Slog Comments

 

Comments (169) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
seatackled 1
I'm in.
Posted by seatackled on February 22, 2013 at 5:57 PM · Report this
Dominic Holden 2
Amen.
Posted by Dominic Holden on February 22, 2013 at 6:09 PM · Report this
NotSean 3
!!
Posted by NotSean on February 22, 2013 at 6:12 PM · Report this
4
Hey Dan, considering that "assault weapons" make up a miniscule portion of firearms-related violence (less than 3% of all homicides, close to 0% of suicides), other than pissing off "conservatives", what exactly do you hope to accomplish with one?

If your concern is mass shootings, I'll point out that out of 60-some-odd mass shootings in the last 30 years, only 2 would have had a lower death toll if the shooters had been limited to semi-automatic handguns, and none of them would have had a lower death toll if the shooters had been limited to "non-assault" semi-automatic weapons.

Why not pursue some of the effective ideas for reducing firearms violence that have been proposed right here on SLOG?
Posted by randoma on February 22, 2013 at 6:13 PM · Report this
5
I'd be for it. And let's throw an income tax initiative in while we're at it. It's still a tough sell, but there's a lot of potential if you talk about it and it's time to get the ball rolling on that.

For such a consistently blue state, our state Democrats are a disgraceful, pathetic bunch of wimps. (Yeah, yeah, they passed gay marriage, but, on the whole, they tend to govern like Republican interests are a force to be reckoned with.)
Posted by floater on February 22, 2013 at 6:15 PM · Report this
theophrastus 6
Sure, why not? Just think of all the millions it would drag into local signage and advertising business once the NRA decides it's sufficient threat to dump on.
Posted by theophrastus on February 22, 2013 at 6:23 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 7
There's just one small problem: Define "assault weapon."
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on February 22, 2013 at 6:25 PM · Report this
Chris Govella 8
reporting for duty!
Posted by Chris Govella http://blog.chrisgovella.net on February 22, 2013 at 6:27 PM · Report this
Sargon Bighorn 9
#7 That big old purse at my side is an assault weapon I Use when I feel assaulted! Come near me You big hunk of Manhandler and It'll start swinging and I don't care what I hit!
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on February 22, 2013 at 6:29 PM · Report this
Dr_Awesome 11
Attn: Dan, Dom, Chicago Fan, et al. Been reading the comments on all the SLOG gun-control posts?

Notice how even the pro-gun-control bleeding-heart liberals have noted that an assault-weapons ban really won't do much to curb gun violence?

I'm on your side, but an AWB is not going to accomplish much. Close the goddamn gun-show loophole already. Create a registry for and a limit on bullet sales. Those'll do far more than an AWB ever will.

Although, at least if you can get an AWB to pass that'll show the gun nuts that times really are changing and the rest of us have had fucking enough.
Posted by Dr_Awesome on February 22, 2013 at 6:32 PM · Report this
12
How about for the slogan:
"Putting the 'regulation' into the 'well regulated miltia'.
Posted by BhamBrad http://bradreynoldspianotuning.com on February 22, 2013 at 6:34 PM · Report this
The Accidental Theologist 13
TOTALLY IN!
Let's get it done.
When and where do we start organizing?
Posted by The Accidental Theologist http://accidentaltheologist.com on February 22, 2013 at 6:46 PM · Report this
Gordon Werner 14
Dan ...

I would be against a ban ... but I know gun owners who are responsible who will never vote for this if it outright bans anything. After discussing options with them we agreed on the following:

Better ideas for a "Safer Washington" initiative.

1. close the gunshow loophole
2. REQUIRE trigger locks for all firearms
3. REQUIRE gun safes for all firearms
4. Fines if robbed and access to firearms was not prevented by item 3
5. Give local jurisdictions the ability to create limited, specified zones where firearms could be prohibited (like the Seattle Center)
6. (optional) require some form of insurance (like car insurance) ... own a gun ... have insurance to pay for any/all damage they might cause to third parties. (this can be used to fund other aspects of the initiative like the trigger locks).

Something like this would most likely be agreeable to most responsible gun owners and those generally opposed to them in general
Posted by Gordon Werner on February 22, 2013 at 6:52 PM · Report this
15
@14: Yeah, sure, but how do you REQUIRE trigger locks and gun safes to be used? We REQUIRE a valid driver's license and proof of insurance to operate a motor vehicle, but the roads are full of uninsured folks driving on suspended licenses.

Personally, I'd ban all semi-automatic weapons. Have fun with with pump-action shotguns and bolt-action rifles.
Posted by tiktok on February 22, 2013 at 7:00 PM · Report this
Lew Siffer 16
100% of those called took the survey? Impossible.
Posted by Lew Siffer on February 22, 2013 at 7:08 PM · Report this
Tim Horton 18
Getting congress to repeal the gun manufacturer immunity would be an even better first step.

