Shot Down

Several major provisions of the Toomey-Manchin bill went down in flames today. This was predictable. Even if it had passed the Senate, it was unlikely to pass the House.

The media and the President, of course, are blaming the NRA, with the latter dragging out shooting victims to make his case. They’re ignoring the very serious problems with the bill that I noted in my previous post on the subject.

The vote, however, was close. And I think that an expansion of background checks will pass if the bill is rewritten. But the Democrats are going to have to put forth a clean narrow bill. I’m not sure that’s something they know how to do.

Update: I want to emphasize a point, since the liberal media seems to be missing it: nothing in this bill would have stopped Newtown. This bill may decrease gun violence in general, especially for suicides. But it would not have stopped Newtown.

Comments are closed.

  1. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  2. InsipiD

    I want to emphasize a point, since the liberal media seems to be missing it: nothing in this bill would have stopped Newtown. This bill may decrease gun violence in general, especially for suicides. But it would not have stopped Newtown.

    You just made the case for voting for it just to see what happens in Democrats’ minds. Preventing single digits of suicides is not a good reason to abridge the rights of many. They’re unwilling to admit that so much as a single person other than a police officer ever prevented a crime with a gun, so why even bring up a point other than what was knee-jerk reason it was brought forward?

    Thumb up 15

  3. Xetrov

    You really don’t need to emphasize this

    Yes. He does. Anyone anywhere who was against this waste of legislation does. So that when they try it again (and they will), we can remind them why it failed last time…again.

    You know, sometimes folks actually do things for the benefit of others.

    Even if it does absolutely nothing to actually benefit anyone.

    The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

    Thumb up 13

  4. HARLEY

    You know, sometimes folks actually do things for the benefit of others.

    Yea, and with doing so restricting the rights of others…
    makes ya feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

    I am collecting good reasons that guns should be sold with no background checks over the internet and at gun shows.

    If you buy a gun from a dealer, at a gun show you HAVE to do a background check, if you order a firearm from a dealer on line the gun is sent to a local dealer of your choice, and a background check is done.
    your argument is irrelevant.

    Thumb up 18

  5. Xetrov

    I am collecting good reasons that guns should be sold with no background checks over the internet and at gun shows.

    The brilliant thing about the Constitution is that nobody needs to come up with good reasons to uphold it. You do however need damn good reasons to infringe on the uninfringible.

    BTW, only local private sales over the internet or at a gun show don’t require background checks. Any commercial purchase involving an FFL requires them already.

    Thumb up 16

  6. Mississippi Yankee

    If you buy a gun from a dealer, at a gun show you HAVE to do a background check, if you order a firearm from a dealer on line the gun is sent to a local dealer of your choice, and a background check is done.
    your argument is irrelevant.

    Just because ^ THIS ^ needs repeating!

    Thumb up 13

  7. Mississippi Yankee

    From the page of Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children:

    “I keep seeing this crap that the majority of Americans polled say they want gun control ect. It doesn’t even matter if the bogus 90% number is right. The bill of rights is not left up to polls or a popularity contest. That’s why we are a republic not a democracy. In a democracy the majority rules. 50 percent of the population can infringe on the other 49 in a democracy. In a republic the minority are protected from the majority if they try to infringe on your rights with legislation. So if you are one of these people that think the majority rules, please go read a book and know how our government is suppose to work.”

    Thumb up 5

  8. Hal_10000 *

    I have heard several interviews with some these surviving family members and when questioned on this each one finds the notion that they are somehow being used repellent. These people are there because they want to be. You know, sometimes folks actually do things for the benefit of others.

    I understand that. I still don’t like it and never have. Bringing out victims is essentially trying to make your position unassailable, to make any attack on it an attack on the position itself. The broken sex offender laws were sold to us this way. So have a lot of other bad responses to tragedy.

    Thumb up 16

  9. Mississippi Yankee

    And the three RINOswho voted Yea…
    Kirk (R) IL not all that surprising
    McCain (Senile) AZ again not surprising
    Susan (Buy my vote) Collins (Cunt) ME despicable, miserable vote selling bint.

    The donks only needed 3 more as Reid was forced to change his vote at the last minute in order to bring it up later on.

    Thumb up 5

  10. Mississippi Yankee

    I pulled this from a comment section, I wish I’d said it.

    skeagles67 • 2 minutes ago

    “Thanks to Obama this country is finally becoming adequately armed. Replacing old weapons with new modern ones, buying supplies of magazines they never kept before, shooting up old ammo and buying new ammo to stash by the caseload, adding extras like night vision gear. But we should never stop adding.Thanks Obama, you’ve managed more than all the previous presidents in history combined. Americans now realize the importance of being well armed, and how important that is to their freedom and defense of the constitution.”

    Thumb up 4

  11. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  12. balthazar

    I am collecting good reasons that guns should be sold with no background checks over the internet and at gun shows.

    Hey retard, how about you actually know wtf you are taling about for a change before proving to everyone yet again how much of a clueles idiot you are.

    The only type of sale that goes on without a backround check are illegal sales, and private sales, and heres a little tidbit for you, you dickless retard, many states OUTLAW PRIVATE SALES AS WELL.

    In addition, ALL internet sales that are not on some sort of virtual classified section ARE BACKROUND CHECKED. And the weapons are shipped to a local FFL.

    Now please gfy and stop commenting like a clueless retard on shit you obviously know nothing about.

    Thumb up 11

  13. balthazar

    What percentage of guns sold at shows and over the internet are not sold by a registered dealer and thus not regulated?

    Guess what, in order to get a table at 99.9999999999999% of gun shows, YOU MUST BE A LICENCED FFL.

    The only sales that go on without a backround check at gun shows are shit people sell and trade in the parking lot. Or sales THAT ARE BREAKING THE LAW.

    Again most states have laws regarding out of state purchases as well. Hell with my NJ licence there isnt a state in the union in which i could go and buy a handgun without the required NJ permit, and if i buy a long gun I still have to fill out paperwork and file it with the state. Thankfully that paperwork can be filed after the fact in the case of a long gun.

