More On Gun Control: Blow Darts Don’t Kill People, Blow Darts With Poisonous Tips Kill People

Going medieval on everybody’s ass

Here is the single dumbest argument against banning high capacity magazines:

Set aside the fact that criminals don’t obey any law. Set aside too the fact that even if all firearms could be magically disintegrated by appropriate legislation, the murderous would simply use other more time-tested methods of killing. It should not be forgotten that some 7000 were killed in a single day at the Battle of Hastings in 1066 using the available hand weapons, which did not include firearms. At the Civil War battle of Gettysburg in 1863, both sides suffered approximately 51,000 casualties in three days of fighting using primarily single shot, breech loading rifles and muzzle loading cannon quite crude by contemporary standards. Some 5000 horses were also killed. The problem, in 1066, 1863 and today is human nature, not the tools employed.

I, for one, think that high capacity magazines should be banned so that I can start killing people with my trusty blow dart without fear of high capacity reprisal.

[Silliness after the jump]

Click here.

Then click here.

Good times, right?

Medieval times, even.

(H/T Sadly, No!)






129 replies
  1. 1
    MattR says:

    That stupid is just mind blowing.

    (EDIT: If anyone is interested, I am taking bets on whether I will get off hold with Contintental or Expedia first. There is a separate wager for whether or not that will be before 1 am Eastern time)

  2. 2
    Mark S. says:

    Well, I’m not surprised that the single dumbest argument against banning high capacity magazines came from Confederate Yankee, but I am surprised how dumb it is.

    That should go in a hall of fame of stupid.

  3. 3
    ant says:

    confederateyankee?

    I aint gonna click on that shit.

    LOL

  4. 4
    suzanne says:

    The problem, in 1066, 1863 and today is human nature

    Then we should preemptively throw all Republicans in prison. Just sayin’.

  5. 5
    asiangrrlMN says:

    ‘Coz war is just like walking down the street or something. Gaaaaah! The stupid, it eats my braaaaaains.

  6. 6
    MikeJ says:

    There was an ep of All in the Family where Archie asks meathead if he would prefer that all the shooting victims had been stabbed.

    I’m guessing the nine year old in Arizona would prefer the guy wanting to kill the congressperson had only had a knife.

  7. 7
    MikeJ says:

    Also too, if the specific weapon isn’t the problem, why not let Iran have nukes?

  8. 8
    roshan says:

    Why is the idiot quoting battlefield stats as proof that gun control doesn’t work?

  9. 9
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    That argument is so stupid that I don’t even know how to refute it. I mean, where does one start? Okay, how about this… Estimates of the numbers of people who participated or were killed in a Medieval battle are notoriously inexact, inaccurate, wrong, etc.. Now assume that the Hastings number is correct, what is the major difference maker in death toll between Hastings and Gettysburg? Might it be the fucking weaponry? It might indeed.

  10. 10
    Mark S. says:

    Just imagine the carnage Loughner could have caused if he had 90,000 troops under his command like Meade did.

    It hurts my brain to contemplate this level of stupidity.

  11. 11
    Judas Escargot says:

    Be glad that William didn’t win the Battle of Hastings. Otherwise, we’d all be speaking Norman right now.

  12. 12
    The Dangerman says:

    One would think that level of stupid would be naturally selected out of the gene pool given that idiot appears too stupid to breathe, breed, or not walk in front of buses.

  13. 13
    KG says:

    the argument, I think, is that people who want to kill are always going to find ways to kill… this is true, when guns were banned in the UK, attacks with swords and clubs went up. I’ve heard this line before, but never to this level of stupid. It makes sense to a point, and then it becomes all kinds of stupid, and this is all kinds of stupid.

  14. 14
    asiangrrlMN says:

    Why have any laws, then? I mean, since they are so meaningless and shit. Let’s get rid of the marijuana law and the Hyde Amendment to start with. This guy is too fucking stupid to have a gun.

