Slog Comments
Today in Reasonable, Intelligent Arguments Against Gun Control
1
I thought you were going to post this: Gun advocate, surrounded by guns in his weapons and testing facility, shot in the head.
2
Realistically, we have to expect some Tim McVeigh style terrorist attacks. Or another Atlanta Olympics bombing. It's no different than any one of a dozen Muslim countries that are trying to give women a modicum of civil rights. There will be a terrorist reaction. Should they let themselves be cowed by violent extremists?
I don't really see what choice we have but to move ahead and try to avert these kinds of attacks as they come. The networks these radicals have created shouldn't be too hard to track, and we have years of experience stopping these plots before they get out of hand. Most of them are like this genius, rushing straight to YouTube to send up red flags that make the DHS's job as easy as possible. A few of them will succeed, I imagine.
But eventually these terrorist movements run out of steam.
I don't really see what choice we have but to move ahead and try to avert these kinds of attacks as they come. The networks these radicals have created shouldn't be too hard to track, and we have years of experience stopping these plots before they get out of hand. Most of them are like this genius, rushing straight to YouTube to send up red flags that make the DHS's job as easy as possible. A few of them will succeed, I imagine.
But eventually these terrorist movements run out of steam.
3
thankfully, for years gun owners have used their second amendment rights fighting for freedom and against tyranny. They led the fight against slavery! They used their weapons to ensure women have the right to vote! They fought for marriage equality and opposed the patriot act!
Oh wait, gun owners includes lots of jerks who only envision liberty in terms of their right to own guns -- in real fight for liberty, equality or opportunity, they've been AWOL if not in the foreground fighting AGAINST liberty and equal rights.
Oh wait, gun owners includes lots of jerks who only envision liberty in terms of their right to own guns -- in real fight for liberty, equality or opportunity, they've been AWOL if not in the foreground fighting AGAINST liberty and equal rights.
5
I hope Joe Biden had the Second Amendment blown up and posted when he met with these people. They keep saying they have a right to keep and bear arms without recognizing that is a modifier to the right to a well-regulated militia. This is a few people making a lot of money on automatic weapons motivating a bunch of uneducated idiots to try and stifle a debate. It's ridiculous.
6
If the commander of the US military really was a tyrannical dictator, your guns aren't going to help you any.
7
Dickless little nobody. I hope that both law enforcement AND the IRS pay him a visit. Where there's that kind of crazy, there's usually also tax evasion.
8
Yet, yeager is a veteran and a former contractor whose been in battle in Iraq.
Why don't you pansy pussy coward fuckwads put up or shut up and volunteer to fight for the very country that allows for you to sucks jizz and lube out of your besty's bunghole. No? Being in the arm services is beneath your over educated over indulged ego's?
Well, then fuck yourself.
Why don't you pansy pussy coward fuckwads put up or shut up and volunteer to fight for the very country that allows for you to sucks jizz and lube out of your besty's bunghole. No? Being in the arm services is beneath your over educated over indulged ego's?
Well, then fuck yourself.
9
Be careful. You don't want to push too hard on this one, because the military of this country is not on your side. I'm not worried about having to fight them. You, on the other hand, may want to think about it.
12
@9 - So, don't push you guys because your personal boneheaded interpretation of the constitution will cause you to shoot up a school or blow up a federal building or crash a plane into something? Speaking as a veteran, I doubt the armed forces are really going to be supportive of that.
As a personal anecdote, the craziest gun nut I know never served. And many who do, like me, have a much healthier respect for life.
As a personal anecdote, the craziest gun nut I know never served. And many who do, like me, have a much healthier respect for life.
13
Oh, don't mind the troll. He's just angry because Mother won't let him join the service. (He doesn't technically need her approval, being 32 and all, but every time he brings it up, she locks him in the basement)
14
Cool. All of you moralizing, classist, busy bodies can be on the front lines against the paranoid, redneck, mouth breathers. Kind of like the commonly quipped racism asserting that "gang violence serves the acceptable purpose of reducing the number of gang members".
Somehow the status quo left has morphed into an equivalent of the 1980s Jerry Fallwell types pecking away at the imagined evils of the common citizenry.
Somehow the status quo left has morphed into an equivalent of the 1980s Jerry Fallwell types pecking away at the imagined evils of the common citizenry.
