Observation

Filed in National by on July 15, 2008

I think I liked the abortion trolls better than the gun nuts. At least abortion trolls had (inside their crazy heads) a sense of common decency.

The gun nuts are all about murder and mayhem. The more murder and mayhem there is in society the more they feel justified in clinging to thier hackneyed talking points.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (190)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Outside the Perimeter: Comments out of the Gazoo « kavips | July 23, 2008
  1. mike w. says:

    Are you going to offer proof to backup this accusation?……..

    didn’t think so. The personal attacks and bigotry are all coming from you guys. Clearly we’re not the ones lacking “common decency.”

  2. jason330 says:

    Whatever murderboy.

  3. mike w. says:

    And they continue to prove me right…

  4. liberalgeek says:

    murderboy. That one made me laugh out loud…

  5. mike w. says:

    “Whatever murderboy.”

    Your debate skills are simply astounding. How could I ever hope to compete with such a reasoned argument?….

  6. Disbelief says:

    You guys actually think Jordan Warfel presented better arguments than Mike? Bullshit.

    If you don’t want guns, then don’t have them yourselves.

  7. mike w. says:

    “If you don’t want guns, then don’t have them yourselves.”

    And that’s what it all comes down to in the end. Freedom of choice is generally a liberal philosophy. Hell, it’s the hallmark of a free society.

    Here’s an example. I’m using the issue of Abortion here. (I’m pro choice like many of you)

    On the issue of abortion liberals uphold the sanctity of the woman’s body. Her body, her choice. My libertarian mind cannot fault that argument.

    When it comes to guns & women’s self-defense those same liberals who hold women’s empowerment and right to choose in high esteem recoil in disgust at the very thought of a woman having the freedom to say “my body, my choice” and choosing to arm herself with the greatest equalizer mankind has yet devised.

    Antipathy towards weapons of self-defense is something I’ve never understood about the feminist movement and anti-gunners in general. What good is empowerment if you’re not empowered to defend your own life?

  8. jason330 says:

    murderboy,

    You are a regular jukebox of NRA talking points aren’t you? Momma must be proud.

    Impress me and be against the “right” of the woman in your example to buy 20 guns a month at gun shows…..

    Okay then.

    SHUT UP!

    Case closed. You are a nutbag.

  9. I seriously can’t stop laughing…ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

  10. is that the prequel to Hellboy set to come out?

  11. i just read that again
    ROFLMAO

  12. jason,
    I think my favorite analogy yet from the 2A’ers is the Spoon to Gun analogy

    although just today the Swimming Pools to Gun analogy was made too

    I still like spoon I think.

  13. mike w. says:

    And yet you are unwilling (unable?) to explain why the spoon analogy I made is illogical.

    Jason – Right back at it eh? You can’t offer anything of substance so you’re going to yell “shut up” and call me names. How old are you?

  14. jason330 says:

    Just as I thought. Defending the “right” to buy 20 guns a month marks you as a dangerous lunatic.

    On your way murderboy.

  15. I have a new slogan for 2A’ers and the NRA

    “Clinging to Guns and Analogies”

    Mike, are you telling me that the NRA and the Spoon collecting society of America are in bed together?

  16. mike w. says:

    “Just as I thought. Defending the “right” to buy 20 guns a month marks you as a dangerous lunatic.

    Right, because in America we put limits on the amount of private property people can legally own.

    So we should restrict you to only one post on this site per month right? Any more than that is “dangerous.” Oh, and you can’t own more than one car, or one set of knives, or one foot of rope. etc. etc. Why not restrict people to 3 meals a day since so many americans are overweight?

    I wish I had the money to buy 20 guns a month.

  17. Sebastian says:

    Well, if someone had their collection lost through a flood or fire, I’d support their right to buy 20 guns in a month.

    Maybe I’m crazy to think in a free society, the burden ought to be on those who favor a law restricting people’s liberties to prove why the law is needed rather than us having to prove why we desire liberty. Most of the times no one would have cause to buy 2 cars a month either, but I see no reason to limit someone’s liberty in that regard.

  18. G Rex says:

    What if an abortion doctor wanted to carry a concealed handgun to defend himself against Bible thumping pro-life kooks?

  19. jason330 says:

    Murderboy,

    I said good day dangerous lunatic!

    Sebastion,

    At least you admit that there is no “right” to buy 20 guns a month under normal circumstances. That was too much for murderboy.

  20. A. bundy says:

    “Murderboy”

    You are so clever!

  21. Robb Allen says:

    Sebastian said no such thing. If you wish to purchase 20 X of anything per month, I have no problems with it.

    And yes, I have the right to legally obtain property in any amount. Do you deny this?

  22. mike w. says:

    “And yes, I have the right to legally obtain property in any amount. Do you deny this?”

    But don’t you see Robb, even though your property is legal that doesn’t matter because it’s “ICKY!”

  23. jason330 says:

    Yes I deny it idiot. What on earth gives anybody the right to buy 20 guns per month?

    You are a bunch of dnagerous morons who I am done dealing with.

  24. Robb Allen says:

    Come to think about it, these children do deny people rights to own whatever they want, as long as it’s something they don’t like.

    Funny how you “progessives” get your little girl panties in a wad when the all powerful state tells you that you can’t own pot, but somehow are ok with given them the power to restrict something you think is icky. Something that is provably not as dangerous as many, many other things (yes, DTB, even less dangerous than pools and drugs).

    So, what is it? Can the state tell you that you’re not allowed to own something because it might be dangerous? If so, then quit your crying that you can’t have drugs or if the state decides that where you “park your trailer” is for your own good.

  25. jason330 says:

    You are flat out stupid.

  26. Robb Allen says:

    I have the right, and there’s nothing you can do about it Jason (except what you’re doing now which is pitching a fit and quitting).

    Like I said, you’re not a liberal, you’re an authoritarian prick who is much more dangerous than those of us with guns. We’ll let you live your life as you see fit, you refuse to let us live ours.

  27. mike w. says:

    “You are flat out stupid.”

    Like I said on my blog…….petulant little children. I ALMOST feel bad for you Jason.

  28. Robb Allen says:

    Never mind guys. I can’t keep up with Jason. I was going to respond with something like “You’re a doody head”, but his comment of “You are flat out stupid” is just too much to counter.

  29. jason330 says:

    Idiot,

    I’ll put this on the bottom shelf for you.

    The second ammdenment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Preventing someone from buying 20 guns a month in no way infringes on your rights.

    Man oh man. You are a bunch of freaking blood thirsty retards.

  30. Weer'd Beard says:

    Is there a difference between buying 20 guns in a month (or a day for that matter) or 20 guns in a year, or a lifetime?

    I suspect that a person with 20 guns scares you no matter how they aquired them.

    I suspect ANY amount of guns is just as scary.

    From the factions of “Compromise”….

  31. jason330 says:

    Go away you dangerous lunatics. Go stroke your glock.

  32. jason330 says:

    I suspect that a person with 20 guns scares you no matter how they aquired them.

    Yes. Because they are selling them to criminals stupid.

  33. Weer'd Beard says:

    Gotta love all the name calling here. Reminds me of Middle School! : ]

    Strangly the names are only comming from one side of the argument….

  34. jason330 says:

    Fucker!

  35. Robb Allen says:

    “Preventing someone from buying 20 guns a month in no way infringes on your rights.”

    Here, let me clean that up for you
    “Preventing someone from buying 20 grams of pot a month in no way infringes on your rights.”

    or
    “Preventing someone from buying 20 beers a month in no way infringes on your rights.”

    What makes one different than the other? Safety to the general public? Because you should look up how many people will die today because of alcohol (hint. more today than all week with firearms).

  36. Robb Allen says:

    “Yes. Because they are selling them to criminals stupid.”

    Jason, if you have proof of this, you can bring it to the police and they can arrest the person for it. Otherwise, you are saying they are guilty and are required to prove their innocence.

    Is a guy who buys 2,000 liters of Anhydrous Ammonia guilty of making crack?

  37. mike w. says:

    Wow, now we’re down to 1 word personal attacks. A new low for the “progressives” here at Delaware LIBERAL.

  38. Dana says:

    Jason wrote:

    Yes I deny it idiot. What on earth gives anybody the right to buy 20 guns per month?

    The Second Amendment to the Constitution, which says that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” How is that unclear to you?

    Of course, you also said:

    Preventing someone from buying 20 guns a month in no way infringes on your rights.

    Really? Why wouldn’t it be an infringement? If President Bush said, “You know, I can’t take away your rights to freedom of speech and the press, but you folks at the Delaware Liberal are just making too much racket, and I’m going to limit you to one blog post a month,” would you say, “Well, OK, as long as I have free speech rights to publish that one blog post a month,” or would you call it an infringement on your rights?

    If President Bush said to The New York Times, I can’t take away your freedom of the press, but y’all are saying some really harmful things, so I’m issuing an executive order which will allow you to buy only enough newsprint for one day’s press run a month,” would you consider that a reasonable regulation, or an infringement on the Times’ right to freedom of the press? After all, they could still print anything that they wanted; they’d just have to get everything that they wanted to say in one issue a month.

    You are a bunch of dnagerous morons who I am done dealing with.