    ETA: And Citizen’s United. Let’s get rid of that one.

  15. 15
    KC says:

    Oh, for Krishna’s sake.

    If you need a 30-round magazine to shoot some idiot crawling in your window, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

    You also ought to buy all of your neighbors bulletproof glass and brick walls.

    There is no reason for extended magazines, unless you really think the government is going to invade your house to take your guns by force. And if you think that, your pistol will be your weapon of last resort. Like, number 50 or something.

  16. 16
    TOP123 says:

    @MattR: Expedia, but then you’ll find a day later they’ve thoroughly bollixed up your reservation. That’s my bid. (Naturally, I hope I’m wrong… good luck!)

    On topic, I wonder if the writer of the quoted post has considered what would have happened to the casualty rate at Hastings had the huscarls’ platoon of grenadiers not been too hung over to fight, or if Bishop Odo’s retainers’ machine guns had not jammed.

  17. 17
    Little Boots says:

    I never owned a gun. I never wanted to own a gun. But when I moved to Wisconsin, I got it, people hunt. Okay, so what?

    But what still gets me is this whole stupid ass gun love, this whole stupid I need my gun, my gun is my life stupid crap. What is that? Somebody tell me.

  18. 18
    petorado says:

    How come this same logic won’t apply to birth control or abortion? Hey before legal abortion there were coat hangers. “The problem … is human nature, not the tools employed.” There. Solved that debate.

  19. 19
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @MattR: You’re actually CALLING them…how novel. I have no idea. I will throw in for Expedia.

    @MikeJ: Because, WOLVERINES!

  20. 20
    MattR says:

    @TOP123: You are right about the first half. But based on the call so far I don’t have a high level of confidence about things. Luckily, I am not actually expecting to get out on the flight I am changing to on Wed afternoon. I am hoping it will be delayed/cancelled and we will decide to postpone the whole trip for a couple weeks. So I don’t really care how they screw this up since I will probably be changing it again anyway.

    @asiangrrlMN: F’in Continental and Expedia. Continental kept telling me they could not take my call due to high call volume and to go the website. The website said that it encountered an error when trying to change my flight and to call the 800 number. Turns out because I booked through Expedia I have to go through an agent (from Expedia or Continental) to make changes. This is why I prefer to go directly through the airline and/or hotel.

    (EDIT: Total call time to Expedia is about 3 hours so far and they are still working on getting the flight changed – though they did supposedly change my hotel reservation which was the least of my worries)

  21. 21
    electricgrendel says:

    Two things- isn’t this an argument FOR banning automatic weapons? If humans are so dangerous that they can kill that many people with hand weapons and muzzle loaders, then by GOD why would you give them automatics? That’s like saying: “I know I’m 300 lbs, but I should be able to go to the all you can eat buffet because people 50 years ago used to eat large portions at family dinners. It’s human nature, baby!”

    Second- let’s try and hold two conservative notions in our head at one time: 1) Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. 2) Access to safe, affordable abortion makes all women whores who use it for birth control.

    So- the availability of guns doesn’t increase violence or gun-related violence, but the availability of abortion (a highly invasive and uncomfortable and expensive procedure) makes women sexually active and apparently incapable of using condoms. I don’t understand conservatives.

  22. 22
    freelancer says:

    @MattR:

    You’re gonna love this then. (Via S,N!)

  23. 23
    MikeJ says:

    @MattR:

    If anyone is interested, I am taking bets on whether I will get off hold with Contintental or Expedia first.

    While regular old travel agents are hard to find, my life has been much easier since I just started telling clients to give me their in house travel people, and let them book everything per contract specs.

    Who on earth ever thought that having to deal with airlines was worth the $10 it saved me over using a travel agent on a $3000 fare?

  24. 24
    Little Boots says:

    why exactly does the NRA have such a stranglehold? What the hell is that, please, what is that?

