We've been reading all capped blog posts from militants like Gun Free Zone similar to the one he posted yesterday...
THEY CANNOT LONGER SAY THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A “CONVERSATION ABOUT GUNS” AND “WE DON’T WANT TO BAN YOUR GUNS.”We've been listening to their Shepherd, Wayne LaPierre, whip their paranoia and their fear into a frenzy...
Basically and as we knew all along, they were lying. We know this, the Opposition knows it too since they are the liars, but now we can point out to anybody undecided or just seeking information that anything coming from their camp must be treated with the same confidence as “The check is in the mail” and “I promise I call you in the morning.”
And we've seen the expected result...
The sad paradox to reinvigorated public support for gun control is that demand for guns spiked in December after the Newtown massacre. According to the FBI, there were 2.8 million background checks in December, 49 percent more than the last year, beating the previous month’s record high.You see how that works? "Obama is coming for your guns!!!" "They were lying!!" "The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Wash, rinse, repeat for 4 long years to your World of Gun Worshipers. The same World where Obama is a Muslim and Fox is Fair and Balanced and Michele Bachmann is Woman of the Year. The same World where anti-intellectualism is king. The same World that turns a blind eye to what is actually happening to threaten the 2nd Amendment...which is nothing.
So now that we have Americans emptying out gun shops and moving toward equipping teachers with firearms, what do you suppose this same World's message is? Listen to this one...
It’s worrisome that the media attempts to force gun restrictions may be encouraging people to purchase guns who otherwise might not do so.It's the Librul Media's fault, you see, because they're talking too much about restricting gun sales which is causing certain people who may be unfit to carry guns to want a gun because there is talk of restricting guns. If we just stopped talking about gun control, the people who shouldn't own guns wouldn't want one.
There are many Americans who may not legally purchase or possess firearms, depending on the states in which they reside: convicted felons; those convicted of domestic-violence (even misdemeanors); those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital or otherwise adjudicated mentally defective; those who are not lawful residents of the United States. But there are many people who are not legally prohibited from owning guns for whom buying one would still be an unwise decision.
Makes total sense. Just like the only way to keep guns out of schools is to bring more of them in.
This cartoon says something similar...if that is even remotely possible.
I look back in history and am somewhat encouraged that Americans were finally able to neuter Big Tobacco. Their big lobbyists and their political clout and their lies eventually went down in flames. Oh, they're still out there. But they're no longer calling the shots. As it should be.
We can only hope and pray.
.
23 comments:
Let's analyze Alynsk--I mean Rick's post:
1. Portray gun owners as intellectually inferior, check:
"Librul Media" <- intentional misspelling and invocation of rural dialect, check.
"anti-intellectualism is king" <- portray your adversary as uneducated and closed minded, check.
2. Portray gun owners as fringe, radical, and racist, check:
"Kenyan Socialist", "Obama is a Muslim" <- without any evidence of what % of gun owners believe these things, make them look racist, check. Zero relevance to gun control debate anyway, but demonize, demonize, demonize. Nothing demonizes like the race card.
3. Continue dehumanizing gun owners by portraying them as a mob, mindless sheep, cult members:
"their Shepherd, Wayne LaPierre" <- pretty explicit.
"gun nuts wring their hands and fret" <- compare to nervous animals, fleeing the sound of any snapping twig in the woods, incapable of measured intellectual reflection.
4. Deflect and deny that 2 states just introduced new expansive restrictions, and that Obama has explicitly stated his intention to do so:
"what is actually happening to threaten the 2nd Amendment...which is nothing." <- Feinstein (D-CA) proposes classifying millions of firearms already owned by Americans as Class II NFA items, calling for registration, eliminating future transfers, and no mention of waiving the statutory NFA tax of $200 per NFA item. But facts don't matter...deflect and deny.
Conclusion:
Logic and reason have started to prevail in favor of those who argue against recently proposed bans. Progressives like Rick concede this, and are left with nothing but baseless demonizing, a.k.a. hate speech (what else explains playing the Obama race-card?).