I am in.
Posted by Tim Horton on February 22, 2013 at 7:20 PM · Report this
auntie jim 19
I think it's a good idea except the part about throwing kids in jail. I just don't believe more incarceration is going to help much, we already lock up a lot of juveniles. So who's going to gather the signatures? Or do you really think we can get the state senate to stop obstructing on this?
Posted by auntie jim http://www.gaysnohomish.org on February 22, 2013 at 7:22 PM · Report this
20
Last time a gun grabber initiative was on the ballot. The GOP took over the State house.
Posted by bornhere on February 22, 2013 at 7:23 PM · Report this
21
@4, did you read Dan's whole post? Closing the gunshow loophole would be HUGE. That's probably the most important thing we could do.

I would also hold gun owners responsible for guns used by anyone in their home in a crime. That would lock those guns down if they knew that they could be sued in civil court.

I'm totally in.
Posted by westello on February 22, 2013 at 7:28 PM · Report this
Boring Dad is Boring 22
Please get it on the ballot.
Posted by Boring Dad is Boring on February 22, 2013 at 7:29 PM · Report this
seatackled 23
@7

Don't worry, skeeter, definitions will be clear when it counts.
Posted by seatackled on February 22, 2013 at 7:29 PM · Report this
24
"The poll found 66 percent support (54 percent strongly) for banning semi-automatic assault weapons, ..."

Dan, do you have an example of a non-semi-automatic assault weapon?
If you do not then you have just highlighted the problem with this approach.

You'll need to write something that can withstand the most basic questions of Constitutionality.
And the first step of that is being able to define what you are trying to ban.
The second step is knowing what the SCOTUS has already ruled on the items in the first step.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 22, 2013 at 7:32 PM · Report this
Tacoma Traveler 25
I'm in.
Posted by Tacoma Traveler on February 22, 2013 at 7:37 PM · Report this
26
Let's do this.
Posted by Joel_are on February 22, 2013 at 7:42 PM · Report this
seatackled 27
@24
Thanks, attorneys will look over and edit the language, so don't worry.
Posted by seatackled on February 22, 2013 at 7:54 PM · Report this
29
Last time I was at a gun show in WA you had to have a criminal background check in order to buy or sell a firearm.

Posted by bornhere on February 22, 2013 at 8:03 PM · Report this
Sean Kinney 30
An Asshole Ban would be more effective. Let's ban assholes! ARE YOU IN?
Posted by Sean Kinney http:// on February 22, 2013 at 8:17 PM · Report this
31
How about we ban idiots for not educating themselves, Assault weapon is a term coined by the media in 1986....stop wastign our tax money on your ballot initiatives and enforce the laws that exist. Or do you think criminals are suddenly going to follow any new laws, you know like they followed the ones that made them criminals to begin with.
Posted by 2ASupporter on February 22, 2013 at 8:27 PM · Report this
Sean Kinney 33
@32 - there's a hook in your mouth.
Posted by Sean Kinney http:// on February 22, 2013 at 8:31 PM · Report this
34
$tiktok, driving is a privalge that you EARN, The RIGHT to Bear Arms is a RIGHT...educate yourself on the difference and why it is required to take the steps one does to obtain a drivers liscense...
Posted by 2ASupporter on February 22, 2013 at 8:31 PM · Report this
Lew Siffer 35
Dan Savage: Loudly denounces (rightfully so) having his minority rights to a vote; eagerly promotes doing the same to others. You're one hell of guy Dan.
Posted by Lew Siffer on February 22, 2013 at 8:32 PM · Report this
36
Ban nothing. Assault weapons have minimal effect on actual safety while turning even reasonable gun enthusiasts into rabid, raving, ranting lunatics. Not enough benefit to justify the harm to the overall discourse.
Require universal background checks and licensing that includes a comprehensive gun safety course as a first step. Enforce the shit out of those measures (which all but the craziest of the crazies agree with). Assess and proceed from there if/as needed.
Posted by sadiquechienne on February 22, 2013 at 8:53 PM · Report this
39
I like the idea of putting universal background checks and mandatory licensing on the ballot. That would make a difference!
Posted by NotYourStrawMan on February 22, 2013 at 9:22 PM · Report this
41
@ 37 WA is just as liberal as those states, if not more.
Posted by Seattle14 on February 22, 2013 at 9:38 PM · Report this
Sean Kinney 42
Please demonstrate how the possession of an assault weapon is a "right" guaranteed the the U.S. Constitution.

Get your constitutional law on, bitches!!!!
Posted by Sean Kinney http:// on February 22, 2013 at 9:40 PM · Report this
46
I recently learned from an Unbalanced that "well regulated Militia" means well calibrated and functioning as expected. Based on his other commentary during that discussion "well regulated" applies to the object (the gun) as well as militias of both the individual and the group. Though I'll admit he wasn't exactly clear on what was expected to be "well regulated" that is well calibrated and functioning as expected.

That said based on my Unbalanced friend's definitions, @14 suggestions would be constitutional. Perhaps not as 14 wrote them but a bit of lawyerly wording yeah it would fit my friend's definition.

In fact I think a bit could be added concerning the calibration and functioning of the gun itself under my Unbalanced friend's definitions.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 22, 2013 at 10:11 PM · Report this
47
A non semi-auto assault weapon example would be an RPG or rocket propelled grenade launcher, Which Uncle Wayne thinks is just dandy to own.