    Such an impressive argument! 🙂

  39. liberalgeek says:

    Is a guy who buys 2,000 liters of Anhydrous Ammonia guilty of making crack?

    Well, no, but there may be an investigation into what he is using it for. I would argue that if someone buys 20 guns a month for a few months, you ask what they are doing with the guns. But for some reason that seems sacrosanct.

    If someone bought 20 cars a month, the autorities might also check to see if they are running an illegal export business. I need a freakin’ ID to buy some cold remedies that are supposed to be OTC, but aren’t because it can be used for an illegal activity in sufficient quantities.

  40. Von Cracker says:

    “Is a guy who buys 2,000 liters of Anhydrous Ammonia guilty of making crack?”

    No, but it’s enough probable cause to issue a warrant for a conspiracy charge.

    Neither here nor there, though….

  41. Robb Allen says:

    “Well, no, but there may be an investigation into what he is using it for. I would argue that if someone buys 20 guns a month for a few months, you ask what they are doing with the guns. But for some reason that seems sacrosanct.”

    Ah, then little do you know the laws. Go to a gun store, purchase 5 guns, and see if you don’t get a little check up from the nice men with badges.

  42. jason330 says:

    VC –

    These guys will not allow that buying 20 guns in order to sell them illegally is wrong. They are stone cold idiots.

    I’m done with the whole moron gun nut business.

  43. Robb Allen says:

    “No, but it’s enough probable cause to issue a warrant for a conspiracy charge.”

    It is? Even if they work in refrigeration? Or make fertilizer? Or use it to scrub SO2 from burning coal?

    The fact is, just purchasing something in bulk automatically doesn’t make you a criminal, be it Ammonia or guns.

  44. Robb Allen says:

    “I’m done with the whole moron gun nut business.”

    You keep saying that, but you keep coming back with insults.

    Interesting.

  45. jason330 says:

    I wasn’t talking to you. Retard.

  46. Von Cracker says:

    I refer you to my post on the ‘other’ gun thread:

    http://delawareliberal.net//2008/07/14/id-laugh-if-it-wasnt-true/#comment-41331

  47. Robb Allen says:

    “These guys will not allow that buying 20 guns in order to sell them illegally is wrong. They are stone cold idiots. ”

    And we said that where?

    I’m against straw purchases, be it 1 or 20000.

  48. for the record, I still think murderboy is wayyyy better than a blood thirsty retard

  49. mike w. says:

    “These guys will not allow that buying 20 guns in order to sell them illegally is wrong. They are stone cold idiots.

    Who said anything about buying guns in order to sell them illegally?

    Oh and thanks DTB, from you that’s a complement.

    Man, I hope I never run into any of you guys while Open Carrying in this great state of Delaware. You’d probably call the cops upon seeing me sit down to eat lunch, afraid the icky gun might jump out of its holster and bite you.

  50. G Rex says:

    Anyone who’s buying 20 guns must be selling them illegally? I call straw man on Jason.

    And yet we won’t let people buy a case of cough syrup, so there is precedent for always assuming the worst of people.

  51. Sebastian says:

    So, would you support a law that says no one can send more than 100 e-mails a month in order to combat spam? I mean, who has a right to send 100 e-mails a month? Spam is a big problem, you know.

    Just to be fair, if you send up to 150, we’ll only fine you. But send 200, and there’s gonna have to be some jail time.

  52. Sebastian says:

    And for those advocating restricting gun purchases, why isn’t the current regulation, which requires multiple gun purchases be reported to the ATF if more than one gun is purchased within a five day period, not sufficient for the purposes of combating illegal gun trafficking?

  53. mike w. says:

    “And yet we won’t let people buy a case of cough syrup, so there is precedent for always assuming the worst of people.”

    It seems you’re not a fan of such restrictions, so why is it any different than guns.

    I HATE the restrictions on cold medicine too.

  54. G Rex says:

    I don’t know why it’s different, Mike, I was just pondering the point. (Just so you know which side of the issue I’m on, there’s an SKS in my closet, and a half dozen stripper clips close at hand.)

  55. liberalgeek says:

    I am in favor of sensible restrictions on things that can be easily misused. We just seem to disagree on what a sensible restriction is. I did not know that the ATF checks up on a gun buyer that exceeds some limit. If true, that makes me feel better.

    I’m not sure how it controls for those guns potentially being sold and reported stolen a month later, but if we can get some assurances that a guy (not a legal dealer) that buys 20 guns a month isn’t operating an illegal dealership, fine.

  56. Von Cracker says:

    No, I agree with you there, Robb. It doesn’t make you a criminal, obviously, but it will draw suspicion to the authorities…just like purchasing an inordinate amount of guns within a short period of time.

  57. Weer'd Beard says:

    Let’s dovetail this! How about abortion?

    I personally don’t like the act, but knowing the black-market is far worse I’m 100% for keeping abortion legal.

    Most of the women I know have never had an abortion, nor have they wanted/needed one. The women I do know who had one had it early in life when they first became sexually active and weren’t careful. They only had one. That was enugh for their lifetime.

    So why don’t we have laws that limet the amount of Abortions a woman can have in her life?

    Or at least ask her “Why are you having an abortion” just to make sure they aren’t using it for birth-control….

    This is reasonable restrictions to me….how about you?

  58. liberalgeek says:

    I have a strict 1 abortion per month limit.

  59. Tyler Nixon says:

    Yay guns!!! YAY 2A!!!

    J – I am going out to buy 20 guns at a gun show this weekend…with no background checks or any blockades of any kind…and I am going to open carry at least one pistol while I am doing it, including during the drive over and back…and I am doin’ it all in your honor, SAHN!!!!

    YEEEEEEEEEEHAW. This country of ours rocks!!

  60. Weer'd Beard says:

    ” I did not know that the ATF checks up on a gun buyer that exceeds some limit.”

    It is true, and the number is 5 handguns in one transaction. And of course every gun purchass from a licenced dealer is accompanied by a background check everywhere in the US.

    Private sale doesn’t because private citizens don’t have access to the NICS system, but no matter if you sell to somebody who couldn’t buy that gun otherwise you have just committed a serious felony.

    I don’t nessisarily fault you for not knowing this, but it IS quite sad that people will vote and lobby to making my legal hobby and right more and more difficult (dispite no evedence of reduction of crime or loss of life) without knowing already what laws are on the books.

  61. Von Cracker says:

    Simple – Abortions do not affect anyone except the persons directly involved.

  62. A. bundy says:

    “Now we’ve all had our fun with the gun nuts, so I deleted DV’s last post since DelawareDem is going to be at Netroots Nation and we want to make a good first impression.”

    Jason deleted donVD’s last post. What ever happened to keeping it real, jASSon!? You are a hypocrite and a fraud!

  63. liberalgeek says:

    Honestly, the laws have changed so rapidly in both directions that it is hard to keep up unless it is your pet issue.

    So, what would be sensible restrictions that pass muster with 2A fans and 2A foes? Velocity restrictions? Momentum (mv) restrictions? Restrictions on full-auto?

    I know that there are restrictions on Full Auto now, but we know how simple it is to make some semi-auto models, full auto. Should that capability be restricted?

  64. Rustmeister says:

    Sure is nice to see all these open minded individuals accepting differences in others.

  65. Sebastian says:

    Well, except the fetus being cut out. I don’t agree with folks who believe abortion ought to be illegal because they view fetuses as having the same rights as a baby, but if you believe life begins at conception, and that is the fundamental argument of the abortion debate, then arguing that it doesn’t hurt an innocent third party is a bit of a moot argument.

  66. RAH says:

    Jason is obviously a young teen since he can not post without grade school insults. Folks do not tease the child, he is not up to it.

  67. Von Cracker says:

    Not to sound callous, Sebastian, but if a fetus cannot live on its own (and I mean a very short period of time), then it’s a host/parasite paradigm.

  68. RAH says:

    Liberalgeek if you really want to discuss this issue rationally go to Sebastians blog and we can talk without the moronic chattering from DTB and Jason.

  69. Von Cracker says:

    And I think the Gun/Abortion thing was about the purchase of each one.

    One could argue that the purchase of an abortion would result in ending fetal gestation, where a gun purchase might cause human fatalities and injuries.

  70. jasons the moron

    i’m an the IDIOT

  71. uh oh, we just went the abortion route….

    I’d rather walk naked through riverside

  72. Sebastian says:

    Liberalgeek:

    Federal law doesn’t just limit full autos, but any firearm which is “readily convertible” to full auto. The ATF gets to define whether a firearm is “readily convertible” and thus a machine gun under the law, even if technically it’s not capable of firing automatically. All firearms on the market today take some degree of skill and access to a machine shop to convert.

  73. Sebastian says:

    As to what regulations I find acceptable…. needless to say probably less than most people. But I don’t think the second amendment is absolute. I’ve outlined that previously here, if you’re interested:

    http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2007/04/18/an-exercise-in-law-making/

  74. liberalgeek says:

    Thanks, Sebastian. There are certainly some regulations that we could debate, but I see where you stand. Open carry everywhere is a bit too strong for me and I suspect most people.

    I also recognize that an “Assualt Weapons Ban” as we have enacted in the past is stupid, as the manufacturers can easily circumvent them and they restrict based on appearance, not performance.