  25. 25
    bago says:

    Nobunaga might have something to say on this issue. He was quite the ambitious fellow.

  26. 26
    MikeJ says:

    @freelancer: I thought those people were assholes. Punishing the workers for the sins of management.

  27. 27
    roshan says:

    @Little Boots: Think of it as similar to the love for sleek cars or fighter jets. The only difference between all of these is the purpose of the object of your obsession. Cars go fast, fighter jets fly and guns kill. Also, guns give you an immediate superiority complex over the nearest human being, and since they are so portable, the complex follows you everywhere you take them.

  28. 28
    MattR says:

    @freelancer: I don’t think I should listen to that until I finish up this call.

    @MikeJ: The Indian (I am assuming) woman who finally answered seems quite pleasant. It is most certainly not her fault that Expedia’s system is so messed up that I waited for almost three hours to reach a human being.

    (And at least the new batch of hold music while they finalize my flight is the Allman Brothers. Much better than the Enya I heard a half dozen times earlier)

  29. 29
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @MattR: Hol-ee shit. THREE HOURS? ::clutches her pearls in horror::

  30. 30
    Phineas Phang says:

    The armies at Gettysburg did not use “primarily single shot, breech-loading rifles.” They used primarily single shot, muzzle-loading rifles. Only cavalry, which played a limited role in the battle, routinely used breech-loading rifles in mid-1863. Infantry still used muzzle-loaders. Get your facts straight, please.

  31. 31
    TOP123 says:

    @electricgrendel: Seriously! I don’t know why they even bother trying to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of civilians; you just know they’re going to use napalm and poison gas instead! After all they are “more time-tested methods of killing [and it] should not be forgotten that [millions] were killed” in World War One and Vietnam…

  32. 32
    Little Boots says:

    roshan, you’re right. it’s the same stupid shit. but we can stop it, can’t we? can’t we? okay we can’t, but can’t we at least rein it in a little?

  33. 33
    S. cerevisiae says:

    There is no reason in the world anyone needs more than a ten round magazine unless they are committing mass murder or armed robbery. And if you shoot ten rounds during an armed robbery you are likely going to be shot by the cops anyway. So really, can these asshats give one coherent reason why they need thirty round magazines?

  34. 34
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @Little Boots: No. We can’t stop it. Can we rein it in? I sure as hell hope so.

    @S. cerevisiae: WOLVE-FUCKING-RINES! How many times do I have to say it?

  35. 35
    Brian says:

    Dammit, I lost at least 10 IQ points just reading that, and I don’t have much to spare! I think it is cute that he pointed out the 5,000 dead horses. Must be an animal lover. I’ll bet criminals obey plenty of laws. It would be hard not to. I’m obeying the law right now (not that I’m a criminal, ahem) by not euthanizing the Confederate Yankee. The most amazing part is that the C.Y. is able to turn on his computer to post such idiocy. I mean, really.

  36. 36
    Calming Influence says:

    “At the Civil War battle of Gettysburg in 1863, both sides suffered approximately 51,000 casualties in three days of fighting using primarily single shot, breech loading rifles and muzzle loading cannon quite crude by contemporary standards.”

    O.K., Sure! Now give one side of the Civil War battle of Gettysburg 9mm automatics, and take the breech loaders away from the other side.

    See? Now Jared Loughner is the side with the 9 mils, and the crowd at the supermarket is the side without the breech loaders, so it’s totally like Gettysburg!

    Wait. What was my point again?

  37. 37
    Little Boots says:

    @asiangrrlMN:

    I know. What is this shit? What is wrong with us? Why do we love guns so much?

  38. 38
    PS says:

    Gettysburg? Hah! I see your Gettysburg and raise you Cannae. Or if you’re going for the multi-day engagement, how about the Somme? Estimated killed 300,000+, not to mention 750,000 wounded, give or take. And not a nuke in sight. Come to think of it, not too many Generals in sight either, let alone Prime Ministers, Presidents or Kings. Funny, that.