The SCOTUS has ruled, majority opinion written by rabid teabagger and Pope admirer Antonin Scalia, that it is perfectly constitutional for congress to ban types of guns, they just can't ban all guns. Is Scalia a gungrabber?

Assault weapons are weapons designed for military use for the purpose of assaulting an enemy. They are not designed for defensive tactics. The entire purpose if the weapon is to lay down suppressive fire by filling the air with as much lead as possible as fast as possible. For self defense, Biden is right, at home a shotgun is your best tool for the job. The differences between what the military uses and what you buy at Wal-mart are minor enough to not matter. That Wal-mart special can be converted easily to exactly meet military specs.

GOPers in some red state have introduced legislation to make it a felony for a legislator to propose any kind of gun control law. So much for the NRA claim that the 2nd protects the other rights in the constitution. Kill the 1st to protect the 2nd ? Which is next, outlaw voting so no gun control laws can be passed? No right to peaceably assemble to protest gun violence?

Tax the hell outta all semi-autos and all magazines in excess of 6 rounds and all ammo that is not a shotgun shell and larger than a ,22 short. That leaves hunters with their sport weapons and shotguns for home protection. Everything else costs you a shitload. The rich get to keep their semi-autos which the GOP should love since rich people deserve more. Throw in mandatory liability insurance coverage on all guns as well.
Posted by kwodell on February 22, 2013 at 10:14 PM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 48
I'm all for it. Gun show loophole first. Magazine size next. Then assault weapons. And trigger locks. But why stop there?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 22, 2013 at 10:28 PM · Report this
Sean Kinney 49
@45:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

..."well regulated"? What does phrase imply? Unrestricted access to weapons? A preclusion of civil oversight? The "right" to own an AR-15?
Posted by Sean Kinney http:// on February 22, 2013 at 10:52 PM · Report this
50
Could we add a provision that fluency in at least two languages should be a requirement for carrying a handgun. Anyone two stupid to learn Spanish really shouldn't be allowed to won a gun. It's a very easy language to learn. Most US citizens speak it.
Posted by kinaidos on February 22, 2013 at 10:56 PM · Report this
51
I would be more than happy to help collect signatures to get this on the ballot. I bet Tim Eyeman won't help though.
Posted by SeattleKim on February 22, 2013 at 11:18 PM · Report this
53
@49 well according to my Unbalanced friend it means a bunch of random sentences from the 18th century without out context, as interpreted by a 21st century gentleman, to mean "calibrated and functioning as expected".

From there it gets unclear as to whether it is the arms themselves we need to insure are well calibrated and functioning as expected or the militia. I'm still not sure what "militia" means but I'm confidenpt my Unbalanced friend will let me know.

I'll pass it on when I find out.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 22, 2013 at 11:38 PM · Report this
chaseacross 54
I read recently that only 2% of gun-related homicides in the US are committed with assault weapons. It's handguns that are the problem, and the best way to check their proliferation is mandatory background checks and registration, maybe throw in mandatory liability insurance for a kicker (with NO grandfathering in of existing weapons -- you want to hold on to your piece, you better get insurance). And of course transporting a firearm into the state without getting paper on it would be verboten. I imagine that within a year of implementation, the homicide rate here in Washington would decline precipitously.

I'm willing to bet you could put together a referendum with all these elements that could get the job done. You could also take it on piecemeal, the way Republicans have so burdened abortion providers out there in the ugly states as to make abortion clinics evaporate.
Posted by chaseacross on February 22, 2013 at 11:58 PM · Report this
55
#50 - what the fuck are you talking about, and what planet do you live on? Most US citizens speak English. Most US citizens do not speak Spanish. Get a grip on reality.
Posted by catsnbanjos on February 23, 2013 at 6:06 AM · Report this
56
54 is onto something. Why not learn for our GOP brethren on how one goes about denying a protected right through zoning laws and health department regulations and building codes. Any gun vendor must meet zoning regs such as no gun sales within 5 miles of a school, public or private. No gun sales after 1800hrs or before 6pm. All gun vendors must show customers a video of the bodies of the Aurora and Sandyhook victims. Averting the eyes at all and you are denied purchase. Also every customer must submit to a rectal exam using the barrel of a bushmaster to search out intestinal polyps. Gun vendors must carry a billion dollar insurance policy and be liable for how every gun from his store is used for 20 years after purchase.

There are all kinds of creative ways we can make the right to own guns more trouble than its worth. Just like the anti-choice crowd do to women's right to control their own bodies. As the esteemed Job creator Mitt Romney says, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
Posted by kwodell on February 23, 2013 at 6:24 AM · Report this
57
Looks like Dan's recommendation has followed the predictable path.

So it's time for another episode of EVERYONE'S favorite game show
STRANGER TROLLING BINGO!

Today's winning picks are:

Gun nuts!
Thee Olde Seconde Amendmente!
Suicide!
Assault weapons!
Apples and oranges!
You just do not care about X dead Y's!
Tautological tautologies!
Picking cherries!
The NRA!

Beat a straw man for big bonus points!
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 7:03 AM · Report this
58
"Putting something on the ballot and voting sure beats marching in circles carrying signs."