    Would you be willing to restrict on some specifications of the performance of guns and/or ammo? Would you be willing to accept restrictions on the amount of ammo stored in a home (with no limits at shooting ranges, etc.)?

  75. Sebastian says:

    Von Cracker:

    The same thing could be said of kitchen knives and baseball bats, both of which people have been known to use to commit murder. Granted firearms are pretty effective at this, which is why we regulate commerce in them, and don’t allow violent criminals to buy them. But if you’re going to go down the road of regulating things because people can misuse them, that starts going into places a free society ought really not go.

  76. mike w. says:

    “I am in favor of sensible restrictions on things that can be easily misused. We just seem to disagree on what a sensible restriction is. I did not know that the ATF checks up on a gun buyer that exceeds some limit. If true, that makes me feel better.”

    I can’t remember what the exact number is in Delaware, but I know if I buy a certain number of handguns in a given time period (again I can’t remember what the time period was that he told me 10 days maybe?) that purchase info is also relayed to the DE AG’s office. Of course this is coming from my FFL, so he could be wrong.

  77. Sebastian says:

    Open carry everywhere is a bit too strong for me and I suspect most people.

    I think you need to allow some manner of people being able to carry weapons for self-protection outside of the home. I’m open to the idea of regulating the manner in which people can carry, and the requirements to license certain ways of carrying, as long as the licensing isn’t arbitrary and capricious. But I don’t think the state can outright prohibit carry for people who don’t have criminals records.

    Would you be willing to restrict on some specifications of the performance of guns and/or ammo? Would you be willing to accept restrictions on the amount of ammo stored in a home (with no limits at shooting ranges, etc.)?

    The problem is, the guns in question just look scary. They don’t perform any differently from other guns people don’t advocate banning. Current federal restrictions classify any rifle having a barrel of greater than .50 caliber as a destructive device, with a few exceptions made for certain firearms over that size that are used for big game hunting, and exceptions for muzzle loaders. Federal regulations also heavily restrict machine guns. I can live with the restrictions on machine guns, though I don’t agree with the outright ban. Prior to the ban, the federal regulations in place were working well in regards to keeping machine guns out of the hands of criminals, but still allowing collectors, security contractors, movie production companies, and various other parties to get them.

    As far as ammunition restrictions, I don’t really see the point. I think the government can ban or regulate explosive storage in residential areas. Small arms ammunition that’s available to civilians aren’t explosive, so there’s no inherent hazard in someone having 10,000 rounds or 20 rounds.

  78. Sebastian says:

    Mike,

    It’s 5 days. That a federal requirement, not a state one. I believe the feds require it to be reported both to them, and to the CLEO of the jurisdiction the firearm is sold in. In Pennsylvania, it’s the county sheriff. The AG office might be the designated office in DE.

  79. Von Cracker says:

    No, S, I agree with what you wrote above…I was referring to the abortion/guns analogy. It’s kinda apples and oranges.

  80. mike w. says:

    “Would you be willing to accept restrictions on the amount of ammo stored in a home (with no limits at shooting ranges, etc.)?”

    Absolutely not! With the price of ammo these days I couldn’t afford to shoot if I didn’t buy in bulk. Also, you’ll have ignorant politicians deciding these laws and they’d most likely set the limit at some ridiculously low number like 2,000 rounds.

    Also, most criminals don’t need much ammo, just a box or two to commit their crimes. The rest of us, who actually need ammo on hand because we go to the range often would get screwed by such a law. Also, what makes you think criminals will care about an “ammo law” when the gun they have is illegal for them to possess and the crime they’re going to commit with it is likewise illegal. An ammo restriction is the last thing they’re going to care about.

  81. jason330 says:

    The rest of us, who actually need ammo on hand …

    Sheesh.

  82. mike w. says:

    “Mike,

    It’s 5 days. That a federal requirement, not a state one. I believe the feds require it to be reported both to them, and to the CLEO of the jurisdiction the firearm is sold in. In Pennsylvania, it’s the county sheriff. The AG office might be the designated office in DE.”

    Yeah that’s probably the case. I can’t see myself ever buying several guns in a 5 day period through an FFL,

  83. mike w. says:

    “Mike,

    It’s 5 days. That a federal requirement, not a state one. I believe the feds require it to be reported both to them, and to the CLEO of the jurisdiction the firearm is sold in. In Pennsylvania, it’s the county sheriff. The AG office might be the designated office in DE.”

    Yeah that’s probably the case. I can’t see myself ever buying several guns in a 5 day period through an FFL,

    Yes Jason – in order to shoot a gun at a shooting range you need ammo. Amazing I know!

  84. G Rex says:

    “I was referring to the abortion/guns analogy. It’s kinda apples and oranges.”

    Not really, in that both debates center around what constitutes a reasonable restriction. Groups like NOW and NARAL will accept no restrictions on abortions whatsoever, and the religious fundies will accept no abortions. I’d wager that most folks are somewhere in between those points.

  85. Sebastian says:

    Yeah. Kind of hard to shoot matches without ammunition. Right now, I probably have about 3000 rounds on hand. For serious competitors, that’s a few months’ supply. I can’t afford to be that serious.

  86. Von Cracker says:

    I see what you’re saying, G. But I think the question was about the restriction of the number of abortions or guns one may have, not the type.

    That’s what I meant by apples and oranges…

  87. mike w. says:

    Yeah but in other ways abortion is the perfect comparison.

    How can you guys support a woman’s right to choose on that issue, but not support her right to choose whether to own & carry a firearm to defend her own life?

    If the argument is “her life, her body, her choice” on abortion why should the same not apply to her choices regarding self-defense?

  88. Linoge says:

    Troll: “To deliberately post false or controversial messages to gain attention for the sake of attention, usually from people who genuinely want to help.”

    http://www.actewagl.com.au/Education/Glossary/default.aspx?letterSearch=T

    You know, there is a certain amount of irony that one of the apparently largest trolls on this webpage would accuse other people of trolling in the same breath as performing the action himself.

    But, after dealing with only a scant few conversations at this particular weblog, I have come to expect that degree of irrational, illogical, impulsive name-calling. Believe you me – you folks are doing your liberal/progressive cause a world of good by behaving in this childish, petulant, viscious, hateful, derisive manner.

  89. Bwahaha says:

    I know!

    Sometimes I wish we conservatives were as evil and cruel as they flippantly say.

    Because we all know what would happen to them then, right?

    Bwahahahahah….

  90. This shit was funny, like two days ago. Now it’s snooze-inducing.

  91. Von Cracker says:

    Mike w. – what you have stated is what most would call a False Equivalency.

    Therefore, it’s an unanswerable question.

    Anyway, I support gun-ownership. So there!

  92. mike w. says:

    Again… nothing substantive to add to the debate Mike?

  93. mike w. says:

    “Mike w. – what you have stated is what most would call a False Equivalency.

    Therefore, it’s an unanswerable question.”

    How so? You support her “right to choose” in one context and respect the sanctity of her body.

    In the context of self-defense you abhor the idea of that woman having the freedom to say “my body, my choice” and choosing to arm herself with the greatest equalizer mankind has yet devised, the personal firearm.

  94. Dana says:

    Mr Geek said (way up in comment #56):

    I am in favor of sensible restrictions on things that can be easily misused.

    I could easily make an argument that freedom of speech is very much misused: rampant pornography, vast amounts of drug-related spam, even well-intentioned liberals calling people with whom they disagree “retards.”

    I guess it kind of depends upon who decides what constitutes “easily misused,” doesn’t it?

  95. Dana says:

    Mr Geek wrote (comment #64):

    So, what would be sensible restrictions that pass muster with 2A fans and 2A foes? Velocity restrictions? Momentum (mv) restrictions? Restrictions on full-auto?

    None at all, Mr Geek. the Second provides that “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Trying to ask what kind of sensible infringements of a right which is not to be infringed ought to be acceptable is illogical on its face.

    If you believe that the right to keep and bear arms ought to be infringed, then do the honest thing and support repeal or amendment of the Second Amendment.

  96. the laws need to exist on what “arms” are Dana….

    so what is “arms” to you Dana?

  97. Weer'd Beard says:

    “Honestly, the laws have changed so rapidly in both directions that it is hard to keep up unless it is your pet issue.”

    Actully, liberalgeek, the vast majority of what many gunners will consider fairly effective gun laws, and ones that are not being closely watched by the Supreme court were created 40 years ago or longer:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act

    With the exception of the Brady Background Check that just turned 15, the NFA essentially made it VERY difficult and expensive for a citizen to get ahold of what most of us would consider “military weapons” (Grenade Launchers, Machine Guns, Anti-Aircraft weapons, sawed-off shotguns, ect) and the Gun Control act kept guns out of the hands of “Dangerous People” (People judged insane, underaged, Felons, Convicts of Domestic Violence, People with warrents out for their arrest, drug dealers, adicts, ect)

    We can argue that some aspects of those laws might be flawed (Such as Martha Stewart’s felony purgery charge, how does that make her any more dangerous than you or I with a gun? Or how in Texas it was untill recently a felony to own a sex toy, or the difference between a standard handgun, and a standard handgun fitted with a shoulder stock, ect)

    Really after that most of the laws have been back and forth on conceal carry, cosmetic features on guns, magazine capacity, and other nonsence laws that really have no grounds in facts, or corrilation to keeping you or I safer in our day-to-day lives (and very possibly corrilation the OTHER way).