Remember, this is the very same Rick who advocated in favor South Florida developing more of a gun-driven vigilante culture in order to deter crime:
http://southfloridadailyblog.blogspot.com/2012/03/waiting-for-clint-eastwood-moment.html (better visit the link now before he deletes it)
And Rick's position was chastised by the supposedly "radical" GunFreeZone blogger as irresponsible and dangerous.
The truth shall set you free.
With all due respect, the Tea Party and gun radicals don't need SFDB to make them look silly. They do a good enough job on their own. You haven't heard them call the President a socialist, Muslim, or Kenyan? Where have you been? Those are their exact words.
So you don't like Rick's presentation, Jewish Marsman, but you avoid discussing the troubling role that the NRA and others have played over the last few years in creating an atmosphere of fear by lying and distorting reality and by using a logic that is unknown to anyone but them.
Feinstein is one politician like Allen West was one politician. Just because one politician thinks something is a good idea doesn't mean it's law. Surely you heard that Illinois Democrats helped put the kabash on more restrictive gun legislation for that state just this week. I think most people want reasonable measures in response to these continued massacres.
Happy New Year, JM! Not quite over that little information-processing disorder yet, I see.
"what is actually happening to threaten the 2nd Amendment...which is nothing." <- Feinstein (D-CA) proposes classifying millions of firearms already owned by Americans as Class II NFA items, calling for registration, eliminating future transfers, and no mention of waiving the statutory NFA tax of $200 per NFA item.
Explain please how Feinstein's proposal threatens the 2nd Amendment. Exactly whose right to possess a firearm is endangered here, when the proposal addresses only specific weapons and procedures?
Dez continues Rick's strategy:
1.Race card, race card, race card:
"call the President a socialist, Muslim, or Kenyan?" <- has nothing to do with firearms, but fits with demonizing strategy. Make people angry so they are less receptive to facts, reason and logic.
2. Continue deflecting and denying:
"NRA ... creating an atmosphere of fear by lying and distorting reality" <- Hopes readers did not hear Obama explicitly say in the 3rd presidential debate that he would renew AWB. NRA is fear-mongering by simply making its members aware, of course.
Squathole:
"Exactly whose right to possess a firearm is endangered here, when the proposal addresses only specific weapons and procedures?"
That is like saying the First Amendment is not implicated when a local government bans photographing or video taping police. After all, you can still photograph flowers can't you? Or that the First Amendment is not implicated by banning anti-Islamic Youtube videos. After all, you can still post videos of puppies, can't you? Or that the the Fourth Amendment is is not implicated when allowing the government to read your web hosted email without a warrant. After all, you can still send snail mail, can't you?
Your question is a fair one, but ignorant of constitutional law.
I think it's certainly relevant to a discussion of how the gun lobby and their surrogates have been playing Americans for dolts by frightening them with images of their foreign-born President with a radical ideology coming for all their guns. It's all part of what this post says and what you're apparently trying hard discuss.
Also, is a person's right to bear arms threatened by the ban on shoulder fired missiles?
1. Dez-"I think it's certainly relevant to a discussion of how the gun lobby and their surrogates have been playing Americans..."
It is entirely irrelevant to the ultimate policy decisions. It is nothing more than negative attitudes and emotions you and others have towards the expansive group of "surrogates" you envision.
2. "Is a person's right to bear arms threatened by the ban on shoulder fired missiles?"
Why not just ask about nuclear weapons? The present debate concerns certain firearms and magazines which millions of Americans already own, and safely use. When you're ready to have a serious discussion let me know.
No, JM, neither I nor my question are ignorant of Constitutional law, but thanks for asking. The 2nd amendment has been determined to affirm the rights of private citizens to own weapons -- a musket if you're an Originalist -- but it is silent on the nature of those weapons. If the state prohibits ownership of hand guns but not automatic weapons, the state is well within Constitutional limits. (Hence, Dez's question, which while shorthand, is perfectly reasonable to those of us not ignorant of Constitutional law and capable of logical reasoning).
