotten
Thomas Edison-Atheist-Not Forgotten
Virginia Woolf-Atheist-Not Forgotten
Mark Twain-Atheist-Not Forgotten

Should I go on?

Atheists have no reason to believe that simply because there is no god, people are forgotten after they die.

You are engaging in crazy talk.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 3:53 PM  

@Winston

You asked. And I responded.. And, the engagement at Concord is not referenced in the Constitution. How it happened, why it happened, when it happened, is not relevant to the question.

However, if you are about to argue that the 2nd Amendment allows the possession of any and all "arms", then you simply don't understand the Constitution, constitutional jurisprudence or common sense.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 3:57 PM  

@Salt

@tad

Shut off your computer and get yourself a quill and inkwell. No car for you. Get a horse. How's your candle supply?


Salt, are you, in your own way, trying to suggest that the constitution can be read as having meaning not specifically spelled out in the document? What about the "Free Exercise" clause? What do we do about those that want to exercise their religious rights that include sacrificing virgins. Sticky wicket isn't it.

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 26, 2012 4:09 PM  

Tad December 26, 2012 3:53 PM

You asked. And I responded...


You did not answer, you waffled. More on that in a moment...

And, the engagement at Concord is not referenced in the Constitution. How it happened, why it happened, when it happened, is not relevant to the question.

Excellent! The history behind the making of laws to protect individual Rights is irrelevant.
Q.E.D.
(I expect no whining from you when I use this to my advantage in this discourse)

However, if you are about to argue that the 2nd Amendment allows the possession of any and all "arms", then you simply don't understand the Constitution, constitutional jurisprudence or common sense.

The latter personal jab notwithstanding, I would argue that it is YOU, sir, that has no understanding. The Constitution was written by men that had just fought a violent, largely guerrilla, revolutionary war against what was their legitimate government. You believe that they would immediately outlaw the tools of their own success?
No matter, let's explore the first part again:

Any hand held weapon that existed at the time the Constitution was written.

For the sake of continuing, I'll bend and count this as a specific answer to the question "Which types of firearms (if any) do you, Tad, believe Americans have the Right to carry on their persons as it pertains to the 2nd Amendment?".

Does this rule apply to police officers? The President's security team? The mayor of NYC's personal detail? Madonna's private bodyguards? Why or why not?

Anonymous J. Doe December 26, 2012 4:23 PM  

Why people here continue to engage that loathsome clown escapes me.

As for dealing with those who call for gun control, Affirmative Action, minimum wage, abortion rights, i.e big, intrusive, fascist government - they are demonstrating open hostility against the USA and its Constitution and should be tried, convicted, sentenced for treason. The USA was founded on the principle of small government. Leftists have been slowly, relentlessly undermining this principle for decades.

It's well past time for conservatives to stop being on the defensive. The enemy within is never going to change sides.

Blogger tz December 26, 2012 4:50 PM  

Tad:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/documents-reveal-how-chicago-woman-died-after-abortion-at-planned-parenthood-79036/

And that is just the mother. You used the word "kill" instead of "murder". So the baby is not "killed"? Perhaps you disagree that it is a baby, but whatever it is, fetus, conceptus, tissue blob, it ends up dead, and is that not the definition of "kill" or are you simply stupid (please, let Tad answer).

I'm all in favor of banning Magazines. But it seems to be redundant, though I would have hoped Playboy, Us, People, and Cosmo would be gone by now, but I think Newsweek is dead, USN&WP, Time. "Life" ended long ago.

But there's that pesky amendment in the bill of rights, but I'm sure you think the founders never intended it to protect such purveyors (I almost typed perverts) of destruction.

Blogger tz December 26, 2012 4:53 PM  

Why people here continue to engage that loathsome clown escapes me.

He hasn't mentioned a finance.

Shhh. We're distracting him since as soon as something dawns he will get stoned.

Blogger tz December 26, 2012 5:01 PM  

I hate to keep taking intellectual pot-shots, especially at an unarmed target, but Tad is the gift that keeps on giving.