    I’ll also close with thanking you, and others who have actully been receptive to this debate. We’re here not just to change minds, but to talk about this issue. Some may choose to hurl insults, or ignore facts or articles, but that only says one thing about them. I apriciate your willingness to look at things from our side, agree or disagree.

  98. We’re

    dude, talking about yourself in the 3rd person like that is sort of creepy. It’s like you 2A’ers are a cult or something We’re creepy, very creepy

  99. insert robotic voice:

    We are trying to change your opinion

    repeat

    we are only trying to change your mind

    insert broken robert voice here

    mind
    mind
    mind

    andddddd CUT

  100. mike w. says:

    Yeah, you know “we’re” as in those of us with respect for the Constitution.

  101. Weer'd Beard says:

    Don’t worry, I wasn’t talking to you DTB, and obviously you weren’t listening anyway.

    I was talking to those who actully discuss issues that are important to them.

  102. liberalgeek says:

    Thanks Weer’d. I have certainly learned a lot in the past few days. I suspect I need to read up.

  103. Dominique says:

    dear god. when will this nonsense end?

    jason, you are in rare form. ‘murderboy’ made me do a spit take.

  104. Dominique says:

    btw, gunboys, not that any of you are interested in scoring high-quality women, but i promise you that any remotely fuckable woman who spots a man (who is not in uniform) wearing a holstered gun will immediately think ‘jackass’.

    just giving you a real woman’s perspective (as opposed to the testosterone-laden 2A chicks from your wacko blogs).

  105. Weer'd Beard says:

    “wearing a holstered gun will immediately think ‘jackass’. ”

    I’ll let my wife know you think so ; ]

    Glad to know that name-calling is not just a Male Liberal thing. The ladies can do it too!

    Doesn’t make you look any better than the men, sadly.

  106. Dominique says:

    Dude, it is what it is. The only women I’ve ever met who were remotely interested in shooting guns for fun were trashy – and even then, they’d agree to go along, but it would never be their first choice of things to do (never mind making guns their passion).

    White trash girls are probably the only ones who wouldn’t have seizure-style eye-rolling fits if they saw a guy with a holstered gun sitting in the food court at the mall.

  107. veroferitas says:

    I don’t know Dominique. A nice set of desert cammies, a handmade Iraqi shoulder holster and an M9 were what all the sharp dressed officers were wearing.

  108. Weer'd Beard says:

    “The only women I’ve ever met who were remotely interested in shooting guns for fun were trashy ”

    Just how many women shooters do you know? Seems you know them as well as the rest of the shooting community.

  109. veroferitas says:

    My 13 year old daughter is an expert shot. Not the least bit trashy.

  110. Weer'd Beard says:

    My Wife is addicted to the clay shooting sports, and in the process of getting her carry permit.

    I think its a tad rude to call her trashy…that and its rude because it just isn’t true.

    But then again Dominique is not one of the people who’s listening, so she’s not one of the people who I’m talking to.

  111. veroferitas says:

    Experience with many different types of people tends to show you your stereotypes are less universal than you think. “All women who like to shoot are trashy” probably indicates limited exposure to women who shoot or to gun owners in general.

    Being from the south, I knew many women who were taught shooting and gun safety by their parents. My daughter had a gun before she had a cell phone. My wife has handguns of her own. My mother has a .38, just in case.

    But then again, all southerners are redneck, bible thumping retards strait out of Deliverance.

  112. Art Downs says:

    Would you be willing to accept restrictions on the amount of ammo stored in a home (with no limits at shooting ranges, etc.)?

    Who cares? Sometimes you can get a good deal on a large quantity of surplus ammunition? I never bought less than 500 rounds of .22 LR at a time,

    Please tell me what the problem would be?

  113. Steve Newton says:

    I’m tempted to just stop reading these threads, because it’s sort of like being caught in a Sunni-Shi’a “dialogue of co-existence” and after you all go read

    delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/07/explaining-libertarian-mindset-to.html

    (dead link but this post got caught twice in spam)

    and then I’ll shut up

  114. Weer'd Beard says:

    Also another thing that comes to mind on this whole “amount of ammo” restriction idea (besides it really having no means of preventing crime or violence) is the TYPE of ammo. I mean 1000 rounds of .22 LR is like a month’s supply, and can all fit into a shoebox with room for one of the shoes….while 10000 rounds of .45 ACP isn’t somthing you’d want to lug around without good lifting form, lest you hurt yourself….and 10000 rounds of .50 BMG probably weighs as much (and costs as much) as a Chevy Small-Block V8 Engine.

    And none of this stuff is any more dangerous than half the stuff you likely keep under your kitchen sink.

  115. veroferitas says:

    How many boxes of ammo do you need for a successful day at the range? Lots. How many boxes for a successful criminal career? One.

  116. veroferitas says:

    And to the original post; did jason330 make a single coherent statement?

    Like a blogging spider monkey screaming, showing his penis and throwing verbal feces.

  117. veroferitas says:

    Have a banana, Jason.

  118. mike w. says:

    Well he did call me “Murderboy” and then refer to me as such throughout the thread.

    I actually find the childish name calling funny, and if he’s resorted to doing it after my 1st post or two in this thread then I know I’ve been effective.

  119. veroferitas says:

    Darnit, you got the cool nickname.

  120. mike w. says:

    Well I’ve also got “Spoonboy” thanks to DTB. The whole spoon analogy went right over his head.

  121. veroferitas says:

    Reasoned Discourse (TM)

  122. Weer'd Beard says:

    “Well I’ve also got “Spoonboy” thanks to DTB. The whole spoon analogy went right over his head.”

    No, I’m betting he fully understood it, hence why he chooses to make fun of it, rather than refute it.

    Much like him reading my whole post on personal defence indifferent of size or training, and asking for proof….and totally ignoring me when I did so.

    He knows what he’s doing….why he chooses to do it this way is a mystery to me.

    And yes most of the posts in this thread are incoherent, or just plain rude. Still liberalgeek has said he’s going to read up on the issue. Not that he concedes the point to us, not that he doesn’t want to cross the 2A argument again…just that he’s willing to gather more facts on the issue. That’s what all good debate needs.

    I also won’t lie, that’s what turned me into a activist for the 2nd Amendment. I grew up in a liberal household, and the only guns I ever saw not on TV or Film was my uncles hunting guns. Guns were just for shooting deer and birds, and “Assault Weapons” and handguns were dangerous things that only caused problems in my book.

    Then I went to college in rural Maine, and a friend asked if I’d like to go shooting that weekend. I answered the same way if he had answered “Do you want to go Sky Diving?” “Do you want to watch a Curling Match?”, sure, I’m not begging to do any of those things, but I’d never done it before so what’s the harm to learn new things?

    It was fun, but nothing crazy. Except for his Dad’s WWII M1911A1. I liked that gun, it fit me like a glove and I enjoyed shooting it and how it worked mechanically. I wanted one. Mind you, I didn’t want one because it was my right, or I wanted a tool for personal protection. Nope, I wanted it for the same reason why I want an Aston Martin, not for practical reasons, just because its “Cool”. Being a College student, and 1911 pattern handguns being more pricey than most, I couldn’t afford one, so I did the next best thing…I read about them!

    I also started reading about other guns….and I relized I THOUGHT I knew a lot on the issue (Hell I was the typical American Teenager, I watched movies and comic books ect) I actully knew very little.

    -I learned that it required a background check to own a gun, and a huge class of people can’t own guns because of their background.

    -I learned that “Assault Weapons” are generally LESS powerful than my Uncle’s Deer rifle.

    – I learned that that the “Ban” was anything but, and that gunshops had tons of “Assault Weapons” for sale, some pre-ban guns, others with the “Scary” features removed to make them non “Assault Weapons” but in the end the exact same gun (That Pink AR that showed up in the post about the Church is a GREAT example. That isn’t an “Assault Weapon”, even better, it isn’t an “Assault Weapon” by the more strict California standards because certain cosmetic features are changed.

    -I learned that Machine guns have been heavily restricted for the past 70 years, and since the 80s no new ones can be bought by civlians, and “Assault Weapons” in no way shape or form are full auto…EVER.

    I could go on and on with the “Facts” that I leared were untrue, but it changed my prespective on the issue, and changed how I looked at things.

    Will my above story change your mind? Maybe…but probably not. But if one person reads it and understands what I’m talking about, or just decides to read more on this, or any issue, it was worth writing it.

    As for media and Movies on guns….Movies are still horrible, and most of what guns do in Hollywood, they can’t do in real life, or should never be done (like walking around with your finger on the damn trigger! That doesn’t look cool people!)

    The Media HAS gotten better. They still slant things anti-gun whenever they can, but pro gun stories are popping up now if you look, where you would have never seen them back in the ’90s.

    Of course where the rubber hits the road is looking VERY good, most states now allow Conceal Carry, and many are suprised that their crime rates went down, dispite their fears. The Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, like all the other rights granted by the Constitution, groups like the Violence Policy Center, and the Brady Campaign are running out of Money, while the NRA keeps gaining new members. There are more women shooters than ever before.