    Thumb up 8

  14. Iconoclast

    I have heard several interviews with some these surviving family members and when questioned on this each one finds the notion that they are somehow being used repellent.

    So? It doesn’t matter how “repellant” they find it — if they’re being used, they’re being used.

    These people are there because they want to be.

    Well, obviously. Nobody is suggesting that Obama got the Secret Service to round these people up at gunpoint to be displayed at his little photo-op. But the fact that they’re there of their own accord doesn’t negate or disprove the assertion that they’re being used and exploited for political gain.

    You know, sometimes folks actually do things for the benefit of others.

    Complete and utter non sequitur. For starters, you need to demonstrate how their presence at Obama’s photo-op is “benefitting” anybody (other than Obama, of course). It can be argued that their presence is ultimately detrimental to the 2nd Ammendment and American Liberty if said presence results in more freedoms being destroyed. Disarming the populace doesn’t ‘benefit” the populace — it benefits criminals and despots.

    So, perhaps it isn’t as much of a non sequitur as I thought, but then one needs to be careful about who’s receiving the “benefit” you pretend to be so concerned about.

    Thumb up 16

  15. Dave D

    2 thngs:

    1) The campaigner in chief kept stating that 90% of Americans favor this legislation. Why does the medial allow him to pull these massaged numbers out of his ass with impunity?

    2) The campaigner in chief also stated that “obstructionist/backwards Republicans” stopped this from getting through the Senate. The bill failed like 54-46, right? If all of the Dems had voted for it, that would have put it within about one vote or right at 60, depending on what was rounded. How about noting THOSE votes, as they would have only needed one more Republican vote to pass if his own party had followed his (apparently unconvincing) lead.

    This guy is made of teflon!

    Thumb up 11

  16. Seattle Outcast

    For me the most telling thing is the WH having a Cartman moment and moving firmly in lame duck territory.

    Of course, Obama has NEVER been presidential, acting instead as a popularly elected dictator where he is supposed to just be able to wave his hands at something and then people jump to to do his bidding. His throwing a hissy fit at not getting his way is to be expected.

    Thumb up 8

  17. Xetrov

    All of the Democrats are thanking McCain for his vote on his Facebook page. You’d think the guy would just switch parties already.

    Thumb up 9

  18. AlexInCT

    All of the Democrats are thanking McCain for his vote on his Facebook page. You’d think the guy would just switch parties already.

    And deny the democrats the abilty to ass rape him as soon as that is convenient for them to do? Nah, I now bellieve McCain likes to be ass raped by the left. It makes him feel good or something to repeatedly be used and abused by these fucks.

    Thumb up 9

  19. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 2

  20. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  21. Seattle Outcast

    Could you cite the research from which you pulled this statistic?

    Have you even BEEN to a gun show in the last decade or two? The only things you don’t need a background check for are abused WWII katana, ammo, clips, and clothing.

    Thumb up 3

  22. Mississippi Yankee

    ATF reported that the gun show loophole creates an environment where criminals can easily and anonymously purchase firearms from private sellers: “Gun shows leave a major loophole in the regulation of firearms sales” and “provide a large market where criminals can shop for firearms anonymously

    sally,
    can you please define what a “gun show loophole” actually is? What is the difference between me selling a gun to balthazar in the parking lot of a gun show? Yanno, a private sale much like the CNN guy buying the AR-15 from the guy walking around with it on his shoulder at the gun show BUT making the sale in the parking lot.

    And will it be a “major loophole” if balthazar goes down the street to a 7-11 parking lot and sells the very same gun to HARLEY?

    PLEASE DEFINE YOUR TERMS. Would background checks have prevented VA Tech, Aurora CO, or use of the stolen gun used in Newtown CT?

    Gun Control = Gun Registration Period.
    And the state of Missouri giving all of the records of all of the CCW holders to both the SS and ATF three fucking times pretty much proves my point.

    Plus it would be really nice if you could explain HOW this ‘closing of the loopholes’ will stop criminals from selling to other criminals. Keeping in mind that criminals, gang members and terrorist vastly prefer fully automatic weapons which BTW aren’t sold at gun show or that big old strawman the internet.

    I predict that, just like immigrants, guns won’t be illegal they will just become undocumented. Just like “Atlas Shrugged” when everything is illegal we all become criminals. (depending on our political affiliations of course)

    Thumb up 6

  23. Mississippi Yankee

    Hey sal baby,
    Wasn’t this report sanctioned by Bloomberg and MAIG?
    (why yes it was)
    I really liked the story line and excellent hidden camera work during the “Integrity Test” 16 thru 24. Academy Awards all around. Also the “straw purchasers”, they seemed to have honed their craft as well.

    C’mon salmonella. at least CM uses Wikipedia where there’s a consensus of bullshit.

    Thumb up 2

  24. Seattle Outcast

    When the messenger is also a part of the message, your complaint doesn’t have any pull.

    I’d put a lot more faith into the “research” if it was done by a neutral party.

    Thumb up 5

  25. Iconoclast

    Why do you feel the need to do that?

    To “do” what, exactly? To be utterly incredulous at some of the inane drivel you guys spew forth? Call it a reflex action, like a gag reflex when something utterly distasteful is shoved down your throat.

    Why can’t it be that the rationale/desire is acceptable but the method is all wrong?

    Well, let’s take another look at the statement in question:

    You know, sometimes folks actually do things for the benefit of others.

    Repugnant sanctimony aside, this drivel implicitly assumes that anybody is being “benefited” by this, “this” being Obama’s surrounding himself with victims while making his anti-2nd Amendment sales pitch. Like I said before, the only one obviously benefiting from this is Obama, and other plausible beneficiaries would be criminals, thugs and despots. There is certainly no obvious reason for me to believe that our society as a whole is benefiting from the presence of those victims. Quite the contrary.

    Now, yes, the statement is utterly correct when taken in isolation. Sometimes people really do things which benefit others. The pretense is in claiming that this is such a case. If Salinger does truly believe that the act of making it more difficult for an average Joe, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen to protect himself from criminals and despots somehow “benefits” that citizen, then he is suffering a serious case of myopia. So it’s either pretense or myopia. Take your pick.

