Oh, oh ...

[Hawkmoon]

Dunno why I decided to read the statement Gabby Giffords' husband read at Jared Loughner's sentencing, but I did. And he's using his statement as a platform to promote an anti-gun, anti-2A position. I am ... [upset].

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/08/gabby-would-trade-her-own-life-to-bring-back-any-one-of-those-you-savagely-murdered/?hpt=ju_c2

In case the article goes away:

We are a people who can watch a young man like you spiral into murderous rampage without choosing to intervene before it is too late.

We have a political class that is afraid to do something as simple as have a meaningful debate about our gun laws and how they are being enforced. We have representatives who look at gun violence,
 not as a problem to solve, but as the white elephant in the room to ignore. As a nation we have repeatedly passed up the opportunity to address this issue. After Columbine; after Virginia Tech; after Tucson and after Aurora we have done nothing.

In this state we have elected officials so feckless in their leadership that they would say, as in the case of Governor Jan Brewer, “I don't think it has anything to do with the size of the magazine or the caliber of the gun.” She went on and said, “Even if the shooter's weapon had held fewer bullets, he'd have another gun, maybe. He could have three guns in his pocket” – she said this just one week after a high capacity magazine allowed you to kill six and wound 19 others, before being wrestled to the ground while attempting to reload. Or a state legislature that thought it appropriate to busy itself naming an official Arizona state gun just weeks after this tragedy occurred, instead of doing the work it was elected to do: encourage economic growth, help our returning veterans and fix our education system.

Another [bleep]ing former military officer who doesn't understand the 2nd Amendment, and who doesn't understand that GUNZ! are not the problem.

[kgbsquirrel]

Sarah Brady, Part Two.

[BlueStarLizzard]

So much thanks for the CCW hero that helped save her butt.
 

[birdman]

Guess I should stock up on large cap G21 mags...

[Jamisjockey]

Dunno why I decided to read the statement Gabby Giffords' husband read at Jared Loughner's sentencing, but I did. And he's using his statement as a platform to promote an anti-gun, anti-2A position. I am ... [upset].

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/08/gabby-would-trade-her-own-life-to-bring-back-any-one-of-those-you-savagely-murdered/?hpt=ju_c2

In case the article goes away:

Another [bleep]ing former military officer who doesn't understand the 2nd Amendment, and who doesn't understand that GUNZ! are not the problem.

The amendment of the document he swore to uphold.  Scum.

[SteveS]

A few months ago I got into a discussion with some left leaning friends that wondered the same thing. "Why can't we have a meaningful debate about guns?"  It mostly boiled down to things like magazine restrictions, banning 'assault weapons', and limiting where people can carry concealed. I pointed out that these restrictions have failed to really protect anyone and are only feel good BS. They responded by saying that the NRA was mean, blah, blah, blah.

I am oversimplifying the argument, but basically that is what has happened every time I have participated in a "meaningful" discussion. Therefore, when I hear the word "meaningful" in regards to gun control, what I hear is that the other side wants to impose all sorts of restrictions to show hat they are doing something and really is not interested in hearing about logic, individual rights, or reason.

[Hawkmoon]

I am oversimplifying the argument, but basically that is what has happened every time I have participated in a "meaningful" discussion. Therefore, when I hear the word "meaningful" in regards to gun control, what I hear is that the other side wants to impose all sorts of restrictions to show hat they are doing something and really is not interested in hearing about logic, individual rights, or reason.

Unfortunately, when the topic is gun control a "meaningful" discussion is when you agree with whatever the antis want to say. Nothing else, to them, is "meaningful."

I like this, from the LawDog Files:

http://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2010/09/ok-ill-play.html

Since what you consider to be reasonable isn't even in the same plane of reality with what I consider reasonable, probably not.

Allow me to explain.

I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

LawDog

[AZRedhawk44]

I notice LawDog neglects to mention FOPA '86.

Partisan protectionism of Reagan/R's on his part?

Authoritarian Statism is the same evil whether it wears a D or an R stamp proudly on its brownshirt.

[longeyes]

Why can't we have a meaningful debate about gangstas run wild? They account for the lion's share of the violence, not the Loughners.

[birdman]

I notice LawDog neglects to mention FOPA '86.

Partisan protectionism of Reagan/R's on his part?

Authoritarian Statism is the same evil whether it wears a D or an R stamp proudly on its brownshirt.

Ah, FOPA 1986...because banning two rectangular pieces of metal and a pivot pin will totally reduce crime.
(grumbles looking up serialized DIAS prices)

[longeyes]

There will be no "meaningful debates" so long as we have the media we have that is sworn to protect dysfunctional elements of our national culture.  

[lysander6]

Until the Feds are out of gun legislation and enforcement altogether, they will never stop reaching.  This should be a states rights issue that the Feds wash their hands of but of course, that accounts for 99% of everything our overlords do.