    Of course you see stuff like this and know that the battle isn’t over, there are still places violating ethical and consittutional rights with their laws that attempt and fail to keep people safe, and people who ARE caught and tried on violation of firearms laws get lax sentences and are back on the streets so they can kill again (or for the first time….most of the first-time murderers in Boston have weapons charges on their rap-sheet that they should still be in jail for…how’s that for “Progressive”?)

    So best wishes to all of you!

  123. Linoge says:

    A little late to the game, but I think my wife, a PhD from a rather prestigious university, would take a middling to large amount of offense if you referred to her as “trashy”. Furthermore, she appears to have no significant problems with me procuring my concealed carry permit now that we have moved to a state where such things are legal.

    As usual, stereotypes always fail (ironically enough), though one thing is certainly without fail – how most of the liberal “progressives” on this site, who are supposed to be the open-minded folks here, continue to largely spout of childish, narrow-minded, name-calling nonsense. Way to represent!

  124. Von Cracker says:

    I’m not sure that the person who said ‘trashy’ is, as you described, a “liberal progressive”.

  125. Linoge says:

    Honestly, I am not sure either. However, that said, the “real” liberal “progressives” here have demonstrated more than sufficient stereotyping, narrow-mindedness, childishness, and all the rest for my second paragraph to remain valid.

  126. BC says:

    I love being lectured by some frigid Gender Studies harridan that all the “high-quality” “fuckable” women think guns are icky and people who carry them are douchebags.

    Sweetheart, the fact that you consider yourself “fuckable” by anything that doesn’t run on batteries is your first problem.

  127. Von Cracker says:

    huh?

    nice drive-by.

  128. RAH says:

    Dominque obviously thinks she is high quality “Fuckable” however her language just show her to be low quality streetwalker ware.

    Ladies don’t use the language she uses. Quality is determined by manners and her comments show a distinct lack. Perhaps she thinks she is sexy, she may be, but so are lots of streetwalkers.

  129. pandora says:

    Wow! I’m so glad the pro-gunners don’t stoop to name calling. Good thing they’re so “piously” above the fray.

  130. mike w. says:

    Staying above the fray has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with having some self-respect and respect for others.

    Besides, stooping to your level would make me no better than you.

  131. pandora says:

    Really, Mike? What name have I called you or anyone else? You guys have been complaining all week about a lack of civility, and then do exactly what your moaning about. You say we stereotype you. Hmmm… pot meet kettle.

  132. mike w. says:

    “You say we stereotype you. Hmmm… pot meet kettle.”

    Speak for yourself. I have not done so.

  133. pandora says:

    You do know, Mike, that not every comment posted is directed at you? I answered Rah, you jumped in with, “Besides, stooping to your level would make me no better than you.”

    Really? What level is my level? I ask again… what names have I called you or anyone else?

  134. RAH says:

    Pandora, I did not use one profanity other than the word she used in quotes. Dominques own words defined her. I do not believe that you insulted women like she did. But if you can’t take don’t start it.

  135. mike w. says:

    “I do not believe that you insulted women like she did.”

    She did jump all over me for “insulting” women by saying that in general they were physically weaker than men and thus would benefit most from the force equalizer we know as the handgun.

    And Pandora – it’s hard to keep track of who’s saying what with all the name calling and bigotry from the anti-rights crowd here at Delaware Liberal.

    Also, I believe you said “the pro-gunners” which would include me would it not?

  136. Dominique says:

    ‘Ladies don’t use the language she uses.’

    I can take whatever you want to dish. It’s not like I’m looking for the respect of someone who thinks ‘ladies’ shouldn’t use bad language. Gross. You guys really must think this is the 1800’s – that would explain the whole gun fascination. Gun girls are trashy. There’s no getting around it. I lived in Smyrna for seven miserable years, so trust me, I’ve known plenty of gun girls. And trash.

    Oh, and what’s with this queer ‘guns are icky’ phrase so many of you use? Has anyone here actually described guns that way or is it another one of your silly talking points?

    BTW, I take back what I said about ‘eff-able’ (so as not to offend your sensitive, sexist eyes) women. That wasn’t a very fair statement to make. I suppose any woman is eff-able depending on your standards.

  137. Dominique says:

    I love how you guys are now describing those who don’t eat, breathe and sleep guns as ‘anti-rights’. First, I don’t think anyone said you should lose your 2A right. Second, ‘anti-rights’ implies that you are being stripped of all of your rights. Please stop being so dramatic. It’s not very manly and it’s very unbecoming of a bunch of straight shooters like yourselves. Get it?? Straight Shooters??? Hahahaha!

  138. God says:

    Most gun rights advocates will not sink to the level of name calling and bashing. I, however, feel no such restriction, but I will start with a simple question.

    How does having guns, in whatever quantity, make me ‘bad’, or a ‘murderer’, or whatever negative word you chose to describe me?

  139. RAH says:

    Those who don’t look for respect do not get respect. Trashy language indicates a trashy person. By your own words, the world sees you.

    I seriously doubt you knew many decent women who believed in their own civil rights to protect themselves and their families or enjoyed shooting sports. The upper levels of shooting competitions have some of the classiest women. Check out the Olympic shooters. Women compete against the men.

  140. Fire says:

    Dominique:

    I want to thank you for making this easy. You’ve known plenty of trash? Of course you do. Birds of a feather flock together. You show your stupidity when you write. Not only do you come across as foolish, you come across as the ill-informed, disgusting, intellectually challenged loser who can’t figure out whether to scratch your watch or wind your ass.

    Allow me to inform you that I am a gun loving woman with class. If I see a man with a holstered gun, who isn’t an officer of the law, the term ‘jackass” is the furthest from my mind.

    And just so you know, I CAN certainly handle anything you want to throw at me. I’m sure your mouth is going to be spouting off your ridiculous views as soon as your brain can recover from the over load. Do us all a favor, little one. Close your mouth. The flies that follow you and your filth around are annoying, as are you.

    Dismissed.

  141. mike w. says:

    “Gun girls are trashy. ”

    May I suggest that has NOTHING to do with guns and everything to do with the people you associate with? The “gun girls” I know are far from trashy.

  142. God says:

    What makes you think gun girls are trashy outher than the guns themselves?

    I’m an avid paintballer and when i see a girl that looks decent and can handle herself on the field thats mucho points for me.

    Same thing goes on the range.

  143. Catalina says:

    I’d like to comment on Dominique’s observations on “trashy women” and guns. You have not met all the women in the world, therefore you speak from limited experience. Also, unless you keep your social interactions limited to a very narrow range of lifestyles and personalities, it is quite possible you’ve met women you did not know have an interest in guns, yet they did not strike you as “trashy”. Your statement is just as irresponsible as people on the other end of the spectrum who brand every homosexual as a child-molester, every lesbian as a man-hater, and every Democrat as someone who never grew up enough to think for themself and wants the government to make all the decisions for everyone. Name calling is a last resort for people who lack the emotional maturity, mental capacity, and confidence in their own beliefs necessary for making a reasonable case for why their view is valid. It comes across as “trashy” behavior.

  144. God says:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The Supreme Court has already decided that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right so the comment about the militia thing is moot. The Webster’s dictionary defines ‘arms’ as:

    “Main Entry:
    3arm
    Function:
    noun
    Usage:
    often attributive
    Etymology:
    Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Anglo-French, from Latin arma
    Date:
    13th century
    1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : FIREARM b: a combat branch (as of an army) c: an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)…”

    So an arm is a weapon, obvious I know, but it is not limited to guns, but as, “a means (as a weapon) off offense or defense.” So, this means that both the firearm and ammunition are collectively protected by the Constitution, and held up by the Supreme Court as an individual right. The Amendment states, “shall not be infringed,” and any limitation on the type of weapon, amount of weapons, amount of ammunition, type of ammunition, etcetera, are infringements upon the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, these restrictions are unconstitutional, and illegal.

    Suck on that.

  145. Dominique says:

    Dear Trashy Gun Girls –

    Congratulations on being allowed access to the computer by your gun-totin’ men! It always gives me a thrill up my leg when I see a little lady have the freedom to express an opinion her husband has allowed her to have.

    Now carry your bad hair down to Walmart and pick up some more ammo. You must be low on supplies after the July 4th festivities. Don’t forget to get the kids their own supply so their sticky fingers don’t end up all over your stash.

    Yours cruelly,
    Bitchtastic

  146. mike w. says:

    Dominique – You’re the only one who finds your “humor” even remotely funny. The rest of the world sees your comments and thinks, “hey look at that sad, ignorant bigot.” And yes, ignorant bigot is the perfect description given your above comment and many others.

  147. falnfenix says:

    Hey Dominique,

    Just so you are aware…there are plenty of well-educated, well-dressed, well-spoken shooter women out there. Just because YOUR anecdata shows that they’re trashy, doesn’t mean they all are. Open your eyes, woman – you’re doing nothing good for yourself by being an uptight idiot with a “big mouth” online.

    Respectfully yours,
    A non-redneck firearm aficionado…in Manolo Blahniks.

