First time visitor? Learn more.

The right to bear arms isn’t the only freedom implicated in massacres like last week’s

by Speranza ( 110 Comments › )
Filed under Free Speech, Media, Second Amendment at December 20th, 2012 - 8:00 am

There has been a whole lot of foolish talk in the wake of the Newtown massacre. The massacre seems to have “liberated” a segment of the literati/chattering classes to spout the wildest nonsense.

by James Taranto

If hypocrisy were an intoxicating spirit, Andrew Rosenthal would be a master distiller. On Friday, we noticed this tweetfrom Rosenthal, the New York Times’s editorial page editor, which he posted at 1:42 p.m.: “Sickeningly quick. RT @BryanJFischer Shooters attack an elementary school in CT – another ‘gun-free zone.’ Makes children sitting ducks.”

We tended to agree with Rosenthal that Fischer, an official of the American Family Association who is a frequent contributor to this column, should have been more circumspect. The point about gun-free zones is a pertinent one, but the immediate aftermath of a horrific massacre is not the time to be picking arguments about divisive political issues. That’s why our Friday column was about other topics.

But there would be no such circumspection from Rosenthal and the Times. By 4:47 p.m., he was pounding the table: “Bloomberg wonders, http://bit.ly/VG0shC, and so do we, http://nyti.ms/U0QUkP, when it WILL be time to do something about gun violence.”  [.......]

David Frum was even quicker than the Times. Friday morning he tweeted: “Shooting at CT elementary school. Obviously, we need to lower the age limit for concealed carry so toddlers can defend themselves.” The sour sarcasm was especially out of place, and the comment was a bizarre non sequitur. We’ve never heard of a school without adults.

Frum’s tweet drew many responses from people who found it offensive. In the afternoon he answered them unrepentantly in a Daily Beast essay. He explained that his “first reaction” to the shooting “was anger,” which he “ventilated.” But note that he directed his anger at people who had committed no wrongful acts but merely disagreed with him:

I’ll accept no lectures about “sensitivity” on days of tragedy like today from people who work the other 364 days of the year against any attempt to prevent such tragedies.

It’s bad enough to have a gun lobby. It’s the last straw when that lobby also sets up itself as the civility police. It may not be politically possible to do anything about the prevalence of weapons of mass murder. But it damn well ought to be possible to complain about them–and about the people who condone them.

Of course you can complain about them. And they can complain about you, which is all they did. You can complain back, as you did, and so on and so on. It’s all part of the glorious free marketplace of ideas, albeit not its finest product. But the notion that your complaining is constructive while your detractors’ complaining is murderous is delusionary.

[.......]

Consider Frum’s reference to the “gun lobby.” The term usually calls to mind the National Rifle Association, but the NRA–unlike Fischer, Rosenthal, Bloomberg and Frum–had the tact to withhold comment in the immediate aftermath of the Connecticut attack. Frum’s detractors were no “lobby,” just individuals who disagreed with his views and found his manner disagreeable. Stigmatizing one’s opponents as a “lobby” is a tactic with an ugly recent history; as Frum himself observed about another practitioner, “[his] core argument is that he and his small-band of like-minded allies are entitled to prevail overtop the preferences of the great majority of Americans.”

A central reason these gun debates tend to be futile is that gun owners and gun-rights supporters think advocates of gun control will not settle for reasonable restrictions but want to deprive them of their constitutional rights altogether. They are right to think so, and Frum’s essay illustrates the point.

He notes, as we did Wednesday, that the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week struck down Illinois’s absolute ban on carrying concealed weapons. What he doesn’t mention is that the court stayed its order for 180 days to give state lawmakers time to craft a new law that passes constitutional muster. This would seem an excellent opportunity for advocates of reasonable gun regulations to weigh in on just what they might look like. For Frum, it was just a reminder that those who disagree with him are contemptible: “The [decision] moved me to revisit some writing I did this summer about the folly of imagining that law-abiding citizens make themselves more safe by owning weapons.”

Many of the voices demanding stricter gun control, like Frum, openly scoff at the Second Amendment. Others simply ignore it. Very few acknowledge the need to respect Americans’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms. To be sure, President Obama has done so on occasion, but not only his detractors suspect him of insincerity. Here is David Remnick, an Obama hagiographer, writing at The New Yorker’s website Friday:

[.......]

Remnick is ignorant about Laurence Tribe, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he’s wrong about Obama.

Maybe there would be fewer mass shootings if there were no Second Amendment. But the same can be said of the First. A Washington Post story over the weekend crystallizes the point. Here are the opening paragraphs:

[......]

“He will long be remembered.” That suggests a fairly simple answer to the vexing question of why people do things like this: They do it for recognition. Given the media frenzies that followed Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora and the rest, they have every confidence of getting it.

To suggest such a banal motive is neither to diminish the evil of the crime nor to deny that the killer was mentally ill.  [.......]

One might object that the killer in this case, as they often do, took his own life and thus is not around to “enjoy” his recognition. But the human desire for recognition consists in substantial part of projecting beyond one’s own death. Whose dreams of fame would not be crushed by the assurance that one would be forgotten immediately after dying?