  39. 39
    roshan says:

    @Little Boots: Well, it can be reined in, but only when gun control is not equated as taking away guns from everybody. The NRA and right-wing talk radio has effectively cemented that opinion in a large subset of the population, which makes it very difficult (almost impossible) to bring up gun control.

  40. 40
    MattR says:

    And I am off the phone after a grand total of 219 minutes. I can’t wait to do it again on Wednesday.

  41. 41
    Little Boots says:

    @roshan:

    and that’s so damn annoying. why would anyone think that, except that they are primed to think that by the NRA. Is there a solution, a reasonable solution? I can’t think of one.

  42. 42
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Little Boots: Speaking as the owner of three guns (two shotguns and a rifle), I only say that two were gifts from an uncle and one I inherited from from a grandfather. As a result, I have a sentimental attachment to these particular guns as objects. In addition, I can also view them as tools, much as I would a table saw or radial arm saw. Like the saws, each has a somewhat different use. As tools, they can be used well or poorly. Also, like a power tool, they are not fucking toys.

    As totems of masculinity or power, however, I really don’t see the point.

  43. 43
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @roshan: I agree with you. The right and the NRA have effectively equated gun control with, “Oh noez! All yur gunz belong 2 libruls!” And, Democrats have caviled and backtracked and been mealy-mouth on it, as is our wont. We have to stop ceding ground (much like the abortion debate. Well, any debate, really).

    @Calming Influence: That guns don’t kill people because they are just tools?

  44. 44
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @MattR: Holy shit. That’s just…wow.

    @Little Boots: No. People are deeply stupid, by and large.

    @Omnes Omnibus: Maybe it’s because you don’t need to compensate, if you catch my drift.

  45. 45
    Little Boots says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:
    and I get that people own guns. I am not against people owning guns. what i hate is the whole stupid gun love shit. what is that about?

  46. 46
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Little Boots: That was really my point. As a gun owner, I don’t understand the freaky shit either. Of course, I don’t think I have fired a gun in about 10 years, so there’s that too.

  47. 47
    Little Boots says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: that’s really what gets me. I don’t care how many people own guns, what gets me is the weird love. stop it, america!

  48. 48
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @asiangrrlMN: I have come to terms with any shortcomings I may or may not have.

  49. 49
    Jules says:

    Set aside too the fact that even if all firearms could be magically disintegrated by appropriate legislation, the murderous would simply use other more time-tested methods of killing.

    Why is it so hard for them to just admit that:
    A. Less bullets in the magazine means less people would have died in Tuscon
    and
    B. Guns don’t kill people…they just make it easier (I think Eddie Izzard said that)

    confederateyankee is a stupid fucking name….
    and Yeah…what assiangrrl said “Because, WOLVERINES! “

  50. 50
    freelancer says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    No kidding. I don’t mind gun owners, hell, I am a gun owner. It’s locked up in a gun safe at my Dad’s house, but it’s still mine, I suppose.

    It’s the gun fetishists that just creep me the fuck out. And to a man, they seem to know fuck all about weapon safety too, and they’re proud of it.

  51. 51
    Little Boots says:

    @Omnes Omnibus:

    wish I could.

  52. 52
    S. cerevisiae says:

    @Omnes Omnibus: Exactly! I hunt deer with my bolt action rifle and small game with my shotgun or .22 I don’t need any more, and frankly if you can’t take down a deer with one shot then you need more practice.

  53. 53
    Viva BrisVegas says:

    @Little Boots:

    I don’t care how many people own guns, what gets me is the weird love. stop it, america!

    Guns are just tools used to perform a function. As are dildos.

  54. 54
    Calming Influence says:

    @asiangrrlMN: I was going to go with apples and agents orange, but I guess “tools” works too.