17
@9
You piss on the government. Piss on the rule of law. Piss on the democratic process. Piss on the Bill of Rights. And now, you piss on the honor of the armed forces. What's left for you to piss on?
5280 is in his 60s. Vietnam generation. Baby boomers like him are the most pampered, selfish people ever born in this country, and a lot of them served with little or no loyalty. Maybe that's what he's remembering. Lots of boomer troops like 5280 thought they were entitled to a lot more than Uncle Sam gave them. Mommy and daddy never said no. There were plenty of high paying jobs for them in 1972. They had it easy and throw tantrums when they didn't get it all on a silver platter.
Guys my like me are a couple generations younger. We never had it that easy, in or out of the military. I didn't serve with anybody who entertained thoughts of treason like that.
You piss on the government. Piss on the rule of law. Piss on the democratic process. Piss on the Bill of Rights. And now, you piss on the honor of the armed forces. What's left for you to piss on?
5280 is in his 60s. Vietnam generation. Baby boomers like him are the most pampered, selfish people ever born in this country, and a lot of them served with little or no loyalty. Maybe that's what he's remembering. Lots of boomer troops like 5280 thought they were entitled to a lot more than Uncle Sam gave them. Mommy and daddy never said no. There were plenty of high paying jobs for them in 1972. They had it easy and throw tantrums when they didn't get it all on a silver platter.
Guys my like me are a couple generations younger. We never had it that easy, in or out of the military. I didn't serve with anybody who entertained thoughts of treason like that.
19
Actually #18, he protected the minister in charged of voting in Iraq.
He was working to preserve democracy in Iraq.
You were here, sucking on cocks and bongs.
You aren't worth the sweat off his, or any other vets, balls.
Fuck you pansy.
He was working to preserve democracy in Iraq.
You were here, sucking on cocks and bongs.
You aren't worth the sweat off his, or any other vets, balls.
Fuck you pansy.
21
@9 So what you are suggesting is that the military may well be willing to enact a coup if duly-constituted civil authority decides to enact constitutional gun control measures. In other words, civilian control of the government (and the military) is only in force at the pleasure of our armed forces? The Praetorian Guard lives, I guess. Time to eliminate the standing army in favor of the militia system as it existed before World War II. Or institute the draft so the military doesn't consist of a self-selected body that sees itself as separate from and superior to the citizenry.
I have long thought of you as a pretty reasonable voice on this forum, but when it comes to guns you're just a religious fundamentalist who doesn't apply reason to the situation at all. And what's worse, you don't really care. You just want your guns for no other reason than you just want 'em, that's all. I keep waiting for you to have a flash of lucidity on this topic, but I'm not optimistic.
I have long thought of you as a pretty reasonable voice on this forum, but when it comes to guns you're just a religious fundamentalist who doesn't apply reason to the situation at all. And what's worse, you don't really care. You just want your guns for no other reason than you just want 'em, that's all. I keep waiting for you to have a flash of lucidity on this topic, but I'm not optimistic.
22
Remember that gun control has worked in the past! It's a great option. Started in the 1930's by a guy with the first name of Adolph, A really nice guy, Benito I think his name was, passed sweeping gun control in Italy around the same time. Then there was Old Joe from Russia. He did great things with Gun Control. The citizens of all of these countries felt safer, more liberated even!
But, we don't even need to leave our country to see the really positive effects of gun control. Chicago is a shining beacon of working anti-gun laws really keeping the murder rate down. New York, California, both really good examples of criminals not using guns in crimes because they need a permit to own them. The criminals don't carry them around concealed because the powers that be made it so extremely difficult to obtain a concealed carry permit that the criminals just left them at home.
I sure am glad there are people looking out for my best interests. Swell people like Feinstein, who trusts herself to carry around a handgun concealed, but not you or me. Guys like Eric Holder, who bled so many guns over the border to Mexico which were used to murder US Law Enforcement. So many great choices of well balanced and educated people to do what's best for me!
But, we don't even need to leave our country to see the really positive effects of gun control. Chicago is a shining beacon of working anti-gun laws really keeping the murder rate down. New York, California, both really good examples of criminals not using guns in crimes because they need a permit to own them. The criminals don't carry them around concealed because the powers that be made it so extremely difficult to obtain a concealed carry permit that the criminals just left them at home.
