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

Monday, December 17, 2012

WND column

Standing Firm for Freedom

It was not a surprise that the response of the New York Times to the Connecticut public-school shootings was to run, not one, not two, not three, but four editorials calling for yet another push for gun control. The mainstream media have been waiting literally years for something like this to happen, and they are not about to let such a crisis go to waste.

Labels: ,

329 Comments:

1 – 200 of 329 Newer› Newest»
Anonymous Buckeyecopperhead December 17, 2012 1:07 AM  

Damn skippy!

Anonymous Noah B. December 17, 2012 1:35 AM  

Ask Obama why his children have armed guards but other American children don't deserve them. Let him cry his way out of that one.

Blogger Wagnerian December 17, 2012 1:37 AM  

It was predicted last October by people whom I respect--me--that schools would be next after Aurora didn't work. When this doesn't work, it will next be a sporting event or something similar, with several times the casualties.

Blogger Wagnerian December 17, 2012 1:38 AM  

It was predicted last October by people whom I respect--me--that schools would be next after Aurora didn't work. When this doesn't work, it will next be a sporting event or something similar, with several times the casualties.

Anonymous 11B December 17, 2012 1:46 AM  

I am tired of always having to be on the defensive after a shooting or some other incident that involves a person or issue on the political right. For example, anytime someone uses a gun to commit a crime, defenders of the 2nd Amendment must defend themselves.

However, when an illegal alien who's been arrested and released several times for drunk driving finally kills someone in an accident, the left doesn't have to defend their open borders position.

When Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut, the whole right had to go on the defense because it was accused of conducting a 'war on women'. Yet, when Bill Maher called Sarah Palin far worse, nothing happened.

I am sure you can find many other examples. The bottom line is I am tired of our side always having to be on the defensive.



Anonymous Noah B. December 17, 2012 2:06 AM  

@11B

If you find yourself doubting your convictions, just remind yourself of the media's refusal to report those crimes committed by illegal aliens, killings of innocents by police, and individuals' use of guns for self defense. It is no accident that the media only hypes those tragedies that give them an opportunity to further their agenda. And there is no reason to be defensive if you have done no wrong, so do not engage them on their terms, with some implicit assumption that you are the guilty party. Turn the tables on them. THEY are the ones who have sacrificed these innocents on the altar of statism.

We are dealing with ruthless scumbags who are hellbent on depriving the American people of liberty of all kinds, not just the right to keep and bear arms. Do not be confused about who and what you are dealing with.

Anonymous Bobo December 17, 2012 2:17 AM  

Here's the Telegraph's take:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9749024/Americas-deadly-obsession-with-guns.html

Sounds like the US is a Lebanese war zone.

Anonymous Bobo December 17, 2012 2:18 AM  

Bah, sorry already posted.... :(

Blogger IM2L844 December 17, 2012 2:35 AM  

The bottom line is I am tired of our side always having to be on the defensive.

You can thank a couple of generations of turning the other cheek to the unrelenting left handed drumbeat.

The headlines seldom read "rampage killer" or "sociopathic murderer". They usually read "gunman" or "shooter". At this point I don't really think it is some kind of intentional liberal plot, but rather the result of a couple of generations of conditioning. Now it's automatic and everybody just accepts it because it's the new normal.

If Adam Lanza had used a claw hammer, the headlines would have read "Just think what would have happened if he had a gun".

Proactively working to take back control of the narrative is the only way to turn things around if it's not already too late for anything to be effective.

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 17, 2012 2:42 AM  

I want my freedom crisp and firm, like my thighs on the stairmaster.

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 17, 2012 3:00 AM  

Here's the Telegraph's take:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/9749024/Americas-deadly-obsession-with-guns.html

Sounds like the US is a Lebanese war zone.


Fuck England, those stupid tossers are talking bollocks. If they had their way on guns the entire world would be English bobbies beating people with their wanker sticks and bad language.

Hey English readers, how are those knife attacks going? You feelin' diverse yet now that your insides are on the out?

Ban knives in England.

Then rocks and spoons after that.

Anonymous 11B December 17, 2012 3:03 AM  

Sounds like the US is a Lebanese war zone.

Too bad the third world doesn't believe this. Maybe the immivasion would slow up if the US were so dangerous.

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 17, 2012 3:06 AM  

A knife attack every four minutes, with 130,000 a year

Good job on the gun control, England. Subtitle: "England's Deadly Obsession with Knives.

I haven't seen Englishmen take a blow like that since Hugh Grant.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 17, 2012 3:19 AM  

"he who surrenders his unalienable right to arms also gives up his right to call himself an American."

In theory, I get what you're saying. But, here's the part that I don't get.

This is what I observe with my own lying eyes:

I see all these Americans who loudly pride themselves on their freedom, and they stockpile all these guns in order to, as they claim, safeguard this very same 'freedom.'

And then they sit idly on their massive stockpiles of guns, stupefied in front of the television, doing not a thing in the world, as their freedoms are, quite systematically and documented openly in real time, stripped away from them completely, one by one, right in front of their faces and with no apology at all, by John Roberts, John Boehner, the Democrat party, the NSA, the TSA, the NAACP, the SPLC, AIPAC, the ADL, MEChA, CAIR, and the National Council of La Raza -- to name just a few of the more visible operators.

An observer from Mars would conclude that Americans collect guns simply in order to defend their freedom to collect more guns, and mean nothing further by the practice.

The otherwise odious Madeleine Albright once had an interesting if cynical question about the use of arms. I wonder if anybody here can recall what it was.

Anonymous Idle Spectator December 17, 2012 3:38 AM  

I can see the news stories already after the knife-ban in England.

Riveting! Crazed man kills nun who got herself to a nunnery. Beaten to death with a rock. Police say that paper and scissors were found nearby at the scene. The city of Worcestershire is currently saturated in a thick, fishy, panic.

Anonymous Nebo December 17, 2012 4:55 AM  

What's the source for the 520 unarmed suspects killed ytd? I've googled it and no one seems to aggregate that data, even for years past.

Anonymous The Great Martini December 17, 2012 5:01 AM  

The problem is that it's a contest between rights to security, both of which are Constitutional. The right to bear arms doesn't trump the right to not get shot, so it's a contest between equivalent interests.

Blogger Kyle In Japan December 17, 2012 5:12 AM  

"Ask them this: If guns, and not people, kill people, why don’t they first disarm the more heavily armed government and police people before trying to disarm the public?"

Brilliant. Simply brilliant.

Scoobs: Yeah, they should try reading their Bibles sometime. I mean, it's right there! "If any of you loves his freedom, let him be the first to fire back" (Gun. 8:7)

Anonymous Bible scholar December 17, 2012 5:32 AM  

Scoobs: Yeah, they should try reading their Bibles sometime. I mean, it's right there! "If any of you loves his freedom, let him be the first to fire back" (Gun. 8:7)

Leftists in ancient Israel

1 Samuel 13:19-22

Anonymous Jesus H. Christ, aka your Savior. December 17, 2012 5:35 AM  

"If I had a gun right now I'd put a bullet in that Jerry Falwell's fat fucking ass!"--Jesus Christ, in the sky.

Anonymous Curious December 17, 2012 5:43 AM  

VD, why do you tolerate this guy? ^^

Anonymous Outlaw X December 17, 2012 5:56 AM  

"VD, why do you tolerate this guy? ^^'

The better question is why does God tolerate him? No love for Falwell's zioistic tendencies, but if God destroyed people because they were idiots all of us would be down.

Why Stalin? Answer that one. As for Vox I don't know, maybe just maturity and surety.

Anonymous Kickass December 17, 2012 5:56 AM  

Commenter, would you like to be free of your bondage? If so, stop blaspheming the name of God's Son and call on it.

Otherwise, like Paul, I will weary quickly of your nonsense and call on God to cast you out.

That is all.

Anonymous VD December 17, 2012 6:11 AM  

What's the source for the 520 unarmed suspects killed ytd?

It's on Wikipedia.

VD, why do you tolerate this guy?

He discredits atheist pretensions more effectively than I ever could.

Anonymous Curious December 17, 2012 6:15 AM  

He discredits atheist pretensions more effectively than I ever could.

Honestly, I should've known.

Anonymous TLM December 17, 2012 6:17 AM  

Ban the betas, not guns. Problem solved.

Anonymous Allabaster December 17, 2012 6:37 AM  

F**k yeah! Viva the individual right!

Anonymous bob k. mando December 17, 2012 6:42 AM  

VD, why do you tolerate this guy? ^^

because VP and AG are echo chambers filled with nothing but sycophantic parasites regurgitating Vox's party line.

Blogger Dan Hewitt December 17, 2012 6:44 AM  

List of incidents of school violence committed by people on anti-depressants:

http://ssristories.com/index.php?sort=date&p=school

Anonymous Rantor December 17, 2012 6:46 AM  

My neighbor Larry Pratt had some good points in his USATODAY Editorial:

"In addition to the gunman, blood is on the hands of members of Congress and the Connecticut legislators who voted to ban guns from all schools in Connecticut (and most other states). They are the ones who made it illegal to defend oneself with a gun in a school when that is the only effective way of resisting a gunman.