Our point here is that the medium is the motive: If these killers seek recognition, it is available to them because the mass media can be counted on to give extensive attention to their horrific deeds. They are, after all, newsworthy, and they do raise important questions of public concern, not only about the availability of weapons and the vulnerability of “gun-free zones” but also about the treatment of mental illness.

We journalists often proclaim high-mindedly that the public has a right to know–and we’re right. But as in the Garden of Eden, knowledge is dangerous. An industry devoted to serving the public’s right to know gives twisted and evil men the means of becoming known.

This problem is not obviously amenable to a solution, and it certainly is not amenable to a legal one. A regime of media regulation that would be both effective at preventing mass shootings and consistent with the American Constitution is no easier to imagine than a regime of gun regulation that would meet the same criteria.

The Times’s Saturday editorial, before getting to the inevitable antigun talking points, hinted at this moral ambiguity of journalism:

People will want to know about the killer in Newtown, Conn. His background and his supposed motives. Did he show signs of violence? But what actually matters are the children. What are their names? What did they dream of becoming? Did they enjoy finger painting? Or tee ball?

“What actually matters are the children.” A lovely thought, an empty piety. The children had “news value” only because they came to a horrible end. Had they been left alone to grow up, it’s unlikely any of them would ever have come to the attention of the Times editorial page. The editorial omits the murderer’s name–perhaps a deliberate gesture, and if so, a futile one. Even if you don’t know his name, you know who he is.

Committing journalism is not a wrongful act, and often it is a noble one. But all of us who, in the course of making a living at it, help publicize these horrific acts are in a small way implicated in enabling them. Perhaps those who scapegoat gun-rights supporters do so because they have too much pride to contemplate their own fallen nature.

Read the rest – The Medium is the Motive

Tags: ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

110 Responses to “The right to bear arms isn’t the only freedom implicated in massacres like last week’s”
( jump to bottom )

  1. 1 | December 20, 2012 8:29 am

    A central reason these gun debates tend to be futile is that gun owners and gun-rights supporters think advocates of gun control will not settle for reasonable restrictions but want to deprive them of their constitutional rights altogether. They are right to think so, and Frum’s essay illustrates the point.

    This is correct, and without doubt the gun controllers will never be satisfied as long as people are allowed to exercise their Second Amendment Rights. Which brings another point up. The gun controllers, even after Supreme Court decisions stating that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and that it applies to the States as well as the Federal Government, refuse to acknowledge this fact. They are like Orvil Faubuis, standing in the school doorway denying the people their rights. It doesn’t matter that Barack Obama doesn’t like semi-automatic rifles. We have the right to own such weapons, and neither the Federal Government nor the governments of the States has the legitimate authority to forbid such weapons.


  2. 2 | December 20, 2012 8:39 am

    Gallup poll:More Americans favor school officials having guns than favor a weapons ban:

    An interesting fact somewhat buried is that when you combine the number of people who said a solution would be ‘very effective’ and ‘somewhat effective’, more people favored “arming at least one school offic” officia” over “banning the sale of semi-automatic weapons” by 64 to 63. Although the result is within the margin of error, it indicates that neither media nor political pressure on the gun control issue have made it overwhelmingly popular as a solution with citizens.

    And Gallup ignores one little problem. The gun ban is unconstitutional. Most people favored segregation when Brown v. Board of EducationHeller is the law of the land. The Second Amendment is as much an individual right as free speech, and is no more liable to restrictions than free speech.


  3. 3 | December 20, 2012 8:46 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    And Gallup ignores one little problem. The gun ban is unconstitutional. Most people favored segregation when Brown v. Board of EducationHeller is the law of the land. The Second Amendment is as much an individual right as free speech, and is no more liable to restrictions than free speech.

    Yeah, and “most people” in the South favored slavery prior to emancipation. “Most people” is no more than mob rule unless tempered by republican government and constitutional protections and that’s the inherent genius of the American system.


  4. 4 | December 20, 2012 9:04 am

    Simple solution for these folks… If they think they have the numbers, pass an amendment repealing the second amendment. The founders wisely provided for their means to do just that. If they find they don’t have the numbers, maybe they ought to wonder why that is.


  5. Speranza
    5 | December 20, 2012 9:06 am

    @ Iron Fist:
    I am not sure the old maid teachers I had when I was in elementary school should be packing heat. They had some nasty tempers.


  6. Da_Beerfreak
    6 | December 20, 2012 9:11 am

    Mike C. wrote:

    Simple solution for these folks… If they think they have the numbers, pass an amendment repealing the second amendment. The founders wisely provided for their means to do just that. If they find they don’t have the numbers, maybe they ought to wonder why that is.

    Like that would ever work. That’s asking the Left to play by rules they refuse to accept in the first place.


  7. 7 | December 20, 2012 9:16 am

    @ Da_Beerfreak:

    Yup. And as an official “Grouchy”, I want to rub their noses in it.


  8. 8 | December 20, 2012 9:19 am

    @ MacDuff:

    We are Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.


  9. Da_Beerfreak
    9 | December 20, 2012 9:19 am

    @ Mike C.:
    Infuriating :evil:


  10. 10 | December 20, 2012 9:19 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    Frum is a concern troll.