    The first step is to dehumanize.

    Which is precisely what Obama is doing when he surrounds himself with victims. He is dehumanizing anyone who would dare to disagree with him. After all, anyone who disagrees “obviously” doesn’t care about those victims, right? That’s the whole point.

    And Useful Idiots such as yourself play right into it, in utterly sanctimonious fashion, no less. Another level of dehumanizing those who disagree,

    Thumb up 17

  26. salinger

    blockquote>Salinger does truly believe that the act of making it more difficult for an average Joe, law-abiding, tax-paying citizen to protect himself from criminals and despots somehow “benefits” that citizen, then he is suffering a serious case of myopia. So it’s either pretense or myopia.<

    How does this make a law abiding persons ability to buy a firearm harder? What law abiding citizen would want to buy a weapon from an unlicensed dealer and skip the background check? Seriously, what about this bill would have made it harder for a law abiding citizen? Law abiding being the critical adjective.

    Sorry, but this is a weak argument.

    Why do we have any restrictions on weapons? Shouldn’t I be allowed to own an ICBM if I can afford it right? I mean how am I going to be able to protect myself from the evil government if I am not equally armed?

    Thumb up 2

  27. Xetrov

    What law abiding citizen would want to buy a weapon from an unlicensed dealer and skip the background check?

    Anyone who doesn’t want the Government having record that you own a firearm. So that bullshit like this doesn’t happen to you. Never mind the argument concerning the first step to confiscation being registration.

    Sorry, but this is a weak argument.

    This from the guy who posted a Bloomberg study on gun control for support of his position? That’s some funny shit.

    Thumb up 6

  28. Iconoclast

    How does this make a law abiding persons ability to buy a firearm harder? What law abiding citizen would want to buy a weapon from an unlicensed dealer and skip the background check? Seriously, what about this bill would have made it harder for a law abiding citizen? Law abiding being the critical adjective.

    Let’s assume that all of your premises are true for the sake of argument — if all of this legislation would not make life harder for law-abiding citizens, then how on Earth could it have had any impact on criminal behavior? No, the real question we should be asking is: Would this legislation have prevented the Sandy Hook incident, or the Aurora incident? And the answer to that is a resounding “no”.

    So, even if your premises were true, which is not established to be the case, the bottom line is that the legislation would not have prevented those victims, with whom Obama surrounded himself like a human shield, from becoming victims in the first place.

    But beyond that, it appears that you are saying that the only impact of this legislation would have been to “unlicensed dealers”, which strikes me as an oxymoron, but it isn’t even true. Certain weapons would have been banned, as well as high-capacity magazines, all of which could prove very useful in protecting one’s home, family and self. So yes, this could very well have made life more difficult for many a citizen, whether you care to agree or acknowledge that or not.

    Sorry, but this is a weak argument.

    I suppose it would be, if your premise were true. But it ain’t, so it ain’t.

    Thumb up 12

  29. Seattle Outcast

    Never mind the argument concerning the first step to confiscation being registration

    Which is why 100% of my firearm purchases have been private sales. Officially, I have no weapons to be confiscated.

    Hurricane Katrina was ample proof that gun confiscation and destruction is a priority among law enforcement.

    Thumb up 3

  30. salinger

    Let’s assume that all of your premises are true for the sake of argument — if all of this legislation would not make life harder for law-abiding citizens, then how on Earth could it have had any impact on criminal behavior?

    Uh, because a law abiding citizen would obey the new laws perhaps?

    This from the guy who posted a Bloomberg study on gun control for support of his position?

    I also provided a google link to dozens of other cases. But one can decide to see what one wants.

    Bottom line, this one will come back to bite the gun folks in the ass. The vast majority of citizens wanted something done and they will not forget. When gun control does come it’s going to be way more restrictive once the folks who voted against this are paraded out as fringe lunatics.

    But you can ignore the tide, the polls, and the victims – then blame your losses to faulty polls.

    The people against tighter gun regulations are a minority for a reason.

    All it’ll take is one or two lost elections and the party will roll over – just like immigration.

    Thumb up 1

  31. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  32. Iconoclast

    Uh, because a law abiding citizen would obey the new laws perhaps?

    Wow, talk about being Unclear On The Concept. I ask how criminal behavior would be impacted, and you respond with the diametric opposite, how law abiders would be impacted. And I note with amusement that you implicitly admit that they would have further burdens to bear in the form of even more laws to obey, which amounts to having more freedoms reduced. Yet the underlying assumption is that they are “benefiting” from all of this.

    To do exactly as I said, not what you replaced it with.

    Okay, here is exactly what you said:

    Yet again you can’t even accept that the underlying rationale/desire being expressed by those you disagree with could be genuine.

    CM — April 18, 2013 5:47 PM

    There is no mentioning about me doing anything. Quite the contrary, you are asserting that I am unable to do a certain thing.

    So, “to do exactly as you said” would translate to:

    Why do you feel the need to can’t even accept that the underlying rationale/desire being expressed by those you disagree with could be genuine?

    To me, that simply doesn’t make any grammatical sense, which is precisely why I responded as I did. My apparent inability to “accept that the underlying rationale/desire being expressed by those you disagree with could be genuine” in this specific case is based on incredulity, as my previous response indicated. So, it isn’t about “what I ‘replaced’ it with”, but about simply rephrasing the question so that it makes some sort of coherent sense.

    If the “underlying rationale/desire being expressed” is indeed genuine in this specific case, that simply tells me that the person expressing the underlying rationale/desire lives in a land of make-believe, which is why I say “pretend”. In my view, anyone who thinks through the scenario wouldn’t sanctimoniously imply that allowing oneself to be used as a rhetorical human shield was benefiting anyone who truly deserved to be benefited. In my view, anyone who truly cared about benefit, and who would receive benefit, would not be defending the gun grabbers at any level, because, again, the whole point is that criminals are going to get guns regardless of what do-gooder laws get passed, and that those do-gooder laws are only going to become a burden to law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

    What makes you think it’s pretense?