What a lethal, false security are the "gun-free zone" laws. Virtually all mass murders in the past 20 years have occurred in gun-free zones. The two people murdered several days earlier in a shopping center in Oregon were also killed in a gun-free zone.

Hopefully, the Connecticut tragedy will be the tipping point after which a rising chorus of Americans will demand elimination of the gun-free zone laws that are in fact criminal-safe zones."

Larry is President of Gun Owners of America

Anonymous Logan December 17, 2012 6:46 AM  

The basic argument I usually hear seems to be the following:

1. It's wrong for innocent people to be killed by guns.
2. If there were no guns, no innocent people would be killed by guns.
3. Therefore, let's get rid of guns.

A potential parallel argument:

1. It's wrong for innocent people to be killed by drunk drivers.
2. If there was no alcohol, there would be no drunk drivers.
3. If there are no drunk drivers, no innocent people would be killed by drunk drivers.
4. Therefore, let's get rid of alcohol.

Granted, the latter argument contains an additional premise, but if one accepts the former argument, shouldn't he also accept the latter?

I mean, if liberals truly cared so much about saving the lives of innocent people, shouldn't they demand to bring back prohibition?

Anonymous Patriot December 17, 2012 6:59 AM  

The pretensions of the leftard media are easy to see especially in regards to their incessant semantic machinations. The use of "gunman" in describing all murderous rampages in the news as compared to other terms used in earlier media like "murderer" or "psychopath" etc...is no accident as etymologically anybody in possession of a gun could fit the definition of "gunman". Very Orwellian Newspeak that goes over the libtards heads.


See Genesis chapter 3 for who got that started. And it still works on the libtard er, um... I mean the woman.

Anonymous trk December 17, 2012 7:01 AM  

this morning on fox they are now they are blaming violent video games.....lordy

Its all a grab for control over individual freedoms....

Blogger LP 999/Eliza December 17, 2012 7:26 AM  

Emotional blackmail for the Christmas season has been the order of the day for a long time. Far too many events are riled up or churned into an emotional and reactive drama of horrors.

Over the weekend I heard from several people who had nothing else to talk about but the Conn tragedy. Surely, its a tragedy, real or false flag, another true killer or manipulated subject of mind control, bogus or freak of nature some are left to wonder where were the drones? I dare not ask them b/c they have no idea of the NDAA, drones, patriot act but they know GUNS ARE BAD and that is the extent of their knowledge.

Just as there were no riots after the election, there will not yet be a gun grab.

Moving along, there are renewed calls for more mental health funding. Should the rolls/standards of SSDI, specifically for the mentally ill be widened until every remote mental health disorder is given a check? And what of this rumor of the young man in question was suffering from aspergers?

Anonymous The Great Martini December 17, 2012 7:30 AM  


Granted, the latter argument contains an additional premise, but if one accepts the former argument, shouldn't he also accept the latter?


Yes, that's a pretty good analogy, but there are fairly strict laws controlling the sale and use of alcohol. Also, a better analogy would be against the entire spectrum of mind altering substances that can affect driving ability, and many of them are totally illegal. But I think your point holds, which is why I've never thought that prohibition was a totally insane proposition. It was impractical, but not ridiculous, considering the truly calamitous amount of damage alcohol really wreaks in our society.

Anonymous zen0 December 17, 2012 7:35 AM  

The problem is that it's a contest between rights to security, both of which are Constitutional. The right to bear arms doesn't trump the right to not get shot, so it's a contest between equivalent interests. @ Great Martini

Can you quote the relevant passages?

Anonymous Stilicho December 17, 2012 7:35 AM  

The mainstream media have been waiting literally years for something like this to happen, and they are not about to let such a crisis go to waste.

Quite. They are currently engaged in a competition to see who can emote more vociferously about the need to destroy liberty. For the children, natch.

Boehner is truly conflicted now. He does not know whether to surrender on spending or gun control first. Weeping to follow.

Anonymous Roundtine December 17, 2012 7:35 AM  

No, Americans will never give them up; he who surrenders his unalienable right to arms also gives up his right to call himself an American.

The exact same thought crossed my mind yesterday.

Blogger kilo papa December 17, 2012 7:38 AM  

"I've had it with that fucktard Mike Huckabee!!
He's a bigger fucking embarrassment to me than, well, than the rest of my deluded nutbag followers on planet Earth.

This blessed Savior is about to drop a Palestine size turd on his stupid fat ass!!"--Jesus Christ, as told to Donny Osmond.

Anonymous EXliberal December 17, 2012 7:46 AM  

Yup, and these are the same useful idiots who in 2002 said "if we give up any rights then the terrorists already won"

....of course the "rights" they meant were US trials for Saudis caught in Iraq, privacy for govt library borrowings, etc. Not the Bill of Rights.

And these are the same folks whose "bring the troops home now" posters mysteriously dissapeared from their front lawns Dec 2008...

This time however, everything has changed...

For The Children = SWPL

Anonymous antonym December 17, 2012 7:52 AM  

How does it make any sense to disarm the public and leave the government armed when over the last 100 years, governments around the world, including the U.S. federal government, have killed vastly more people in time of peace than all of the private murders in the world combined?

If you consider abortion murder, this is not true at all. Just saying.

OpenID simplytimothy December 17, 2012 7:57 AM  

Bravo.

Anonymous Rosalys December 17, 2012 7:58 AM  

Rantor - "Hopefully, the Connecticut tragedy will be the tipping point after which a rising chorus of Americans will demand elimination of the gun-free zone laws that are in fact criminal-safe zones."

Here, here! And let's go one step further. Let's start calling for laws that require all school teachers, headmasters and school janitors) to be trained in firearms safety and proficient in their use. And they should be should be required to carry while on the job. This will serve two purposes. Firstly, the first responders will be right there at ground zero, when and where they are needed - not 5 minutes away. Secondly, it will serve as a deterrent to lily ass liberals becoming and/or remaining teachers.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments December 17, 2012 8:02 AM  

So sad how stupid conservatives are.

This is an EASY one to deflect and re frame.

Media Liberal: How can you defend the right to own an assault rifle? 20 Children were killed!
Proper Conservative: Barack Obama murdered 60 children with a robot. Where is your outrage on that?
Media Liberal: We are talking about guns.
PC: Because you don't want to talk about Obama murdering children. American's should not have to give up their rights because of one crazy person. The kid was a product of divorce. Why don't we ban divorce?
ML: (Sputtering)

Anonymous The Great Martini December 17, 2012 8:05 AM  


Can you quote the relevant passages?


I mean "constitutional" as in "not unconstitutional." I don't know if there are any explicit passages stipulating personal security, but the entire bill of rights doesn't make much sense if you don't have the right to personal security, so I assume it is implied by the constitution as a whole. (The Declaration of Ind., of course, states that we have the right to Life, Liberty...etc.) endowed by "the Creator."

Are you implying that the second amendment really has nothing to do with personal security? I thought that was the entire strategy of gun advocacy, so make the second amendment a personal security issue.

Anonymous Anonymous December 17, 2012 8:11 AM  

Great article by Vox, as usual! As I posted over on WND, though, I'm afraid it's still going to come down to our being willing to stand up, armed if necessary, against the "legal" authority of the government itself in order to preserve our rights.

Regards,
David Smith

Anonymous Athor Pel December 17, 2012 8:17 AM  

Cops ask for more money for training and more effective arms so they won't be outgunned by outlaws. What makes a law abiding citizen any less deserving of the same protection from outlaws?

When do you call the cops? Usually it is when you have witnessed or are witnessing a crime in progress. Tell me what those two instances have in common. That's right, the crime already happened by the time the police hear about it. Now tell me how the police stop crimes from happening. I'll be here when you come up with an answer.

Anonymous Outlaw X December 17, 2012 8:28 AM  

Now tell me how the police stop crimes from happening. I'll be here when you come up with an answer.

With their radar gun.

Anonymous RINO December 17, 2012 9:05 AM  

I was wondering on Friday why some random lady had multiple firearms including an assault rifle while living in the whitest place in the universe and why she would take her obviously disturbed child to a shooting range to practice. It turns out she was probably a survivalist nutjob and now it all makes sense.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 17, 2012 9:07 AM  



Good post. I liked the last paragraph. A commentator at a Reuters article about this crime, Kharee wrote this:
The leftist, morally bankrupt educational establishment is to be blamed
for creating a dysfunctional, psychologically deviant gulag in which our
children are entrapped. The school establishment at this time has no meaningful
parental input. There is no PTA as there once was. Not community values. Only
social deviant policies to maintain control and management of the leftist
educational elites.

The schools create undisciplined, uneducated victims and criminals in the
urban schools and drug dependent ,semi-educated ,mentally and emotional unstable
lunatics in the suburbs. Lets take our schools back and rescue our children!.
Abolish the Federal Dept. of Education. We must end the educational
Gulag!