Your comparison with the 1st amendment isn't quite as neat, although you've got it partially right. Freedom of expression, as it's usually referred to, has a much wider application. You chip away a piece, you've damaged its core, so there needs to be a damn good reason to do so -- refer to your own strict scrutiny note. Hence despite the 1st's protections, you can't threaten to assassinate the President, no matter how Muslim or socialist he is (and did you notice -- he's Black?), you can't advertise a product you don't have or change the price of the ones you do when the customer asks for it, and you can't yell asshole in a crowded theater no matter how many guns the guy next to you has brought in. Not all speech is free and protected yet the 1st amendment retains its integrity -- why can't this work for the 2nd?
Minus the sarcasm and insults, this is the reasonable discussion that just never makes it to the floor of Congress where it might lead to something productive. But we shouldn't be surprised that invertebrates lack courage, even if they can pull triggers.
Interesting discussion here.
Jewish Marksman, on cue, arrives to parse my words and complain about how I shouldn't repeat the terrible things that Tea Party members and gun advocates have been saying nonstop for the past four years while making their case that Obama is coming for their guns. Not their magazines. Not their semi-automatics. Not their military-style rifles. Their guns. All of them.
Which is a blatant and bold-faced lie. It's not an all or nothing issue. It's finding a place where this country respects the Constitution but also respects and tries to preserve innocent life like the kids of Sandy Hook.
It's really that simple. The post makes that point and comments on the ridiculous lengths that gun advocates like yourself, JM, go to confuse the issue or avoid talking about it altogether.
Your comments, whether on this post or in previous posts, are prime examples of that.
.
Squat:
"If the state prohibits ownership of hand guns but not automatic weapons, the state is well within Constitutional limits."
I assume you mean the opposite, as that is precisely what Heller said.
Nobody, not even the NRA or the Second Amendment Foundation (the real organization behind Heller, McDonald and Madigan) argues that the 2A is an unlimited right, somehow more expansive than the 1A. Nobody. Those that argue that the "gun lobby" calls for unlimited 2A rights are being utterly and completely dishonest. The legal briefs those organizations have filed are all publicly available.
"the reasonable discussion that just never makes it to the floor of Congress where it might lead to something productive."
Are you truthfully willing to debate whether bans on semi-automatic weapons and magazine capacity are "reasonable," or have you already unshakably made up your mind and resolved to demonize anyone who argues that such bans are not reasonable and will accomplish nothing to make anyone safer?
On cue, Rick (realizing the curtain has been pulled) now tries to pretend that it was he all along who was focused on the real issue. He finally concedes that indeed, "Obama is coming for their ... magazines ... their semi-automatics ...their military-style rifles." It was the "gun nuts" who clouded the issue, you see, by arguing that all guns were in play.
This blog's record reflects that Rick's assertion is nonsense. In post after post, Rick and others *refused* to discuss the merits of banning magazines, semi-automatics or military-style rifles.
For example, last week I posed the following question:
"Why it is necessary to ban semi-automatic rifles (ala Feinstein), but not semi-automatic pistols or all handguns and rifles? Shotguns? Why do non-gun folks think one is more or less deadly than the other? Or why if one is OK, the other isn't? I realize that AR-15s have been the weapon of choice in recent massacres, but why are non-gun types assuming that insane people made the best choices (i.e. the most 'dangerous' weapons) and formulating policy around the choices of the insane? Especially when historically, state and federal laws governing handguns have always been more restrictive than rifles...why the sudden concern about rifles? ... Please re-read and honestly answer my questions above."
To which Rick replied, "No."
http://southfloridadailyblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/our-nra-world-regrettably-continuing.html
Again, the truth shall set you free.
Oh, and let's not forget Squat's famous line:
http://southfloridadailyblog.blogspot.com/2012/12/our-nra-world-regrettably-continuing.html
"Personally, I lack both the expertise and the interest to slice-and-dice the selection of automatic and semi-automatic weapons that need to be the hell off the streets of American cities for the safety and well-being of the population."
And when I try to give a simple explanation, he doesn't care to hear it. So it seems to me he's already decided what "reasonable" means and the matter is not open to debate.
As soon as you feel yourself losing one point, JM, you bring up a new one and inject it into the discussion...or you resort to an old one like you did here.
I refused to go with you then and I'm not going there now. Not because I can't, but because it's an endless circle with you.
I'm still interested in discussing this post (without parsing the language) whenever you get finished with your tangents.
You bailed last time. I wouldn't expect anything else from you this time around.
.
More nonsense from Rick:
"As soon as you feel yourself losing one point, JM, you bring up a new one"
You're fooling nobody. I directly responded to your post. People are not buying guns out of any fear that *all* guns will be banned. They are buying the guns that Feinstein and Obama propose to ban the future manufacture and transfer of, which at this time appear to be semi-automatic rifles for sure, probably semi-automatic pistols, and any magazine holding more than 10 rounds. As it so happens, these weapons were already the most popular weapons in America. AFAIK, there has not been a tremendous rush on other weapons, such as revolvers, pump shotguns, etc. You can go to Feinstein's web site and see her proposal, it is not imaginary.
Let me make it more clear for you. People are not rushing to buy guns because of anything the NRA is telling them. They are rushing to by certain guns because of what OBAMA AND FEINSTEIN are explicitly telling them. I think you know this, and consciously decided to tell your readers a different story, relying on literary devices which, in my opinion, border on hate speech.
When you falsely responded that it was us gun owners who shifted the debate away from proposed AWB2 to the 2A generally, I quoted the past comments verbatim to prove that was not the case, that I have been focused on that issue (AWB2) on this blog from day 1. It is Squat and others who drift off into more primitive discussions of 2A.
I responded to Squat and Dez, who went off topic so I followed them. As Michael Myers used to say on SNL "we chatted amongst ourselves".
They are buying guns, JM, because Wayne LaPierre and others are on the nightly news telling them that Obama is coming for their guns. Listen to the video one more time. It's right there. I don't need to spin it one iota.
You, on the other hand, are doing headstands to say otherwise.
But I'm glad that we made progress in one area. You agree with the National Review that if we just simply stopped talking about gun control that people would stop buying guns.
You oughta send that suggestion to Wayne, JM. He talks a lot about gun control.
And thanks to your comment above, we know exactly why, don't we?
.
And Rick accuses *me* of arguing in circles!
"Wayne LaPierre and others are on the nightly news telling them that Obama is coming for their guns."
Rick, Obama has explicitly stated that is true! Repeatedly! Obama has stated he will use all of the powers of his office to get congress to pass AWB2, which would, under Feinstein's proposal, ban all new production of the most popular firearms and accessories in America! So is your argument that we should keep this secret? LaPierre is a bad guy for simply repeating what Obama says? What does that make Obama?
Rick, stop playing games. Does Obama want Congress to ban production of new semi-automatic rifles and pistols? Yes or no, Rick? And has he said he will do everything in his power to make that happen, Rick? Yes or no, Rick? What about Schumer, Rick? Biden, Rick? Bloomberg, Rick? Emmanuel, Rick?
Rick? Rick?
Or maybe you have an odd definition of "gun?"
Let's be even more specific. Here is Feinstein's outline of the new ban, in her own words from her own site:
http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119
Is it a lie Rick? Am I imagining it Rick? And is it your position that Obama would or would not sign a bill with those provisions if it makes it to his desk, Rick?
Heller says the opposite, JM? This is from Scalia's Opinion:
"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."
You DON'T read that, particularly the last sentence, as "certain weapons may be legally banned"? There goes that unfortunate information processing condition of yours, acting up again.
Hopeless. And yet, instructive. I see variations of this non-discourse everywhere.