    See above.

    The remainder of your “you’re such a dick” whining is noted and dismissed, with requisite amusement,

    Thumb up 11

  33. Mook

    With this

    He is dehumanizing anyone who would dare to disagree with him.

    this

    You haven’t made it out to be one of two options, but instead matter-of-factly stated that we are “pretending”.

    and this

    Why do you feel the need to can’t even accept that the underlying rationale/desire being expressed by those you disagree with could be genuine?

    ,

    the mask slips

    it’s going to be way more restrictive once the folks who voted against this are paraded out as fringe lunatics.

    So those who voted against the bill are dismissed and dehumanized as “fringe lunatics”. The irony and hypocrisy on the left runs incredibly deep.. as this thread demonstrates.

    Thumb up 8

  34. CM

    “you’re such a dick”

    AFAIK I haven’t called you a dick (maybe you were just so confused over the grammar again). I keep saying that your inability to even accept a genuinely held opinion (that is different from your own) is a dick move. It was, it is, and it will continue to be (and it’s got nothing to do with the arguments being made, you’re accusing people of lying about their motivations and it’s now becoming a pattern).

    In my view, anyone who thinks through the scenario wouldn’t sanctimoniously imply that allowing oneself to be used as a rhetorical human shield was benefiting anyone who truly deserved to be benefited. In my view, anyone who truly cared about benefit, and who would receive benefit, would not be defending the gun grabbers at any level, because, again, the whole point is that criminals are going to get guns regardless of what do-gooder laws get passed, and that those do-gooder laws are only going to become a burden to law-abiding citizens, not criminals.

    That’s lovely but it’s possible to disagree without “pretending”. Just as it was possible the last time you did this.

    Mook you’re not quoting from the same person. That’s a bit dishonest. I’ve never said (or implied) that those who voted against the bill should be dismissed and dehumanized as “fringe lunatics”. I simply pointed out the inconsistency of claiming “dehumanisation” while at the same time dismissing the motivations of those who disagree with the position (i.e. it’s not enough to lay out the arguments, it’s necessary to dismiss the motivation and imply that the other person is dishonest). And then express “requisite amusement” when called on it. Again.

    Thumb up 0

  35. Mississippi Yankee

    CM,
    I am still greatly puzzled why you are so concerned about American culture and American laws. You live on the other side of the planet and in a different hemisphere ferchristsake.

    Is it because you plan a return visit to the US and you fear it will be like a trip to the O.K. Corral? If that is, in fact your ultimate concern (and you’re not being a know-it-all busybody) then consider my suggestion;
    Stay away from “Blue States”
    Stay away from large urban areas (populated by donks and progs)
    And never, ever go stroll on any Martin Luther King Blvd after dark.

    Thumb up 6

  36. Mook

    Jon Stewart: “There really is no point making laws, because criminals are just gonna end up breaking them”

    That so many in Stewart’s audience found his observation to be “insightful” and “clever” tells you everything you need to know about those turds. Listen to him and his audience – smugness and mindless clichés substitute for thought and logic.

    Laws that make honest law abiding citizens criminals, such as selling/buying sodas larger than 16 oz are counterproductive and strip people of liberty. Gun laws targeted at law abiding gun owners are similarly unproductive and strip liberties even as Stewart mocks those who oppose the gun law to the delight of his audience.. whatever he has to do to keep his dawgs barkin.

    Those who complain that conservatives “dehumanize” liberals by accusing them of pretending when liberals routinely do far worse to conservatives and cheer those doing it, are dishonest to the core

    Particularly despicable when you consider that existing laws which are responsible for blocking 80,000 allegedly illegal gun purchase attempts in 2010 resulted in the DOJ prosecuting only 44 of them with only a relative handful of those resulting in conviction. Either the existing gun purchase restrictions are over-restrictive, or the Obama DOJ is criminally negligent in not following up on so many blocked gun purchases

    Thumb up 11

  37. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  38. salinger

    So those who voted against the bill are dismissed and dehumanized as “fringe lunatics”. The irony and hypocrisy on the left runs incredibly deep.. as this thread demonstrates.

    Only because they left themselves open to such tactics by not being satisfied and taking 99% of what they wanted and accepting gun control measures that had been watered down to the point of being just about toothless. I think they have been played. Assault weapon type gun ban – dropped, ammo clip capacity limit – dropped – but that wasn’t good enough. I think it was a tactical error.

    I think a lot of he blame falls on the Bloomberg commercials backfiring on him this time around. That is unless his real intention was to create a set up by inflaming the fringe.

    Thumb up 0

  39. Mook

    Assault weapon type gun ban – dropped

    As if you can fucking give a reasonable definition of what constitutes an “assault weapon”. A ‘scary looking’ weapon with one-bullet-per-trigger-pull, right?

    Thumb up 5

  40. Iconoclast

    AFAIK I haven’t called you a dick…

    You have repeatedly attributed dick-like behavior to me. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck and swims like a duck and flies like a duck…

    (maybe you were just so confused over the grammar again)

    Or maybe I simply take words at face value. Oh, and thanks for another example of dick-like behavior. The irony is delicious.

    …your inability to even accept a genuinely held opinion (that is different from your own)…

    You cannot know that it’s “genuine” at all — you merely assume that it is, no doubt because you simply want to believe it’s true. And I can accept genuinely held opinions that differ from my own — your attempt to draw generalized conclusions from isolated incidents is intellectually dishonest.

    I have more than adequately explained myself. That you are unable to accept said explanations without passing judgement on me is simply not my concern.

    That’s lovely but it’s possible to disagree without “pretending”.

    I’ve never claimed otherwise. But when something comes across as utterly pretentious, I respond accordingly.

    Thumb up 12

  41. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  42. Iconoclast

    Jon Stewart: “There really is no point making laws, because criminals are just gonna end up breaking them”

    Ah, yes, the argument ad absurdum approach, based on the silly notion apparently held by many liberals that, since conservatives and libertarians advocate limited government, what they really desire is complete anarchy. No, conservatives and libertarians have no problem with laws, as long as they make sense and don’t violate the Constitution.