This is Aristotle wrote in the Nicomachian Ethics, book II:
"This view is supported by what happens in city-states. Legislators make their citizens good by habituation; this is the intention of every legislator, and those who do not carry it out fail of their object. This is what makes the difference between a good constitution and a bad one.

The American Constitution is a bad constitution for nowhere is this "make their citizens good by habituation". What is this habituation?

Virtue.

You can NOT teach virtue by homeschooling! Impossible. For if Vox understood the basics of how to train a boy into manhood, the boy must be separated from the female! That is basic Manhood 101 (q.v. The Church Impotent Leon Podles). If homeschooling is largely carried out by females---that process can't happen! Vox is totally wrong. This is why the Cretans and the Spartans created PUBLIC education for. All their boys were trained by MEN and habitualized into the Good.

Aristotle is not making that up but referring to an historical reality. This teaching by Aristotle can NOT co-exist with "Freedom" of the Prots, Atheists and Jews who created the "Enlightenment". Americanism flies in the face of this wisdom that Aristotle points out.

The crime of Lanza was that he was never habitualized into the Good and was under the control of his mother, his whole life.

Anonymous zen0 December 17, 2012 9:16 AM  

I mean "constitutional" as in "not unconstitutional."

I don't think you know WHAT you mean and are not very clear about it, either.

Besides, you used Constitutional with a capital "C". Proper noun.

Anonymous Noah B. December 17, 2012 9:17 AM  

"This is why the Cretans and the Spartans created PUBLIC education for. All their boys were trained by MEN and habitualized into the Good."

It also had a lot to do with pedophilia.

Blogger WarriorClass December 17, 2012 9:21 AM  

"The mainstream media have been waiting literally years for something like this to happen, and they are not about to let such a crisis go to waste."

What makes you think they were waiting?

The James Holmes Conspiracy. Google it.

Anonymous Frederick303 December 17, 2012 9:37 AM  

good column. Well done

Anonymous DonReynolds December 17, 2012 9:41 AM  

They tell us, sir, that we are weak -- unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Patrick Henry - March 23, 1775



Anonymous Noah B. December 17, 2012 9:43 AM  

"I was wondering on Friday why some random lady had multiple firearms including an assault rifle while living in the whitest place in the universe and why she would take her obviously disturbed child to a shooting range to practice. It turns out she was probably a survivalist nutjob and now it all makes sense."

According to you, those who value their lives and want to protect themselves are nutjobs? I'd say you're more than just a little bit mixed up.

Blogger Tiny Tim December 17, 2012 9:44 AM  

The kid is psychotic. He had nothing at home but a lunatic mom. There was no dad to take care of business. The guns should have been secured outside the house. The blood is on her hands..... May God rest her soul....

Blogger Tiny Tim December 17, 2012 9:49 AM  

Formula for these nut jobs: Mix one part broken home, two parts lunatic mom, 1/2 part no dad at home, 5 parts psychoactive meds, and 14 hours a day of violent video games while high on pharmakia for 10 years, now add to one mentally unstable 20 year old infant in a body with testosterone that has no chance of being used productively and Voila...... a govenment excuse to disarm the only people holding them back from dominating a planet of sheep.

Anonymous RINO December 17, 2012 9:56 AM  

According to you, those who value their lives and want to protect themselves are nutjobs? I'd say you're more than just a little bit mixed up.

The mother apparently didn't value her life or protect herself. She placed her psychotic son into an environment of constant and unfounded paranoia and reaped the reward that should have seemed obvious. What exactly does someone need an assault rifle for in Newtown CT? The possibility of Mad Max has now outlived another survivalist.

In an unrelated note the man in China that stabbed all those kids may have been influenced by "doomsday rumors". The endless and unfiltered nonsense has a price.

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 9:56 AM  

This is why the Cretans and the Spartans created PUBLIC education for. All their boys were trained by MEN and habitualized into the Good.

By "trained" and "habitualized" you must mean "sodomized" and "buggered", right?

Anonymous Anonymous December 17, 2012 10:01 AM  

Athor Pel, you say, "Cops ask for more money for training and more effective arms so they won't be outgunned by outlaws. What makes a law abiding citizen any less deserving of the same protection from outlaws?

When do you call the cops? Usually it is when you have witnessed or are witnessing a crime in progress. Tell me what those two instances have in common. That's right, the crime already happened by the time the police hear about it. Now tell me how the police stop crimes from happening. I'll be here when you come up with an answer."

You speak my mind here as well, sir! I noticed the cops running around, kitted up the we were in combat zones in Iraq, and while I don't begrudge them the means to defend themselves, I find it to be the height of absurdity that they possess the latest and greatest equipment in order to deal with criminals . . . after the fact (?!!?), while the average citizen is often viewed by the "elites" as a nutjob for wanting to carry the comparatively modest means in the form of a handgun.

Our paradigm needs to switch radically back to citizens understanding that it is THEIR primary responsibility to defend themselves, not "law enforcement"! We will never entirely eliminate this kind of senseless killing in a sinful world, but more armed citizens = FAR less of it!

Regards,
David Smith

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 17, 2012 10:02 AM  

Here is Anon who posted at Sipsey Street Irregulars:
Years ago there was a very good PBS series called "Connections". In one episode they followed a chain of connections that showed that the with of a Shuttle's SRB was determined by the width of two Horse's "posteriors".

http://middlezonemusings.com/1456/of-horses-rears-railroads-and-space-shuttles/

At the last meeting of the SDS that Bill Ayers was allowed to attend he advocated that the SDS make plans to become more violent. His argument was that until American families saw their children murdered in a similar fashion to South Vietnamese children being murdered by American forces, they would never truly understand the Vietnam War or support SDS's effort to get the fighting stopped. His suggection was that SDS begin targeted bombings of American elementary schools. The short story is that, as a result of the horror felt by the rest the organization at his suggestion, his faction was expelled from SDS and and went on to form Weather Underground. Needless to say Mr. Ayers didn't get to commit his chain of school bombings. If he had, this week's shootings in Newtown, CT. would not have made anywhere near the impact on the public that they have.

Fast foreward a few years and you find Barak Obama starting his first political campaign event: a fundraiser in the living room of... Bill Ayers.

So....

Is there any connection between the current POTUS and a former bomb throwing anarchist who advocated the murder of American school children and the internment of 25 million Americans in re-education camps?

Of course there is.


Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 17, 2012 10:08 AM  

Josh and Noah B. our resident jooos. Because in order to destroy Western culture and civilization, they mean to slander and demean the forefathers of our Culture. What is worse, buggery (if that happened at all) or killing children that the Hebrews carried out countless of times! The Jews were the master Genociders of Classical Antiquity. I throw out the buggery when you throw out the genociders. Murder is a far bigger offense than buggery (if it happened.)

Yes, because you are judaized fartbags.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 17, 2012 10:10 AM  

That gun registration thing has been tried

Anonymous Orion December 17, 2012 10:24 AM  

"I mean "constitutional" as in "not unconstitutional." I don't know if there are any explicit passages stipulating personal security, but the entire bill of rights doesn't make much sense if you don't have the right to personal security, so I assume it is implied by the constitution as a whole. (The Declaration of Ind., of course, states that we have the right to Life, Liberty...etc.) endowed by "the Creator."

Are you implying that the second amendment really has nothing to do with personal security? I thought that was the entire strategy of gun advocacy, so make the second amendment a personal security issue."

Your main problem is that you think that there is either a magical fairy or the government out there charged to protect you from all harm. There isn't. The Constitution spells out that the government is to protect the borders (no interest in that any more). It isn't there to protect you. Think I'm wrong? Unless your one of the elite I doubt you'll see your own private armed escort when you look over your shoulder. The onus of protecting you falls on.... you. You may want to do it with a can of mace or an umbrella. Me, given the choice I'd carry a pistol. It is my misfortune to currently reside in the last state without ccw permits.

Blogger James Dixon December 17, 2012 10:24 AM  

> ...but there are fairly strict laws controlling the sale and use of alcohol.

Yeah. You have to be 21. That's pretty much it.

There are far stricter laws controlling the sale and use of guns. Laws which he broke by first taking the guns and then using them in a gun free zone.

> I don't know if there are any explicit passages stipulating personal security,

Nice to see you admit that you don't know something for once. I don't have time to do an exhaustive search at the moment, but I don't think there are, unless you consider the "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" to qualify.

> I thought that was the entire strategy of gun advocacy, so make the second amendment a personal security issue.

You thought wrong. That's only one of the reasons for the second amendment. The other is to act as a check on government tyranny.

Anonymous Daniel December 17, 2012 10:24 AM  

When Gunrunner-in-Chief interrupted my football game last night to use the corpses of children to explain to grieving parents why guns belong in the hands of drug warlords as long as he gets paid, I'll admit it...I laughed.

The only reason liberals support gun control is that they haven't figured out yet how to reliably profit from direct sales to the law-abiding.