I agree, but carrying signs is also a good complementary strategy if you can get any media coverage because people are more likely to think about stuff they see covered in the media.
Posted by heartfelt on February 23, 2013 at 7:48 AM · Report this
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn 59
@9

And there are currently nine states with various different assault weapons bans. Apparently definition isn't all that much of a hurdle.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn http://youtu.be/zu-akdyxpUc on February 23, 2013 at 7:49 AM · Report this
60
You can ban guns. You will not be able to ban guns from a government that's been purchased by corrupt central bankers, who likely interested in "disappearing" citizens who do not follow the Fabian socialist/communitarian social engineering.

Forgot history? How many countries has this already happened in? Oh my, you forgot already?
Posted by Siddha on February 23, 2013 at 7:49 AM · Report this
62
Best idea ever. Gun control, an issue that divides Democrats while uniting Republicans.
Posted by _db_ on February 23, 2013 at 8:04 AM · Report this
63
While the concept of dealing with crime is wonderful, you are barking up the wrong tree for a variety of reasons.

10 USC 311 details the militia of the United States. There are two portions of the militia, the "organized" militia, which is the National Guard, and the "unorganized" militia, which is every other adult male in the US between the ages of 17 and 45. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1…

In the landmark decision US v Miller (1939) 307 US 174 the Supreme Court said "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hi…

In order to comply with the law and the Supreme Court, it would seem to me that every adult male in the US SHOULD have an AR style weapon in his home, to be ready to appear bearing an arm of the kind in common use.

Posted by one_eyed_Ross on February 23, 2013 at 8:22 AM · Report this
65
How about a requirement that only military vets are allowed to own military style weapons. That should weed out all those wanna-be's who like to think themselves to be tough guys who will defend against take-overs by tyrants, yet avoid serving in uniform like the goddamn plague. You know, like all those neo-cons with multiple deferments who like to send our kids to die for Raytheon and McDonald Douglas. Like those fat-assed preppers that are all the rage on cable teevee these days. Like Paul Ryan and Mark Rubio and Rand Paul and Bobby Jindal. By the way, do you think Wayne LaPierre ever served in a combat unit?
Posted by kwodell on February 23, 2013 at 8:50 AM · Report this
66
What is proposed here, is turning a huge chunk of the population into criminals. Anyone here, recall from civics (do you even know what civics is?), what happened the last time a prohibition of a major category of items with strong consumer interest was banned? The technology for home production of weapons is available, rapidly improving and decreasing in price. Create the incentive, and further development will accelerate. Frankly, as a pro2A advocate, I find the implications disturbing.

1: Criminals ignore the law. Outlawing firearms will create a huge underground weapons production industry, in direct consequence of turning otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
2: Organized criminals will attempt to control the underground market. When weapons are made in defiance of the law, the makers will have zero restraint with respect to producing REAL assault weapons, such as machine guns, sub-machine guns, rocket launchers, light mortars, grenades and satchel charges.
4: The bulk of such production will occur in areas with high concentrations of population as that is where the majority of home based machinery and 3D printers exist, and a large minority of consumers live.
5: Look at the FBI Crime Statistic Reports. It is clear that those few , but major, municipalities that severely limit firearms possession also have the highest violent crime rates. Violent criminals who survive through their criminal activity are far less inhibited when they know their victims are less likely to be armed. The FBI reports allow the figures to broken down to local legal jurisdictions and neighborhoods. The irony is that the Stranger is based in just such a locality. Said locality has a much lower violent crime rate than DC, NYC, LA or Chicago. If such a ban occurs, the injury and death rate from violence will rapidly go up in the very areas where most Stranger readers reside. The cops can not, will not and are not required, to protect individuals from violent crime, unless they are incidentally present. Having worked in prison health care for several years l know, from numerous conversations, that "professional" criminals are very much in favor of firearms bans. As it is their livlihood, they favor measures that make their "work" safer. The only complaint was that the cost of the guns they illeaglly obtain will go up.

I will entertain well considered and thought out responses. The usual name calling, useless vitriol and irrational BS will be ignored. The 1st Amendment applies here. The right to free speech includes the right to ignore free speech.
More...
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 8:55 AM · Report this
69
@65
The irony is that the Obama administration is targeting veterans with proposals to vett their medical records in order to limit firearms possession by veterans. Seems the administration is afraid of veterans. Hmmmm.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 9:05 AM · Report this
Max Solomon 70
being in the militia used to have duties involved, mainly controlling slaves. i'd like to see it have duties again.

oh, and not in the national guard? turn in your guns, ladies:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Posted by Max Solomon on February 23, 2013 at 9:07 AM · Report this
71
@54
"I imagine that within a year of implementation, the homicide rate here in Washington would decline precipitously."
I get the idea. I appreciate that the people who publish and read The Stranger, desire to live in a safer community. Unfortunately, the FBI Crime Statistics Reports make it very clear that communities with strong gun control laws suffer the highest rates of violent crime. The ultimate irony is that it is the poorest of us, and ehtnic/racial minorities, who suffer the most from gun control.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 9:22 AM · Report this
72


What I find most disturbing is what this gun-worship says about this country's values: The interpretation of what is written in our constitution to mean the protection of what amounts to someone's 'hobby' (collecting guns, shooting at targets for fun, shooting at animals), and that that is SO paramount and of such critical importance that it trumps my basic human right to not have my five year old mass-murdered.