    What CM, Salinger and Stewart seem flagrantly unable to grasp is that the proposed legislation would have done nothing to prevent Sandy Hook.

    Let me repeat that.

    The proposed legislation would have done nothing to prevent Sandy Hook.

    One more time:

    THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION WOULD HAVE DONE NOTHING TO PREVENT SANDY HOOK.

    That, in a nutshell, is why I dismiss your collective pretense toward “caring” as, well, pretense. You seem to be all gung-ho to pass laws which will impact law-abiding citizens, but ultimately fail to address the problem. Stewart’s mocking of conservative arguments, and your defense of said mockery, only underscores the pretense, and I don’t give a tinker’s damn how much that offends your delicate sensibilities.

    Thumb up 15

  43. Iconoclast

    Oh, and one more thing. Hal referenced his earlier post detailing the problems with how this bill was written. Sure, increased background checks sounds like a good idea, but it could simply become an insidious back-door method of disarming the populace; if we pass legislation that allows government to classify virtually anyone and everyone as “mentally unstable” under the most tenuous of circumstances, like the example Hal pointed to about some guy who took anti-anxiety medication at some point in his past, then we have effectively provided a path to disarming the populace, and such legislation should be shot down, Salinger’s whining about “fringe elements” notwithstanding.

    Thumb up 15

  44. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 8

  45. Iconoclast

    Again, please quit insulting people’s intelligence.

    Lead by example. IOW, you first.

    So, on second thought, keep it up.

    Thanks for proving my point.

    Thumb up 17

  46. Iconoclast

    …the complete unwillingness to bend at all…

    When it comes to the Constitution, we should be unwilling to bend at all. As Hal observed in a different thread, when we give government an inch, it takes ten miles. And as Ben Franklin observed, those who are willing to sacrifice Liberty for imagined safety deserve neither and will lose both.

    Thumb up 12

  47. salinger

    Lead by example. IOW, you first.

    I try, by not using all caps, swearing, saying that people are whining, or assigning them stances which they have already said they do not take. But I’m sure I can do better.

    Hot! Thumb up 9

  48. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 3

  49. Mississippi Yankee

    Did I mention that I don’t trust my government?

    I would like to address salinger’s caviler suggestion that;

    I think they have been played. Assault weapon type gun ban – dropped, ammo clip capacity limit – dropped – but that wasn’t good enough. I think it was a tactical error.

    Are we to assume that we should have capitulated on universal gun background checks?

    Let me tell you about a story that broke last week but got smothered by the Debacle in Boston.

    The state of Missouri turned over ALL of it’s record on ALL of it’s CCW holders (there were thousands) to the Dept. of Social Security AND to the ATF!!! this happened not once but 3 goddamn times!!! All under the auspice of checking on mental health.
    DO YOU UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE?????

    Constitutionally,under both US and Missouri, these acts were illegal, unconstitutional and way beyond political hardball.

    But please down-vote me whenever I call into question the plethora of coincidences and distractions when of this caliber of news is breaking in the background.
    Remember, It can’t happen here.

    Thumb up 4

  50. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  51. Iconoclast

    No, there’s a significant difference between identifying and criticising behaviour, and just abusing someone…

    Perhaps, but that alleged “significant difference” doesn’t apply here. Evaluating someone’s rhetoric and drawing a conclusion, whether right or wrong, is not “abuse”. And no, I’m not talking about you, although you do seem hell-bent on dragging this back to your “I understand The Science” thing any chance you get. So let’s go ahead and rehash a bit of it, from the “Everything You Know About Alternative Energy is Wrong” thread:

    CM — March 16, 2013 4:21 PM

    I spent time explaining why I felt that I should care, and you immediately threw it back in my face and told me I was ‘pretending’.

    Iconoclast — March 18, 2013 11:19 AM

    I never said that you were “pretending” to care. I said that you were “pretending” to understand the issues and the science, which may seem unfair, but I have grown weary of assuming that my opponent knows what they’re talking about when it comes to issues of science, only to come to the realization that they don’t. Such has happened many times in my past. Maybe you really do understand the actual science, but you haven’t actually demonstrated that you do.

    CM — March 18, 2013 8:08 PM

    I completely understand that, as exactly the same thing has happened to me.

    So, being the knuckle-dragging dimwit I apparently am, I figured we were done, but obviously not — you’re still holding your grudge and beating this dead horse, which is your prerogative, of course. But again, the point is that I never claimed or implied that you pretended to care about the issue, so if you keep implying that I did, well, the dishonesty is on you.

    And I haven’t done it repeatedly.

    Sadly, your knee-jerk denials are something I have come to expect…

    Wow, what a dick thing to say. Fuck you.

    CM — February 18, 2013 4:13 PM “When Meteors Attack”

    But if you want to be a dick about it, go ahead.

    CM — April 4, 2013 4:40 PM “Ten Years from Iraq”

    In two examples you’ve taken this dick (but no doubt popular to your target market) approach.

    CM — April 19, 2013 7:11 PM “Shot Down”

    It’s such a dick move.

    Ibid.

    I keep saying that your inability to even accept a genuinely held opinion (that is different from your own) is a dick move. It was, it is, and it will continue to be…

    CM — April 21, 2013 3:56 PM “Shot Down”

    Sure looks like repetition to me, but then, as the recipient of your charming “observations”, what could I possibly know about it, eh? In one example, you are essentially calling me a dick outright. And in the last example, you are drawing a completely unwarranted generalized conclusion.

    [Insert knee-jerk denials here]

    I’ve identified a pattern which I initially thought was just a one-off.

    You’ve identified nothing of the sort. Two occurrences do not a pattern make. And I have explained the thought process behind both occurrences. Again, your refusal/inability to accept that is your problem.

    You don’t take words at face value…

    Another knee-jerk denial. Talk about identifying patterns…

    You determine motivation.

    Based on what is written, as I have explained — and no, again, I’m not talking about you, so beating that dead horse again won’t help you.