Anonymous patrick kelly December 17, 2012 10:26 AM  

TGM: " but there are fairly strict laws controlling the sale and use of alcohol.."

Yeah, what we need are some laws about the sale and use of firearms... oh wait... we already got *thousands of them*. /s

Hey not so great, are you really that ignorant, or just a disingenuous troll? Connecticut already has some of the strictest laws, this guy and the evil doofus in OR stole guns from someone else. In this case it looks like (unless the msm has tweaked their story once again for maximized propaganda purposes) he killed his own mom and stole her guns. Guess what we need are gun laws like those alcohol laws that prohibit anyone from keeping booze in their house... oh, wait, there aren't any.....

STFU with the comparisons about alcohol or cars etc. they just don't hold up under close scrutiny.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 10:28 AM  

"This is why the Cretans and the Spartans created PUBLIC education for. All their boys were trained by MEN and habitualized into the Good."

This idiocy again?

God you're the biggest moron that comments here. And I'm including Tad and the other ankle biters in that claim.

Sparta didn't create men. It created savages. It was nothing but a blood thirsty war tribe that was barely above cannibalism.

Men... citizens... are created by families... not government.

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 10:32 AM  

Yes, because you are judaized fartbags.

Are you Scalzi?

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 17, 2012 10:33 AM  

What is worse, buggery (if that happened at all) or killing children that the Hebrews carried out countless of times!...Murder is a far bigger offense than buggery (if it happened.)

If Lanza had only abused the children instead of killing them, he would have been doing them a favour.

Your subjugation is inevitable. Best get to kneeling.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 17, 2012 10:33 AM  

It's so close to Christmas break that it is not worth it, but it seems to be easy to shut down the public school system

Anonymous The other skeptic December 17, 2012 10:36 AM  

TGM: " but there are fairly strict laws controlling the sale and use of alcohol.."

And they are largely about funding the beast. Any other effect was tacked on later.

Of course, laws controlling the sale and use of firearms are largely about protecting the beast, so in that sense they are the same.

Anonymous re allow anonymous comments December 17, 2012 10:36 AM  

actually, they've found there is much more profit in gun control

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 10:39 AM  

Josh and Noah B. our resident jooos. Because in order to destroy Western culture and civilization, they mean to slander and demean the forefathers of our Culture. What is worse, buggery (if that happened at all) or killing children that the Hebrews carried out countless of times! The Jews were the master Genociders of Classical Antiquity. I throw out the buggery when you throw out the genociders. Murder is a far bigger offense than buggery (if it happened.)

I'm not Jewish, and now that there are actual Jews here, I'm no longer the "token jew bankster".

You're actually the one behaving like a Jew, calling everyone who criticizes your beloved Sparta a marxist who hates western culture.

I'm actually much more western than you are, btw.

Regarding the Hebrew genocides, did the greeks not also kill entire cities? Furthermore, since these "genocides" by the Hebrews occurred under the direct commandof God himself, are you calling God a murderer?

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 10:40 AM  

Your subjugation is inevitable. Best get to kneeling.

Loki, you might want to wrap it up before buggering Wheeler. Don't want to catch his exotic form of madness.

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 10:41 AM  

Hopefully, this latest shooting and the publicity surrounding it will lead to a re-adoption of the ban on many assault rifles as well as a ban on high capacity clips, as well as bringing background checks to gun shows. I read that such a bill will be introduced in January when the new Congress is seated.

Excellent!!

Anonymous The other skeptic December 17, 2012 10:44 AM  

Hopefully, this latest shooting and the publicity surrounding it will lead to a re-adoption of the ban on many assault rifles as well as a ban on high capacity clips, as well as bringing background checks to gun shows. I read that such a bill will be introduced in January when the new Congress is seated.

Trolling is the lowest form of wit.

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 10:47 AM  

Tad, you ignorant slut...

Would banning "assault weapons" be more or less effective than simply arming teachers or administrators in order to prevent these types of killings?

Also...we had such a ban from 1994-2004...you remember what happened in 1999? Columbine.

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 10:48 AM  

@OtherSkeptic

When a comment directly relates to a post at hand and when that opinion is in opposition to your own opinion and when that opinion strikes you as "Trolling", you know you are a sycophant.

Anonymous The other skeptic December 17, 2012 10:49 AM  

Single mothers can have it all, including a son who grows up to murder lots of people.

Anonymous FrankBrady December 17, 2012 10:49 AM  

You sure about that Tad? Perhaps you should check the data. In the decade that embraced Clinton's so-called "assault weapons" ban, the incidence of mass killings (and the number of victims) more than doubled. This sudden and dramatic increase followed (1) a successful campaign by liberals to make it more difficult to involuntarily commit mentally ill people in the 1970s and (2) the introduction of PROZAC and related drugs and a virtual explosion in the number of people taking these drugs. I am NOT in favor of giving the state any additional tools to confine anyone, but clearly the factor that changed was not the "easy availability of firearms" (it's been more difficult to get them since 1968 than at any time in American history).

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 10:51 AM  

Tad,

Do you support banning alcohol or drugs?

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 10:52 AM  

@josh

I don't know about that. However, I do know that banning assault weapons, forcing background checks at gun shows and outlawing high capacity clips will reduce the number of assault weapons in circulation, will reduce the number of high capacity clips in circulation and will reduce the possibility of convicted felons from possessing assault weapons and high capacity clips. And that's a good start.

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 10:54 AM  

@josh

No.

Because when an angry, unstable kid gets it in his head that his problems will be solved by killing his mother and his peers, I'd much rather he have access to a bottle of Cabernet than a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round clip.

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 10:56 AM  

And what if that angry, unstable kid, after drinking a bottle of wine, decides to climb into a car and go driving on the road?

Anonymous Porky? December 17, 2012 10:57 AM  

I read that such a bill will be introduced in January when the new Congress is seated.

That should send gun sales through the roof!

Cling to those guns, bitter clingers. They are an excellent investment.

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 11:00 AM  

@josh
And what if that angry, unstable kid, after drinking a bottle of wine, decides to climb into a car and go driving on the road?

What if? Who knows. Maybe he handles himself really well after a few glasses of Napa Valley Cabernet. Maybe he runs into a pole. Maybe he hits another care and kills its occupants.

The purpose of the car, even in the hands of a Napa Valley Cabernet-loving 20 year old is not to kill multiple people, unlike the 30 round clip in a semi automatic rifle.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 11:02 AM  

"I don't know about that. However, I do know that banning assault weapons, forcing background checks at gun shows and outlawing high capacity clips will reduce the number of assault weapons in circulation, will reduce the number of high capacity clips in circulation and will reduce the possibility of convicted felons from possessing assault weapons and high capacity clips. And that's a good start."

Then you're incapable of learning from observable reality. All of those items were in effect from 1994 to 2004. They had no effect what so ever on gun deaths in America. Also... Columbine happened in 1999... and there were two school shootings in 1998.

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 11:04 AM  

So, why should the government intervene to limit access to guns, but not intervene to limit access to drugs or alcohol? Certainly drugs and alcohol are responsible for more deaths than guns.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard December 17, 2012 11:07 AM  

Loki, you might want to wrap it up before buggering Wheeler. Don't want to catch his exotic form of madness.

Have you been reading those illiterate yaoi fanfictions about me again? Shame, shame.

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 11:08 AM  

@josh

The gov. does intervene to limit access to alcohol in a number of different ways.

Also, it's not being proposed that gun ownership be banned, only that certain guns be banned and that background checks to extended to all sales, not just some sales.

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 11:09 AM  

What if? Who knows. Maybe he handles himself really well after a few glasses of Napa Valley Cabernet. Maybe he runs into a pole. Maybe he hits another care and kills its occupants.

Why are you so callous towards the victims of drunk driving? Why aren't you demanding that Obama "does something" about this epidemic?

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 11:12 AM  

The gov. does intervene to limit access to alcohol in a number of different ways.

Also, it's not being proposed that gun ownership be banned, only that certain guns be banned and that background checks to extended to all sales, not just some sales.


Neither the current regulation of alcohol nor your proposed regulation of certain guns, has done or will do anything to stop drunk driving or mass shootings.

So, you don't really care about solving the problem, you just want to appear to be caring and for someone to "do something".

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 11:13 AM  

"Also, it's not being proposed that gun ownership be banned, only that certain guns be banned and that background checks to extended to all sales, not just some sales."

Background checks are required at gun shows.

How many other things are you going to be wrong about today?

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 11:14 AM  

Tad
I'll restate as a question. Why do you believe these steps you recommend will be a "good step" when we already took those steps, and left them in place for 10 years, and they had no effect?

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 11:14 AM  

@Josh

When a drunk driver takes out a class room of kids with a single car, then we can discuss that.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 11:16 AM  

"When a drunk driver takes out a class room of kids with a single car, then we can discuss that. "

That happened in Morgantown, WV while I was there. It was a daycare actually... and it was a dump truck that crashed through the walls.

So.. are you ready to discuss that now?