  11. Da_Beerfreak
    11 | December 20, 2012 9:21 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ MacDuff:

    We are Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

    Once upon a time we were, not anymore. The Seventeenth Amendment put an end to that. :evil:


  12. Speranza
    12 | December 20, 2012 9:23 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    Frum is a concern troll.

    That is a very accurate description of him.


  13. eaglesoars
    13 | December 20, 2012 9:36 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:

    Frum is a concern troll.

    Nothing like expoiting the death of 20 innocents for your own self aggrandizement.


  14. 14 | December 20, 2012 9:36 am

    Speranza wrote:

    @ Iron Fist:
    I am not sure the old maid teachers I had when I was in elementary school should be packing heat. They had some nasty tempers.

    I just had an amusing image of one of the old-time nuns of my youth with a pistol-grip shotgun under her habit. :D


  15. 15 | December 20, 2012 9:38 am

    @ eaglesoars:

    He loved the death of the kids. It helps his agenda.


  16. eaglesoars
    16 | December 20, 2012 9:40 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:

    He loved the death of the kids. It helps his agenda.

    Never noticed any of these people talking about Detroit or Chicago


  17. 17 | December 20, 2012 9:46 am

    NRA reports that new memberships are surging -- up average of 8,000 a day since Newtown. Their propaganda campaign is NOT working. Stores are selling out -- every poll says gun control is not the answer.

    You guys remember when my avatar was me shooting a friend’s AK-47 in the Nevada desert? It’s been my Twitter avatar for a couple years. I’m getting unsolicited tweets from the libturds, of course, calling me every name in the book and asking if I have no shame.

    Well, initially I had considered changing my avatar after Friday. Now, of course, I absolutely will not.


  18. 18 | December 20, 2012 9:55 am

    @ eaglesoars:

    White Democrats do not care about dead Black kids. They only care when this happens to their kids.


  19. 19 | December 20, 2012 9:56 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    People know what is up.


  20. Tanker
    20 | December 20, 2012 9:56 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    Two of my favorite pictures:

    1) A woman with child
    2) A woman on the firing range


  21. Speranza
    21 | December 20, 2012 9:57 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:
    White Democrats do not care about dead Black kids. They only care when this happens to their kids.

    Today’s white liberals never really cared about Blacks, only black votes.


  22. 22 | December 20, 2012 9:58 am

    @ Speranza:

    If Republicans were smart, they can turn Blacks against White Democrats. But this is the GOP we are talking about.


  23. Speranza
    23 | December 20, 2012 9:58 am

    When I was living in Brooklyn all the white liberals I knew quickly moved out of the neighborhood when blacks moved in and they did not want to send their kids to majority black public schools.


  24. Speranza
    24 | December 20, 2012 9:58 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    If Republicans were smart, they can turn Blacks against White Democrats. But this is the GOP we are talking about.

    The term “The Stupid Party” has been well earned by the GOP.


  25. 25 | December 20, 2012 9:59 am

    @ Carolina Girl:
    @ Speranza:

    Our Buddy Charles did 5 posts yesterday on Guns. He’s getting close to when he did 20 posts on rand Paul in 2 days.


  26. Speranza
    26 | December 20, 2012 10:01 am

    Carolina Girl wrote:

    NRA reports that new memberships are surging — up average of 8,000 a day since Newtown. Their propaganda campaign is NOT working. Stores are selling out — every poll says gun control is not the answer.
    You guys remember when my avatar was me shooting a friend’s AK-47 in the Nevada desert? It’s been my Twitter avatar for a couple years. I’m getting unsolicited tweets from the libturds, of course, calling me every name in the book and asking if I have no shame.
    Well, initially I had considered changing my avatar after Friday. Now, of course, I absolutely will not.

    Obama referenced Newtown the other day when he was talking about the Fiscal Cliff negotiations. Never let a crisis go to waste.


  27. Speranza
    27 | December 20, 2012 10:01 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Carolina Girl:
    @ Speranza:
    Our Buddy Charles did 5 posts yesterday on Guns. He’s getting close to when he did 20 posts on rand Paul in 2 days.

    Have you ever noticed that Charles Johnson is an obsessive/compulsive personality?


  28. 28 | December 20, 2012 10:02 am

    @ Speranza:

    The GOP Elite pick the wrong battles and cater to the wrong people.


  29. Speranza
    29 | December 20, 2012 10:03 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    The GOP Elite pick the wrong battles and cater to the wrong people.

    I was thinking of the Terry Schiavo story.


  30. 30 | December 20, 2012 10:05 am

    @ Speranza:

    Charles is a mentally ill man.


  31. Speranza
    31 | December 20, 2012 10:05 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Carolina Girl:
    @ Speranza:
    Our Buddy Charles did 5 posts yesterday on Guns. He’s getting close to when he did 20 posts on rand Paul in 2 days.

    He did 33 Rand Paul threads in one week.


  32. 32 | December 20, 2012 10:06 am

    @ Speranza:

    That really did damage and was one of the reasons we lost in 06. The GOP lost credibility as the party of limited government with that.


  33. Speranza
    33 | December 20, 2012 10:06 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    Charles is a mentally ill man.

    Not just being snarky but you are right. He really needs to get out amongst people although I am not sure he should be around people because he seems like the type who can go “postal” pretty easy.