  148. mike w. says:

    Another woman shooter. Far from trashy and she looks to be a darn good shot judging by her form. check out the videos.

    http://planettracy.typepad.com/prettypistolera

  149. Fire says:

    You seriously make me laugh.
    First of all, to give you a little bit of the education that you seem to be lacking, I do not have children, nor do I want any for fear they might turn out like you. I see why your mother contemplated abortion. Let me guess…men don’t like what they see when they look at you so you had no choice but to turn into a rug licker. Which is quite all right, because I’m sure there’s quite a few women out there that men don’t want, leaving the leftovers to you.
    As far as being allowed to voice my opinion, there is no one that could stop me from doing that. I’m what you call a real woman. In closing, if you ever had the intestinal fortitude, if you’re ever in my neck of the woods, feel free to stop by. I don’t like to hide behind computers.
    Sincerely…An intellectual woman out of your reach.

  150. “Dear Trashy Gun Girls”

    So Selma Blair (the actress) is a trashy woman?

    She was recently featured in an article where she talks about growing up with guns, and that she is very comfortable around them and goes shooting with her sister (who is a cop and on the SWAT team).

  151. falnfenix says:

    On second thought, maybe Dominique is merely referring to that percentage of the population who fits the stereotype? Surely she couldn’t be THAT blind to reason to honestly believe any woman who appreciates firearms would be “trashy” with bad hair…or stupid, or toting a gaggle of kids to Wal-Mart on the regular…

  152. I’m what you call a real woman. In closing, if you ever had the intestinal fortitude, if you’re ever in my neck of the woods, feel free to stop by.

    Wooofreeakinghooo. My hotness has finally turned to a real online solicitation for sex!

    I’ll be by Friday sexy meowwwww

  153. pandora says:

    ” I see why your mother contemplated abortion. Let me guess…men don’t like what they see when they look at you so you had no choice but to turn into a rug licker. Which is quite all right, because I’m sure there’s quite a few women out there that men don’t want, leaving the leftovers to you.”

    Now that’s classy!

  154. RAH says:

    Better to be quiet and thought an idiot rather than post and confirm it. Dominique started the flames, now you complain of the heat.

  155. Fire says:

    Thank you for the compliment. I get that a lot. My problem wasn’t with you, but now I’ll let you join in. How long did it take you to come up with that response? Two hours? Perhaps three? Your services are not needed. You might know the man that takes care of my needs, and that’s my <a href =”http://southeasttexaspistolero.blogspot.com/2008/07/eternal-fount-of-leftist-bigotry-and.html”Pistolero. He’s the one who so eloquently called your ass out. I will not waste time with the likes of someone who can’t load their weapon. Do you need me to type slower so you can catch up? As far as lumping you all into one group, Pistolero doesn’t do that. I do. I’ll just write you both off as idiots. And I mean that sincerely. Oh, and another thing…inviting what’s-her-name over was not for sex, and you know that — or at least I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt — it’s because I like to have conversations such as these face-to-face.

  156. BC says:

    Jesus, Dominque. Who lit the fuse on your tampon?

  157. Von Cracker says:

    ” So an arm is a weapon, obvious I know, but it is not limited to guns, but as, “a means (as a weapon) off offense or defense.” So, this means that both the firearm and ammunition are collectively protected by the Constitution, and held up by the Supreme Court as an individual right. The Amendment states, “shall not be infringed,” and any limitation on the type of weapon, amount of weapons, amount of ammunition, type of ammunition, etcetera, are infringements upon the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, these restrictions are unconstitutional, and illegal.”

    Sorry SkyDad, unless your argument is based solely on the original verbiage of the 2A and you believe that all ‘Arms’ should be available for individual ownership, then you have to accept that the 2A has been already restricted and that it’s precedent.

    Since Firearms were not specifically mentioned in the 2A and the act of restriction has been stipulated, an argument stating that a ban of a certain type of firearm or kind ammo is unconstitutional doesn’t appear to be a plausible one.

    I think this falls in line with the DC ruling where a total ban is unconstitutional, since you have a right to possess an arm (firearm), but the Court will reserve the opportunity to define the ‘reasonableness’ of the question of infringement.

    Simply put:
    Court: “Hey! You can have a gun, but not this kind.”

    One can argue effectively that this would satisfy the right to possess an arm and also be in compliance to the question of infringement.

    It’s all perspective, I know.

  158. RAH says:

    VC read the Heller decision.

    Also Scalia left in a very broad definition of arms, which encompasses anything from edge weapons, numchuks, and tasers or anything a person could use or throw. Please see the relevant section on pg 7.

    Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
    Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his
    defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

    This includes states prohibition of body armor for civilian and non-police

  159. mike w. says:

    “Since Firearms were not specifically mentioned in the 2A and the act of restriction has been stipulated, an argument stating that a ban of a certain type of firearm or kind ammo is unconstitutional doesn’t appear to be a plausible one. ”

    Since radio, television, and the internet were never mentioned under the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and of the press then the government can totally restrict all mediums except printing presses and the spoken word. You can’t use bullhorns either because they didn’t exist in the late 1700’s.

    Your 4th Amendment rights don’t apply to electronic data either, since the founders couldn’t have envisioned it and it doesn’t fit the definition of “papers”

  160. Dominique says:

    Trashy is as trashy does. Didn’t take long for you to prove my point.

    Just look at all these classy women and their sexy guns…

    http://funtasticus.com/20080313/armed-america-portraits-of-gun-owners-in-their-homes/

    Now, slink into your acid wash jeans and run along to get your tips filled, Amber.

  161. Weer'd Beard says:

    is Dominique a misogynist masquerading as a feminist?

  162. she likes to blame the victim…i can tell you that first hand

  163. God says:

    I really didn’t see how those people were, as you say, “trashy.” Perhapse you can enlighten those miles above you in intellectual superiority what exactly your definition entails.

  164. Dominique says:

    Of course you can’t see it. It’s like looking in a mirror.

  165. mike w. says:

    Dominique defines “trashy” as “Anything I don’t like.”

  166. God says:

    That still doesn’t answer my question now does it. You can think whatever you want about whats trashy and whats not, but without establishing some sort of precedence, your comments are meaningless. So in addition to my previous question I add this. How am I trashy?

  167. Dominique says:

    I said gun-loving girls are trashy. You’re a 2A boy, so you’re not trashy; you’re just kind of pathetic for being so hyper-focused on one issue.

    So I guess that makes the 2A girls trashy AND pathetic. It’s a heartbreaking waste of estrogen. My poor little ovaries cringe just thinking about it.

  168. J. Lyman says:

    Hoooo-wee. Where do I begin? Or do I dare?

    Let’s start with comment #24 (“Can the state tell you that you’re not allowed to own something because it might be dangerous?”)

    The difference between pot and guns is that while pot can only harm the user, guns provide an imminent threat to others. Short of putting your joint out on somebody’s hand, I don’t see where you can compare the danger of the two.

    #35 (“Because you should look up how many people will die today because of alcohol “)

    Again, a total non sequitur. This is like arguing that murder should be legal because suicide takes more lives.

    #44 (“It is? Even if they work in refrigeration? Or make fertilizer? Or use it to scrub SO2 from burning coal?”)

    Holy fuck, your arguments are totally off the wall. This one is entirely circumstantial. On top of that, a warrant is not the same as a conviction. There absolutely would be probable cause. Nothing is unfair or unconstitutional about that, because we have a legal system whose purpose is to take these circumstances into account.

    #52 (“Spam is a big problem, you know.”)

    Jesus, are you really equating spam to murder?

    #65 (“Sure is nice to see all these open minded individuals accepting differences in others.”)

    The classic conservative argument that liberals aren’t being liberal if they disagree because, well, that’s close-minded. Of course, I can’t argue against that point because, well, that would be close-minded. [BTW, I don’t know if this particular commenter is a conservative, but this is emblematic of a very common counterargument].

    #96 (“If you believe that the right to keep and bear arms ought to be infringed, then do the honest thing and support repeal or amendment of the Second Amendment.”)/ #101 (“Yeah, you know “we’re” as in those of us with respect for the Constitution.”)

    All due respect, that’s total bullshit. SCOTUS has consistently ruled that a reasonable restriction may be put on constitutional rights. Much as the state is allowed to restrict free speech in order to maintain public safety/order (“fire in a crowded theater”), it should be allowed to place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. What exactly constitutes “reasonable” is up to the courts, though I think who can buy one is a good place to begin. It’s not a question of rebuking the Constitution. It’s a question of prioritizing civil liberties.

    #107 (“The only women I’ve ever met who were remotely interested in shooting guns”)

    You should have rethought the argument there. Burden of proof; the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. You obviously haven’t met all of them, so unless there is an inherent quality of gun ownership that requires trashiness, your comment here is entertaining at most. Otherwise, there is no real proof short of anecdotal, subjective viewpoints.

    #110 (“My 13 year old daughter is an expert shot. Not the least bit trashy.”)

    Yes, well, it’s something of a challenge to find any parent who will call their child trashy. Not calling you a liar here, just saying that it’s probably hard to be objective from your POV.

    #115 (“And none of this stuff is any more dangerous than half the stuff you likely keep under your kitchen sink.”)