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 11:17 AM  

@Nate

Not in all states.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 11:18 AM  

@Nate

"Not in all states."

Wrong. Its federal law.

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 11:18 AM  

Why do you believe these steps you recommend will be a "good step" when we already took those steps, and left them in place for 10 years, and they had no effect?

Because guns are scary!

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 11:19 AM  

@Nate

Take high capacity clips. The few sold, the less likelihood they will get into people's hands. That's good.

Anonymous Porky? December 17, 2012 11:19 AM  

"I don't know about that."

-Tad


Lol!

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 17, 2012 11:20 AM  

TGM: "The problem is that it's a contest between rights to security, both of which are Constitutional. The right to bear arms doesn't trump the right to not get shot, so it's a contest between equivalent interests."

1. Your 'right to not get shot' (or otherwise wantonly killed or harmed for no reason) is a human right, not a constitutional right. Nevertheless one could say it is indeed a right -- but a natural one. Remember, the Bill of Rights does not grant you your rights; your rights come from God. The only thing the Bill of Rights does is make a list of certain glaring red lines which are explicitly never to be crossed by the federal government.

2. Your _constitutional_ 'right to not get shot' consists only of your right to not get shot by the federal government. (except for certain limited and enumerated reasons.) And that is for a very homely and boring reason, and it is this: because wantonly shooting you is not one of the limited and enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the several states.

3. Your right to bear arms is constitutional in the sense that it is explicitly guaranteed, and is essentially unconditional ("shall not be infringed" is a far more universal writ than the specific "Congress shall make no law"). You had a prior natural or human right to self-defense, and by extension to bear arms. What the Second Amendment does is act as a guarantor that the federal government, and also the states ("shall not be infringed" is universal, and doesn't just refer to the feds) shall not infringe upon your right.

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 11:20 AM  

When a drunk driver takes out a class room of kids with a single car, then we can discuss that.

What about when drunk drivers take out a school bus full of kids? That happens from time to time (just happened last year in Tennessee).

Anonymous VryeDenker December 17, 2012 11:20 AM  

The last video game that put me into a murderous rage was... Need For Speed: Underground. There was something about colliding with a train at 200+mph for 30 times straight that just pushed me over the edge.

Can't say the same about Half Life 2, Gears of War, Fallout, etc.

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 17, 2012 11:20 AM  

4. Insofar as you have a natural right to not get shot, you still have to take steps to "secure" it. (See the Declaration, "that to secure these Rights". This is all John Locke 101. If you have not read John Locke, then stop at once, go read John Locke, and do not argue further until after you have read John Locke.) The two ways that you secure these rights are:
a) you delegate a certain amount of your personal authority to your state government, which in turn, and on your behalf and with your consent, organizes a police force and other measures designed to promote public safety (this has already been done, and you merely grant your assent to it); and
b) you take whatever personal measures you deem expedient to protect yourself, such as arming yourself, making your personal appearance seem formidable, and/or avoiding places where people are wantonly shooting one another a lot of the time (such as, for instance, riots, or any place where large numbers of black people live).

5. The one thing you can NOT do to secure your natural right to not get shot, is to infringe on other people's rights, or to cause the government on your behalf, and with your urging and consent, to infringe on other people's rights -- the right in question here being, wait for it... the right to keep and bear arms. That is what "shall not be infringed" means; it means this right shall not be infringed, under any circumstances, regardless of whether it makes you feel unsafe. It is a stop-gap against your counter-claim of a right to safety, and it is absolute; and now I have just explained to you why and how, in the "conflicting rights" scenario which you outlined, under the Constitution one right does indeed trump the other. If I have been clear, then you now know which right wins in that contest.

On the other hand, there is a sense in which your scenario is realistically plausible and correct because in point of fact, we no longer live under a true constitutional dispensation and have not done so for a very long time. For the right price, I am certain that you and your allies can simply buy the necessary number of Supreme Court justices who will search with an electron microscope to find penumbras and emanations which justify whatever zany thing you'd like; and if they still can't find it, they'll use a Large Hadron Legal Collider to simply create legal sub-particles out of thin air, which will cause any right your heart desires to magically come into being.

That's what they used to call "tyranny".

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 11:21 AM  

@Nate

Which law requires that all sales at gun shows include a background check?

Also, if this is so, why were two bill introduced in 2009 to required background checks at gun shows.

Answering the first question should get the job done.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 11:21 AM  

Tad,
Like most liberals... you simply are ignorant of the gun laws in the US. The "gun show loophole" you think exists doesn't actually have anything to do with gun shows. Private citizens sell guns to each other. No background check is required. When firearms dealers sell guns... background checks are required.

There is no way to enforce a law that requires a private citizen to get a background check on another private citizen before selling a gun to him. In other words... we've done all we can do.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 11:23 AM  

Ted

No law specifically mentions gun shows because no law is necessary. All gun dealers at gun shows, are required go through the same process they go through in their shops.

The fact that laws were introduced that are redundant is hardly indicative of anything.

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 11:23 AM  

@scoobious:
3. Your right to bear arms is constitutional in the sense that it is explicitly guaranteed, and is essentially unconditional ("shall not be infringed" is a far more universal writ than the specific "Congress shall make no law").

Would you argue that the constitution guarantees the right to possess any form arms?

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 11:23 AM  

Take high capacity clips. The few sold, the less likelihood they will get into people's hands. That's good.

Remind me again how effective drug prohibition has been at keeping drugs out of homes, schools, and freaking prisons?

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 11:25 AM  

Would you argue that the constitution guarantees the right to possess any form arms?

Yes. I should be able to purchase a drone or a tank.

Anonymous Cryan Ryan December 17, 2012 11:25 AM  

1) A crazy divorced mom is raising a nerdy, psychotic kid. (the $$ productive dad is forced to foot the bill for all her endeavors)

2) The kid is medicated to the eyeballs (look at his picture)

3) The mother has many guns and teaches the boy to shoot proficiently.
(it's something he likes to do, she says)

4) He plays violent video games all day, for years.

5) He blows his mom's brains out.

6) He shoots a bunch of kids.

7) We are all shocked.

8) Well, some people are shocked.

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 11:26 AM  

@nate
The "gun show loophole" you think exists doesn't actually have anything to do with gun shows. Private citizens sell guns to each other. No background check is required. When firearms dealers sell guns... background checks are required.

Perhaps the way to go is to ban person to person sales of guns, in the same way that it is illegal to sell alcohol without a license to do so.

Anonymous fnn December 17, 2012 11:26 AM  

>>Formula for these nut jobs: Mix one part broken home, two parts lunatic mom, 1/2 part no dad at home, 5 parts psychoactive meds, and 14 hours a day of violent video games while high on pharmakia for 10 years...

Expanding on that:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/024027.html
(...)
"Why is there so much mental illness like this in America? The conservative answer is that it is the result of liberal and feminist ideology, i.e. widespread fatherlessness due to divorce and illegitimacy, elimination of male authority, demonization of maleness itself, the condemnation of normal boyish behavior as sickness, and then pumping misbehaving boys full of psycho-active drugs which often help but often make them worse."
(...)
"I stick to the traditionalist conservative explanation: through our ideology of radical personal freedom and anti-maleness we have destroyed the familial and social structure needed for a sane human life, and the main casualties of this destruction are young males. As I say about so many contemporary social problems, the only cure is a return to a traditionalist order of society. which is not going to happen as long as liberal society still functions, however poorly, and liberalism remains our guiding ideology. Therefore, like our other terrible problems, the problem of widespread mental illness and dangerously violent males cannot be fixed until after liberal society has largely destroyed itself."
(...)

America has become the worldwide vanguard of insane late modernity-its promise is to reduce to reduce the bulk of mankind to the status of nothing more than consuming beasts. I think you have to take the side of the Afghan mujaheddin over the side of the regime that coddles-and even celebrates-ghetto vermin and subsidized sluts.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 11:27 AM  

"Would you argue that the constitution guarantees the right to possess any form arms?"

No. I side with the Supreme Court in US vs Miller... which said the Constitution only protects the right to own MILITARY arms. Non military style arms are open to regulation.

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 11:28 AM  

@josh
Would you argue that the constitution guarantees the right to possess any form arms?

Yes. I should be able to purchase a drone or a tank.


I'm not clear. Are you saying you SHOULD be able to purchase a drone or a tank? Or are you saying that the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own and use a tank or drone?

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 11:28 AM  

"Perhaps the way to go is to ban person to person sales of guns, in the same way that it is illegal to sell alcohol without a license to do so."

oh a magic unenforceable ban on private sales. No doubt it will be enforced by rainbow farting unicorns.

Any other ideas from the Big Rock Candy Mountain?

And when will you be addressing the fact that your ideas have all been tried, and they accomplished NOTHING?

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 11:29 AM  

"I'm not clear. Are you saying you SHOULD be able to purchase a drone or a tank? Or are you saying that the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to own and use a tank or drone?"

He is saying the same thing the Supreme Court said in US vs Miller in 1939. The Constitution guarantees his right to own a tank or drone.