Mark Twain wrote one of the best books on (later canonized as Saint) Joan of Arc. He did not sound like an "atheist".

As far as "not forgotten" Atheists, you failed to list Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

But Tad, don't end your (ignorance is) blissful existence. At least not in any violent, messy, or inconvenient manner.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 26, 2012 5:23 PM  

Really? Forgotten?

Frida Kahlo-Atheist-Not Forgotten
Thomas Edison-Atheist-Not Forgotten
Virginia Woolf-Atheist-Not Forgotten
Mark Twain-Atheist-Not Forgotten

Should I go on?


I am sure their legacy comforts them in their non-existence, as I am sure you will be similarly remembered for doing nothing of what they have done.

Does it comfort you, a mayfly who will perish in obscurity and cease to be, to know that a very narrow few people are remembered?

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 26, 2012 5:34 PM  

However, if you are about to argue that the 2nd Amendment allows the possession of any and all "arms", then you simply don't understand the Constitution, constitutional jurisprudence or common sense.

If you are about to argue that the Founding Fathers of your erstwhile nation would hold that a free State is made secure in the face of automatic weapons, artillery, and bombs, by using only a few small-caliber rifles and pistols, then...do please. If you fail to convince anyone, at least you will have amused me.

Anonymous Todd December 26, 2012 5:40 PM  

I wouldn't present the gun argument in racial tones.

I would emphasize that we must disarm democrats if we are serious about saving lives (~70% of hispanics and 94% of blacks voted for obama)

Anonymous kh123 December 26, 2012 6:20 PM  

"Frida Kahlo-Atheist-Not Forgotten"

Overrated artist whose schtick would be lost today in a sea of similar online "look at me suffer in a Bosch-knockoff style" art.

"Thomas Edison-Atheist-Not Forgotten"

Known more for his salesmanship and nut-flexing; the creative mind was Tesla.

"Virginia Woolf-Atheist-Not Forgotten"

Couldn't care less; which underlies the whole point of in memorium going the way of the dodo.


"Mark Twain-Atheist-Not Forgotten"

Since when did deist become synonymous with atheist. Give Wikipedia a whirl sometime.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 6:48 PM  

@Loki


Does it comfort you, a mayfly who will perish in obscurity and cease to be, to know that a very narrow few people are remembered?


We are all remembered, Loki.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 6:52 PM  

@J. Doe


As for dealing with those who call for gun control, Affirmative Action, minimum wage, abortion rights, i.e big, intrusive, fascist government - they are demonstrating open hostility against the USA and its Constitution and should be tried, convicted, sentenced for treason.


But of course they aren't tried for these things because there's that free speech/press thing. But, if you think those items ought to be excluded from the rights of Americans, you can always get out there and advocate for it.

It's well past time for conservatives to stop being on the defensive. The enemy within is never going to change sides.

I'm dying to know what you think conservatives going on the offensive would look like.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 26, 2012 7:20 PM  

We are all remembered, Loki.

By whom?

By no one, in your worldview.

There are countless millions of your kind whose names and lives are lost to obscurity, for no reason but that they did nothing extraordinary. You think that history recalls every man, woman, and child ever to be, but you are sadly, badly mistaken. Those names recorded in the annals of your world are few and far between, the exceptions and not the rules, only known for the important (or infamous) things they did.

Obliteration is all that awaits you at the end of your brief life, Tad. You are no one. You are nothing--and why should you be otherwise, parasite that you are? You spend your days trying to gratify your ego, whether it be by pursuing ephemeral pleasures of the flesh or by having your will imposed upon others. You live off of the lives of others; you find purpose only in thwarting the purposes of others.

Your mind is a mass of contradictions, a pathetic madness imposed upon yourself because you cannot bear to accept that perhaps there is more to life than what you have chosen to make of it. You see others, content and cheerful, successful of their own and steady in their course in life, and it galls you.