A fucking hobby vs a 20 slaughtered five year olds.

Yes. Let's make this backwards, wrongheaded, neanderthal worship of, and masturbation over this needless hobby as expensive, and purposefully hassle and obstacle-ridden as obtaining an abortion.


Posted by Velvetbabe on February 23, 2013 at 9:24 AM · Report this
73
@71
"Unfortunately, the FBI Crime Statistics Reports make it very clear that communities with strong gun control laws suffer the highest rates of violent crime."

Chicago is an excellent example.
They have very strict gun laws in Chicago.
We have very lax gun laws in Seattle.
Chicago has far more gun-related violence than Seattle.

Therefore, it would appear that there is at least one unidentified factor that is causing the discrepancy.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 9:31 AM · Report this
74
@70

'oh, and not in the national guard? turn in your guns, ladies:'
You might consider reviewing your post, in particular section b(2):
...the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Essentially that means every male between the ages of 17 nd 45, and volunteers. There was a time when he social standard was mostly in compliance with the militia law. The bulk of military power was in the control of the people, at the local level of governance, and not the federal government.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 9:35 AM · Report this
75
@70

'oh, and not in the national guard? turn in your guns, ladies:'
You might consider reviewing your post, in particular section b(2):
...the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Essentially that means every male between the ages of 17 nd 45, and volunteers. There was a time when the social standard was mostly in compliance with the militia law. The bulk of military power was in the control of the people, at the local level of governance, and not the federal government.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 10:00 AM · Report this
76
@74
I think he was trying to point out that women who are not in the National Guard would, under a strict reading of just that section, not be allowed to own guns as part of the "unorganized militia".

Meanwhile, completely skipping over the section that reads:
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So while a strict reading of just that section could be used to show that women were not part of the "unorganized militia" it would require a completely different reading to exclude women from "the people".

Thee Olde Seconde Amendmente!
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 10:04 AM · Report this
77
@72.
Your irritation is wrongly placed. I get that the murder of children (or anyone for that matter) is unacceptable. However, you are missing the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It was purposely designed to protect the Constitution, and thus the people, from the predations of tyrants.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Ben Franklin
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 10:12 AM · Report this
78
@76;
I see that now. I find it odd this issue has not been addressed, given the recent moves by the Obama administration to allow women to function in all military combat roles.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 10:35 AM · Report this
79
@72

"A fucking hobby vs a 20 slaughtered five year olds."

hmm, reading some of your posts, and your support of open marriages and gay rights I see that you have a hobby, fucking. This 'fucking hobby' is responsible for more abortions (child murder) than the number of victims of violent crime. So, you want to ban my fucking hobby but not yours? You're a fucking hypocrite.
Posted by reallib on February 23, 2013 at 10:49 AM · Report this
80
@78
"I find it odd this issue has not been addressed, given the recent moves by the Obama administration to allow women to function in all military combat roles."

Changing that to include women would do a lot to undermine some the the Republican base's resentment of him.

But he could get that resentment back by also including trans-gendered and hermaphrodites.
Neither side could 100% support or 100% oppose that re-write.
Equal militia rights for all!
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 10:49 AM · Report this
reverend dr dj riz 82
anydangways... i'm in.
Posted by reverend dr dj riz on February 23, 2013 at 11:16 AM · Report this
83
@80
Agreed. If a woman can do the job, wants the job, and makes no demands for special consideration within the job description, she should be allowed to the job. On the other hand, the militia should include all of the people who are not in the standing military. The militia IS the people.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 11:21 AM · Report this
Fnarf 84
The frustrating thing is there ALREADY IS a bill to close the gun show loophole, which has broad support even among gun owners, including some Republicans, and The Stranger knows it, but they refuse to say anything about it. HB 1588. Look it up.

Putting something on the ballot and voting is precisely what The Stranger is working against; "marching in circles" is precisely what Dan and The Stranger are doing here.

We have a chance to make a significant difference, and it's being flat-out ignored. Why? WRITE ABOUT 1588. WRITE ABOUT REP. MIKE HOPE. He's getting hammered by NRA phone calls 100-to-1 against, but that's not how his district feels, or ours. Put your money where your mouth is for once.

@24, @7 and others: the California law defines "Assault Weapons" perfectly adequately. There is no confusion on this point except among deliberate obfuscators. Pretending that they are hard or impossible to define is in fact the leading indicator of lying gun nut opposed to everything.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on February 23, 2013 at 11:28 AM · Report this
85
@24

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-…

There you go. Very disturbing.
Posted by Action Slacks on February 23, 2013 at 11:43 AM · Report this
86

@79 reallib - what does your screen name stand for, I wonder? I don't even know where to begin with your weak and assinine post. The mass of cells/zygote in my gut is my issue, not yours, got it? And as you are so concerned with what I'm sure you see as a fundamental right - the right to bear arms as affirmed by SCOTUS - you might perhaps recall that SCOTUS also affirmed my right to an abortion, with vastly limited restrictions these days, of course.