I sure am glad there are people looking out for my best interests. Swell people like Feinstein, who trusts herself to carry around a handgun concealed, but not you or me. Guys like Eric Holder, who bled so many guns over the border to Mexico which were used to murder US Law Enforcement. So many great choices of well balanced and educated people to do what's best for me!
23
Meanwhile, if you want to see examples of how not to convince people that gun control is a GOOD idea, just read every Stranger post and comment section on the topic.
24
@23 There's no convincing religious fanatics through reason. The second amendment is not inviolable holy writ, but it's treated by many who support unfettered access to guns as if it were. So it really doesn't matter what argument we make. The very idea of government regulation of firearms is contrary to your religious dogma and cannot be suffered to exist.
25
@24,
I don't support unfettered access to guns. I do support good regulation.
Regardless, the posts and comments made in The Stranger about guns invariably degrades into "gun nuts are like religious fanatics who only want to wank off to NRA commercials."
That's not convincing people through reason, that's just insulting them.
I don't support unfettered access to guns. I do support good regulation.
Regardless, the posts and comments made in The Stranger about guns invariably degrades into "gun nuts are like religious fanatics who only want to wank off to NRA commercials."
That's not convincing people through reason, that's just insulting them.
26
I'm still astonished at the near total lack of anyone in these threads actually blaming the criminals who perpetrate horrific crimes.
In fact, I can't remember the last time somebody around here blamed the gun crime on the criminal, although the guy with the unpronounceable name got preachy about gun owners taking responsibility for their actions...
...no words about criminals being responsible for their crimes, though.
In fact, I can't remember the last time somebody around here blamed the gun crime on the criminal, although the guy with the unpronounceable name got preachy about gun owners taking responsibility for their actions...
...no words about criminals being responsible for their crimes, though.
27
@26 - because its deflection. When is the last time you heard if a lone knifeman taking out a classroom full of kids in the US?
28
Well, since they ain't kids, you probably don't get such a hard on. But in Bremerton, there's a mass murderer / serial killer still walking around who walks upmtomstrangers and kills them with a knife.
Or: http://gothamist.com/2011/01/19/man_stab…
But hey, you get a boner over talking about dead kids, so a big "fuck you" to you.
Or: http://gothamist.com/2011/01/19/man_stab…
But hey, you get a boner over talking about dead kids, so a big "fuck you" to you.
29
@9 The assumption here is that during a civil war only hillbillies would have guns, while it's clear the other side would get armed pretty fucking fast. Or maybe that the military is monolithic in its preference for The Handmaid's Tale? Dunno about that.
30
Just like folks in Metro Seattle are mystified that various Eyeman initiatives keep passing there seems to be a cluelessness about firearms in our community too. Every person that talks about "clips" (a prety specific device that was widely used in a some WWII era rifles) keeps telling me that they are unfamiliar with firearms. I'm not sitting around waiting to shoot cops, or the invading UN troops, but there are actually people out there that think such things are a possible scenario. Not knowing them probably affects how you feel about gun control. Not understanding firearms means that you'll probably think that regulating cosmetic features of guns is actually accomplishing something.
FWIW James Yeager is nutty enough to be frequently ridiculed in the varies gun blogs.
FWIW James Yeager is nutty enough to be frequently ridiculed in the varies gun blogs.
31
@30 - so if someone calls what soldiers wear fatigues or BDUs instead of ACUs, their point is invalid if they want to talk about the military? Please. We know what they're talking about, no matter how much it grates they don't know specific terminology.
32
Urgutha dear, whys should it fall upon the commenters of Slog to take up the burden of respectful discourse with gun nuts? I think you over-estimate our influence.
And restlessnative, I spent a good part of my long-lost youth in a small town in Nebraska listening to the same old crap about the UN, CIA cloud seeding, communism in the Department of Agriculture, blah, blah, blah. I understand that mindset very well, and I know it's not part of mainstream rural thought. And I also understand the legitimate need for certain kinds of guns in certain situations - especially for rural folks.
Yes, there is a rural/urban gap. But I think it gets magnified in the media, who tends to play the city folks as latte liberals and the country folks as an episode of Hee-Haw. There is a way to talk about guns in society (and mental health, social inequity, and the other issues tied to this) but we have to figure a way to do it without having to listen to morons spouting mythology about the Old West, or drowning out everyone with tired old half-truths about Hitler et al.