You linger here, at this blog, not to instruct, not to persuade, but to posture and receive attention. You thrive upon the indulgence of those who find your mental gyrations only just more entertaining than annoying. You stride out into the spotlight and shriek, "Here am I! Look at me! See how I defy you!"

Will you be remembered? Only by those who say, "That fellow who posted poorly-constructed and unreasoned comments about guns or something...what was his name? Oh, I don't remember. It's not important anyway, but it was funny for a day or so." In twenty years, they will have deleted you from their memories--as, likely, you will have been deleted from the Earth.

But you may wallow in your self-important delusions if it gives you solace on dark nights when you question your value.

Blogger The Aardvark December 26, 2012 7:27 PM  

"Neither is it about unusually dangerous killing machines in the hands of individuals." --Tad

Sorry...I did not see that in the original text.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 7:38 PM  

@Loki

You linger here, at this blog, not to instruct, not to persuade, but to posture and receive attention. You thrive upon the indulgence of those who find your mental gyrations only just more entertaining than annoying. You stride out into the spotlight and shriek, "Here am I! Look at me! See how I defy you!"

Says he who has lingered here longer than I and who poses as an imaginary deity. Really?

On a serious note, I appreciate your concerns for how I live my life. But still, you need to get a grip.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) December 26, 2012 8:20 PM  

The second amendment is there to defend against totalitarians like Tad who want to micro manage every aspect of your life and relegate you to being a tax slave to fund his utopian minded government programs.

If you're going to disarm anyone it should be the government, which has shown a propensity to engage in mass murder to the tune of around 100 million people just in the 20th century.

It's a joke seeing Obama lecture us about gun violence when he's running heavy weapons to mexican drug cartels and assasinating whomever he wants without any due process at all. This is the government, which has a military with the capability to destroy the world thousands of times over, and the big danger is citizens defending themselves?

Is obama more worthy of protection than me? Why does he have secret service protection? Tad, here's a chance to show your true progressive fascist colors.

Anonymous Mina December 26, 2012 8:35 PM  

"totalitarians like Tad who want to micro manage every aspect of your life and relegate you to being a tax slave to fund his utopian minded government programs"

People like Tad want to tell their neighbors how to live and think everyone should live their lives the way they do, because then everything will be just perfect.

They use their nanny / big brother / Momma and best friend, the Government, to execute drawing the lines for the standard and then send in their thugs to enforce them.

I believe they know not what they do and how it effects the affected ... until it's close - like a next-door neighbor or a family member. By that time, it's of course much too late for them to come to the realization as to what they have done.

Anonymous Anonymous December 26, 2012 8:35 PM  

Anyone who is going to dispute the utility of banning high capacity magazines is either an anti-government nut job who thinks the black helicopters are coming after them or is a danger to society.--***

You cannot ban "high capacity magazines" by appealing to utilitarianism.

"[T]he real world is conditioned by the disutility of labor...We infer from this fact that leisure is valued as a good and that labor is regarded as a burden.--Ludwig von Mises

1.) It it burdensome to continually reload a single-shot musket. It requires too much effort. Rapid-fire rifles with large capacity, detachable magazines offer greater utility than other, readily available alternatives. You cannot dispute the superiority of "assault rifles" on utilitarian grounds.

2.) A .50 BMG Barrett makes a fine anti-(black)helicopter weapon. How can you be so dismissive?

3.) Weapons have no independent will. As such, they pose no inherent danger to society.

You invariably look foolish when arguing for firearms prohibition. Why don't you accept the good advise others have offered and simply shut up?

MALTHUS

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 8:46 PM  

@Fubar

If you're going to disarm anyone it should be the government, which has shown a propensity to engage in mass murder to the tune of around 100 million people just in the 20th century.

There's your problem. I spotted it. You think someone is trying to disarm you. But of course no one is suggesting anything that would lead you to that kind of delusional position.

This is the government, which has a military with the capability to destroy the world thousands of times over, and the big danger is citizens defending themselves?