  34. MikeA
    34 | December 20, 2012 10:06 am

    Tanker wrote:

    @ 2) A woman on the firing range

    When my wife and I were dating, I took her to the range to shoot. All the guys looked over and said that was cool for a date. They let her shoot their guns and she loved it. She later told her newly single sister that the range was the place to go for meeting guys!!!


  35. Speranza
    35 | December 20, 2012 10:07 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    That really did damage and was one of the reasons we lost in 06. The GOP lost credibility as the party of limited government with that.

    Sometines we just need to be disciplined enough to shut up.


  36. 36 | December 20, 2012 10:08 am

    @ Speranza:

    The dumbest one was where he did a thread of Ron Paul hugging Rand Paul. Even if they have some political differences, that’s Rand’s dad. Of course he will hug his father. That was the dumbest one.


  37. 37 | December 20, 2012 10:08 am

    @ MikeA:

    She later told her newly single sister that the range was the place to go for meeting guys!!!

    :lol: that is a new dating concept!


  38. 38 | December 20, 2012 10:10 am

    @ Speranza:

    The GOP has been dysfunctional after Reagan left the scene in 89. It’s become a joke at the national level. Many State Republican parties are good like Texas, but the national one is pathetic. It almost seems like a straw-man operation set up by Democrats.


  39. Tanker
    39 | December 20, 2012 10:12 am

    MikeA wrote:

    Tanker wrote:
    @ 2) A woman on the firing range
    When my wife and I were dating, I took her to the range to shoot. All the guys looked over and said that was cool for a date. They let her shoot their guns and she loved it. She later told her newly single sister that the range was the place to go for meeting guys!!!

    Took me 4 years to get my wife on the range and then she decided she wanted my 44 mag! :(


  40. MikeA
    40 | December 20, 2012 10:17 am

    @ Tanker:

    dude, after we were married, she wanted a 9mm also.

    then she needed her own rifle..

    Everytime I buy something, I almost always have to get one for her later. Not that I am complaining or anything. Also keeps me on the straight and narrow, she’s a good shot!!!


  41. eaglesoars
    41 | December 20, 2012 10:17 am

    I need a nap.

    later.


  42. lobo91
    42 | December 20, 2012 10:21 am

    @ Carolina Girl:

    NRA reports that new memberships are surging — up average of 8,000 a day since Newtown. Their propaganda campaign is NOT working. Stores are selling out — every poll says gun control is not the answer.

    I know from my own experience, I’ve never been busier. I’ve had classes every day this week. I actually had 3 people sign up online while I was asleep last night.


  43. buzzsawmonkey
    43 | December 20, 2012 10:23 am

    For all you gun appreciators out there: “My Favorite Things.”


  44. Tanker
    44 | December 20, 2012 10:25 am

    MikeA wrote:

    @ Tanker:
    dude, after we were married, she wanted a 9mm also.
    then she needed her own rifle..
    Everytime I buy something, I almost always have to get one for her later. Not that I am complaining or anything. Also keeps me on the straight and narrow, she’s a good shot!!!

    I think my wife’s favorite gun and the one anyone would have to worry most about if entering our home unwelcome is the 1932 Lefever 12ga double barrel shotgun my dad gave me when I was 10.
    I learned the straight and narrow from the wife!


  45. citizen_q
    45 | December 20, 2012 10:35 am

    @ MikeA:
    Very cool.

    Unfortunately wife wants nothing to do with shooting.

    She went to the range with me once. I needed for her to understand how my glock worked and how safely work with and unload it in case I was not around for some reason like a car accident. Normally, I secure my firearms in a safe, but things happen.

    Unfortunately, the smallest caliber Glock I have is 9mm. Used the lightest range ammo I had.

    At that time I did not have my little .22 Ruger Single Six for her to try. She did fine with the 9mm, but I wish I could have started her on the Single Six. With sub-sonic .22lr ammo there recoil is barely perceptible.

    I have seen people of questionable intelligence giving their girl friends stout pistols like .357 Mags to try. Seemed like a great way to turn them off of shooting.


  46. lobo91
    46 | December 20, 2012 10:37 am

    @ citizen_q:

    I have seen people of questionable intelligence giving their girl friends stout pistols like .357 Mags to try. Seemed like a great way to turn them off of shooting.

    That’s a really stupid idea.

    I usually start off students who have never shot anything with a .22 pistol.


  47. MikeA
    48 | December 20, 2012 10:45 am

    @ citizen_q:

    I started her off with an old Mossberg .22 that my dad bought sometime after Columbus discovered the new world…. ;)

    She loved it and then stepped her up to 9mm, then 5.56. She tried an M1 Garand that some guy at the range had and thought it was “fun”… I worry about her at times….


  48. Tanker
    49 | December 20, 2012 10:45 am

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    When socks full of excrement are outlawed, only outlaws will have socks full of excrement.

    Another of Barry’s boys, if he had one that is!