As for gun sales, I doubt it's ONLY Feinstein LePierre and Obama -- there's a much larger trend going on here that extends back a decade, as this Forbes columnist examines: http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/08/23/what-the-left-wont-tell-you-about-the-boom-in-u-s-gun-sales/.
Squat: " If the state prohibits ownership of hand guns but not automatic weapons, the state is well within Constitutional limits."
"Heller says the opposite, JM?"
Yes, read what you wrote. Heller said the state could not ban handguns, but could ban machine guns. I think you inadvertently mixed them up, that is all I was pointing out.
"M-16 rifles and the like" may be banned.
This is where you and I are failing to communicate, and we went down this road before. I gave you may interpretation of what "the like" meant. I think "like" means *fully automatic machine guns*. I do not think "the like" refers to semi-automatic rifles, even if those rifles are cosmetically identical to the fully automatic version or use the same ammunition.
You are, by your own explicit words, unwilling to understand the difference between semi-automatic and fully automatic rifles before rendering a view on what Scalia meant. As I said the first time we discussed this, Scalia is a gun guy and knows the difference between an M16 and AR-15, and would have been more specific. To blunt, most "gun nuts" know the difference, and it is not a trivial difference.
So if there is non-discourse here, it is because of your unwillingness to learn.
Oh, I see what you're saying, JM. You're interpreting "coming for your guns" to mean "banning the sale of military-style rifles and high-capacity magazines." "Coming for your guns" means not selling a certain style of gun and certain accessories.
Got it.
So, yeah, it's my bad. I interpret "coming for your guns" to mean, you know, coming for your guns as in, like, confiscating a firearm.
I'm not used to gun advocate lingo.
Does "firing your weapon" actually mean "firing your weapon," JM?
.
Just sounds like more intellectual dishonesty from you, Rick:
1. If gun owners thought "coming for your guns" meant that literally, why would they be buying more, at great expense, if they expected to be forced to turn them in? Wouldn't they be buying *less* guns if they thought that confiscation was a serious short-term threat? People are worried supply will be non-existent, not that pre-legislation possession will necessarily be outlawed. Prices have doubled and tripled on items suspected of being banned from manufacture, but not say, revolvers and pump action shotguns.
2. Unlike you, gun owners have actually read and discuss the Feinstein proposal. Even she specifically allows for grandfathering in existing items, and this has been widely disseminated to gun owners. I know you think all gun owners are in-bred hicks in Appalachia, but most of us have Internet connections and know what is happening in great detail.
As a side note, many politicians, including Feinstein, have explicitly called for confiscations or forced buy-backs. With Heller at our backs, few gun owners take those voices seriously, but we keep our eyes on them.
So the real question, Rick, is why you consistently avoid discussion of the efficacy of Feinstein's proposed ban? Why the constant distractions of portraying gun owners and the NRA as evil, stupid, sheeple, etc.?
Which brings me back to my original comment on your post, namely, that the arguments against the efficacy of an AWB 2.0 are very persuasive.
Is it off topic for me to ask how Bloomberg's ban on "high capacity" soda containers has worked to reduce childhood obesity?
I say:
"As soon as you feel yourself losing one point, JM, you bring up a new one and inject it into the discussion...or you resort to an old one like you did here."
You say:
"Is it off topic for me to ask how Bloomberg's ban on "high capacity" soda containers has worked to reduce childhood obesity? "
Thank you, JM.
.
The "coming for your guns" siren continues at Gun Free Zone this morning, by the way, and your pal laments that he hopes that it doesn't come to civil war but that some people need to be reminded and "taught a lesson."
It seems like you're the only reasonable gun nut out there, JM. I'm sure you'll head right overand tell him to tone it down because the Obama Administration isn't literally coming for their guns.
Right?
.
Post a Comment
Spam, vulgar language, trolling and off-topic comments are not tolerated at SFDB and your comment will be removed if it meets this criteria.