Anonymous Daniel December 17, 2012 11:29 AM  

When a drunk driver takes out a class room of kids with a single car, then we can discuss that.

Drunk: Carrollton Bus Disaster

Classroom of Kids: Yuba City Bus Disaster

Discuss.

Anonymous Porky? December 17, 2012 11:31 AM  

Nate: The "gun show loophole" you think exists doesn't actually have anything to do with gun shows.

-Nate


"I don't know about that."

-Tad


Lol!

Anonymous Porky? December 17, 2012 11:33 AM  

Drunk: Carrollton Bus Disaster

Classroom of Kids: Yuba City Bus Disaster


"I don't know about that."

-Tad

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 11:36 AM  

Tad, why aren't you arguing that we should just ban murdering someone with a gun?

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 11:37 AM  

Just so we're clear...

Tad is advocating that we ban person to person gun sales.

We can't keep prisoners from selling each other cocaine... but he thinks we can keep private citzens from selling and trading guns with each other.

Tad is a bright one.

Anonymous Tad's Thought Bubble December 17, 2012 11:37 AM  

"...Strange...none of these facts were mentioned in my Mother Jones newsletter..."

Anonymous Tallen December 17, 2012 11:38 AM  

Letting people who don't use firearms on a regular basis make laws about them is like letting the trash collector perform heart transplants.

Anonymous fnn December 17, 2012 11:39 AM  

Given what the 'kwa has become, you have to expect incidents like this on a regular basis:
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/our-more-perfect-union/
(...)
"Viewing footage of the Black Friday rite, we must conclude that it is one phenomenon among many uniting Americans of the most diverse ancestry into a common cause- the cult of Mammon. Look into the consumer throngs: here can be seen the uprooted children of Africa, Meso-Americans, Asians and the sad descendants of the Indo-Europeans. As editorial writers have informed us upon President Obama's re-election, the United States has entered "a new normal" of cultural and demographic transformation. The old holiday of Thanksgiving simply did not extract the necessary profits desired by the corporate-financial priesthood, and so it was re-formulated according to their wishes. In the same way the U.S. population has been subjected to several decades of Cabalistic processing through every available means: psychological warfare waged by the media-entertainment complex, indoctrination in academia and so many of the churches, and waves of immigration from alien lands. Black Friday marks the perfection of mass man, the "individual" consumer wholly divorced from generations of his faith, ethnic heritage and family, a slave to debt, technology and base impulses."
(...)

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 11:42 AM  

@Nate

Doesn't the more recent Heller decision support the idea that banning assault weapons would pass constitutional muster?

Anonymous Noah B. December 17, 2012 11:42 AM  

Tad is advocating bans on person to person sales, which naturally requires gun registration at the federal level. Gun registration naturally requires fees, unannounced searches from police, and policies that make it difficult for the average law-abiding citizen to own a gun. (I don't know of a single, long-standing system of gun registration that has not eventually led to policies that prevent average citizens from owning guns and to confiscation of many of the guns that were originally allowed.)

So, to be clear, all of the gun control advocates want to take the country on a path that leads directly to gun bans. There is no logical middle ground here. They're just too cowardly and dishonest to admit their true objective.

Anonymous LongTooth December 17, 2012 11:46 AM  

Tad, answer Nate's question -

"And when will you be addressing the fact that your ideas have all been tried, and they accomplished NOTHING?"

Anonymous Tallen December 17, 2012 11:47 AM  

They're just too cowardly and dishonest to admit their true objective.

It would undercut their reasons for keeping the government armed. Why doesn't the government lead by example to show how effective disarmament is?

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 11:48 AM  

"Doesn't the more recent Heller decision support the idea that banning assault weapons would pass constitutional muster?"

And yet the text of the constitution has not changed.

Anonymous Sheila December 17, 2012 11:49 AM  

Vox, I realize you allow the trolls and nutjobs to post because they best illustrate their idiocy, but then comment threads become nothing but endless "he said, she said" with everyone else thinking logic and reason might be effective against emotionalized, infantilized liberalism. "Tad" the queer Jew trolling here obviously gets off on this, and the other commenters must enjoy their pointless debates with him, because they go on ad nauseam.

Anonymous VryeDenker December 17, 2012 11:55 AM  

Gang members in Mitchell's Plain in Cape Town who don't have access to guns simply stab their victims with knives or screwdrivers. The number one cause of Friday night fatalities in South African "informal settlements" are due to stabbings with broken beer bottles. Want to kill victims of a house robbery relatively silently? why not use half a brick?

It is not the prliferation of guns (or knives, glass bottles and bricks). It is that criminals have more ready access to them than do law-abiding citizens. I can drive into Mannenberg tomorrow and after two or three hours and the equivalent of about $500 can get my hand on an untraceable police-issue 9mm and ammo. It will take me 6 months(theoretically) to 3 years(in practice) and around $1200 to get a similar pistol through legal channels.

Anonymous Noah B. December 17, 2012 11:56 AM  

Guns are not going away. Even if every gun in America were instantly destroyed, new ones would be built and smuggled in tomorrow.

The choice is between a world in which law abiding citizens can possess guns and a world in which only criminals have them. The experience of every nation that has enacted gun control has shown that the result is an overall increase in crime, usually including murders. No gun control advocates have made a convincing case for why this time would be different. Of course, they can't.

Someone who knowingly takes a course of action, where the overall effect is known to be detrimental, is mentally ill. Gun control advocates are mentally ill, willing to put their feelings above the known logical consequences of their actions. We cannot allow the mentally ill to make public policy.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 11:57 AM  

" "Tad" the queer Jew trolling here obviously gets off on this, and the other commenters must enjoy their pointless debates with him, because they go on ad nauseam."

It is important for people to see Tad's argument destroyed. Because right now.. its a very popular argument.

Odds are someone will read the exchange and learn something. Granted... it won't be Tad. But we're not doing it for Tad. And we're not doing it for ourselves.

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 17, 2012 11:57 AM  

Tad,

Your treatment here today reminds me of the last time I visited a steak house. You're getting cut up, bro! You probably enjoy rough treatment at the hands of large groups of uncivilized alpha males, though don't you?

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 17, 2012 11:59 AM  

Noah B.,

The experience of every country with gun control is also genocide.

Anonymous Tad's Subconscious December 17, 2012 12:01 PM  

...Both Keith Olbermann AND Rosie O'Donnell were wrong??? Impossible!!...

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 17, 2012 12:02 PM  

Vox titles his post: "Standing up for Freedom".

But this is what Aristotle writes in the Nicomachian Ethics, Book II:
"This view is supported by what happens in city-states. Legislators make their citizens good by habituation; this is the intention of every legislator, and those who do not carry it out fail of their object. This is what makes the difference between a good constitution and a bad one.

The American Constition is bad! This is how moronic Nate, Josh and Noah are! Because the ancient Greek republics were NOT about "freedom" but about attaining the Good and Theosis.

Nate December 17, 2012 10:28 AM

"This is why the Cretans and the Spartans created PUBLIC education for. All their boys were trained by MEN and habitualized into the Good."

This idiocy again?

God you're the biggest moron that comments here. And I'm including Tad and the other ankle biters in that claim. Sparta didn't create men. It created savages. It was nothing but a blood thirsty war tribe that was barely above cannibalism."


Xenophon said that the happiest men he ever met were the Spartans. Xenophon, who went to war with them in the Anabasis, lived with them. The group was led by a Spartan. Later, he served under a Spartan king and he lived in the environs of Sparta and his sons went thru the Spartan agoge. Xenophon wrote of them that they were ALL Kaloskagthos! Kaloskagathos means "the beautiful and the good".

Socrates is the founder of Western Culture, thought. It is reported that Socrates' favorite models of good government were Sparta and Crete.(Crito 52e) So Nate you are greater than Socrates?

Socrates in the Protagoras (sec 343) about the Seven Wise men of Greece "THAT THEY WERE ALL emulators, admirers and disciples" of Spartan Culture. Socrates said that the Spartans had the "Highest culture"!!! The so-called "Socratic elencus" was really Dorian/Spartan thought testing paradigm.

Nate who is a Moran? You are! All of Socrates and Plato's stuff comes from the Spartans! Socrates was an "emulator, admirer, disciple" of Spartan culture and Socrates and Plato laid the groundwork for Western Culture, Western Civilization and Christendom!

Nate YOU are the MORON! You are idiotic! You are stupid.





Anonymous Noah B. December 17, 2012 12:02 PM  

@stg58

You're right, of course, but I was trying to keep in on simple terms that even a fool like Tad could understand.

Anonymous Shutup, Tad December 17, 2012 12:04 PM  

Adam Lanza asked me to tell you to shutup, Tad.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 12:06 PM  

Socrates was a fool Wheeler. And so are you.

Anonymous Noah B. December 17, 2012 12:07 PM  

"Because the ancient Greek republics were NOT about "freedom" but about attaining the Good and Theosis."

Does that include sodomizing children?

"Socrates in the Protagoras (sec 343) about the Seven Wise men of Greece "THAT THEY WERE ALL emulators, admirers and disciples" of Spartan Culture."

Did that include anally raping children?

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 12:12 PM  

How was Socrates the founder of western culture?

He was forced to commit suicide because he was causing the young men of Athens to rebel against tradition.

He seems like someone Wheeler would call a joo.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 12:13 PM  

Sparta is a pimple on Rome's ass.

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 12:16 PM  

Sparta couldn't even prevent their helots from rebelling.

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 12:17 PM  

Wheeler strikes me as the kind of teenager who saw 300 and thought, "this is totally awesome...Sparta rocks!"

Anonymous stg58/Animal Mother December 17, 2012 12:17 PM  

Tad can't even keep his hemorrhoids from rebelling.

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 12:18 PM  

And Wheeler, all your precious Greek culture came from places in Greece that were not Sparta.

Anonymous Noah B. December 17, 2012 12:19 PM  

"Wheeler strikes me as the kind of teenager who saw 300 and thought, 'this is totally awesome...Sparta rocks!'"

Funny, I was just thinking that too. Must be a joo thing.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 12:20 PM  

Rome conquered damned near the whole world and ruled it for hundreds of years. Sparta couldn't even conquer the peninsula next door and hold it for more than a few years.

Anonymous Stingray December 17, 2012 12:23 PM  

Would banning "assault weapons" be more or less effective than simply arming teachers or administrators in order to prevent these types of killings?

I just saw this and thought some here would like it (somehow I don't think Tad will think much of it). I really don't' know if this can be compared to the US given Israel's situation. Can it be and does anyone know of any statistics that would be relevant comparing the US to school shootings/terror attacks (involving guns) in Israel?

Anonymous Tallen December 17, 2012 12:26 PM  

At the risk of troll-baiting, WLW there exists today such a society partly built on principles you describe.

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 12:28 PM  

@Noah
The choice is between a world in which law abiding citizens can possess guns and a world in which only criminals have them.

This is in fact not the choice. Never has been the choice and there is no indication it ever will be the choice. There will be no banning of gun ownership until the Constitution is amended.

Your black and white contention regarding this is merely a rhetorical tool to to stake out a position that could be staked out without you ever having blown your credibility by making such an absurd statement.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 12:30 PM  

Tad

You have been asked a direct question several times now.

Anonymous Noah B. December 17, 2012 12:31 PM  

Just the POSSIBILITY of a teacher, janitor, or principal being armed would probably deter many of these mass killings. As it now stands, every adult in a school is required by law to be a helpless victim in the face of a killer.

It's hard to imagine forcing someone who has shown no aggression towards others to be defenseless. It's disgusting and totally immoral, all in the name of proving to the gun control fanatics that there are no monsters hiding in the closet.

Anonymous Tallen December 17, 2012 12:32 PM  

There will be no banning of gun ownership until the Constitution is amended.

Is there at least one law abiding citizen prevented or obstructed in any way from purchasing firearms without threat of incarceration or bodily harm from the government?

Anonymous Noah B. December 17, 2012 12:33 PM  

"This is in fact not the choice. Never has been the choice and there is no indication it ever will be the choice. There will be no banning of gun ownership until the Constitution is amended."

In New York, Chicago, and many other jurisdictions, guns are effectively banned for law abiding citizens. This doesn't include the wealthy elite, of course (they fall into the "criminals" category.) So you're either ignorant or you're a liar.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 12:33 PM  

People refuse to acknowledge the obvious. These psychos go to schools because they can get the most attention for doing so.

If they can't do much damage... they won't go to the schools. So if they know there is a good chance they are just gonna get shot at the school... they'll go somewhere else.

That is reality.

Anonymous Mina December 17, 2012 12:33 PM  

Here's a document I refer to often in the fight against BSL (yet another set of unenforceable, bad, knee-jerk legislation that violates the rights of citizens.)

It compares putting your argument together against duplicitous legislators to going into battle with the bayonet. Really good stuff.

A Strategy for Defeating Gun Control in the United States
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/strategy.html

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 12:34 PM  

Nate:

This?:

"And when will you be addressing the fact that your ideas have all been tried, and they accomplished NOTHING?""

Blogger Giraffe December 17, 2012 12:37 PM  

First of all Tad, my 30 round magazine does have a purpose besides shooting little kids. Although it would be pretty handy for that too. I use mine for shooting coyotes. It is nice to be able to hunt all day without changing magazines. Although on saturday morning mine misfed after the first shot. My uncle finished off the coyote by the time I cleared the jam.

For shooting kids, a five round magazine would be OK. Even a bayonett would work once the adults are down.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 12:37 PM  

That's the one. Do address the Assault Weapons Ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004.

Anonymous patrick kelly December 17, 2012 12:39 PM  

T: "Perhaps the way to go is to ban person to person sales of guns, in the same way that it is illegal to sell alcohol without a license to do so."

If I legally purchase some beer at a retail store, take it home, and my buddy who is over 21 comes by and asks me to sell him a couple, and I do, I have not broken any Federal law.

There is no Federal "gun show loophole". There is no law which states a sale or transfer is illegal "unless it takes place at a gun show".

There are some states, like California (anyone know if this is the case in Conn? I know that they have relatively strict firearms laws), which have laws strictly regulating private sales of some firearms, requiring they be transferred through a dealer with an FFL, but this is not a Federal law.

One reason for lack of such Federal legislation until now may be that in the current political climate with a populace having much greater access to related information, it is much more difficult to make a compelling argument that private sales could somehow be regulated using the same "commerce clause" (which is ridiculous IMAO) used as a basis for other Federal firearms laws and regulations.

Recent laws in some states (Montana and Tennessee I think) challenging Federal jurisdiction over private firearms sales and even manufacture may also be another bump in the road to more Federal tyranny.

Most readers here are probably already knowledgeable about this, but it is difficult me to allow the hoplophobic weenies and tards post the usual crap without challenging it.

Anonymous rienzi December 17, 2012 12:39 PM  

Tad said: Perhaps the way to go is to ban person to person sales of guns, in the same way that it is illegal to sell alcohol without a license to do so.

Then you are obviously ignorant of the old Southern tradition of "moonshining", which goes on to this very day. If you've lived in a town down South for any length of time, and have even half-way decent reputation, (and sometimes not even that), getting "Shine" is the easiest thing in the world.

You can buy all the booze you care to drink before you are 21, and it is a no-brainer to do so. You can easily buy all manner of illegal drugs. Italy has some fairly tough gun laws regarding handguns, but if it takes you more than half an hour to buy a Beretta in Naples, from a previously unknown "private party", then you just aren't really trying.

The Progressive belief that just by outlawing something you can make it really, really hard to get, is touching in kind of a sweet, simple, pollyannish way.

Blogger Giraffe December 17, 2012 12:40 PM  

People refuse to acknowledge the obvious. These psychos go to schools because they can get the most attention for doing so.

Exactly. The media isn't going to spend a lot of time on the fact that their non-stop attention is what these whackos are seeking. The coverage of CO is what bred this incedent.

We'd be better off banning the nightly news.

Anonymous Scintan December 17, 2012 12:42 PM  

@Nate

Take high capacity clips. The few sold, the less likelihood they will get into people's hands. That's good.


If I'm the only armed person in a gun free zone, and I'm spraying the place with gunfire from two guns, exactly what do you think you're going to accomplish by forcing me to reload an extra time or two?

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 12:42 PM  

@Noah

In New York, Chicago, and many other jurisdictions, guns are effectively banned for law abiding citizens.

No, they are not.

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 12:43 PM  

@Nate:

"And when will you be addressing the fact that your ideas have all been tried, and they accomplished NOTHING?

When you can demonstrate that these law had no impact whatsoever in any regard.

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 12:43 PM  

"No, they are not."

Yes. They are. You're just remarkably ignorant on the matter because you happen to not like scary guns.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 17, 2012 12:46 PM  

So, Vox how do you handle this what Aristotle writes in the Nicomachian Ethics, Book II:
"This view is supported by what happens in city-states. Legislators make their citizens good by habituation; this is the intention of every legislator, and those who do not carry it out fail of their object. This is what makes the difference between a good constitution and a bad one."

Are you greater than Aristotle? Greater than Socrates or Plato? It was your precious "freedom" that led to Adam Lanza! It was YOUR Enlightenment and anti-Catholic Protestant views that led to Adam Lanza. It was "freedom" that created Adam Lanza!

Josh December 17, 2012 12:17 PM Wheeler strikes me as the kind of teenager who saw 300 and thought, "this is totally awesome...Sparta rocks!"

If Socrates was an admirer, emulator and disciple of Sparta and he was also the """"Wisest"""" man in Greece, what does Wisdom dictate? That is right, none of you know what Wisdom is! Wisdom is not some political ideology. Josh, Nate, Vox, Noah--all get their inclinations from the Atheist/Jewish inspired "Enlightenment".