  49. 50 | December 20, 2012 10:47 am

    Funny comment at CNBC.

    sidfeinberg | Dec 20, 2012 10:10 AM ET
    You must buy now or you will be priced out. Real estate is up 14% this year. You will see 20% gain in 2013 The housing market is booming, stocks are booming, unemployment way down. Thank You Mr Obama, keep it going for 8 more years


  50. citizen_q
    51 | December 20, 2012 10:48 am

    @ lobo91:
    Agreed.

    If I were starting someone out shooting a .22 would be my first choice.

    One of my hopes when I picked up the Single Six was that it be the perfect firearm to really introduce my wife to shooting. Other than of course it being a fun and inexpensive firearm to shoot.

    I also like that being a singe action revolver it is very safe, and there are no moving parts like the slide on a semi-auto pistol to distract a new shooter.

    Sigh, but my wife was brought up in a very anti-gun household, a very hard thing to buck.


  51. Tanker
    52 | December 20, 2012 10:49 am

    MikeA wrote:

    @ citizen_q:
    I started her off with an old Mossberg .22 that my dad bought sometime after Columbus discovered the new world….
    She loved it and then stepped her up to 9mm, then 5.56. She tried an M1 Garand that some guy at the range had and thought it was “fun”… I worry about her at times….

    My wife started with the Ruger mark 3 .22 and moved up! She was up for trying any and all once she felt comfortable!


  52. citizen_q
    53 | December 20, 2012 10:52 am

    @ MikeA:
    Wonderful!

    Lucky you! I would not worry about her, I’d be proud!


  53. 54 | December 20, 2012 10:53 am

    @ Tanker:

    I finally got my wife to go to the range. Now she has decided she wants a .357 Magnum. I think that is a good caliber for her. I’ve been trying to get her to get a carry permit for 6 years. She thinks it is a priority now.


  54. MikeA
    55 | December 20, 2012 10:56 am

    @ citizen_q:

    Oh I am proud. Its just that at times she scares me. ;)

    When I buy some extra magazines ( or “clips” as they say on the news… idiots!! ), she wonders if I should get some more.


  55. lobo91
    56 | December 20, 2012 10:57 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Tanker:

    I finally got my wife to go to the range. Now she has decided she wants a .357 Magnum. I think that is a good caliber for her. I’ve been trying to get her to get a carry permit for 6 years. She thinks it is a priority now.

    A lot of people have that same thought. It’s why I’ve been so busy.

    I can only imagine how backed up the sheriff’s department is on processing applications. Last month, I heard they were making appointments for mid-January. They’re probably into March now.


  56. lobo91
    57 | December 20, 2012 10:58 am

    @ MikeA:

    My favorite is “magazine clips.”


  57. Tanker
    58 | December 20, 2012 11:01 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Tanker:
    I finally got my wife to go to the range. Now she has decided she wants a .357 Magnum. I think that is a good caliber for her. I’ve been trying to get her to get a carry permit for 6 years. She thinks it is a priority now.

    Mine finally gave in to my wishes during my last deployment and now carries a Keltech PF9. She is rather good with it! Fits her hand well!


  58. lobo91
    59 | December 20, 2012 11:02 am

    The NRA Program Materials office is apparently backed up, too. As soon as I saw how busy it was at the gun show, I ordered more student packets. I normally would have already received them today, or maybe tomorrow. I just got an email saying they were shipped.


  59. 60 | December 20, 2012 11:02 am

    @ lobo91:

    My favorite is that they are now calling a .223 a “High-powered” rifle. These people would lose thei minds if you explained the ballistics of a .300 Winchester Magnum to them.


  60. The Osprey
    61 | December 20, 2012 11:07 am

    @ Iron Fist:

    We protect our President, Congress, Governors, Mayors, with men with guns, why not our children?


  61. Tanker
    62 | December 20, 2012 11:08 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ lobo91:
    My favorite is that they are now calling a .223 a “High-powered” rifle. These people would lose thei minds if you explained the ballistics of a .300 Winchester Magnum to them.

    They read what’s put in front of them. Research or thought doesn’t have a place in the equation!


  62. buzzsawmonkey
    63 | December 20, 2012 11:09 am

    The Osprey wrote:

    We protect our President, Congress, Governors, Mayors, with men with guns, why not our children?

    “Well, come on now—what do you think is really valuable?”

    —President, Congresspeople, governors, and mayors


  63. The Osprey
    64 | December 20, 2012 11:09 am

    @ citizen_q:

    Does yours have the swappable cylinder for .22WMR?
    Those are cool little revolvers.


  64. 65 | December 20, 2012 11:11 am

    @ The Osprey:

    Diane Finestein has a concealed weapons permit. Why is her life more valuable than mine?


  65. unclassifiable
    66 | December 20, 2012 11:14 am

    @ Rodan:

    So have you extended an invitation to you buddy join us?

    It probably would beat the half-assed free range trolls we usually get as far as amusement value.


  66. citizen_q
    67 | December 20, 2012 11:17 am

    @ The Osprey:
    Yes, it does, though I have not used it yet.

    I have only had opportunity to punch paper with it at the local range. I have bricks of bulk .22lr the I bought cheap, and can spend an enjoyable afternoon shooting for less then going to a movie.


  67. unclassifiable
    68 | December 20, 2012 11:17 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    When I saw that on Drudge it brought a smile.