I guess astronauts aren't as smart as they think they are...

[longeyes]

The only real way to stop "the Loughners" would be a psychiatric police state.

I'd like to think that Could Never Happen Here, but I think that would be naive.

Meanwhile, the source of 95 per cent of the "gun violence" in America is glaringly palpable.

[Monkeyleg]

Meanwhile, the source of 95 per cent of the "gun violence" in America is glaringly palpable.

If by "the source" you mean blacks, you're pretty close to being spot on.

I've gotten a few liberals in a twist by responding to their desire for more gun control by suggesting that we not allow blacks to own guns. They get all frothy, say I'm a racist and that I want to keep blacks defenseless. Defenseless against who, I'd ask. Well, against people like the KKK.

So, I'd reply, blacks need the means to defend themselves? Well, yes, was the usual reply. How then, I'd ask, are they then different from any of the rest of us in that regard?

[Tallpine]

If by "the source" you mean blacks, you're pretty close to being spot on.

I've gotten a few liberals in a twist by responding to their desire for more gun control by suggesting that we not allow blacks to own guns. They get all frothy, say I'm a racist and that I want to keep blacks defenseless. Defenseless against who, I'd ask. Well, against people like the KKK.

So, I'd reply, blacks need the means to defend themselves? Well, yes, was the usual reply. How then, I'd ask, are they then different from any of the rest of us in that regard?

That's just mean   

[brimic]

My counter argument to the original article:
 If Jared loughner had used a single shot Ruger No.1, there would be no Gabby Giffords alive today.

[Ben]

Whether he captured all the restrictions or not, Lawdog's general thesis coincides with my feelings on the subject. Everytime the antis hit us, it's like it's Tabula Rasa and we're supposed to forget all the "compromises" of the past.

[longeyes]

I meant violent elements of the underclass.  That could be any racial group.   Some groups are, however, disproportionately represented.  It does not matter why.  A truly benevolent society will seek out the violent and intimidating and neutralize them so good citizens can live their lives and maximize their opportunities.  We talk about education; you can't have education when we have a culture of brutality pervading schools and school years.

[longeyes]

If by "the source" you mean blacks, you're pretty close to being spot on.

I've gotten a few liberals in a twist by responding to their desire for more gun control by suggesting that we not allow blacks to own guns. They get all frothy, say I'm a racist and that I want to keep blacks defenseless. Defenseless against who, I'd ask. Well, against people like the KKK.

So, I'd reply, blacks need the means to defend themselves? Well, yes, was the usual reply. How then, I'd ask, are they then different from any of the rest of us in that regard?

Of course blacks need to be able to defend themselves; everyone does.  This is not about "blacks," it is about empty souls who live on violence.  This soullessness does not discriminate by race or ethnicity.  And neither should our justice.

[ArfinGreebly]

Until the Feds are out of gun legislation and enforcement altogether, they will never stop reaching.  This should be a states rights issue that the Feds wash their hands of but of course, that accounts for 99% of everything our overlords do.

I guess astronauts aren't as smart as they think they are...

High intelligence + bad data = wrong answers.

I see things like this all the time.

Smart people graduate from college with a head full of misinformation, start living life, and at some point realize, "oh, crap, I've been lied to."

And, depending on what career field they've chosen, they may wind up spending a couple of post-graduate years learning "industry secrets" that should have been part of the curriculum to begin with, and often spend a substantial part of that period unlearning stuff they've been taught because "it don't work that way out here in the real world."

Intelligence alone is useless if you're fed a steady diet of informational crap.

[grampster]

"Why can't we have a meaningful debate about gangstas run wild? They account for the lion's share of the violence, not the Loughners."

R.A.C.I.S.T.

[Hawkmoon]

I've gotten a few liberals in a twist by responding to their desire for more gun control by suggesting that we not allow blacks to own guns. They get all frothy, say I'm a racist and that I want to keep blacks defenseless. Defenseless against who, I'd ask. Well, against people like the KKK.

Ooh, that's a good one. Have them dredge up the statistics, and I have no doubt they'll find that blacks are victims of other blacks about nine-hundred-eleventy times more frequently than they are victims of the KKK. Look up the web site of any large-ish city newspaper or television station. Check out articles on blacks who have been victims of violent crime. Report back what percentage of the [alleged] perpetrators were members of the KKK.

[lee n. field]

I've gotten a few liberals in a twist by responding to their desire for more gun control by suggesting that we not allow blacks to own guns. They get all frothy, say I'm a racist and that I want to keep blacks defenseless. Defenseless against who, I'd ask. Well, against people like the KKK.

So, I'd reply, blacks need the means to defend themselves? Well, yes, was the usual reply. How then, I'd ask, are they then different from any of the rest of us in that regard?

Well played.