More delusion. No one is suggesting that citizens defending themselves is a problem and to be stopped. Lose the delusions and you'll be on course to better understanding what's going on.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 8:49 PM  

@Mina

People like Tad want to tell their neighbors how to live and think everyone should live their lives the way they do, because then everything will be just perfect

Not tell them....But rather suggest to them. Plus, it doesn't come down to what I want. I comes down to what the body politic chooses.

Anonymous Mina December 26, 2012 8:54 PM  

"Not tell them....But rather suggest to them." - implication: you, my neighbors, are not responsible enough or capable enough to decide how to live your lives correctly without a standard to adhere to. So we will provide it.

It is an inherent distrust in the fellow citizen and a matching faith and trust in the Government that drives the suggestions.

Anonymous Anonymous December 26, 2012 9:13 PM  

"All guns are killing machines. All are dangerous. Some are unusually dangerous."

They would be useless if they were not dangerous. They would have no utility. Again, how can you ban them on utilitarian grounds?

MALTHUS

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 9:17 PM  

@Mina

implication: you, my neighbors, are not responsible enough or capable enough to decide how to live your lives correctly without a standard to adhere to. So we will provide it.

Now you are just being silly. We all have our own ideas about how a community best functions and we all take part in the debate. In the end, the community decides. It's not about imposing anything. It's about engaging in a conversation/debate/discussion/governing format.

The alternative is no law at all. No community standard. No rules. That appears to be your preference. That's fine. Make the case and see if you can't get the rest in your community to agree. Or, move to your own island.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 9:20 PM  

They would be useless if they were not dangerous. They would have no utility. Again, how can you ban them on utilitarian grounds?

The question is whether the community benefits by having hyper efficient killing machines readily available. Of course, it does not. Hence, let's make them the least accessible as possible.

Anonymous mina December 26, 2012 9:26 PM  

It is one thing for the community to decide 1. what things shall be governed over and 2. what the standard to which those things will be held

... and another to say "certain members of the community will sit in judgment of the other members of the community and act as their judge and jury in meting out the standards we dictate to them".

I don't mind the former as long as all citizens have equal opportunity to cast their vote and the process is fair to all. IME most folks like you prefer the latter and do everything in their power to work the situation in their favor in order to affect their desired outcome.

Insofar as gun laws, the community of our forefathers already decided that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. But you're not satisfied with that community decision, are you? Clearly not.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 9:32 PM  

@Mina

Insofar as gun laws, the community of our forefathers already decided that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. But you're not satisfied with that community decision, are you? Clearly not.

Do you interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that it appies to any and all weapons/arms? Regardless of their power? Would you draw the line at any weapon?

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 26, 2012 9:37 PM  

Tad,
Please don't forget that I had follow-up questions for you.

By your own statement, you believe that the Right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment only applies to [a]ny hand held weapon that existed at the time the Constitution was written.

Does this rule apply to police officers?
The President's security team?
The mayor of NYC's personal detail?
Madonna's private bodyguards?
Why or why not?

Thank you,

Anonymous Mina December 26, 2012 9:40 PM  

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do you not understand?

I believe the founding fathers kept this statement very simple for a reason.

The reason was to prevent anyone trying to twist the words and obfuscate their meaning to later turn the statement into something it is not.

The words stand alone. A 3rd grader can understand them. Are you as smart as a 3rd grader, Tad? Clearly not.

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) December 26, 2012 10:06 PM  

Tad, you have a twisted view of the world. How is suggesting the same thing as passing a law, which is backed by the threat of violence? Tad, I suggest you mow your lawn every day or I'll bash your brains out with a baseball bat.

Don't appeal to the body politic or some other abstraction. You are more violent than you think Tad.

Tad, you show your true colors with your attitude that citizens should be disarmed but that the true killers (the government) should be armed to the teeth.

Anonymous Idle observer December 26, 2012 10:08 PM  

"The question is whether the community benefits by having hyper efficient killing machines readily available. Of course, it does not."