    Am I wrong? :)


  68. 69 | December 20, 2012 11:19 am

    unclassifiable wrote:

    @ Rodan:
    So have you extended an invitation to you buddy join us?
    It probably would beat the half-assed free range trolls we usually get as far as amusement value.

    He would not dare.


  69. buzzsawmonkey
    70 | December 20, 2012 11:20 am

    unclassifiable wrote:

    When I saw that on Drudge it brought a smile.

    What brought a smile? The news story, or did Drudge use a line similar to the one I used?


  70. Speranza
    71 | December 20, 2012 11:21 am

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    The dumbest one was where he did a thread of Ron Paul hugging Rand Paul. Even if they have some political differences, that’s Rand’s dad. Of course he will hug his father. That was the dumbest one.

    He really was reaching with that one.


  71. citizen_q
    72 | December 20, 2012 11:21 am

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ The Osprey:
    Diane Finestein has a concealed weapons permit. Why is her life more valuable than mine?

    Hypocrisy is second nature to these demonrat, totalitarian social engineers.


  72. unclassifiable
    73 | December 20, 2012 11:32 am

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Well the Drudge Report brought a smile becuase I could see the drug-addled logic behing using a poop-sock over a gun if you are going on a rampage.

    When socks full of excrement are outlawed, only outlaws will have socks full of excrement.

    This took the humor level from “that’s amusingly sick” to “now that’s funny”.


  73. The Osprey
    74 | December 20, 2012 11:36 am

    The Knish has got a good one up today.

    What liberals think of as gun culture is really shorthand for rural America. It’s what liberals won’t say, but it’s what they mean. Americans are still sentimental about the village, so, for now, the number of movies that portray the rural community as ideal, rather than a hive of small-minded bigots, is still rather high. But there are backdoor ways of getting at the same topic and talking about gun culture is one of them.

    When liberals talk about “gun culture”, they mean the same thing that Barack Obama did when he told his San Francisco fundraiser friends about the people out there who still cling to their bibles and their guns. It isn’t about the guns really, though gun control culture is worried about having that much personal autonomy in the hands of people who don’t share their values and like their independence, it’s about rural America. And rural America, like guns, is another symbol that stands in for traditional America.

    Speranza you need to do a post highlighting this article.


  74. 75 | December 20, 2012 11:38 am

    I went to the local sporting goods store to buy some fishing equipment. I wanted to build a couple of new fly rods so I thought I could pick a couple of lower sections for the Aye aRe 15 fly rod. They were sold out totally and said they would not be getting any in in the foreseeable future. I went to the next place and they had 20 left. I bought 4 and the guy next to me bought 4. they said their supplier had none and when these were gone, they were done. completed fly rods are selling fater than you could imagine. The store was packed.

    These are very interesting times.


  75. unclassifiable
    76 | December 20, 2012 11:40 am

    @ MikeA:
    @ lobo91:

    I don’t get too hung up on the terminology. People (and I) will learn but I think it is more important to welcome them to support and exercise 2nd Amendment rights.


  76. 77 | December 20, 2012 11:48 am

    The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It has nothing to do with home defense against gang banger drug dealers tha want to steal your TV. The 2nd Amendment is about protecting the citizens from the government. When the people are unarmed, there is no stopping the government from becoming totalitarian and doing WHATEVER it wants. The only thing that keeps the government from stealing anything it wants from the people is the simple fact that millions of normal Americans have guns.


  77. lobo91
    78 | December 20, 2012 11:52 am

    unclassifiable wrote:

    @ MikeA:
    @ lobo91:

    I don’t get too hung up on the terminology. People (and I) will learn but I think it is more important to welcome them to support and exercise 2nd Amendment rights.

    I only do when it involves the media and people who are clearly just reading off a script. When I got my journalism degree, if your story had significant factual errors, you got an F.

    Calling a civilian AR-15 a “high-powered rifle,” a “machine gun,” or a “weapon of war” is a significant factual error in my mind.


  78. 79 | December 20, 2012 11:54 am

    @ father_of_10:

    And that is why they want to do away with it. You know, I’d actually respect these people a little bit if they’d just come out and try to repeal the Second Amendment. They’re not going to do that, though. They just want to pretend it doesn’t exist, the way Orvil Faubus wanted to pretend desegregation wasn’t going to happen. Democrats then, Democrats now, Democrats forever against the civil rights of United States citizens.


  79. 80 | December 20, 2012 12:03 pm

    @ lobo91:

    It is not necessarily an error, or, at least, a mistake. Yes, Journalists are generally as dumb as a box of rocks, but they know when they are lying. They use these emotionally chareged words as a propaganda device. They know they are lying to their consumers, but they have a point of view that must be expressed. They are propagandists, not simply mistaken journalists.


  80. 81 | December 20, 2012 12:04 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    If the Democrats figured they could actually get the votes of gun owners by doing so, they’d make Allan Gura look like the Chairman of The Brady Bunch.


  81. unclassifiable
    82 | December 20, 2012 12:07 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    We’re are getting a similar attitude about weed legalization. These states who have legalized have done nothing more than put their citizens at risk to the capricious macinations of the Federal government. At the current time weed is still illegal at the Federal level. If they wanted this activity to be legal (much like Mike C. said at the top) they need to mount a nationwide campaign to persuade or elect enough congressmen to overturn the law.