As for how you gleaned that my hobby is fucking, that would be incorrect. Fucking is something every human does - so I guess we are all hobbyists, then? Yourself? My support for gay marriage does not equate a hobby and does not equate my hobby being fucking, and I frankly fail to see how you arrived at that conclusion. The two have nothing to do with eachother.

And to answer your question, yes. I'd love to ban your 'hobby' if I could, if it would prove an antitode to our hyper-violent, boneheaded, gun-worshipping culture and the mass and other murders that needlessly, randomly, routinely ensue.

Posted by Velvetbabe on February 23, 2013 at 11:47 AM · Report this
87
@84
Really. Parse it out: Assault means to attack. Weapon is an implement of destuction, a defence or offense tool. That makes the .68 caliber Brown Bess muzzle loading musket of Revolutionary War fame an assualt weapon. I find it interesting that the federal goverment calls so called assault weapons "personal defence weapons" (PDW) when they buy and issue them.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 11:55 AM · Report this
88
Count me out. The very weapons that we most want to ban are the ones most relevant for revolution. And while I have no plans on revolting, maybe my kids will?

Universal background checks are reasonable, we should pursue that. Banning assault weapons, while it would make us safer, is simply unamerican.
Posted by Lack Thereof on February 23, 2013 at 12:05 PM · Report this
89
@85
"There you go. Very disturbing."

That looks more like a muzzle-loading rifle that is shaped like an AR 15.
Just because something is shaped like something does not mean that it is that thing.
Look up the definition of "assault weapon" from the previous "assault weapon" ban.

But thanks! Now I have a check mark for Assault weapons!
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 12:10 PM · Report this
90
@86
You obviously do not get it. Calling someone a pack of names only indicates emotional insecurity. As for SCOTUS and abortion, that is a very tangled issue and I have problems with those that take a black and white contrast perspective. FWIIW I see nothing in the Constitution that guarentees your right to murder babies. That you feel the need to do so is sickening, perverted and shameful. On the other hand, I can see the use of abortion in non-voluntary pregnacies such as rape and conditions of pregnancy that threaten the mothers life and health. But not so you can practice irresponsible acts of procreation.There are many means of reproductive prophylaxis that do not involve snuffing out zygotes like a concentration camp guard.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 12:12 PM · Report this
91
@84
"the California law defines 'Assault Weapons' perfectly adequately. There is no confusion on this point except among deliberate obfuscators."

Now I want you to go read #85 and watch the video.
Does that gun appear to meet the definition of "assault weapon" as defined in California? Or the old Federal definition?

I understand what the definition is.
The people who support gun rights understand what the definition is.
It is the people who are trying to ban them that do not understand what they are trying to ban.
As evidenced by Dan's support for "for banning semi-automatic assault weapons".
And by #85's confusion over a muzzle loader that looks like an AR 15.

Sorry, I already have a check mark for Assault weapons!
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 12:21 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 92
Attention regular Sloggers. What do you make of the shill posting under the handle if "True liberal"? Personally I'm not sure whether to be offended at the lie* or bemused by the ham-fisted tactic of trying to fit in. He reminds me of the reports of completely square cops trying to infiltrate hippie circles in the 60s.

* I know plenty of genuine liberals who are pro-gun, but they don't make the same paranoid arguments I've seen from "True liberal".
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 23, 2013 at 12:22 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 93
@ 91, are your reasons for opposing a ban solely because of definitions, or because you don't want any ban, well defined or not, to be enacted?
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 23, 2013 at 12:24 PM · Report this
94
@86

"Velvetbabe commented on Polyandry More Common Than Previously Thought.

I, for one, am very much for this."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/P…

The guns in my possession are my issue, not yours, got it? There are already laws that restrict gun ownership. I follow them. I don't give a shit about how many abortions you have. I don't give a shit how many girlfriends/husbands you have at the same time. You want the right to kill a child (or zygote, if that makes you feel better) that's fine with me. That's your choice. But to then make the argument that all guns kill children therefore must be banned makes you a fucking hypocrite. And an idiot.
Posted by reallib on February 23, 2013 at 12:25 PM · Report this
95
@84
"Pretending that they are hard or impossible to define is in fact the leading indicator of lying gun nut opposed to everything."

Thanks! I needed a check mark for Gun nuts!
Now I have:
Gun nuts!
Assault weapons!
and Thee Olde Seconde Amendmente!
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 12:25 PM · Report this
96
@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"
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 12:31 PM · Report this
97
Seems to me the ones walking in circles here are Unbalanced True Liberals.

Frankly I don't give a shit if you want to own a gun. However I do think it is boneheaded stupid that folks can purchase a gun with out being properly trained and licensed beforehand.

Moreover given the technology we have today it is possible to place a safety on the gun insuring that only the legal owner of the gun can fire it. Yes that would make the gun more expensive, oh well hobbies are expensive get over it.

Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 23, 2013 at 12:44 PM · Report this
Fifty-Two-Eighty 98
@97, that technology does indeed exist; unfortunately, it has about a 5% failure rate. Which means that one out of 20 tries, it will either let someone other than the owner fire the gun, or refuse to permit the owner to do so. Fail.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on February 23, 2013 at 12:55 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 99
@ 96, that wasn't addressed to you. So, for the sake of your credibility, answer the question.
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 23, 2013 at 1:03 PM · Report this
100

Wow, "True Liberal":

"But not so you can practice irresponsible acts of procreation"

Seriously? And you I'm sure are always first in line for the scrotal birth control injection, right? And you lobby hard for the male birth control pill? Of course you do. And/or you unfailingly wear a condom each time, every time, for the remainder of your life until both you and she agree to get pregnant, and/or you always pull out - every single time - well before the pre-come stage? Right? Because otherwise, you're being "irresponsible".

It's VERY responsible for a woman or girl to terminate an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy vs taking it to term especially if she can't fucking afford it, already has 6 kids, and/or the guy has fled and has zero intention of helping to support her, and/or if she's fucking 16 yrs old, and/or raped, molested, etc.

Understand this one thing: Women getting pregnant by mistake means that whatever method of birth control used, if any, FAILED, or she wouldn't be with child in the first goddamn place.

So I do hope your gf or wife never ends up in that situation. Good luck with it if you do, because it ain't your choice what happens.

Posted by Velvetbabe on February 23, 2013 at 1:08 PM · Report this
101

Reallib: again, please tell us the meaning of your name. I'm intrigued. And yes, I'm totally for having multiple husbands - come on - it would be awesome!! You clearly see that as some sort of threat or moral issue. Oh well. It's extraordinarily tame compared with the kinks, fetishes and perversions discussed on a daily basis in Savage Love. It must be painful for you, btw, being here, so then, why are you?

Again, the carnage we suffer every day in this country due to gunfire is a sickening tragedy, and any and all attempts to reduce gun violence I welcome, up to an including the full banning of all guns - ahh, such a pipedream, like my multiple husbands! The former won't ever happen, but I'd absolutely love the gun fetishists to have a taste of the vast limitations and restrictions women seeking abortions face every day.

So yes, yes ... SCOTUS backs both abortion and the 2nd amendment, but in your view terminating a clump of cells in my gut - even an hour, or a day old - was a mistake on their parts - a moral failing - and I simply MUST be forced to bring that clump of cells to full term regardless of my willingness, my ability to afford to support the child, the fact that my man fled and refuses to support it or me, the fact that I got this way because of rape, or molestation, or am only 14 ... while the right to your little hobby is harmless, and sacred, and must be defended at all costs.

I get it, now.

Posted by Velvetbabe on February 23, 2013 at 1:30 PM · Report this
Rujax! 102
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.
Posted by Rujax! http://rujax.blogspot.com/ on February 23, 2013 at 1:37 PM · Report this
Rujax! 103
Wow...a "real liberal" who's a forced-birther...

...and a motherfucking moron to boot!

Nice.

Posted by Rujax! http://rujax.blogspot.com/ on February 23, 2013 at 1:40 PM · Report this
104
@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.

Posted by reallib on February 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM · Report this
105
@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.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 1:50 PM · Report this
Rujax! 106
Hey @104...

Why don't you go back to your circle jerk on Red State.
Posted by Rujax! http://rujax.blogspot.com/ on February 23, 2013 at 1:51 PM · Report this
107
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.

Posted by reallib on February 23, 2013 at 1:59 PM · Report this
Rujax! 108
"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.
Posted by Rujax! http://rujax.blogspot.com/ on February 23, 2013 at 2:00 PM · Report this
109
@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.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 2:00 PM · Report this
Rujax! 110
@109...

You're missing your "MRA" meeting.
Posted by Rujax! http://rujax.blogspot.com/ on February 23, 2013 at 2:12 PM · Report this
Rujax! 111
@109...

There's am MRA meeting somewhere you're late for...better get going!
Posted by Rujax! http://rujax.blogspot.com/ on February 23, 2013 at 2:20 PM · Report this
112
@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.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 2:21 PM · Report this
113
@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"
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 2:24 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 114
@ 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.
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 23, 2013 at 2:33 PM · Report this
115
@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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 2:38 PM · Report this
Will in Seattle 116
Make It So.

Stuff it in the Gun Lobby's face.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on February 23, 2013 at 2:41 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 117
@ 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.
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 23, 2013 at 2:41 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 118
@ 115, are dishonest people not liars?
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 23, 2013 at 2:42 PM · Report this
119
This thread is a complete shitshow.
Posted by CPN on February 23, 2013 at 2:42 PM · Report this
Rujax! 120
@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?
Posted by Rujax! http://rujax.blogspot.com/ on February 23, 2013 at 2:47 PM · Report this
121
@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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 2:57 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 122
@ 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?
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 23, 2013 at 3:09 PM · Report this
124
@89 Sorry, was just messing with you. That thing would be banned due to being stupid rather than dangerous.
Posted by Action Slacks on February 23, 2013 at 3:20 PM · Report this
125
@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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 3:20 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 126
@ 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?
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 23, 2013 at 3:31 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 127
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?)
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 23, 2013 at 3:33 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 128
@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.
Posted by Max Solomon on February 23, 2013 at 3:45 PM · Report this
129
@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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 3:54 PM · Report this
130
@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
More...
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 3:55 PM · Report this
131
@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.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 4:28 PM · Report this
Fnarf 132
@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.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on February 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM · Report this
133
@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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 5:05 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 134
@ 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?)
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 23, 2013 at 5:08 PM · Report this
135
@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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 5:13 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 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.
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 23, 2013 at 5:16 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 137
@ 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.
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 23, 2013 at 5:21 PM · Report this
138
@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?
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 23, 2013 at 5:23 PM · Report this
139
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.

Posted by Velvetbabe on February 23, 2013 at 5:40 PM · Report this
140
@ 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.
Posted by MiscKitty on February 23, 2013 at 5:42 PM · Report this
141

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.

Posted by Velvetbabe on February 23, 2013 at 5:53 PM · Report this
142
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.
Posted by Eggo on February 23, 2013 at 6:46 PM · Report this
143
@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…
More...
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 6:54 PM · Report this
144
@139. Three husbands, eh? What pathetic creatures they would be.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 6:58 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 145
@ 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.
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 23, 2013 at 7:57 PM · Report this
146
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.
Posted by kwodell on February 23, 2013 at 8:22 PM · Report this
147
@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.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 8:38 PM · Report this
148
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.

Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 23, 2013 at 8:40 PM · Report this
149
@ 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.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 8:42 PM · Report this
150
@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…
Posted by diner mo on February 23, 2013 at 8:52 PM · Report this
151
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.
Posted by True liberal on February 23, 2013 at 8:55 PM · Report this
152
@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.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 23, 2013 at 9:00 PM · Report this
153
@151 I'll let your Unbalanced friend explain to you what "well regulated" means. He has dubious links and everything.
Posted by Machiavelli was framed on February 23, 2013 at 9:06 PM · Report this
154
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.
Posted by CPN on February 23, 2013 at 9:28 PM · Report this
155
@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?
Posted by diner mo on February 23, 2013 at 9:33 PM · Report this
Knat 156
@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.
More...
Posted by Knat on February 23, 2013 at 10:13 PM · Report this
Hawke 157
Dan, I'd go all in on this.
Posted by Hawke http://facebook.com/thehawke on February 23, 2013 at 11:29 PM · Report this
158
@156,
I am indeed fortunate that I don't give a shit about correct grammer, spelling or your opinion.
Posted by True liberal on February 24, 2013 at 12:42 AM · Report this
159
@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…
More...
Posted by randoma on February 24, 2013 at 6:03 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 160
@ 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.
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 24, 2013 at 7:04 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 161
"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.
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 24, 2013 at 7:10 AM · Report this
162
@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.
Posted by randoma on February 24, 2013 at 9:41 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 163
@ 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.
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 24, 2013 at 9:54 AM · Report this
164
@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?
Posted by randoma on February 24, 2013 at 10:09 AM · Report this
165
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.

Posted by reallib on February 24, 2013 at 10:15 AM · Report this
Matt from Denver 166
@ 164, what does the phrase "in your mind" mean to you?
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 24, 2013 at 11:30 AM · Report this
168
@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?
Posted by randoma on February 24, 2013 at 12:00 PM · Report this
169
@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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 24, 2013 at 12:20 PM · Report this
watchout5 170
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.
Posted by watchout5 http://www.overclockeddrama.com on February 24, 2013 at 12:29 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 171
@ 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.
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 24, 2013 at 12:44 PM · Report this
172
@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"
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 24, 2013 at 12:54 PM · Report this
173
@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.
Posted by True liberal on February 24, 2013 at 2:18 PM · Report this
174
@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.
Posted by randoma on February 24, 2013 at 4:13 PM · Report this
Knat 175
@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.
Posted by Knat on February 24, 2013 at 4:50 PM · Report this
venomlash 176
@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.
Posted by venomlash on February 24, 2013 at 4:52 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 177
@ 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?)
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 24, 2013 at 5:46 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 178
@ 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.
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 24, 2013 at 5:53 PM · Report this
Matt from Denver 179
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."
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 24, 2013 at 5:55 PM · Report this
180
I'm in, Dan. Hope this happens, not only in Washington, but here in Maryland too.
Posted by Patricia Kayden on February 24, 2013 at 6:04 PM · Report this
181
@Matt - whatever you say. Up until you lost your shit, I actually thought you were a reasonable person.
Posted by randoma on February 24, 2013 at 6:11 PM · Report this
182
@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.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 24, 2013 at 7:10 PM · Report this
Mudkips 184
Not on board with this kind of panic logic. A butcher knife is an assault weapon if I want it to be.
Posted by Mudkips on February 25, 2013 at 7:05 AM · Report this
GeneStoner 185
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...
Posted by GeneStoner on February 25, 2013 at 11:54 AM · Report this
venomlash 186
@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.
Posted by venomlash on February 25, 2013 at 3:50 PM · Report this
188
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.
Posted by clashfan on February 26, 2013 at 8:09 AM · Report this
189
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.
Posted by Diogenes of Sinope on March 1, 2013 at 8:11 PM · Report this

Add a comment

Commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.