Depends on the "community".

Anonymous Idle observer December 26, 2012 10:13 PM  

"mushadamama: We are not going away this time. Those babies did not die for nothing. We're going to stay loud until something changes"

She must be talking about those babies and children in foreign countries Obozo has executed by drone attacks. /s

Anonymous CatDog December 26, 2012 10:31 PM  

Thomas Edison was a Deist as well.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 10:32 PM  

@Mina

The words stand alone. A 3rd grader can understand them. Are you as smart as a 3rd grader, Tad? Clearly not.

I wonder if a 3rd grader would understand that the 2nd Amendment does not necessarily protect the right of the people to possess rocket propelled grenades that have dirty nuclear material being delivered.

Or is this something the 2nd amendment protects.

The first Amendment insists that the freedom of speech shall not be abridged through federal (now state) law. Yet, we have slander laws as well as other laws that abridge speech. Oh, but isn't the Amendment easy and straight forward.

You folks who think there can be absolutely no limit on any constitutionally protected actions simply have no respect for reason or common sense.

Anonymous Tad December 26, 2012 10:33 PM  

@Fubar


Tad, you show your true colors with your attitude that citizens should be disarmed but that the true killers (the government) should be armed to the teeth.


I'd agree with you had I ever suggested that citizens be disarmed. But of course, that's never happened.

Anonymous Obliviou... I mean, Obsidian December 26, 2012 10:34 PM  

DON'T BE CONFLATING WITH THE ISSUE, IDLE. OBAMA SPREADING DEMOCRATICY WITH THE MILITAH OVERSEAS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT SAME GOVERNMENT TAKING BAD, BAD GUNS AWAY A CRAZY WHITE MAJORARITY THAT SHOOTS IT UP EVERY HALF TIME. I SHOULD KNOW, SINCE I LIVE IN THE HOOD, AND KNOW BETTER THAN ANY YOU CRACKERS ABOUT URBAN VIOLENCE. MAYBE EVEN BETTER THAN ANY OTHER BROTHER THAT CAN TYPE IT UP ON INTERNET FORUMS. CHIN CHECK, CHUMP. CHECK THESE CAPS, BITCHEZ.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 26, 2012 10:44 PM  

WaterBoy said on December 26, 2012 at 2:15 PM

AdognamedOp: "A local rag here in NY state published the names and addresses of local gun owners, complete with a google map of their locations."

The appropriate response to that would be to counterpublish a list of all the other addresses in that area, which do not have such a registration, as a Notice To Burglars:

Places You Can Break Into Free From Being Shot

After all, FOIA is available for the use of all citizens, is it not?


There is no need to do that, since the newspapers have already done that.

Any unarmed person without a permit who is burgled after the publication of that information should sue the newspapers in question for loss of property and emotional stress and danger etc, since the newspapers have already told burglars and people like Tad where the unarmed one are.

Anonymous Idle observer December 26, 2012 10:47 PM  

Petition to Eliminate Armed Guards for the President, Vice-President, and Their Families, and Establish Gun Free Zones Around Them.

Anonymous Mina December 26, 2012 10:48 PM  

"shall not be infringed" - words. stand. alone. stop trying to interpret them. you're not qualified.

"The first Amendment insists that the freedom of speech shall not be abridged through federal (now state) law. Yet, we have slander laws as well as other laws that abridge speech." - an invalid comparison as slander is not a free speech right but instead involves my right to not have people speak things about me to others that they know to be false.

In contrast, you are completely free to speak things about me to others that you know to be true and I don't have a thing to say about it - because speaking truth about me doesn't infringe on my rights.

IOW your right to speak freely stops where my right to not have falsehoods promulgated about me starts.

Get it? I bet you don't. The idea of the rights of citizens seems to escape you, as a general concept.