  55. 55
    Caz says:

    How will high capacity magazines make us safer? I for one like higher capacity magazines for the simple reason that when you’re target shooting, you don’t have to reload as often.

    If it’s not going to make us safer, then why outlaw it. If someone is intent on murdering people, they will do it regardless of what size magazines are available. Plus, we shouldn’t go down the road of limiting firearms and accessories, because they will always want to go one small step further. And each small step, by itself, isn’t objectionable, but at the end of several small steps, law abiding citizens have had their gun rights reduced to small magazines and calibers, which is not what the Constitution says.

  56. 56
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @Jules: Eddie Izzard said, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people, and so do monkeys…if they’ve got a gun.” Monkeys are like WOLVERINES!

    @Omnes Omnibus: That’s a good way to live life.

  57. 57
    Little Boots says:

    come upstairs, you goobs. we miss you.

  58. 58
    S. cerevisiae says:

    @Caz: The classic slippery slope fallacy. Why not go the other way and allow us to have nukes?

  59. 59
    MattR says:

    @Caz: In your view, does the Constitution allow for some regulation/restriction on what weapons and ammunition are available to the citizenry?

  60. 60
    Roger Moore says:

    @S. cerevisiae:

    So really, can these asshats give one coherent reason why they need thirty round magazines?

    Because shut up, that’s why! WOLVERINES!

  61. 61
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @Viva BrisVegas: Just make sure you do not mix up the two.

    @Calming Influence: Viva la revolucion. Or something.

  62. 62
    TOP123 says:

    @S. cerevisiae: Is that intentional or unintentional Palin snark? ;)

    One of the most amusing things I’ve read in a while on this topic was some Teabag type trying to justify an extended magazine for his target shooting pleasure. Oh please. I also don’t get why more hunters aren’t willing to point out that a 9mm with a 33 rd xmag is not standard equipment as a sidearm for big game hunting or any other reasonable purpose. Good reliable large caliber revolver, or a Glock with 33 shots and a magazine that’s waving around behind your ass?

  63. 63
    Little Boots says:

    @MattR:

    yes, yes it does. do you know the 2nd amendment is intimitely bound up with the lack of a standing army? did you know that?

  64. 64
    Little Boots says:

    @Viva BrisVegas:

    and where’s the National Dildo Association? Where, I ask you, where?

  65. 65
    TOP123 says:

    @Caz: Seriously, you target shoot with a 33rd extended magazine? Why? I’ve heard this argument a couple of times before, and I’m sorry, unless you just like blowing away at things or practicing for the zombie apocalypse, I can’t imagine why you would want the extra weight and all involved.

  66. 66
    Little Boots says:

    omnes, please don’t be asleep. explain this whole gun thang, please.

  67. 67
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @Little Boots: Up the ass of the NRA. Had to be said.

    @Little Boots: It really is pretty much a power thing. Anybody can kill with a gun. It’s a great equalizer.

  68. 68

    @MattR: Maybe you should try some of the suggestions in this article.

  69. 69
    Little Boots says:

    You’re all upsetting Anne. Go upstairs, you goobs.

  70. 70
    jl says:

    I’m with the Yankee on this. My freedom has been intolerably infringed.

    Now I can take my broadsword and pike, and 24 pounder howitzer to local congressional meetings.

    I’m glad the Conf Yankee cleared it all up and set things straight.

    Edit: And I plumb forgot about my crossbow. Maybe I’ll just take the crossbow.

    Edit edit: naw, I’m taking them all to the next city council meeting.

  71. 71
    Death Panel Truck says:

    There was an ep of All in the Family where Archie asks meathead if he would prefer that all the shooting victims had been stabbed.

    He was talking to Gloria: “Would it make you feel any better, little goil, if dey was pushed outta windas?”

  72. 72
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @jl: You know, I think this is a fabulous idea. If you can’t beat them, join them. I will take my rusty pitchfork to the next Bachmann town hall (if she ever shows her face in her own damn district again). Let’s see how well that goes over with her and her constituents.