    You dismiss the concept that people you disagree with could possibly be genuine.

    On the contrary, you simply jump to unwarranted conclusions.

    WTF? In the first example it was me.

    And, as I have explained, this isn’t about you, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

    I’m criticising you for claiming to know that he’s a lying scumbag about his motivation.

    “Lying scumbag”?? Calm down, already. No need to go off the deep end.

    Again, I explained the reasoning. And again, your unwillingness/inability to accept it is simply not my problem.

    And it certainly isn’t as if you’ve never accused me of being dishonest..

    Sorry, I’m not the one being intellectually dishonest for calling you out on your weak and dick move which you repeated in this thread, not long after the last example.

    Yet Another Knee-Jerk Denial. But far be it from me to identify a pattern of any kind…

    Yeah yeah, the same generic response you always give: “I don’t care anyway”.

    Followed up by another unwarranted generalization/misrepresentation. I care enough to provide an explanation of my apparently offensive behavior, but I cannot take it upon myself to get worked up if you simply refuse to accept said explanation. So yeah, at some point I do stop caring about it. I will continue to defend myself against your attacks in this public forum, as long as you keep making them, but I will not ever care whether you personally accept my explanations. Eventually, you will simply get fed up with attacking me, or, if you prefer, you will eventually get fed up with browbeating me in your gallant attempt to enlighten me as to what a “dick” I apparently am.

    You are demonstrating it.

    Oh, of course.

    How was it pretentious for me to mention, in a discussion about climate change knowledge, that I’ve invested/wasted a lot of time looking into climate science? The answer of course is “”not at all”.

    Well, again, this isn’t about you, your gallant efforts to make it so notwithstanding. If you want to keep holding your grudge and beating your dead horse, have at it. Just don’t expect me to participate.

    I know. I said this. I said so earlier in this thread. The family members from Sandy Hook have agreed with this.

    Yes, you are correct, so I must apologize for claiming otherwise.

    Again, please quit insulting people’s intelligence.

    “Again”? This is where I take issue. It was an honest mistake (although I can already hear CM thinking, “‘honest’ mistake my ass”, or words to that effect). As such, it should not be construed as an attempt to “insult people’s intelligence”.

    So, on second thought, keep it up.

    But again, this kind of reaction only underscores the notion that your pretense toward “benefiting” law-abiding citizens is indeed pretense. “On second thought”, by all appearances, you desire for there to be “stricter regulation in the end”, which amounts to further curtailment of our Constitutional rights, further curtailment of our Second Amendment rights. Now, for CM’s benefit, I will proclaim that maybe you do genuinely believe that removing/curtailing our Constitutional freedoms and rights somehow represents a “benefit” to us. The problem is, I simply cannot wrap my head around such a perverse thought, but it does explain much. It again illustrates that narrative where progressives/liberals think themselves so much smarter than the rest of us unwashed masses, and that we must have our Constitutional freedoms curtailed “for our own good”. If that is the case, then I don’t want your “benefit” at all. Quite the contrary. I want as many guns as I can get so I can protect myself against the likes of you.

    So yeah, CM, based on this scenario, I say all progressives/liberals who hold this view pretend to care. Their “caring” may be genuine from their own screwed-up elitist perspective, but it is offensively dangerous and oppressive from mine, and cannot for the life of me accept that they truly have my well-being in mind as they seek to limit my freedoms. And so it will forever appear to be pretense in my eyes, no matter how much that offends you.

    Thumb up 14

  52. salinger

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  53. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 1

  54. Xetrov

    What is the gun rights activists argument against those who contend that the framers of the constitution never envisioned unaccountable and unregulated weapon ownership when they made provisions for a “well regulated militia.”

    What is the gun control activists argument against those who contend that the framers of the constitution never envisioned an accountable or regulated weapon ownership when they made provisions for a “well regulated militia”?

    To examine the history of how the framers viewed the subject in coming up with the second amendment, and then try to claim they were for regulated weapon ownership dictated by the states in the form of militias instead of an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution is asinine at best.

    Thumb up 3

  55. balthazar

    What is the gun rights activists argument against those who contend that the framers of the constitution never envisioned unaccountable and unregulated weapon ownership when they made provisions for a “well regulated militia.”

    Or that this militia was replaced in 1903 by the National Guard via the Dick Act?

    How fucking clueless are you?

    Read the Federalist Papers and other works by the founding fathers, a lot of them actually wanted the populace to be AS WELL ARMED as any military force.

    Thumb up 4

  56. salinger

    How fucking clueless are you?

    What is wrong with you? Someone asks a legitimate question – wants to see what is the foundation for what is probably your point of view and your first impulse is to insult?

    I am ten pages into the link Xetrov gave me (thank you). I may not agree in the end – but I am interested in the thought behind a persons convictions.

    AS WELL ARMED as any military force

    Even so – I will still ask you a question – does this mean you believe I should be allowed to own an ICBM if I can afford one?

    Thumb up 2

  57. Thrill

    Even so – I will still ask you a question – does this mean you believe I should be allowed to own an ICBM if I can afford one?

    Theoretically, sure. Remember that the early US republic used private warships carrying Letters of Marque to fight the War of 1812. And warships were the strategic military assets of their day as ICBMs are now.

    Thumb up 4

  58. Xetrov

    Even so – I will still ask you a question – does this mean you believe I should be allowed to own an ICBM if I can afford one?

    This is in line with my views on that subject, and answers it more completely than I can.

    Thumb up 1

  59. Mississippi Yankee

    You know what, the sad fact for you is that the majority of Americans don’t care. The majority of American don’t care whether people are allowed to conceal carry. The majority wouldn’t care if concealed carry was made illegal. And the tactics being used by the folks who do care aren’t winning them any friends. In fact I’d bet the majority of Americans would think it is a pretty sensible idea to have a list of the folks who might be carrying a concealed weapon.

    sally,
    I attempted to engage you in frank and honest discussion concerning the grave UN-constitutional acts be the State of Missouri, the SSI and the ATF. And your response was, and I’m paraphrasing here, was to say;

    ‘I salinger with what I claim is a majority of true Americans, wipe our collective asses on your moldy parchment. And I further bet that the said majority should demand total gun registration…yesterday’

    sal honey. may I be the first to congratulate you for ascension to King (or Queen) of the Cunt People.. My sworn enemy.

    And may my last words to you, and your cunt minions, be ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ.

    Thumb up 3

  60. salinger

    sally…

    Nonetheless, (condescending paraphrasing aside) what I wrote is true. Instead of ridiculing you might take a page from xetrov’s book and actually link to something that presents your case Intelligently. Even though I might not agree with the conclusion – both links were food for thought.

    Thumb up 3

  61. Xetrov

    King (or Queen) of the Cunt People.. My sworn enemy.

    Sworn enemy of the “Cunt People”? I’ve heard of militant anti-men dyke’s before, but never militant anti-women gay guys. You’re the first. ;-)

    Thumb up 1

  62. Mississippi Yankee

    Xetrox,
    Do you kiss your mother with that dirty mouth :-)
    Where I’m originally from, Massachusetts, the epithet “cunt” has no gender.
    And yes it is most derogative in nature. Oldly enough Mook and Gink were not something you wanted to be called either.Perhaps some NE folks can verify my tale.
    Fortunately the Mook here is not of that class.

    ep·i·thet
    [ éppi thèt ]

    insult: an abusive insulting word or phrase
    descriptive word added to name: a descriptive word or phrase added to or substituted for the name of somebody or something, highlighting a feature or quality

    King/Queen of the Cunt People seem quite appropriate in his/her case.

    Thumb up 1

  63. Mississippi Yankee

    Nonetheless, (condescending paraphrasing aside) what I wrote is true. Instead of ridiculing you might take a page from xetrov’s book and actually link to something that presents your case Intelligently. Even though I might not agree with the conclusion –

    Queen Sally I
    Here is a requested link that puts an end to your “majority” lie. From the perpetrator himself.

    Thumb up 3

  64. salinger

    Queen Sally I

    The link was funny (I thought the Hitler meme had been somehow removed from the universe by the filmmakers) – but please, stop messing with my name. You guys know that Salinger is my real name – it is not some handle I hide behind. It’s immature and does tic me off when folks do it. I’ve asked several times nicely – I can only assume the folks who continue to use my family name as a joke are not aware of the request – because I wouldn’t want to have to take everything they post as containing the same level of immaturity.

    Thumb up 3

  65. Iconoclast

    You haven’t just been drawing conclusions, you’ve been telling people they are “pretending”. Unequivocally. You are making definitive claims about motivation based on your conclusions.

    Yes, and…?

    If you can refute my conclusion, have at it (and again, I’m talking about the current event, not you and your event — I can concede that I was out of line to accuse you of pretending to look into the issue, but as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on whether you actually understand the science. Also, bear in mind that the overarching issue in both scenarios is the looming specter of having my rights and freedoms taken away, which should be the overriding concern for anyone involved). Until then, I have every right to make statements based on conclusions, which are themselves based on what is written here.

    No matter how much it offends you, no matter how obsessed you are over it, no matter how many times you “call me out” on it or say it’s a “dick move” on my part. It’s highly unlikely that your off-the-rails obsession will make me change my behavior in any way, but you are obviously free to pretend that your continued bellyaching will make a difference…

    We were. Until you exhibited the same behaviour again.

    So when I accuse people of pretense in the future, we can look forward to your dragging us back to your personal scenario yet again? While denying that any dragging is going on? Good to know.

    I don’t “hold a grudge”, that’s not my style. I’m forever an optimist when it comes to online communications. As mentioned above, I’m not “beating a dead horse” either – that was simply the other example of you doing the same thing.

    Denials noted and dismissed.

    No, the issue was that you made a definitive claim that I pretended to have spent time looking into the science. What made it even more interesting (and what provides the required context behind what you have quoted) is that I spent time attempting to provide a decent response to your fundamental question, and you simply responded with your dick comment (because of weariness apparently).

    If you want to rehash this, fine by me. The “fundamental question” I asked is what possible incentive do I have to accept AGW when I see it as a threat to my freedoms, and you responded with your personal story, which I didn’t ask for, and which didn’t answer my question. Your personal story is well and good, but it doesn’t provide me with any incentive whatsoever, which is what I asked for. You even claimed that you absolutely could not answer that question on my behalf, which tells me that you are not the least bit interested in even making the attempt to see things from my perspective. No, it’s all about you and your perspective. That is the point.

    When I see an anecdotal story about a liberal researching AGW, and finding the conclusions that conveniently fit the liberal do-gooder, take-away-my-freedoms-for-my-own-good (or for the more nefarious “greater good”) narrative, that really doesn’t give me incentive to buy into it at all. Just the opposite.

    How are my denials in any way “knee-jerk”?

    By all measures, they appear to be automatic, almost involuntary responses. They are utterly predictable.

    It seems you have a tactic of deciding that the person you disagree with is just pretending (pretending to have undertaken research, only pretending to be concerned by gun deaths).

    I have already recanted the former example. As for the latter, my accusation was in regard to being concerned about “benefit”, and the implication that more restrictive gun laws “benefit” me, or society at large, so yes, ultimately, this is “only pretending to be concerned by gun deaths”, especially when the admission is made that the legislation under discussion would not have prevented Sandy Hook, but Sandy Hook victims were used as props anyway, and especially when it comes to light that “stricter regulation” is what is truly desired, which translates into more curtailment of Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties. IOW, it’s all about not letting a crisis go to waste in the pursuit of the liberal agenda.

    Person A: I have looked into this [and I understand it, apparently better than you do]
    Person B: You have not, [You may have looked into it, but] you’re pretending [to truly understand it]

    Person A: You know, sometimes folks actually do things for the benefit of others.
    Person B: You’re pretending to care.

    Face value my arse.

    I have corrected the first example to be a more accurate reflection of reality, now that I have recanted on the “looked into it” part. AS far as the second example goes, I have been completely exonerated, whether you care to admit it or not.