The point of Sparta, is not about "Conquering" anybody! She was NOT Rome. Her glory is in how she created Men and the discovery and obedience to the real, original Natural Law; their obedience to the Logos! The so-called "Enlightenment" was a destruction of Western Culture. YOU are NOT Western culture. None of you are! You are all Jews. If you think like a Jew--You are a Jew! Noah, Nate, Josh, you may be Europeans but you think like Jooos. "Thief knows Thief" is the Natural Law. I know my kind. I know Western culture---YOU do NOT.

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle had no qualms about endorsing, advocating, imitating and continuing Doric Greek ideals. Christianity did not either. Christendom was embued with Plato and his teachings. The Jewish Atheist "Enlightenment" was about destroying Western Culture, that is why you attack the Spartans. You are the products of the Enlightenment. You created Adam Lanza.

Vox, Socrates asked in the Republic can Virtue be taught. Can Virtue be taught Vox--or is it about "freedom"?

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 12:46 PM  

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816-114754-1427r/?page=all

By those horrible gun lovers at the Washington Times.

Now.

Your turn.

Blogger Giraffe December 17, 2012 12:47 PM  


Yes. They are. You're just remarkably ignorant on the matter because you happen to not like scary guns.


No, they aren't, if you take the word "effectively" in a way other than it was intended. I think it is a pretty good example of the effectiveness of gun bans in general. Handguns are banned. The ban is not effective.

Anonymous Tad's Thought Bubble December 17, 2012 12:48 PM  

"And when will you be addressing the fact that your ideas have all been tried, and they accomplished NOTHING?""

...I've sent an email to Whoopi Goldberg. I'll have an answer for you shortly....



Anonymous Mina December 17, 2012 12:48 PM  

"People refuse to acknowledge the obvious. These psychos go to schools because they can get the most attention for doing so."

Maybe but I think it's more because they know everyone there is completely DEFENSELESS ... "schools are gun-free zones" you know. So the school is pretty much advertising "Hey! Psychos! sitting ducks here. lots of people to shoot, no guns anywhere nearby."

Weapons training for all front office personnel and the option for any of them and any teachers with a FOID to pack heat. No. Give them the RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that at least 5-10 adults in every school has a piece every day!!

Blogger Giraffe December 17, 2012 12:51 PM  

When you can demonstrate that these law had no impact whatsoever in any regard.

@ Tad. I bought my AR-15 while the ban was in effect. It prevented me from having a bayonet lug on my rifle, which has doubtless saved many children. Otherwise, banning guns based on scariness is pretty silly.

Also, the model name of my gun was "PCR-1" which stands for "politically correct rifle". I still find that uproarious.

Anonymous Scintan December 17, 2012 12:52 PM  

Yes. They are. You're just remarkably ignorant on the matter because you happen to not like scary guns.

No, they aren't, if you take the word "effectively" in a way other than it was intended. I think it is a pretty good example of the effectiveness of gun bans in general. Handguns are banned. The ban is not effective.


Don't be a disingenuous prick. The word "effectively" is being used to modify the word "banned" in the sense that what's not called a ban is, in essence, a ban. It's not being used to discuss the success or failure of banning guns.

Anonymous Tad December 17, 2012 12:53 PM  

@Nate:

If you read the Times editorial, it clearly says that the ban, particularly high capacity magazines, could have an impact on the severity of injury.

You were supposed to show that what I suggested accomplished "Nothing".

Blogger Giraffe December 17, 2012 12:55 PM  

That's what I do, Scintan.

It is effectively an ineffective ban. Tad doesn't want to admit that because they are about the most violent places in the country.

Anonymous Porky? December 17, 2012 12:58 PM  

Tad: "When you can demonstrate that these law had no impact whatsoever in any regard."

Ha! He got you there, Nate. Obviously the law had some impact - it provided a great photo-op for Clinton.

Consider yourself pwned!

Anonymous Scintan December 17, 2012 1:00 PM  

That's what I do, Scintan.

It is effectively an ineffective ban. Tad doesn't want to admit that because they are about the most violent places in the country.


You purposefully undermine your position by making deliberately stupid and misleading comments? Why would you take such a foolish tact, particularly with someone like Tad, who doesn't bother with subtlety, logic or reason?

Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 1:01 PM  

Hey Wheeler,

Be a good sport and answer my question about the Hebrew genocide.

Blogger Giraffe December 17, 2012 1:03 PM  

What exactly is stupid or misleading?

Anonymous Feh December 17, 2012 1:04 PM  

Tad December 17, 2012 12:43 PM @Nate:

"And when will you be addressing the fact that your ideas have all been tried, and they accomplished NOTHING?

When you can demonstrate that these law had no impact whatsoever in any regard.


As usual, a single datum suffices to prove the liberal case, whereas overwhelming, airtight 100% certainty is required to prove the non-liberal case. Funny how that liberal standard works...

Anonymous Stilicho December 17, 2012 1:06 PM  

I do not know to whom the sock puppet named Tad belongs, but please try to make it more realistic. It is liable to become embarrassingly ineffective if this keeps up. Kermit the Frog has more verisimilitude and a greater intellectual range.

Anonymous Scintan December 17, 2012 1:06 PM  

What exactly is stupid or misleading?

The deliberate misapplication of the word "effectively". You didn't make or prove a point about bans. You didn't enlighten Tad, or anyone else. All you did was make yourself look like an ass.

Anonymous 11B December 17, 2012 1:07 PM  

Why is it the Left only comes out to promote gun legislation when white children are killed?

Anonymous scoobius dubious December 17, 2012 1:13 PM  

"Why is it the Left only comes out to promote gun legislation when white children are killed?"

Because if they pass a law banning gun ownership by appealing to the sentimentalism of white people, only white people will be stupid enough to obey it.

The purpose of gun-control legislation is not to eliminate guns; it is to disarm white people. Step Two, of course, is to eliminate white people. But first things first.


Anonymous Josh December 17, 2012 1:13 PM  

From national review:

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns

Blogger Nate December 17, 2012 1:17 PM  

"If you read the Times editorial, it clearly says that the ban, particularly high capacity magazines, could have an impact on the severity of injury."

That's speculation.

Particularly inept speculation... since Columbine happened in... wait for it...

1999.

Anonymous civilServant December 17, 2012 1:18 PM  

In place of banning firearms would anyone consider the proposition that some people should not be allowed access to firearms?

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) December 17, 2012 1:21 PM  

Tad, are you for jailing Obama for killing US citizens without due process?

Do you realize that governments, not private citizens, possess weapons that can destroy the world thousnads of times over which is much more destructive than a citizen having an "assault weapon?"

Do you realize that governments have killed over 100 million people in the 20th century, people that were defenseless?

Do you support jailing Eric Holder for shipping heavy weapons to Mexican drug cartels?

Anonymous FUBAR Nation (Ben) December 17, 2012 1:23 PM  

Yes, civil servant. We should start with pulling all protection from politicians and murderers like Obama.

Politicians have shown time and time again that they are unstable sociopaths on psychotropic drugs.

Anonymous Tad's Brain December 17, 2012 1:26 PM  

...But...but...Joy Behar said that the Assault Weapons Ban was great for the country.....

Anonymous Noah B. December 17, 2012 1:34 PM  

"In place of banning firearms would anyone consider the proposition that some people should not be allowed access to firearms?"

Such a system is already in place. People are deprived of their second amendment rights under due process of law on a daily basis. But it must be pointed out that this system does not stop criminals from obtaining guns -- it only stops them from obtaining guns LEGALLY.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler December 17, 2012 1:34 PM  

Josh, I will repeat what a Greek Orthodox bishop said to me when I said "But it's in the Old Testament". And he replied "I don't read that blood stained evil book".

Do tell me is God's Will that you run down fleeing soldiers and stab them in the back? That is Hebrew strategy! Show me where the Spartans did that? I tell you what, It was beneath the Spartans to chase unarmed men and kill them in the Back.

Or was it God's Will that the sons of Jacob wiped out a whole race of men and did so be lying to them to be circumsized and then attacked them killing all the men because one person slept with their sister? Is that Justice?

Or was it God's Will that King David used Agricultural implements and chariots to run over captured prisoners of war?

In all the Hebrews committed some ten or more genocides. They were a very violent, rapacious, mean group of people.

Hilaire Belloc would call them "the little violent people".

"And Saul said, Thus shall ye speak to David, The King wants no gift but a hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to avenge himself on the king's enemies".

That the Will of God Josh, Nate, Noah? So King Saul sent David to kill 100 other men for their foreskins!!! Tell me that is Spartan?!

Before you go throwing stones at glass houses it is better to pull the freakin' redwood log out of your eye before you pull the splinter out of the Spartan eye, you stupid, little, violent people!

Anonymous Stingray December 17, 2012 1:35 PM  

People will not be deterred.

Anonymous Scintan December 17, 2012 1:40 PM  

Tim Blair weighs in:

Pilots have been armed now for many many years, we’ve not had another hijacking

1 – 200 of 329 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts