Face some blowback
One month after the deadliest shooting by one individual in U.S. history, two Virginia gun shop owners held a raffle to give away free guns.
“Guns in the hands of decent law-abiding citizens is a good thing,” one of the shop owners said. “In my opinion, you can’t have too many of those kinds of guns.”
But two guns in the hands of a mentally disturbed student, who had been law-abiding, were too much for the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings.
Outside the event, photos of the victims were held up next to signs calling for more gun control.
I sure am glad we live in a comic book universe where people can be delineated into “good” and “bad” so easily. Oh wai
“In my opinion, you can’t have too many of those kinds of guns.”
I’m always shocked by this kind of statement. Is it really the goal of some gun rights advocates for EVERY SINGLE PERSON TO BE ARMED AT ALL TIMES? Do they realize how many bar arguments, rude driving incidents, political debates, and perceived slights would instantly become fights to the death?
And what about the fear factor this would cause to society? I would never start a conversation with anybody, ever. What a horrible world these people want to live in.
A right is a right only when it is exercised.
Media Glutton: You ask, “Is it really the goal of some gun rights advocates for every single person to be armed at all times?” [I did you a favor and removed the caps]
Isn’t it true that there are “anti – gun nuts” who wish that every single person was unarmed at all times?
Wouldn’t that mean that only policemen, criminals, and the occasional mentally ill person would be armed?
AND
Wouldn’t it also be unconstitutional?
WELL. REGULATED. MILLITIA.
Not GIVE A GUN TO EVERYONE WHO WANTS ONE.
Whoa, whoa, slow down, ya goof balls. I’m pro-Second Amendment, but I’m just arguing against the concept that everybody should have guns at all times, like the guy quoted above.
And, yes, Lysander, I think the “anti-gun nuts” who think nobody should have guns are wrong, too. But everyone having guns is equally dumb, wouldn’t you agree?
Media Glutton: I don’t know of too many people who should have a gun, but it is hard to determine who shouldn’t.
Of course, minors.
People who have committed crimes with weapons of any kind — yes.
Mentally ill people with histories of violence — yes.
Developmentally disabled people who clearly exhibit poor judgment — yes.
Who else?
Republicans?
Democrats?
Nimrod Gently: The “well regulated militia” argument is dead. Personal ownership is no longer subject to debate. And fix the caps key.
The “well regulated militia” argument is dead. Personal ownership is no longer subject to debate.
What a completely asinine comment. Did some lower court take the words out of the 2A? Nope.
The fact is there is no group seeking a ban on all guns. That’s an NRA/Timmy McVeigh fantasy. The issue is–and always has been–whether a community can place whatever restrictions on gun ownership it wishes. And the courts have unanimously upheld that.
Here’s my problem with this scenario:
How exactly does a “free gun giveaway,” essentially a move done out of spite, teach the winner of said firearms that what they’ve received is a deadly and powerful thing? If you grant it the same value as the plastic knicknack you can get in the bottom of a cereal box, then of course people will continue to treat them as toys.
I propose that everybody who buys a gun also has to buy some kind of comprehensive firearms training and education.
Boo-hoo, say the gun nuts, that makes it so hard to arm myself.
It SHOULD be hard, don’t you think?
1) Guns don’t kill people randomly, all by themselves. They take a person to work.
2) “An armed society is a polite society.”
3) Guns, seat belts, helmet laws… at what point do you people decide against collective punishment and just single out those who violate the rights of others? Why do you insist on stripping the rights of all people just because a small percentage act badly? Wouldn’t it be “fairer” to simply punish the bad ones more severely, and leave the well-behaving ones alone?
J.
Great. Jadegold gets a weekend furlough and decides to stink up the joint in the place of his moronic counterpart Frameone. Phew.
While there are no groups seeking a ban on all guns (Jadey tries to be slick like this a lot. Must be the booze), there are a number of groups that do support a complete ban on handgun ownership by anybody other than law enforcement officials.
As for the Va Tech tragedy, the issue wasn’t the availability of guns, but the failure of the state to see to it that mentally ill people were flagged in the NICS database. It is not something any gun rights groups are opposed to, so it’s not something that people can blame on bogeyman number 1, the NRA.
“An armed society is a polite society.”
That would make Baghdad the most polite city in the world.
How’s that working out?
Did some lower court take the words out of the 2A? Nope.
Actually, a federal court pretty much did just that in striking down Washington D.C.’s gun ban. You can expect the Four Stooges on the SCOTUS to follow suit.
Repack, I’d hardly consider Baghdad a fully functional society right about now. Even there, though, the ones getting killed are most often not armed.
On the flip side, we have had nearly absolute handgun bans in Boston, Washington, and the Va Tech campus. How’s that working out for you?
Laws tend to affect those people inclined to obey them. In the case of gun laws, the goal might be a disarmed society, but the end result is most often a disarmed populace — and an armed criminal class, who tend to ignore laws anyway.
Are you, by chance, familiar with the phrase “wolf in the fold?”
J.
I see the two Jays are out.
First, our favorite chickenhawk, Jay C. claims “the state” was reponsible for VA Tech. In reality, the NRA/Timmy McVeigh has consistently opposed *any* screening of gun applicants for physical or mental disability. The NRA has even supported blind people getting guns. Further, the NRA has opposed gun applicants being screened for having basic safety qualifications.
The other Jay–a proponent of intelligent design–claims unarmed folks are being killed in Baghdad. This, of course, is nonsense propagated by a keyboard warrior. Iraq, even during Saddam’s reign, was a more heavily armed society than the US.
Is the idea of an armed society being safer rooted in any actual research, or just the fantasies of gun nuts?
Seriously, I would like to know. My recollection is that the last fully armed American society was the Old West–not known for its docile, polite manner free of gun homicides.
Spider, “your recollection” or the myths?
I’ve seen several accounts that show that the number of shootouts, murders, and the like were pretty damned scarce. But that doesn’t make good movies…
J.
Jade, I usually ignore your BS, but this time you’re making up stuff. I have never — NEVER — put forth anything advocating for “intelligent design.” The closest I’ve ever come was saying that it is not incompatible with evolution and the historical record.
Do you have a special folder of “made-up shit to fling,” or do you fabulize on the fly?
J.
Come now, Jay ID Tea. Your site has routinely lauded intelligent design.
As to your “I’ve seen several accounts” nonsense–again, this is just BS. The fact is guns were often banned in Old West towns like Abilene and Dodge City. In fact, perhaps the most famous gunfight of the Old West–the shootout at the OK Corral–was precipitated when some rusytlers decided they’d ignore Tombstone, AZ’s law against the carrying of guns.
Come now, Jay ID Tea. Your site has routinely lauded intelligent design.
As to your “I’ve seen several accounts” nonsense–again, this is just BS. The fact is guns were often banned in Old West towns like Abilene and Dodge City. In fact, perhaps the most famous gunfight of the Old West–the shootout at the OK Corral–was precipitated when some rusytlers decided they’d ignore Tombstone, AZ’s law against the carrying of guns.
Nice walkback, Jade. From saying I’ve said things to “on your blog,” meaning that I must agree in utter lockstep with what every other author on Wizbang says — never mind that 1) I don’t own it and B) I routinely get excoriated by colleagues and readers alike for doing stuff like supporting gay marriage.
Why do you need to lie so much, Jade? Why do you have to make up stuff to bolster your arguments? Do you have such little faith in your own abilities, as well as in the facts?
Or are you just so lazy that you insist that everyone fit into your nice little peg holes, allowing you to rely on stereotypes and cliches?
Back on subject… I’ll stand by my earlier statement. No one’s bothered to rebut how safe and civil and well-behaved Boston and Washington are, thanks to those safe, sensible, sane, and secure gun control laws.
Compare that with the street crime levels of, say, Jerusalem, where people walk around carrying fully automatic weapons…
J.
In reality, the NRA/Timmy McVeigh has consistently opposed *any* screening of gun applicants for physical or mental disability.
That’s complete and utter bullshit. Prove it.
I won’t hold my breath. First, you’re a liar like no other, so you cannot prove it. You’ll just continue to lie about it.
Second, you’re a drunken stooge.
Now, now, Jay, that was uncalled for.
It’s flagrantly obvious that Jade is a stooge, but I don’t recall any obvious signs of alcoholism.
Let the other side make up stuff. That seems to be their strong point.
J.
I’d hardly consider Baghdad a fully functional society right about now.
Even though they are armed to the teeth. Apparently an armed society ISN’T a polite society then. Or are there exceptions to your “rule?”
Even there, though, the ones getting killed are most often not armed.
I was under the mpression that our soldies and Marines went everywhere fully armed. Are you saying they don’t?
Compare that with the street crime levels of, say, Jerusalem, where people walk around carrying fully automatic weapons…
I guess that explains why Tokyo is such a violent place. No one has any guns.
Wait.
Repack Rider: I may be wrong, but the Japanese culture is not like any culture in Western Europe.
Repack, are you saying that far more US troops are being killed by the terrorists insurgents than the average civilian Iraqis? ‘Cuz that’s not the info I keep stumbling across…
And I think that the sociological profile of Washington would be a bit closer to Jerusalem’s than the incredibly homogeneous culture of Tokyo…
J.
No walkback, JayIDTea. your site supported ID. I can understand how touchy you are on this issue.
No one’s bothered to rebut how safe and civil and well-behaved Boston and Washington are, thanks to those safe, sensible, sane, and secure gun control laws.
Of course, cities where gun laws are lax are paragons of civility like Houston, New Orleans, Miami.
Compare that with the street crime levels of, say, Jerusalem, where people walk around carrying fully automatic weapons…
Those people are not ordinary citizens, JayIDTea. They are soldiers. They have been screened and trained and carry weapons as part of their national duty. BTW, Israel has pretty strict gun control laws. Israel has incredibly strict gun control laws. Try to buy a handgun, and you’ll face perhaps a 3-month waiting period, police, medical and psychological checks and hard-to-win approval from the Interior Ministry.
Prospective gun owners must also pass a gun competence test. A record of substance abuse or domestic violence means automatic
disqualification.
That’s complete and utter bullshit. Prove it
The NRA has opposed any mental health screenings for prospective gun purchases or CCW applicants. Recently, the NRA has been helping a blind man get his CCW license in MN (he has one from ND). This isn’t someone who is legally blind (isn’t that your excuse, Jay?) but is completely lights out blind.
I realize you apparently have problems with plain English, jade, but let me spell it out for you: you did NOT say “who blogs at a site that has supported intelligent design,” but said I am a proponent of it.
As a oft-proclaimed agnostic, I see a couple of compatibility issues with ID and angnosticism.
So, Jade, if I’m a “proponent” of it, can you point to a single instance where I have spoken in favor of it? Where I have expressed anything resembling an endorsement of it? Or do you have to walkback from your original words and simply say that I associate with at least one person who supports it?
I have to admit, I didn’t make the connection between your nickname for me and Intelligent Design. I just took the “Jay ID Tea” as a cutesy way of calling me an idiot, because until about a week ago, I’d never even discussed the topic.
Somehow, though, my failing to start an argument with one of my co-bloggers on a topic I don’t care that much about has been transmogrified into a ringing endorsement of that position.
Wow. I knew you were dense, but to have it spelled out so clearly… it’s a real eye-opener.
J.
And as far as the armed/unarmed victims in Baghdad argument, Jade, just compare the civilian death count vs. US forces KIA. Use whatever source you like for the Iraqi civilians — I’ve seen estimates that run as high as 220-to-1 for Iraqis killed vs. Americans. THAT is the basis for my saying that the terrorists are killing more civilians than American troops.
J.
The NRA has opposed any mental health screenings for prospective gun purchases or CCW applicants.
And I told you to prove it. Your word is worth less than a squirt of piss.
Recently, the NRA has been helping a blind man get his CCW license in MN (he has one from ND).
So what? What does this have to do with your false assertion that the NRA is opposed to mental health screenings?
Put down the booze and stop lying already. The weekend is just about over. Try telling the truth before you have to go back inside.
“Repack, I’d hardly consider Baghdad a fully functional society right about now.”
Jay you are priceless. Now a society has to be fully functional before you can arm everybody in order to promote a “polite” society? Brilliant.
Apparently an armed society ISN’T a polite society then. Or are there exceptions to your “rule?”
The 401 freeway in LA?
Straight from Jade:
“The “well regulated militia” argument is dead. Personal ownership is no longer subject to debate.
What a completely asinine comment. Did some lower court take the words out of the 2A? Nope.”
The fact is there is no group seeking a ban on all guns. That’s an NRA/Timmy McVeigh fantasy. The issue is–and always has been–whether a community can place whatever restrictions on gun ownership it wishes. And the courts have unanimously upheld that.”
And
“”The NRA has opposed any mental health screenings for prospective gun purchases or CCW applicants. Recently, the NRA has been helping a blind man get his CCW license in MN (he has one from ND). This isn’t someone who is legally blind (isn’t that your excuse, Jay?) but is completely lights out blind.”
Jade, you are a moron of the highest order. You wanna know why?
Your argument on the former rests upon your flawed logic about the meaning of the word “regulate(d)” as it’s a contextual issue. If you need clarification on that, get an education. There are books that I could recommend to you, but I’m thinking that it’s a waste, as you already have your mind made up. The continuation of the swipe that you are trying to make is that because the courts have handed down dicta, by, as you say, “unanimously” upholding local laws against gun ownership is hogwash, and there is a high profile case that no fewer that two federal courts have ruled on. It’s the Parker case, and I suggest you read the decision paper. The case is in the process of being reviewed by the SC, but by almost all estimations, they will not choose to hear it. They will simply let the lower court’s decisions stand. YOU LOSE.
The second part on this whole thing, about the NRA opposing, “any mental health screenings for prospective gun purchases,” is accurate, and I’ll tell you why it’s important for the likes of you to NEVER be able to get your filthy mitts on something like that put on the books. It’s onerous, and YOU KNOW IT. It would be far too easy to turn away absolutely everyone who wanted to buy one. Simply raise the requirements to an unacceptable level and be done with it all.
And that is exactly what YOU would do. And yes, I am calling YOU out on it.
What I’d really prefer to do is get your ass in the ring, but that, I’m sure, could be misconstrued as being “threatening” or some other non-sense.
You haven’t a leg to stand on in this fight and you continually grasp at the faintest of arguments that simply fit some small part of your argument. They have all been proven to be erroneous, but you can’t accept that, so you simply change the rules, as all leftist do.
You want everyone’s guns rounded up in a massive, country-wide sweep, but you are too much of a coward to admit it.
You want them, come and take them!
iltc zgfdnp unaysqg arity kvlxgz tqboxsvz bzhx
scoz islzeyfn vywm crsd geqapxb luygopnrx yqpvazsw http://www.tvjcrqmn.akuwq.com