Anonymous Idle observer December 26, 2012 10:50 PM  

"DON'T BE CONFLATING WITH THE ISSUE, IDLE. OBAMA SPREADING DEMOCRATICY WITH THE MILITAH OVERSEAS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT SAME GOVERNMENT TAKING BAD, BAD GUNS AWAY A CRAZY WHITE MAJORARITY THAT SHOOTS IT UP EVERY HALF TIME."

Tru dat home slice ;-)

Anonymous WinstonWebb December 26, 2012 10:57 PM  

ATTN: TAD

I'm going to assume that you accidentally overlooked my prior two requests and ask a third time:

By your own statement, you believe that the Right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd Amendment only applies to [a]ny hand held weapon that existed at the time the Constitution was written.

Does this rule apply to police officers?
The President's security team?
The mayor of NYC's personal detail?
Madonna's private bodyguards?
Why or why not?

Thank you,

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) December 26, 2012 11:15 PM  

Tad, are you for banning the secret service from having assault weapons? What about Michael Bloomberg's Body Guard?

Anonymous The other skeptic December 27, 2012 12:07 AM  

Stinking People's Republic of California trying to put gun companies out of business.

Buy their shares. Don't let this happen.

Anonymous FrankNorman December 27, 2012 2:09 AM  

If the people who wrote the Second Amendment had meant to prohibit restrictions only on weapons that had already been invented at the time, they would have said so.

People like Tad are indulging in exegetical Calvinball.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 2:27 AM  

@Frank

If the people who wrote the Second Amendment had meant to prohibit restrictions only on weapons that had already been invented at the time, they would have said so.

Do you think if the folks who wrote the constitution believed America was meant to be a "christian nation" they would have said so?

Do you think if the folks who wrote the constitution meant there were limits to the types of interstate commerce the Federal government could regulate, they would have said so?

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 27, 2012 11:04 AM  

On a serious note, I appreciate your concerns for how I live my life.

Concerns? On the contrary. You are clearly thin-skinned, else you would not meet every disagreement with accusations of insanity or inhumanity--and I enjoy what I can do to one such as you.

Anonymous Tad December 27, 2012 11:17 AM  

@Loki

Did you find that grip yet?

Anonymous Anonymous December 27, 2012 1:35 PM  

"The question is whether the community benefits by having hyper efficient killing machines readily available."

The question is whether the AR-15 has utility in the role of a militiaman's personal weapon. This must be answered in the affirmative. Because these "hyper efficient killing machines" largely mimic the Army's standard issue rifle, having proficiency in their use contributes toward the establishment of a well regulated militia.

In addition, because these commonly used and easily accessible weapons are arms of the militia, the right to freely own and use them cannot be abridged.

MALTHUS

Anonymous Anonymous December 27, 2012 2:06 PM  

"Hence, let's make them the least accessible as possible."

Your argument-from-utility has false utility:

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.--18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria

MALTHUS

Blogger mmaier2112 December 27, 2012 8:11 PM  

Tad apparently doesn't understand simple English very well, but we knew that the first day he showed up.

Only lawyers and vile scum as Tad think growing wheat on your own land can possibly be defined as "interstate commerce".

He thinks nothing is beyond the federal government's power, ignoring that each and every article of the BOR is a handcuff on federal power.

But it's not the law, just the results and "winning" that matter to the bastard statists.

Tad: I hope you hang on a noose whose creation you support. You deserve no damn less.

Blogger LP 999/Eliza December 28, 2012 7:44 AM  

Fantastic still you display great, great patience for the rabbit people and the logically challenged.

Anonymous FrankNorman December 29, 2012 7:08 AM  

Tad December 27, 2012 2:27 AM

@Frank

If the people who wrote the Second Amendment had meant to prohibit restrictions only on weapons that had already been invented at the time, they would have said so.

Do you think if the folks who wrote the constitution believed America was meant to be a "christian nation" they would have said so?

Do you think if the folks who wrote the constitution meant there were limits to the types of interstate commerce the Federal government could regulate, they would have said so?


Tad, if you're attempting a "tu quoque", I'm not an American.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts