Nobody not in the military needs a high capacity rapid-firing weapon of any sort for any reason.

Period.

Let's get the Initiative written and circulated completely by volunteers.

Wow...a "real liberal" who's a forced-birther...

...and a motherfucking moron to boot!

Nice.

@97

Licensing and training will do NOTHING to reduce either gun related crimes or violent crimes. Safety's that only operate when used by the owner are not realistic.

Are you guys really trying to make a difference or just piss off the right-wing gun owners? Bans do nothing and you won't be successful. If you guys really want to do something that will make a real difference, think of something that will keep shit-stains like this from getting their hands on a gun:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/T…

Whatever you are proposing, if it would not prevent crimes like this you are only making noise. Keep in mind there are MILLIONS of guns already in circulation. Register them you say? Bullshit. Crimes will be committed with unregistered guns that were traded on the black market. Confiscate them? Good luck, that will drive every fringe group to declare war. Oklahoma city bombing anyone?

Why don't we make being in a gang illegal? If you crack down on gangs you will stop a lot of the gun violence. Let them duke it out and shank each other in prison riots and not the streets and neighborhoods we live in. Legalize more drugs, the drug trade drives most gun violence. I have no problem voting for and funding these things as they will actually work and tax revenue from drug sales can fund the gang prisons we'll need.

@92,
I use the term "True liberal", because that is what I am. The revolutionary cabel that wrote the Federalist Papers and the subsequent Constitution were the most radical liberals then extent. By the standards of political conduct of most of the world's states that cabel remains very radical and very liberal. About 100 years ago, the term liberal was high jacked by statists and fascists. I see the issue of political labels as a matter of real function as opposed to the massive obfuscation being practiced. Simply, there are two actual political categories. Those who wish to control others (commonly referred to as fascists, socialists, communists, royalists, social democrats, nazis, et. al), and those who have no such wish (liberals). Those radical liberals of the revolution recognized that the state required restraint, said restraint enforced by a well armed militia (the people). That requirement is the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

Hey @104...

Why don't you go back to your circle jerk on Red State.

Velvetbabe,

you are missing the point. Your argument that guns must be banned because they kill children, while you are openly supporting abortion makes you a hypocrite. I am FOR abortion. Abortion lowers violent crime and should be easy to obtain regardless of circumstance. Banning guns does not. It never has and it never will.

You should change your rhetoric or you will never be successful. You can be against guns, but you should really be against violent crimes. Violent crimes are the real problem. If you take away guns, even all of them, murders, rapes, robberies all of it GOES UP.

Here's one for you, I would actually use my gun to protect an abortion clinic and their employees from right wing nut jobs wanting to harm them. I bet your head just fucking exploded.

"Those radical liberals of the revolution recognized that the state required restraint, said restraint enforced by a well armed militia (the people). That requirement is the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment." @105

That is complete and total bullshit, you know.

You're just a little wing-nut, sonny. There isn't a "liberal" bone in your body.

@100;
I learned, decades ago, that if a women chooses to become pregnent, there ain't squat, short of total abstention, the man can do about it. As for a clip job, yup, long ago. The flip side is that children are the most basic reason for living, and if necessary, dying. I wonder how many "men" you know, who really understand that? It can get better, as grandchildren are all that.
My reference to irresponsibility refers to the use of abortion to deal with the "mistakes" of recreational sex. The use of abortion in such cases is murder, of children.

@109...

You're missing your "MRA" meeting.

@109...

There's am MRA meeting somewhere you're late for...better get going!

@108. My statement is bullshit... how? Substantiate, if you can. If by liberal, you are referring to the statist policies of the fascist pigs who now run the government,and the ignorant jackwagons that sieg heil said statists, then yes, I do not qualify as a "liberal". As I stated previously, those same fascists highjacked the word liberal and turned it into a hypocritical affirmation of their need to be in control. I refer you to the Federalist Papers. These are documents generated by the revolutionary cabel during the debate period preceding the adoption of the Constitution. These documents are frequently used by SCOTUS to determine the meaning and intent of the writers of the Constitution. That so many are ignorant of the existence, much less the content, of the Federalist Papers, speaks volumes about the dumbing down of "public education".

FWIIW, I seriously doubt I am your "sonny", boy.

@99
"that wasn't addressed to you."

And you think that matters?
You have demonstrated that you are incapable of understanding basic English and that you get verbally abusive in that situation.
I have already explained it in this thread and you STILL do not understand it.

"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"

@ 113, yes, it does matter. It wasn't your battle.

But it is interesting. Apparently, as long as it's done by someone on your side of a debate, deliberate misuse and misattribution of another's position, as that shit stain motherfucker did, is acceptable, but calling it out for what it is, isn't. Because team is more important than honesty, I'm guessing.

Well, like I said, it was your credibility on the line, and you chose to flush it all away. That can only be because you, too, are not interested in finding any honest solutions to gun violence in the United States. Can't say I'm surprised; you're unwillingness to deal with the issue of suicide by gun as a subset of overall gun violence was a strong clue to your base dishonesty. But I'm glad that it's confirmed.

You're a liar, and no one, not even other pro-gun folk here, should listen to you or take you seriously. Most probably will, though. But that's on them and nobody else.

@114
"yes, it does matter. It wasn't your battle."

Your behavior is the issue.

"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"

You become verbally abusive when someone tries to explain something to you that you do not want to be correct.

"Well, like I said, it was your credibility on the line, and you chose to flush it all away."

As I have said before, I have already answered that but you do not like the answer so you will ignore it.

"You're a liar, and no one, not even other pro-gun folk here, should listen to you or take you seriously."

Nice. You are verbally abusive exactly as you were before.
Meanwhile, you cannot point out any lie that I have posted.

Make It So.

Stuff it in the Gun Lobby's face.

@ 105, I'm sorry to inform you that the aspects of "liberal" that are constant are not the ones to which you cling. Liberals are always looking to progress and expand the rights of humans, and to make the world a freer and safer place. That's what defines today's liberals, who have nothing in common with the groups you list.

For example, what belies your claim to that mantle is your position on abortion. There is nothing about the anti-abortion position that is free of the desire to control others, specifically women. Nothing. If you believe that there are only two types of people, it is you who belongs on the same side as the fascists, not liberals.

Conservatives (who are always anti-liberal) have a constant, as well - a desire to live in the past, keep things static, and expand freedom to no one who isn't already enjoying it. That's how it's possible for a conservative in 2013 to have something in common with a 19th century liberal. But identifying with one from the deep past, and the positions he held, doesn't make one a liberal today, certainly not a "true" one.

Anyway, given your history of commenting SOLELY on gun control threads, I stand by my charge that you're a shill for the pro-gun lobby. It's possible that you're acting on your own, but not likely.

@ 115, are dishonest people not liars?

This thread is a complete shitshow.

@112...

Do your own fucking research. MISTER Right Wing Nut Job.

You want to go to Northgate Mall wearing you dick outside your clothes. I just want to buy a shirt. I don't want to wonder why some fuck is flashing an AR-15.

So "god" kills more babies than women do...where's the outrage?

@118
Thanks!
I needed a check mark in Tautological tautologies!

Now I have:
Gun nuts!
Assault weapons!
Thee Olde Seconde Amendmente!
and Tautological tautologies!

And you still haven't shown any post where I have lied.

@ 121, you lied every time you denied that self-inflicted gunshots count as gun violence. And you lied every time you said your little copy-and-paste was a valid answer. AND you're going to lie when you say that I "just don't like the answer." Well, not entirely - I DON'T like the answer, but because it's a slippery misdirect and not an honest response. It's a lie when you imply that my reason is that I have no answer for it.

How's that?

@89 Sorry, was just messing with you. That thing would be banned due to being stupid rather than dangerous.

@122
"you lied every time you denied that self-inflicted gunshots count as gun violence."

Except that I never said that.
Hmmmm.
Quiet the dilemma for you there.
You want copy-paste then I can deliver copy-paste!
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides. Limiting the magazine capacity, banning bayonet lugs, requiring background checks and so forth would do nothing. Even a one bullet per barrel law would have no effect. So let's focus on laws that DO have an effect on reducing incidents that CAN be reduced through those laws.

"And you lied every time you said your little copy-and-paste was a valid answer."

You might not like it but it is a valid answer.

"It's a lie when you imply that my reason is that I have no answer for it."

Seeing as how you mis-characterized my response I'll stick to my previous statements.

Ooh, look at that.
I have links and direct quotes and you have ... your opinions.

@ 125, and now you're lying again.

But what does any of this have to do with the original question I posed to you? Would you answer it honestly if it came from someone you didn't have a grudge against?

Actually let me rephrase that, make it more neutral.

Would you answer it honestly if it came from someone you didn't have a poor opinion of? (And if you don't have a poor opinion of me, then why won't you answer it?)

@76: yes, that's what i was pointing out. i didn't overlook the section you reference, because i wasn't posting the 2nd. i was posting the USC definition of a militia. by my reading, it excludes women who aren't in the NG - it doesn't allow them the unorganized option.

my overall point is: the 2nd is a poorly written POS.

@126
"and now you're lying again."

So you claim.
Yet you cannot point to a single lie.
And you have had multiple opportunities to do so.
And yet you still cannot.
As I said, quiet the dilemma there.

"Would you answer it honestly if it came from someone you didn't have a poor opinion of?"

And again, I already have.
1. There is no law aside from a complete ban that would have any effect on suicides. Limiting the magazine capacity, banning bayonet lugs, requiring background checks and so forth would do nothing. Even a one bullet per barrel law would have no effect. So let's focus on laws that DO have an effect on reducing incidents that CAN be reduced through those laws.

@120,
I think I see where you are coming from on this. You have bought into the largely false right vs. left paradigm. One of the main reasons I reject the labels of "right-wing" and conservative is that, in practice, there is little difference between those that knowingly wear those labels and so called "liberals", is that both factions endorce policies that are repressive, facsistic and functionally regressive with respect to human rights. One of the essential rights, well described by the writers of the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers and the Constitution is the right to life. Said right, like all the others, may only be deprived by due process. There is nothing about abortion that subscribes to due process on behalf of those murdered. The claim by the so called "liberals" of today that they support the expansion of human and civil rights is not borne out by the policies they support. Gun control is a core issue as the possession and availability of firearms by the people has the primary purpose of providing, to the people, the means of applying deadly force against those who would subvert the Constitution. Again, what is your substantiation to your claim regarding my "bullshit"? Your use of profanity, and derogatory remarks, lends zero substance to your claims, and merely conveys the impression you are ignorant and lacking the capacity to conduct a civil debate.
Somehow, I suspect you are capable, however you appear to be a student of the Saul Alinsky school of the big lie.

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”
- Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942
Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.”
- Joseph Stalin
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000.

Benito Mussolini - Promoted Gun Control
“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
- Benito Mussolini, address to the Italian Senate, 1931

“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”
- Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6 1938
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 10,076,000 political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated in Kuomintang China, and by 1987 another 35,236,000 exterminations were carried out under the Communists.

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
- Patrick Henry

“That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
- George Orwell

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.”
- The Dalai Lama, May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.”
- Mohandas K. Gandhi

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms.”
- James Madison, Federalist Paper #46

@128;
You are of course, entitled to your opinion that the "2nd is a poorly written piece of shit". Thing is, it is the law, a primary and deeply fundemental law. There is a means to undo it, deliberately made difficult by men who had just escaped a close call with a psychopathic tyrant called George III, and his minions. If you feel that strongly about the issue, then engage in an honest effort to bring about an amendment to the 2nd.

You are correct about the US Code that defines the unorganized militia. I do not believe that invalidates the concept of an armed and well regulated militia. I was intrigued by the phrase "well regulated" and did some research. My conclusion was that in the usage of the late 18th century, well regulated in the context of militia meant well trained and prepared, not administered by the federal governemnt. I do believe that women, and as well, old vets, like me, should be included. I doubt the main stream media or those inside the beltway have any interest in supporting such an alteration to that law, as it would draw attention to that law. Note, I do not support the concept of mandatory participation in militia. Same thing with the draft. Individuals should have the right to do as they see fit so long as they do not violate that same right for others. Things like the right to live.

@129, and yet you are NOT focusing on those laws. The work that's being done there, you ignore, because you don't want anything to happen.

It's good to see that you're still more interested in collecting imaginary grievance cards than in having an actual discussion.

@132
"and yet you are NOT focusing on those laws."

You and I have had this discussion before and your disagreement with me was that I was focusing on our Senators (Murray and Cantwell) in trying to push legislation that we both agreed upon.

And the stuff that you and I did not agree upon.

@ 129, where on this thread did I ask about suicides?

Go back to COMMENT # 93. That's the question under discussion. Read that, then tell me if you would answer it honestly if it came from someone you didn't have a poor opinion of? (And if you don't have a poor opinion of me, then why won't you answer it?)

@134
So you want me to reply to post #93? Okay. Here's my reply.

@93
Thanks, Matt from Denver. But I think this was already covered in your previous comment:
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"

Your behavior when presented with facts and opinions that you do not like is to become verbally abusive.
Such as when you keep insisting that I have lied.
Despite your inability to quote a single lie from me.

@130, fetuses are not people, and are not alive in any sense that their termination can be fairly called "murder." That's fact, and not debatable.

Further, there isn't a single gun control proposal under discussion in any legislative body in America that includes the confiscation of lawfully owned guns among its provisions. So claiming that liberals support such taking is a lie.

The idea that a population of civilians with guns can take on the government is preposterous anyway. And events during the Arab Spring proved that guns aren't necessary to overthrow tyrants.

The copied and pasted quotes from a bunch of dead men mean little in 2013, especially in light of the facts.

@ 135, that's a lie.

Anyway, it's fairly obvious (but completely balanced) to say that the truth doesn't mean a damn thing to you. And it's hypocritical to call me out for verbal abuse, given your history for dishing it out as well.

But thanks for settling the question that you're unwilling to answer uncomfortable questions. I'll draw my conclusions from that (which is that you oppose any and all gun laws, regardless of whether they're reasonable or not).

I will exit this discussion at this point, because I have neither the need to keep proving myself correct in the face of your stubborn insistence that I'm not (you're like someone who refiles the same lawsuit over and over, despite always losing it and having it dismissed with prejudice), nor your pathological need to have the final word. Have at it.

@137
"that's a lie."

And yet here is a post from you where you are verbally abusive when presented with an opinion and facts that you do not agree with.

http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"

So it would appear that it is not a lie.
Quiet the dilemma for you, eh?

Reallib, I don't buy that you're pro abortion. Nobody who is pro choice says shit like:

"You want the right to kill a child (or zygote, if that makes you feel better) that's fine with me."

No pro-choicers equate aborted zygotes with the Newtown kids, or any fully formed, viable human being such as Aurora, Columbine, Tucson, etc etc. Two different things. *I* have rights over and above the clump of cells in my gut. And at least beyond a certain point (which I agree with), it does *not* have rights over me.

I'm glad you're a responsible gun owner. I'm very responsible with my uterus, as are most women. But mistakes do happen - and men, these creatures who can't get pregnant - so often leave it entirely up to us to bear the burden of contraception (which sometimes risks our health) and yet then want to turn around and dictate to us what we are to do if and when we get pregnant. Nope. Not gonna happen. And meanwhile, while abortion right are being whittled away so badly that in some places they are effectively impossible to come by ... over in gun masurbatory land, guns rights advocates cannot even consider any additional restrictions on their hobby-toy, even in the wake of the sort of carnage we are seeing every day in this country.

Okay? See ya. It's Saturday night where I am, so I'm off to see a movie with my 3 husbands.

@ 15 - Okay, I am super late to this discussion but I am going to reply to you anyway. The argument you just made is a favorite of our local gun nuts but what it boils down to is this: why have any laws at all? Someone will break them.

And THAT, my friend, is the POINT of laws. WHEN someone breaks a law, that person can then be penalized: you know, fined, issued community service, given jail time. You cannot hold someone accountable for breaking a law that does not exist.

One more thing reallib:

I am very successful, thanks, and I won't be changing my rhetoric, thanks, and yes I am most certainly against violent crimes, and please show me on what you base your comment that:

"If you take away guns, even all of them, murders, rapes, robberies all of it GOES UP."

Because the last time I looked, places like Canada (where I have family and friends), has a way, way lower violent crime rate than we do, even adjusted for population, and they don't have anywhere near our number of guns, nor our mania about same.

No. I'd like you to try, just to see you spend money and fail miserably as your initiative is rejected by a landslide.
You sicken me.

@136
@130, fetuses are not people, and are not alive in any sense that their termination can be fairly called "murder." That's fact, and not debatable.

Further, there isn't a single gun control proposal under discussion in any legislative body in America that includes the confiscation of lawfully owned guns among its provisions. So claiming that liberals support such taking is a lie.

The idea that a population of civilians with guns can take on the government is preposterous anyway. And events during the Arab Spring proved that guns aren't necessary to overthrow tyrants.

The copied and pasted quotes from a bunch of dead men mean little in 2013, especially in light of the facts.

What is your scientific basis for making the rather bald claim fetuses are not people? The one thing that all humans have in common is the human genome. The zygote, from conception, posesses as much of the genome as any other person. Of course it is debatable, any and everything is debatable. Check out the 1st Amendment. Your claims are specious at best. That sort of argument was the rationalized basis for the Nazi extermination of the retarded, feeble and insane. It is arrogant, disgusting and inhumane.

As for there not being a legislation that advocates firearms confiscation. If so, that merely demonstrates the political weakness of such an attempt, now. First there has to be universal registration. Such measures have been proposed many times. Then there has to be enough cops willing to enforce such laws. Failing that, the standing military has to be willing to function as police within the U.S. I sure don't see much liklyhood the likes of you would have the balls to enter peoples homes with the intent of taking their guns.

I take it you are afraid of guns. Good. It best that immoral ignotramous' like you not be armed. Your claim that guns are not necessary to overthrow a government is ridiculous. Go back and check out your "Arab Spring". There were a shitload of guns involved. Recall the Benghazi scandal. The guns from the "Lybian Arab Spring" were being shipped to Syria for that version of the Arab Spring. Note nearly every revolution... the standard usage was and is contemporary military weapons, from slings to IED's.

Those men I quoted, most of them anyway, are dead. I do not see how that invalidates their beliefs. I keep hearing the same worn out statist mantra: "Times are different". Well, yes. Thing is, the people have not changed, merely the tools. I have to agree that the odds of an armed populace overthrowing the governement are low.... if, the military supports the governement in a suppression of the people. I believe that to be unlikely. An interesting aspect of that conundrum is the vetting of general officer candidates with a question to the effect: "Would you fire on American citizens defending their rights under the Constitution, if so ordered"? Attempts to make the same determination in the ranks have yielded a large majority of noes. The signal factor is the US military and state forces oaths of enlistment. Check out what the oaths say, and the order of the elements of the oath. I am quite sure the professional military folks are very aware of the content and meaning of their oaths, having spent much of my life in the company of such people. These people understand the difference between a Constitutionally illegal and a legal order. The relevance of an armed people to the military is the need for the military to know there are enough people who support the Constitution to make a revolution succeed.

De oppresso liber!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgxbDZc4o…

@139. Three husbands, eh? What pathetic creatures they would be.

@ 143, I can almost see your feverish fantasy at work here. It's something hardcore conservatives like yourself have in common. "If it's not happening, then it's proof that it will!" Priceless.

Anyway, it's not their beliefs that are invalid so much as your self-interested use. But my point isn't that, it's that we don't live in the same world as they, and the way we make in it shouldn't be beholden to the opinions of men who couldn't conceive of the issues we face.

Anyway, you're a fanatic, which makes you much more if a threat to freedom than any liberal I know.

Since this thread has devolved into a debate on abortion, I would like to ask the anti-choice side to address this question I have had since middle school biology.... Does the anti-choice movement deny that sperm and eggs are alive? If not, then how is it that life begins at conception? Does a pregnancy result from a dead sperm and a dead egg? It seems clear that life began eons ago and it merely continues through live sperm meeting live egg. By the anti-choice logic, every male masturbation is an act of genocide. This has been a question that I never can get a straight answer on from the anti-choice folks.

@145;
Your post is a semantic mess. I suspect the use of to many pronouns.
In other words, its content is nil. Perhaps, if you are capable, you might reiterate whatever it is you are trying to convey in functional English.

Calling someone a name that has zero demonstrable basis other than ignorance is yet another stunt out of the Salinsky book, "Rules for Radicals", a seminal primer written in 1971, that provides instruction for socialists, communists and fascists on how to promulgate the big lie. If you can not base your claims in truth, then keep repeating the lie until it becomes the truth in the minds of the sheep. Goebbels perfected the method.
The stark similarity in goals and methods of the fascists of Europe and the contemporary fascists of todays America is appalling. It is jack booted thug promoters of murder and oppression such as yourself that created the mandate that gives the people the right to be armed. If you know the history of the American revolution, which I doubt, then you may recall the event that sparked the actual fighting of the revolution. Nothing has changed with regard to such behavior.

Damn why don't we just stop following the Unbalanced True Liberal around in circles?

By the Unbalanced one's own definition of "well regulated militia" we can require people to demonstrate that they are "calibrated and functioning as expected". Without infringing on their rights. Though I'll grant his definition is questionable.

As for our "liberal" friend. Get the fuck out of my reproductive system and I might give you one point of credit for believing in Liberty. The Federalist papers are well worth reading I'd suggest he/she/cis do so.

Again I've no problem with folks owning guns. I own a couple guns. Requiring that someone demonstrate an ability to handle a fire arm prior to purchasing it is reasonable. After all things must be well regulated, calibrated and functioning as expected.

@ 146. Nice try. A sperm and an egg are not complete humans in terms of possessing the entire human genome. An agg or a sperm alone have zero potential to become a viable human. One requires the other.

@144 Because a real man would have dominion over his wife?

You should stick around. It's sort of like watching a dude in a pith helmet parade his elephant down a city street. It's less soporific than fairly.unbalanced's copy-paste routine, but more exhausting for you, I imagine. I hope you get paid more.

Also, have you seen this? I'd be interested in your thoughts: http://www.salon.com/2013/02/22/are_repu…

Would appreciate a context related explanation of the term, "well regulated, calibrated and functioning".
As for ones reproductive system. All rights have defined limits. There is no place in the Constitution that creates an exception to the right to life, but by due process of law. I do not comprehend the notion that killing 30 plus million babies, the most helpless and innocent of humans, is somehow moral.

@149 who the fuck cares? If a Roman patriarch was willing to accept a child as his own he'd walk out his front door and raise it up, if not he'd leave it in the gutter to die. Abortion has always been with us, always will. It is a public health issue, dead infants and mothers dying in messy ways is well messy. So we allow abortion quite frankly because it is less messy. It is a personal decision, an extremely personal decision. Get the Fuck Out.

@151 I'll let your Unbalanced friend explain to you what "well regulated" means. He has dubious links and everything.

Okay, I thought this thread was a shitshow back at #95...

Wow, was I ever wrong! It just keeps getting better and better. I'm #153 and it's still going strong. You all have been trolled.

Dan Savage can now claim the undisputed record of trolling the most ever on the SLOG. You all bought into it. Hook, line & sinker.

You are his Flying Monkeys.

@149
The sperm and the egg require the man and woman to act in favour of their continued viability in order to survive and develop into an independent life form. The zygote requires the woman to do the same. A zygote has zero potential to become a human on its own without the woman's body playing host. What's the difference?

@119, 154: Yup. And I dearly hope you're right about this thread being infested with trolls. But, in case these people are legit, and because it's late and I feel like it...

@143: A couple things about the Internet you should know...

Comparing someone or their actions to the Nazis is to break a popular Internet rule called "Godwin's Law," and doing so means you've automatically lost the argument. You've done that often enough in this thread alone that you can't be taken seriously for good long time.

Quotation marks are typically used when quoting someone, hence the name. For instance, it makes it easier for someone else to understand what's being quoted in the following, and from here, I'll address my remarks directly to your bitingly ignorant statements:

"The one thing that all humans have in common is the human genome.The zygote, from conception, posesses[sic] as much of the genome as any other person. Of course it is debatable, any and everything is debatable."

That a zygote contains the entire organism's genome (not species genome, that's not a thing) within its cells is not debatable, it's a fact. That you would assert it is debatable* exemplifies how ignorant you are of basic scientific knowledge, not even meeting the level of high school biology. And it is not a "bald" claim to say so.

But you know what else contains all that same genetic material? Every living cell inside the body. When I shave each morning, I scrape more skin cells off my face than would be killed by a woman using the morning-after pill. So if you have ever shaved, brushed your teeth, washed your hands, or scratched your ass, you're just as much of a hypocrite as you make Velvetbabe out to be, if not more.

*That you would say that anything and everything is debatable - especially when discussing a scientific topic when you make that assertion - also does a wonderful job conveying how intellectually and socially stunted you are. Seeing everything as possibly debatable only displays a childishly contrarian personality, or trolling.

"I take it you are afraid of guns. Good. It best that immoral ignotramous' like you not be armed."

In light of everything else you've said just in this one post, this comment is so bursting with irony that I just don't know where to start. No, wait, yes I do: the obvious failure of basic literacy exemplified in a single word. To wit:

For future reference, the red squiggly line that appears under a word means you've typed something the browser doesn't recognize, which means nine times out of ten that you've made an error. I can forgive the accidental inclusion of the extra letter in the middle, what with the letters "R" and "T" being next to each other on the keyboard. What I can't forgive is the addition of an extra letter that doesn't belong, as well as a possessive apostrophe that lacks a subject of ownership, and the incorrect pluralizing of the word. Those errors can't be blamed on klutzy typing or poor speech recognition software. Those show a lack of basic understanding of English (and again, usage of an Internet browser). Also, the fact that your posts are overrun with typos tells me this is systemic with you. You're either unable to proofread, or unwilling and thus don't care that it makes you appear an illiterate fool. Therefore, you should take more care in the future to not criticize others in their ability to convey functional English as you did @147, lest someone regard you as a hypocrite in that way as well.

Dan, I'd go all in on this.

@156,
I am indeed fortunate that I don't give a shit about correct grammer, spelling or your opinion.

@114 - Matt from Denver - in the thread which fairly.unbalanced keeps bringing up, for whatever reason, you did exactly what you were claiming I did, which I didn't, ("placing words in another's posts because he's too dishonest to deal with what was actually written") and then called me a variety of slurs for it. Perhaps you should consider that those slurs should really apply to yourself since you did in fact do what you claimed I did (which I did not do).

My opinion is you just have difficulty with reading comprehension and poor impulse control. You should probably get together with Dr. Awesome and take some remedial classes on reading comprehension and anger management.

For the rest of you reading along, here's the post in question:

"@ Randoma, where did I state or imply that we should get rid of all guns in America. I was only speaking of waiting periods.

This is too bad. I was thinking that I was talking to an honest person, but a motherfucker who sets up straw men like that, placing words in another's posts because he's too dishonest to deal with what was actually written, isn't worth a shit stain on a dog's anus. I hope you're proud of yourself. "

And here's my response:

"@55, Please re-read what I said in @54 and @48. *I* said that the only way to have a marginal impact on suicide rates was if you got rid of all the guns in the country. I then said it was not worth doing. *I* said it, not you. I don't believe I ever attributed it to you in any way.

As I repeatedly said, in asking for clarification, I have no idea what you were trying to say! "

Link, again, to the original thread:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Comme…

@ 159, if you were honest you'd quote the post that prompted my condemnation:

"marginal is better than zero." So, in your mind, it would be worth it, whatever the cost, to save around 3-8000 lives per year by getting rid of all firearms in the USA even though putting those resources into other things could potentially save many more lives?

I NEVER said, ANYWHERE, that we should "get rid of all firearms in the USA." THAT is your distortion and lie.

If you're willing to apologize for that, I'm willing to take back my insults. But if you think your characterization is fair, then my words also stand.

"True liberal" @ 147:

Your post is a semantic mess. I suspect the use of to many pronouns.
In other words, its content is nil. Perhaps, if you are capable, you might reiterate whatever it is you are trying to convey in functional English.

"True liberal" @ 158:

I am indeed fortunate that I don't give a shit about correct grammer, spelling or your opinion.

Hilarious. You care about grammar (spelled with two A's, genius) until you don't.

@160, You need to include the original post I made in #41 of that thread to keep that quote in context. My point, in all of this, is you need to weigh the cost of X against the benefit of X. I The "all the firearms in the USA" is to illustrate the *maximum* possible benefit.

Incidentally, I have zero problem with waiting periods, and the problems I have with universal background checks are purely financial. I don't think it is reasonable for potential gun owners to have to pay $30-80 (to a PRIVATE party who accesses the service for free) for a background check (which typically takes about 2-3 minutes of phone time and a couple minutes to record in bound book) regardless of the actual cost of the transaction. If you want to require universal background checks and you require FFL's to perform person-to-person checks for a minimal amount (say $5-10, or some minimal percentage of the transaction for the service) I would be fine with it.

That said, I don't think that waiting periods or universal background checks will have a measurable impact on gun related violence. However, I don't think they have a real detrimental impact on gun owners either.

@ 162, you fall short. The full context of that thread still doesn't allow for the way you falsely restated my position.

Do you apologize for that, or don't you? If you don't, show me why I should accept your characterization as fair.

I'm glad you don't think waiting periods are a bad thing for gun owners. Perhaps I was wrong to conclude that you were taking a reasonable-sounding tone to disguise a hardline position. But that isn't what set me off.

@163, I'm sorry if you feel that I falsely restated your position. As I stated in the original thread, I made the claim, not you. I'm sorry if you feel that I attributed the sentiment to you.

The exact quote, again, is: "marginal is better than zero."[You said this] So, in your mind, it would be worth it, whatever the cost, to save around 3-8000 lives per year by getting rid of all firearms in the USA even though putting those resources into other things could potentially save many more lives? [I asked this, and I put it this way to illustrate the *maximum* savings for the *maximum* 'penalty'.]
---

Where do I restate your position?

Jesus Christ don't you people go out and get laid on Saturday night?

Velvetbabe,

You are illustrating the problem with the belief that banning guns will solve anything. We have a cultural problem, a culture of violence. Canada has never had that problem. They don't have gangs like we do and their culture is different not to mention they have never had guns to begin with.

To make a realistic comparison, choose a country that has a violent culture similar to ours AND has ready access to guns. Take the guns away, the violence does not change and actually goes up. There are plenty of examples of this, UK and Australia are the 2 that keep being used. Chicago and NY are some regional examples.

The problem that you fail to address with your 'lets ban guns because they kill children' shallow rhetoric is that we already have millions of the fucking things in our hands AND we have a problem with our culture. So you need to stop being so goddam wishy washy and get realistic:

1. confiscate every fucking gun in the country (good luck with that one)
2. address the culture issue

I know addressing the culture issue is painful to your "liberal sensibilities" but you need to stop kidding yourself.

@ 164, what does the phrase "in your mind" mean to you?

@166, So if I say, "Hey Matt in Denver, in your mind, do you believe that poor people should be executed for being poor?" [Notice the question mark.] Is that a statement that you actually believe that? Or is that a question as to whether or not you believe it?

@166
For everyone who does not want to bother reading through that other thread, here's a brief summary.

The discussion ended up being centered on whether suicide-by-gun should be included in the statistics for "gun violence" when discussion laws to reduce "gun violence".

One side said that it should not be included because none of the laws would have any impact on it.
And even a complete confiscation of guns would probably result in about the same number of suicides but using different methods. A marginal difference.

The other side said that they should be included because gun violence is gun violence.
And that even a marginal difference is better than no difference.

At that point the discussion broke down because there was some confusion over whether advocating a marginal difference was the same as advocating complete confiscation.

Which then led to questions of whether the funding required for the full confiscation necessary to achieve that marginal reduction could be better used (achieve a larger reduction in suicide statistics) by using the money for something other than a full confiscation of guns.

Which brings us to today.

Anyone chimed in with the "constitutional rights aren't supposed to be put up for a vote?" yet? Also I think we should have a vote on this.

@ 168, so it's a dishonest rhetorical device, then. That's just as shitty, given the clarity if everything I said up to that point.

Let's have that apology now. Last chance.

@ 169, if anyone else cares, they can go back and read the thread objectively. Your biased spin is not necessary.

@171
As always, you are completely free to quote EXACTLY where I was wrong or where I misstated something.

Instead, all you do is claim that SOMETHING that I posted is SOMEHOW incorrect without ever specifying what that SOMETHING is or how it is wrong.

Meanwhile, I directly quote your words and provide links to you posts.
Like such:
http://www.thestranger.com/slog/archives…

"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"

@171;
Your methods are classic Saulinsky. Saw a train load full of such types at the U. Arrogant, rude, focused on personalizing the debate in order to detract from addressing concrete issues. If you disagree with or dislike the points presented you attack the person, not the issue. You make sweeping claims, and then announce them as incontrovertable fact, not subject to debate. What a waste. So, calling a fascist pig a fascist pig may be equally rude and arrogant, however, I invite anyone with the time, energy and interest to evaluate Mr. Fascist Pigs remarks throughout this thread with an eye to objectivly demonstrating any errors I might of made with respect to my perspective on Mr. Fascist Pig. BTW, not interested in any reply Mr Fascist Pig may make as the standard of debate he have set is not worthy of further personal attention.

@171, The "clarity of everything you said"? For real? I only repeatedly asked you to clarify your meaning because what you were saying was absolutely not clear.

And if you think that a "dishonest rhetorical device" (whatever that means) makes it okay for you to ignore the actual issues at question and, instead say things like:

"motherfucker"
"shit stain"
"dog's anus"

And, if the fact that you can't seem to accept my unstinting response that everything I said was, in fact, said by me, and not by you, I really don't know what to tell you.