    To be fair, a bottle of Windex has a highly less dangerous intended use. Not that bullets are sold with murder in mind, but they certainly are intended to hit something hard, and most likely to damage it. When they start marketing 409 as pepper spray, we’ll talk.

    #116 (“How many boxes of ammo do you need for a successful day at the range? Lots. How many boxes for a successful criminal career? One.”)

    So if somebody buys lots of boxes of ammo, they can’t feasibly be using at least one for a criminal activity?

    #127 (“I love being lectured by some frigid Gender Studies harridan that all the “high-quality” “fuckable” women think guns are icky and people who carry them are douchebags.

    Sweetheart, the fact that you consider yourself “fuckable” by anything that doesn’t run on batteries is your first problem.”)

    Wow. That was easily the most blatantly misogynistic remark I’ve heard in years. You’re a real asshole. You don’t know the woman who posted the comment, but even if you did, why would you go that low, short of not having a real argument to make? I don’t care what she said, that’s completely unacceptable behavior and you ought to be ashamed of it. And why are you going to group “gender studies” into the insult, as if feminism is now suddenly a negative quality? I actually have been very much able to tolerate and at times agree with the points made by the 2A crowd, but you are a smudge not only on their side, but on the human race at large. You disgust me.

    #130 (“Dominque obviously thinks she is high quality “Fuckable” however her language just show her to be low quality streetwalker ware.

    Ladies don’t use the language she uses. Quality is determined by manners and her comments show a distinct lack. Perhaps she thinks she is sexy, she may be, but so are lots of streetwalkers.”)

    She never claimed she was “fuckable”. And here we go again with the sexist bullshit. ‘Ladies’ don’t use foul language? Not that bad language is a terrible crime in my book, but how puritanical and condescending could you be? Since ladies are apparently the only ones who can’t use that language, I’ll point out that I’m a male before I tell you to go fuck yourself. Hopefully you can suck it up this time around.

    #142 (“You’ve known plenty of trash? Of course you do. Birds of a feather flock together.”)

    Aphorism! Brilliant argument! Oh! Oh! Let me try! Um… I’m rubber, and you’re glue! Ha! Ha!

    #142 (“Allow me to inform you that I am a gun loving woman with class”)

    Because your own superficial testimony is totalllly convincing of your class. Definitely.

    #145… thank you. Thank you for being among the few to actually make sense.

    #148 (“You’re the only one who finds your “humor” even remotely funny.”)

    Not that you’d know, hey? I mean, she’s been in blogging for a while, nevermind how long she’s had this sense of humor in general. Have you been investigating it that deeply? I think what you mean to say is that YOU don’t find her humor even remotely funny. Oh, wait. Unless you were using the rhetorical device of hyperbole… which is almost… actually, it’s exactly what she was using. Weird!

    #151 (“I see why your mother contemplated abortion.”)

    You really had to dig for that one, didn’t you? Those insults really just don’t make sense, so to be honest, they’re not funny. In fact, they’re inappropriate, and the overwhelming hypocrisy exhibited in your designation of her ignorance is almost poetic.

    “Let me guess…men don’t like what they see when they look at you so you had no choice but to turn into a rug licker”

    Pure class, boys. Why, I’ll bet she only uses a lady’s language! Just your type, RAH! For the record, I’ve met her son and husband (both of whom are a whole other story), so again, you’re working with offensive 7th grade pejoratives. I don’t find you classy in the least bit, and your gun habits really have no bearing on it.

    Dominique… I mean, really. Come on. I know you’re just having a little fun here, but it’s a little mean.

    For the record, I support background checks (very stringent ones at that), but not outright bans of weaponry.

  169. RAH says:

    JL- Do you support Jason debating style with the name-calling, Dominique’s women bashing? The lack of reasoned arguments by Jason, VC, and Dominique to name a few. At least Mike and the others attempted to use comparisons. The use of shouting fire is not a comparable situation; there is no prior restraint on the use of your voice in a theater just a punishment if you cause a panic. You voice is not locked up like a gun is in a safe.

    So there are constitutional limits on all rights, when they conflict with another right. The Supreme Court affirmed that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. The purposes are varied and not defined. The abuse of rights like using your gun to murder someone is still illegal. All creatures have the natural inherent right to self-defense and that is not a right that can be taken away, but by force. The right to arms is an extension of that natural right. The restrictions are the same as been since the 1700’s that a convicted felon or mentally insane person can be prevented from owning arms. Otherwise the right to the people to keep and bear arms is not to be infringed. That restriction on the Federal government in the Constitution is stronger language than is in the first amendment.

    The NICS system already does background checks so your qualification has been met. As databases get better I am sure that the checks will be better. We cannot determine who is going to go crazy unless they had a past history of mental instability. That is a risk that we take. Many people want the ability to carry concealed or openly, so if they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time they have a better chance to defend themselves.

    The civil right of possessing arms is the law. Delaware also has approved CCW and open carry is legal. Many do not choose to carry a handgun, but it is their right if they choose. I do believe that for CCW that there is an extensive background check that should satisfy your requirement.

    Gun rights advocates would like not to be called names, ridiculed and disparaged for their support of a basic civil right. There are many people that are scared of guns and seem to think if the neighbor has gun, they will suddenly decide to be homicidal. The gun does not change a person. Humans are capable of using most anything as a tool to hurt and kill.

    Public safety is a false argument. The problem is with the criminals who if caught for prior crimes are released with little supervision or before their sentence is completed.
    Decent law abiding folk are not going to use a gun for criminal activities unless they have criminal tendencies. Criminals get illegal items like drugs and guns. They do not obey laws since they are criminals. Gun control never affects the criminal just the law abiding.

    The gun rights advocate basically debated using reason and not resorting to insults until Dominque insulted women. Despite all the insults that were made against MikeW, he continually tried to keep a civil tone. Her post showed her character and I am not ashamed to use the term lady as it expresses a sense of good manners. Profanity is such a juvenile tactic and crude. It is so overused that it loses any shock value and does not lend itself to debate.

  170. God says:

    The entire idea of limiting the amount of ammunition is stupid. Unless the muderer has a mini gun, they’re not going to use 2000 rounds. The most I can think of is several magazines for a pistol. The most a standard infantry soldier carries around is under 500 rounds, and thats prepared for a gunfight! Whats the muderer going to do, expend all the ammo, go back to his car or house, reload and head out on another spree? Bullshit!

  171. gc says:

    I am a gay man with a disability that severely impairs my upper body strength, and asthma that makes “run away, run away” a rather futile safety strategy in the face of any sort of unpleasantry. This combination provides me with an odd new group to be a member of – “Heightened Target Profile”.

    “Run and fall down gasping for air” rarely improves ones chances of either successful departure from a scene of potential badness, or for faring well once one fails to depart.

    Similarly, low upper body strength means that getting physical about it all does NOT really work for me. This is something many women and elders of both genders share with me WITHOUT the benefit of major surgery required to achieve it. Coincidentally, elders also often suffer from limited mobility from a wide range of causes.

    We then examine “non-lethal alternatives”, as nobody is eager to suffer the legal, moral, and ethical torments involved in utilizing lethal force (or the threat thereof) to defend oneself, ones home, or ones loved ones.

    Verbal de-escalation, and/or “give them what they want”. Sadly, in many cases assailants and home invaders really aren’t up much for a jolly chat and resist being battered with logic quite effectively. Similarly, many of the more thuggish sorts realize that “dead folks tell no tales”, and apply this unfortunate philosophy with great vigor.

    Whistles, yells, bells, shrieking – it’d be great if they worked. For them to work, you need someone to HEAR the alarm, who then associates the alarm with “bad thing in progress”, and finally isn’t too scared of the local baddies to either rush out and help out – or at least summon police who may (depending on staffing and pre-existing calls at the time of disaster du jour) show up somewhere between two and forty-five minutes after the call is made.
    An awful lot of bad, and very final, things can happen in just one minute…let alone forty-five.

    Impact devices (sticks and such, as most private individuals do not have access to exotica such as “bean bag guns”) require that *oh my* upper body strength, and in addition, require that one come within potential striking range of the assailant – a bad choice, in anyones books.

    Pepper Spray, Tear Gas, and that old reliable, Mace all have substantial downsides if employed as a sole defense without help and more substantial defense tools readily available.
    First off, when employed, environmental conditions (Wind is the worst, with “blow-back”; but rain/snow can reduce range and effectiveness as well) often negatively effect, even nullifying, such weapons – they can also be borderline lethal when employed against (or in the mere presence of) persons with impaired breathing function (bystanders, the intended victim, even the assailant).

    Tasers and stun guns have their own issues. Proper training with them includes taking a hit FROM them, so you may understand their limitations. Most privately owned tasers are “non-projectile”, i.e., for best results you need to apply the taser prongs to your uncooperative assailant (ideally at base of skull, or body core, in that order) at arms length…and HOLD it there for 20-30 seconds while you’re riding your new friend, the “Assailant Bucking Bronco”, as they find the experience unpleasant and try to break away and beat you senseless. As an added bonus, by definition you are within arms length if they break free and the beating commences…AND…that “holding on” thing requires substantial upper body strength. Not a good choice for the physically challenged, elders, or most women.