    I am pretty sure if Texas legalized weed Obama and Holder would be all over it arresting folks. But blue states — well they’ll turn a blind eye.


  82. unclassifiable
    83 | December 20, 2012 12:10 pm

    @ lobo91:

    Understood. Journalist should be held to a higher standard.


  83. 84 | December 20, 2012 12:12 pm

    @ unclassifiable:

    I think Republicans should push weed legalization. Most the public supports it and it’s an intrusion on people’s lives. Anything that rolls back the police state I appluad. The GOP should jump on this and point out it was Democrats who banned weed in the 30′s.

    This would be a perfect way for Republicans to show they are the party of limited government.


  84. 85 | December 20, 2012 12:13 pm

    New Thread.


  85. Lily
    86 | December 20, 2012 12:17 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Speranza:
    That really did damage and was one of the reasons we lost in 06. The GOP lost credibility as the party of limited government with that.

    Terry Schiavo?? I disagree. Good heavens!!! I don’t understand all these people backing for someone to starve to death. Ever see it happen? Not to mention as a mother I would be furious if I had no say in what happened to my sons in such a condition. I saw this happen to a friend of mine and her parents were shut out cold ..by the time she died over 30 days later she looked like a mummy skin and bones. To tell me this is a humane death is insane.


  86. unclassifiable
    87 | December 20, 2012 12:18 pm

    @ Rodan:

    You know this is where Jindal scored a few points. I could be wrong but I think he may be personally opposed to birth control but from the standpoint as his official standing as a govenor he chose to let the individual decide (by makng birth control over the counter)rather than imposing his personal position on all a la Obamacare.


  87. Lily
    88 | December 20, 2012 12:20 pm

    lobo91 wrote:

    @ Carolina Girl:
    NRA reports that new memberships are surging — up average of 8,000 a day since Newtown. Their propaganda campaign is NOT working. Stores are selling out — every poll says gun control is not the answer.
    I know from my own experience, I’ve never been busier. I’ve had classes every day this week. I actually had 3 people sign up online while I was asleep last night.

    That is great news lobo!!


  88. 89 | December 20, 2012 12:27 pm

    @ Speranza:

    He’s hoping for a traffic spike and/or retweets. Unfortunately, no one’s paying attention to him -- especially since Piers Morgan seems to have cornered the internet market on gun control asshattery right now.


  89. buzzsawmonkey
    90 | December 20, 2012 12:36 pm

    unclassifiable wrote:

    We’re are getting a similar attitude about weed legalization. These states who have legalized have done nothing more than put their citizens at risk to the capricious macinations of the Federal government. At the current time weed is still illegal at the Federal level. If they wanted this activity to be legal (much like Mike C. said at the top) they need to mount a nationwide campaign to persuade or elect enough congressmen to overturn the law.

    I am pretty sure if Texas legalized weed Obama and Holder would be all over it arresting folks. But blue states — well they’ll turn a blind eye.

    Rodan wrote:

    I think Republicans should push weed legalization. Most the public supports it and it’s an intrusion on people’s lives. Anything that rolls back the police state I appluad. The GOP should jump on this and point out it was Democrats who banned weed in the 30′s.

    This would be a perfect way for Republicans to show they are the party of limited government.

    “Showing that they are the party of limited government” is advocating Balinese shadow-puppetry as hardball politics. By itself it will do nothing if people are not already mentally and psychologically prepared to understand what they see—and if they are thus prepared, you don’t need the Balinese shadow-puppet theatre.

    Unclassifiable raises an interesting point, especially when you consider that the weed-legalizing states are also the states pushing same-sex marriage. You have a similarity between the two: pot is illegal at the federal level, but legalized by certain states; same-sex marriage is not recognized by the feds (DOMA, which the Obama Administration has announced it will not enforce), but has been legalized by several states.

    Same-sex marriage comes before the Supreme Court next year; the Court will consider both a suit against DOMA from the Second Circuit, and consider the Ninth Circuit’s ruling against the Prop 8 referendum. State law will be used to void DOMA as a matter of “equal protection” (so that Obama doesn’t have to take off from his golf game to actually deal with Congress and repeal it); then, once state law has been used to trump federal law to get rid of DOMA, make same-sex marriage the law of the land and thereby gut the First Amendment, the “equal protection” argument will be used to uphold the Ninth Circuit—and thereby deny Californians the right to amend their state constitution by referendum, thus voiding the Tenth Amendment.

    I mention this in conjunction with pot legalization because if, through some miracle, the First DA/DT Justice does not prevail on the SSM issue, it is entirely possible that the federal/state issue will be resolved through a Supreme Court decision on pot laws.

    If people want to campaign for “limited government,” one of the most important things to advocate is that major changes be brought about through legislation, not through the diktats of activist judges.


  90. unclassifiable
    91 | December 20, 2012 12:36 pm

    @ Lily:

    So would it have been more humane to euthanize her with quick acting drugs?

    I am not promoting a position here but preseting a possible counter to your position.

    It was a very difficult case because the videos seemed to show that while Ms. Shiavo was in a clinically vegitative state she stil seemed to respond to some stimulus.