And restlessnative, I spent a good part of my long-lost youth in a small town in Nebraska listening to the same old crap about the UN, CIA cloud seeding, communism in the Department of Agriculture, blah, blah, blah. I understand that mindset very well, and I know it's not part of mainstream rural thought. And I also understand the legitimate need for certain kinds of guns in certain situations - especially for rural folks.
Yes, there is a rural/urban gap. But I think it gets magnified in the media, who tends to play the city folks as latte liberals and the country folks as an episode of Hee-Haw. There is a way to talk about guns in society (and mental health, social inequity, and the other issues tied to this) but we have to figure a way to do it without having to listen to morons spouting mythology about the Old West, or drowning out everyone with tired old half-truths about Hitler et al.
33
@31 I agree that the error of clips vs. magazines is fairly trivial. Still, if people are going to be serious about banning things, it'd be nice if they took a little it of effort to understand what it is they're talking about. I don't see anything worth while in starting a petition to get a hunting supply store to stop selling hunting rifles.
34
James Yeager (and his buddy 5280 here) should probably read up on Shay's Rebellion, which was one of the key tests to the extension of the Second Amendment, and the bizarre notion that US citizens can, should, or would be able to attack their own government with their precious gunny-guns. Viva la revolución, morons.
37
I live in Tennessee and it's full of nuts who have no stake in tackling real issues. They use money from Democrat supported welfare and use it to subsidize their nutty far right fantasies of saving freedom with "2nd Amendment Solutions" and a theocracy based on stuff they half remember from bible school and FCA meetings. There are plenty of progressives in the cities, but everyone in the suburbs needs to die. Seriously, get the Democratic party to clandestinely distribute gas masks and then nerve gas every last acre of this state.
38
As much as I support gun rights, that comment is insane. It does not represent the average gun rights supporter. Only the crazy fucks get their say, the mild and normal gun rights supporters are silent, it is the loud ones that are heard.
39
@28--Is it a mass murderer? Or a serial killer? Make up your mind.
For clarification, a mass-murderer kills multiple people in a single incident (think Colombine and Newtown).
A serial killer murders multiple people, one at a time, in separate incidents often separated by long lapses in time (think Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer).
They resemble each other only in killing more than one person. The motives and criminal profiles are completely different.
For clarification, a mass-murderer kills multiple people in a single incident (think Colombine and Newtown).
A serial killer murders multiple people, one at a time, in separate incidents often separated by long lapses in time (think Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer).
They resemble each other only in killing more than one person. The motives and criminal profiles are completely different.
40
Those that call for banning guns are neither reasonable or intelligent. They are either too lazy or too stupid to look at FBI crime statistics current, trends, or post Assault weapons ban in 1994. If they did, they would find the current dancing in the blood of the anti-gun talking heads to be nothing more than political theater. But, I'm not surprised, I have found it near impossible to argue with emotions using logic and fact.
41
And while the debate rolls on everybody misses what our ruling elite continues to jam down our throats(and other places).They divide us with race,they divide us with immigration ,they divide us with gun control......... And all the while they jam their fingers deeper in our pockets. If anyone here thinks the powers that be give two shits about the people they claim to want to protect you are sadly mistaken. A united country where the people are in agreement to any agenda is the last thing our oppressors want to happen. Division is the best friend of the fascist. He doesn't need to convince everyone just a ruling majority to enslave the whole. And history always repeats......
42
I'm from the UK. We have a healthy, free democracy, much like yours. But we don't have gun massacres. Why? Because we don't allow civilians to own guns. Period. And funnily enough, despite our not having our own guns, we've never been taken over by a tyrannical dictator. Instead we have a regular army which does have guns, whose job is to protect our democracy (with help from you guys too from time to time). But America, this is the year 2013, not 1765. You don't need civilian gun ownership any more. It does your citizens far more harm than good.
43
Mister UK, do you recall the reason the United States of America fought against the British in the first place, just because you are happy with government socialization and regulation of your life doesn't mean we in the Land of the free share your sediment Amen and Amen!
44
@biffp If you actually did your own research you would know that the supreme court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right of the INDIVIDUAL and not a modifier to the well regulated militia. Try again libertard.
Comments (44) RSS