@158:

"I am indeed fortunate that I don't give a shit about correct grammer, spelling or your opinion... or people regarding me as an idiot and a bigot for passing judgement on others based on subjects which I have not even a child's understanding." FTFY

And the debate methods that you describe @173 as being such a waste are all you've been employing this entire thread. Though to be fair, you've also been displaying a plethora of other juvenile behaviors and debate tactics too. This illustrates yet another way in which you are revealing yourself to be a hypocrite.

@105: You praise the original Federalists, who you call "[t]rue liberal[s]" like yourself, and then rail against the "statists" who you say stole the appellation. Federalist and statist mean nearly the same thing in practice. Hello?
@149: Actually, gametes (egg and sperm) do contain the entire human genome (apart from some differences between X and Y). Their DNA differs from that of somatic cells in that it is haploid rather than diploid. I'm actually trained in biology; I know these things.
And as for your assertion that egg or sperm alone cannot create viable progeny, I advise you to look up "parthenogenesis". We humans don't do it, but many other animals do.

If you want evidence backing up the claims that others have made, feel free to ask me. I am a scientist; evidence is my stock-in-trade. And I don't say this lightly, but I feel confident that I am a smarter and wiser man than you.

@ 174, it is ALWAYS alright to call out dishonest people for the shit stained motherfuckers that the are. It is NEVER wrong to do so.

You have chosen to be regarded as such. This is because you ignored what I said and projected something I did NOT say, in order to make a response that you WANTED to say. You wanted to make me a hardcore gun control freak (I'm not - I don't think Dan is on the right path at all), so you decided that to put words into my mouth so I could fit the role you wanted me to play.

Well, fuck you. Fuck you for being a dishonest little shit. Fuck you for resisting my righteous judgment of your disingenuous bullshit. Fuck you for disguising your true colors. 5280 may be hated by many on Slog, but I think he's awesome for being exactly who he is and not fucking around pretending to be something he is not. Also, he's a fine drinking companion. God only knows how insufferable you must be in person.

And, hey, f.u.? I suspect you're going to jump in because you just can't help yourself. I wonder now if "randoma" isn't your sock puppet, given the personal way you took offense to my remarks addressed to that handle, and the way "randoma" is happy to let you fight "his" battles, AND the fact that "randoma" just pulled your copy and paste stunt. That's pathetic.

Anyway, I'm done with "randoma," as well as this thread. (If I don't read it, did you ever write it?)

@ 173, two quick things. First, it's rude to get in the middle of a conversation to which you weren't a party to begin with. Second, I stopped reading as soon as I saw "Saulinsky," which I quickly realized was your impaired way of saying "Saul Alinsky." The only people who go on blogs bringing up accusations of that are well trained right wing blog bots, today's equivalent of the sheep from "Animal Farm." If you were bleating that in my presence I'd have a hard time ignoring you, but given that this is a blog, I can just skip right past your stuff and ignore it, free from any worry that I might have missed something stimulating or otherwise worth reading.

Have fun trolling Slog. You'll eventually either wear out and leave us alone, or post something stupid that gets your account closed. Until then, I'll skip past your handle every time I see it.

Addendum to @178 - by "something stupid" I mean something that violates the terms you agreed to when you registered. I don't mean anything "True liberal" has posted to date, which all can be described fairly as "stupid."

I'm in, Dan. Hope this happens, not only in Washington, but here in Maryland too.

@Matt - whatever you say. Up until you lost your shit, I actually thought you were a reasonable person.

@177
"Well, fuck you. Fuck you for being a dishonest little shit. Fuck you for resisting my righteous judgment of your disingenuous bullshit."

Wait for it!
Wait!

"... my righteous judgment ..."

What was that?

"... my righteous judgment ..."

No. Nothing the least bit irrational or deluded there. Not at all.

I am definitely in favor of putting it on the ballot. Let's see how much better it does than Initiative 676 did.

Not on board with this kind of panic logic. A butcher knife is an assault weapon if I want it to be.

Tyranny

"First they came for the guns and I didn't say anything. Then they came for my freedom of speech, and I couldn't fight back..."

Open your history books class, flip past all the "whitey is bad" BS, and get to the parts where different peoples throughout history have been disarmed, then slaughtered. Then remind me again just how smart you are...

@185: Homey, you can't fight back regardless of whether or not you have a gun in your hands. Have you seen any of the toys our military has? You and your militia buddies wouldn't last a week against them.
Luckily, the military in this country answers to the civilian government. And the civilian government answers to the populace. So sit your ass back down and put the dunce cap on.

Oh, venomlash, you know it's useless to argue with someone who says, "Open your history books class, flip past all the "whitey is bad" BS".

Unless you simply enjoy dishing out the mockery, which is entirely understandable.

Super late to the party! But, as someone who works in Congress, I'm pro @14. Because that shit could happen, if you guys got organized like the gun nuts are.

Pass all the laws you want. Makes no difference. I have an AK-47 and no one is going to lay a hand on it. I am not the only person in this country who feels like that. I have no intentions of hurting any one but if they try and take my firearms I will. End of story so close the book on it.