    Separately, the “projectile” Taser type device (if you are in an area where they are legal for you and you planned ahead) suffer their own limitations. First, they are mostly “one-shot wonders” – if you don’t get a “good hit” on your assailant, your Taser is now out of service until it can again be primed (depending on make/model, a lengthy process. Even better, assuming that under stress you hit your assailant from 15-25 feet away, it had best be summertime or in a mild climate – the flechettes (think of a pair of tiny little barbed arrows dragging wires behind them using the body of the assailant, ideally, to complete an electronic circuit) are notorious for failure to penetrate heavy clothing (winter wear, leather jackets, etc) which means no circuit, and in turn, no zap, and finally one very cranky assailant. In yet another bonus, bystander and assailant safety are placed at risk as the flechettes are simply exceptionally vicious small caliber projectiles that have a good marketing campaign. They can easily take out an eye, an exposed artery, or sundry other fun things – and as with any electricity based weapon, have serious cardiac implications for those with that set of issues.

    Moving right along to more lethal weapons, we visit that most traditional category, the House of the Sharp & Pointy. The primary concern, where such implements are legal in the first place, is that effective use for defense requires substantial training and practice. Valid secondary concerns include both a need for upper body strength (again disadvantaging the differently abled), and the ever present concern that to utilize these tools in all but the most exotic fashions, one must come within grasping range of the assailant – enhancing ones vulnerability.

    I think we can agree that there are *no* truly non-lethal self-defense measures, any more than there is *truly* safe sex. With any self-defense utensil, things can go suddenly and horribly wrong, and either you or your assailant(s) can end up suddenly and painfully dead or seriously injured.

    Finally, and after much examination of other options (and yes, there remain a wide range we’ve not yet examined, that I suggest are best described as exotica – improvised weapons, muscle-driven projectile weapons, blow-guns, lethal or non-lethal chemical and biological exotica both airborne and injected, etc.) we approach examining a final category, firearms.

    Firearms (and pistols, specifically), today, are the most effective means of preserving ones personal safety once things have gone so wholly awry that the preferred strategies (“run away, run away”, or, “be someplace the trouble isn’t”) are no longer valid options.

    Specifically, the point where the bat-wielding bashers have lurched from the darkness; where the rapist or burglar has entered the home; when a small business owner is at threat from an armed robber; or finally, when the random elder is assaulted by a mugger – all are points when less confrontational tactics have either failed or soon will, and with flight barred, the choices are either to fight – as effectively as possible – or die a cowards death, with head bowed and neck exposed.

    A firearm, cliche as it is, ultimately is the equalizer of force between the aged and the youthful, the sprightly and the disabled, the hale and the infirm, and the law-abiding citizen and violent social predators.

    Having analyzed the personal safety options, the recent Heller decision (and the pending cases likely to rather thoroughly clarify the Second Amendment as an even broader individual right, in those states without even more explicit provisions in their State Constitutions protecting individual firearms ownership and carry), the “individual vs. group right” debate is now over.

    The new debate is what level of restriction will pass constitutional muster at both the state and federal levels.

    I would suggest that, for rational persons, that many restrictions (such as ammunition restrictions) are at best counter-productive red herrings, the legal equivalent of a temper tantrum.

    That lawful firearms owners posses the means, the facilities, the supplies, and the equipment to hone their skills only ensures that should the dreadful day come that they should need to utilize their firearms as self-defense tools – that they will be much safer in their efforts.

    An awful lot of similar proposed restrictions are similarly counterproductive to public safety, or, alternatively, are mis-designed to punish the law-abiding while having little or no effect upon the criminal class.

    An individual about to rush out and do “bad felonious things”, to be rather more blunt, is unlikely to be deterred by a gun control law – they’ve already made their decision to disregard the law.

    Similarly, as has recently been raised, those intent on suicide (as opposed to “pleas for help”) have such a wide range of other approaches that attempting to bar any one implement is of such low effectiveness (particularly with any implement or device that has even the vaguest possibility of worthwhile social or individual use) is beyond the ridiculous. If someone is bound and determined to depart this veil of tears, there is *nothing* that any of us can do – short of incarcerating said person in a so-called “safe room”, to ultimately frustrate them in their goal in the long term. It is sad, it is unfortunate, it is tragic – it is also so inevitable that beyond attempts to provide counseling/medication/diversion, there is nothing that can be effectively done to prevent its ultimate completion. Life is neither fair, nor uniformly nice, nor even full of really ideal solutions.

  172. J. Lyman says:

    RAH — I am very, very tired, so I’m going to make this short. There’s a slap on the wrist to be given to all sides. It appears that Jason/Dom were just yanking your chain at one point. I commend LG for remaining so civil about it.

  173. falnfenix says:

    hey Dominique, since you’re so insistent that women who shoot are trashy and you’re not…how about sharing a picture of you, with a sign in it that proves it’s you, and was taken specifically for this forum?

    that way we can make sure it’s not a farce. 😉

  174. mike w. says:

    Faln – A picture? haha good luck. We can’t even get Dom to make a factually based point or refute anything said.

  175. falnfenix says:

    well, if she’s unwilling to share a picture, she essentially negates any validity to her argument.

    never mind the fact that she’s unwilling to argue with fact…i figured i’d bring it down to her level.

  176. mike w. says:

    “well, if she’s unwilling to share a picture, she essentially negates any validity to her argument.”

    You assume her argument had any validity to begin with.

  177. falnfenix says:

    eh, my snarky side hopes it’ll shut her up. 🙂

  178. MissAO says:

    I’m neither white nor trashy. But I do like to shoot guns at the range. I’ve had a fun time with more than one guy I’ve dated spending an afternoon at the range, at my suggestion.

    I don’t know if Dominque would feel the same way if she had been the target of a stalker while going shopping as I have been on more than one occasion.

    I’ll purchase a gun at a later date, there are no minors that hang out at my house that don’t know how to fire a weapon. (The ten year old who does visit with her mom knows how to shoot since her mom is a Marine.)

    Unfortunately, a .45 revolver does not make a good concealed carry weapon on a 5’1″ female, and I haven’t figured out how to get a non resident Florida permit.

  179. RAH says:

    MissAO

    I have seen the requiremnts on gun blogs. YOu may want to try opencarry.com and check the florida forum.

  180. mike w. says:

    Utah Non-Res might also be an option, since it covers almost all the states FL does and it’s cheaper.

  181. Dominique says:

    You guys are embarrassingly easy to rile up. It’s like taking candy from trailer trash.

  182. Dominique says:

    gc – I would totally fight for your right to open carry a gun.

  183. GC says:

    Why only open carry? While, in a more perfect world, I’d rather that open carry be an individual choice than of local regulation – I’m not terribly enamored of that choice…

    Open carry, from my point of view, has a number of severe drawbacks – particularly in our current cultural environment.

    First, if the biowaste does hit the rotary oscillator, unless one has unnaturally good luck – open carry (having at that point failed as a deterrent) equates rather nicely with a “shoot me first” t-shirt. Not good.

    Second, after a couple of generations of “oooh, guns bad/scary – they will grow itty bitty little legs and arms, foam at their tiny little steel mouths, and kill all the people and ravish the washing machines” – I’m not especially excited about being the target of yet another range of the irrational fears of the little old ladies of both genders, all ages, and many hues in the general populace. One such range of bigotry and foolishness is sufficient to annoy me, I have no need for two.

    Such fears tend to produce unwanted interviews with local law enforcement, wherein (particularly in more repressive areas) *even if one is wholly in the right, and aside from open carry, engaged in no “threatening” actions* one tends to lose between hours and days while it “all gets’ sorted out”. Tedious, at best.

    I don’t mind folks who open carry lawfully, and substantial respect for more than a few of them – ones who are willing to put up with the bigotry and harassment in hopes of abating the irrational fears and bigotries accumulated these last few decades.

    However, my path and preference is a bit less noble. I’d much rather live my quiet little life, hedging my bets against the available misfortunes as best I can (yes, I do have fire extinguishers in my home and car; the car also, not surprisingly has road flares, tire chains, a flashlight or two, and a couple of cans of 10w-30 oil and a jug of water), and then getting on with the business of getting on with life.

    I’m not, at this point, an activist. Just an advocate of letting the law-abiding make their own choices and, in line with their various ethos and environments, make the best choices they can to ward off the less jolly aspects of fate.

    If said law-abiding screw up? There’s a reason we have courts and juries.

  184. falnfenix says:

    You guys are embarrassingly easy to rile up. It’s like taking candy from trailer trash.

    not riled up in the least…just waiting on that picture, missy. 🙂

  185. mike w. says:

    Dom – The problem with Open Carry is that people like those at DE Liberal tend to freak out at the sight of a openly holstered gun. Thankfully most people in Delaware don’t react that way, but if they do it’s a huge PITA for us, especially if the cops are called.

    If I OC’d at one of the functions you guys have here in NCC I can’t imagine I’d be met with a positive reaction.

  186. mike w. says:

    By the way, excellent post GC. Luckily anti-gun liberals dont’ hold enough of a majority in this state, so I still have a RIGHT, not a government granted privilege to Open Carry.

  187. mike w. says:

    “not riled up in the least…just waiting on that picture, missy. ”

    Looks like you’ll be waiting a while Faln…