  91. Lily
    92 | December 20, 2012 12:48 pm

    @ unclassifiable:

    Why did she have to be put to death in the first place? For one her parents said they would support her …. Why was death even on the table? She was able to breathe on her own …she was even able to be fed. So why was death the only answer?


  92. 93 | December 20, 2012 1:07 pm

    @ Lily:

    Her husband wanted an out.


  93. Lily
    94 | December 20, 2012 1:17 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    @ Lily:
    Her husband wanted an out.

    Yep that is exactly what was going on. As was the same reason why my friend was straved to death because her husband wanted an out.


  94. unclassifiable
    95 | December 20, 2012 2:02 pm

    @ Lily:

    Ag@ Iron Fist:

    Agreed. It was a tragic miscarriage.

    Folks not even related to the principals (husband and family) decided to bring a lot of extra baggage in and that IMHO clouded the entire issue.


  95. unclassifiable
    96 | December 20, 2012 2:05 pm

    @ unclassifiable:

    The final perfect hindsight on this is to make sure you have your advanced directives in order and make sure you go through ALL of the options.

    My mom did not understand that if she had another heart attack they would do NOTHING to help her because the two-bit form AD (supplied by the hospital no less) did not allow for any other choice.

    Needless to say she fixed that damn quick.


  96. Speranza
    97 | December 20, 2012 2:16 pm

    Too much talk about guns frankly gets creepy.


  97. Speranza
    98 | December 20, 2012 2:16 pm

    I mean if you want a pistol to protect your home fine, but obsessing over ammo and assault rifles is getting into a different realm.


  98. Speranza
    99 | December 20, 2012 2:19 pm

    Lily wrote:

    Rodan wrote:
    @ Speranza:
    That really did damage and was one of the reasons we lost in 06. The GOP lost credibility as the party of limited government with that.

    Terry Schiavo?? I disagree. Good heavens!!! I don’t understand all these people backing for someone to starve to death. Ever see it happen? Not to mention as a mother I would be furious if I had no say in what happened to my sons in such a condition. I saw this happen to a friend of mine and her parents were shut out cold ..by the time she died over 30 days later she looked like a mummy skin and bones. To tell me this is a humane death is insane.

    President Bush should not have injected himself into the Schiavo affair. Politically it turned a lot of people off.


  99. Speranza
    100 | December 20, 2012 2:20 pm

    MikeA wrote:

    Tanker wrote:
    @ 2) A woman on the firing range

    When my wife and I were dating, I took her to the range to shoot. All the guys looked over and said that was cool for a date. They let her shoot their guns and she loved it. She later told her newly single sister that the range was the place to go for meeting guys!!!

    You guys are making different guns out to be like different hot chicks at a singles bar.


  100. 101 | December 20, 2012 2:21 pm

    Speranza wrote:

    I mean if you want a pistol to protect your home fine, but obsessing over ammo and assault rifles is getting into a different realm.

    Let’s see a show of hands of everybody here that owns a real assault rifle (that’s a Class III weapon)…

    No hurry, I’ll wait…


  101. darkwords
    102 | December 20, 2012 2:27 pm

    @ 74 The Osprey: What would be the broad effect of that. Ok for white farmers kids to own a kids, not ok for a black gang member to own a gun? Seems like the Dems are shifting back to their Civil War philosophy about gun control.


  102. darkwords
    103 | December 20, 2012 2:28 pm

    @ 101 Mike C.:
    Here for home defense in a real emergency we were thinking pit with sharp stakes and claymore mines.


  103. darkwords
    104 | December 20, 2012 2:31 pm

    @ 97 Speranza: I’m ok with gun talk. I can tell if someone is a little off or if they have actual experience and some wisdom about it. Probably not enough wise gun talk in the country.


  104. 105 | December 20, 2012 2:33 pm

    @ darkwords:

    My local shops are all out of claymores, RPGs and every kind of grenade. My “assault rifles” (I’m including the Marlin lever gun in that) will have to do, I guess. Okay, plus the pistols and revolvers.


  105. buzzsawmonkey
    106 | December 20, 2012 2:38 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    My local shops are all out of claymores,

    …and people are claymoring for more…


  106. 107 | December 20, 2012 2:38 pm

    And please do keep in mind that the Second Amendment wasn’t put there to protect hunting, or even to protect personal/home defense. It was put there so the citizenry could constrain the government by force, if need be. So the citizenry would outmatch the government and the government would justifiably be afraid.

    Don’t take my word for that -- go forth and read your Old Dead White Guys stuff. I recommend Jefferson, Madison and Washington, but there are others.


  107. 108 | December 20, 2012 2:39 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Had to go there, didn’t you?


  108. buzzsawmonkey
    109 | December 20, 2012 2:47 pm

    Mike C. wrote:

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Had to go there, didn’t you?

    Yep. Sometimes, you just have to bring the shotgun to bear on the fish in the barrel.


  109. 110 | December 20, 2012 8:28 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ eaglesoars:
    He loved the death of the kids. It helps his agenda.

    It goes further than that. He loves death, in general. He’s a communist, a Muslim, an eco-freak, and a narcissist. OF COURSE he loves death.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David