    I’m not the one going around telling people they’re pretending.

    No, you’re the one obsessing over it.

    It’s about you and your dick tactic.

    And what about me and my “dick tactic”, exactly? How long are you going to continue whining about it?

    Sorry but you can’t set out a logical argument which leads to that natural conclusion but then act all surprised and deny it. You’ve determined, via your logical argument, that his motivation isn’t about doing things for the benefit of others. Which means he’s lying and exploiting tragedy and pain to achieve a political aim. I.e. a lying scumbag. Nothing “deep end” about that, following your logical argument.

    No, you can certainly make the argument that pretense == lying, but “scumbag” is gratuitous invective, which I generally make every attempt to avoid (although I do admittedly slip up on occasion by calling someone a twit or turd, if only indirectly and passively). No, “scumbag” is completely on you, even if you can make the case that the only possible “logical conclusion” to pretense is deliberately misleading falsehood. As for me, I take pretense to include the possibility that one is merely fooling oneself, even if you now proceed to tell me that I am “not allowed” to do so.

    I assume the families of the shooting victims…

    Now there is a typically liberal dick move, dragging in the shooting victims as some kind of shield for your position, or in an attempt to demonize your opponent. Nice.

    Surely you can see how it comes across as extreme arrogance that simply because you cannot conceive of or understand a position, it must therefore naturally be fraudulent or based on lies?

    Well, again, you seem to utterly ignore the overarching concern, which is the curtailment of Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms. When my freedom is at stake, I don’t give a damn how ‘arrogant” I appear. And the fact that you seem to be utterly ignoring that issue in your attempt to label me as “arrogant” is very telling.

    Thumb up 11

  66. Mississippi Yankee

    because I wouldn’t want to have to take everything they post as containing the same level of immaturity.

    bwaaaahaahaaaa

    I may be the oldest one here but I’m pretty sure I’m the least mature. C’mon do you read anything I write? But I’ll make a concession;

    ♫You can call me Miss
    or you can call me Pi
    or you can call me Yank or you can call me Kee

    but ya don’t gots to call me Mr. Johnson♪

    Thumb up 0

  67. CM

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Thumb up 0

  68. Iconoclast

    So I’m still only pretending to understand it.

    Until I see a reason to believe otherwise…

    I don’t accept your argument that your freedoms being taken away trumps, or excuses, your behaviour.

    Not at all surprising, but your lack of acceptance is inconsequential.

    (Yes, I know you don’t care what I do or don’t accept, so don’t bother).

    Yet you still bother to tell me anyway…

    Sure, and I have every right to point out when [I personally think] you are acting like a dick.

    Fixed it for you. You have an annoying habit of pretending that your personal opinions are objective facts, but cheer up — you aren’t alone. I run into that with appalling regularity.

    So anytime you bring up an additional example of anything, I can accuse you of an “off-the-rails obsession” and “dragging us” to that example.

    You can do anything you want, no matter how irrational, like move goal posts (as you have just now done). If I drag us back to an issue that was previously resolved just to whine about it, then yes, you can consider that a legitimate parallel. Until then, however, you can go pound sand if you truly want to pretend that “an additional example of anything” qualifies.

    Inability to back-up accusation noted.

    There is no need to “back up” that which is demonstrated. Furthermore, lack of necessity and lack of ability are two different things. The former applies. The latter doesn’t.

    The fundamental answer to that would be: because that’s what the science tells us and there is little if any reason to think it’s not correct.

    When liberty is at stake, there is plenty of reason to question it. And having a liberal tell me, “because the science sez so, that’s why” is disincentive, especially when I keep encountering scientists who agree with my view. But you (conveniently) dismiss that as “blog science”, and claim that “real science” agrees with your view. Convenient.

    Never said it was. Ever. Never even implied it.

    You demonstrated it.

    No, you just re-worked it so that I’m pretending about something else

    You need to go back and re-read everything, evidently.

    Why would I admit anything that is patently untrue?

    You shouldn’t, and I’m not asking you to. That I have been exonerated is quite true, whether you care to admit it or not, however, and I am content to keep repeating it ad infinitum, if need be.

    It was a dick move, and always will be.

    Correction: In your opinion, it was a dick move, and always will be. Just because you have personal problems with it, it doesn’t mean your opinions are objective truth, but again, it’s a pattern I keep encountering, people presenting their personal opinions as objective facts.

    Stop responding and the discussion will be over.

    Right. Then it would become a monologue. And, as this discussion clearly shows, as you have clearly indicated, all I need do is commit this “offense” in the future and we’ll be right back here again, with requisite denials.

    It’s not usual practice to make up your own definitions…

    Non sequitur.

    I cannot find a definition of ‘pretense’ which doesn’t include an intention to misrepresent.

    So? That doesn’t preclude the possibility of “intending to misrepresent” to oneself (i.e., fool oneself), so clearly, there was no need on my part to “make up [my] own definition”. That’s why your implied assertion that I did so is a non sequitur.

    But I guess I could just be pretending to look it up…

    Or pretending to comprehend the definitions you encounter…

    It’s not relevant.

    Freedom and liberty are not relevant? That tells me everything I need to know.

    Thumb up 5

  69. CM

    Nothing new or remotely convincing there.

    But you (conveniently) dismiss that as “blog science”, and claim that “real science” agrees with your view. Convenient.

    Where did I do that?

    Then it would become a monologue. And, as this discussion clearly shows, as you have clearly indicated, all I need do is commit this “offense” in the future and we’ll be right back here again, with requisite denials.

    Don’t deny it then. Acknowledge your issue and start dealing with it.

    Freedom and liberty are not relevant? That tells me everything I need to know.

    Wow, nicely twisted in order to form what I assume is meant to be a devastating conclusion. LOL.

    Thumb up 0

  70. Iconoclast

    Acknowledge your issue and start dealing with it.

    Pretending to be a psychoanalyst now, are you? Perhaps you should deal with your own issues before worrying about issues you imagine others may have…

    Thumb up 6