  73. 73
    Common Sense says:

    @asiangrrlMN:

    Swear to FSM a conservative just used Red Dawn to defend the notion that the government can’t require gun registration.

    I asked “Are you against requiring registration/licensing for driving cars too…..or just guns?” This was the reply:

    ———–
    Just guns. I mean don’t be silly here, there is no constitutional right to drive a car and there is no constituency out there lobbying to ban cars from the road.

    If the gun grabbers were consistent then every time someone was killed by a drunk driver there would be calls to ban cars from the road. People would be suing automakers for wrongful death and car dealers for selling dangerous instruments of death.

    The right to keep and bear arms is preeminent among all the rights as without it the rest fall by the wayside.

    Did you ever watch the movie “Red Dawn”? The first thing the reds did when they landed in the US was to search the gun shops to find the documents listing who had purchased guns and those were the first people rounded up and put in concentration camps. Fiction yes, but it made a point that has been proven out in history. Check out the Phillipines under the Marcos sometimes.

    Just about anytime in history when governments require gun registration the next or eventual outcome is confiscation.

  74. 74
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @Common Sense: I think I would have had to punch the guy in the nuts (and I’m assuming it’s a guy) for writing something that excruciatingly stupid.

  75. 75
    Little Boots says:

    seriously, you will not come upstairs? what is with you all?

  76. 76
    TOP123 says:

    @asiangrrlMN: Pitchfork–hmm… too plebian, sockalist. Besides, the Bachmannites love firearms. Your arquebus, perhaps?

  77. 77
    Common Sense says:

    @asiangrrlMN:

    I honestly thought the Red Dawn thing was a joke among progressives. I had no idea that people actually look to that insipid trash for guidance.

  78. 78
    MattR says:

    @Common Sense:

    Just about anytime in history when governments require gun registration the next or eventual outcome is confiscation.

    The best part about this statement is that any counterexample you provide can be refudiated with “Yeah it hasn’t happened yet, but eventually it will”

  79. 79
    TOP123 says:

    @Common Sense: Seriously, if you were to try to suddenly implement a crushing dictatorship (based, say, on traditional Kenyan Muslim Atheist Sockalist Anti-Imperialism) on this country, would the first thing you worried about be guns? It’s funny, I’d think cars and phone/internet/tv/radio access might come ahead of that. Both of those things are, as far as I know, currently very regulated by the government. Oh well… I’m sure Red Dawn will teach us how to deal with this, too.

  80. 80
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @Common Sense: I know. It’s pretty sad. Like using 24 as a guideline as to how to treat terrorists. It’s a fucking TV show.

    @MattR: Exactly. “Just you wait and see” is the inevitable conversation-stopper.

  81. 81
    Common Sense says:

    @MattR:

    My question is how they are going to confiscate handguns when the Supreme Court just struck down handgun bans. I guess it was just a brilliant ploy and they’re coming for our weapons regardless?

  82. 82
    MattR says:

    @Common Sense: You are forgetting about their fear that Emperor Obama will dissolve the Supreme Court and both houses of Congress.

  83. 83
    Little Boots says:

    would you people, seriously.

  84. 84
    dziliak says:

    More straw, please.

    Christ, I started reading this site because I thought it was home to thinking liberals.

    Needless to say that there is a case for a certain level of gun regulation in this country.

    But this bullshit is on the same level as the gun nuts saying ‘an armed society is a polite society’.

    IOW, feelgood bullshit that means nothing.

    That said, when the actual victims in this case ask for high capacity magazine bans (which I agree with concerning pistols, rifles whose design capacity is 30 rounds I’ll just have to agree to disagree), I’ll give them a polite listen and support those policies I agree with.

    Until then, Bloomberg and his lawbreaking (WTF gives a NYC Mayor the right to enforce in Arizona the interstate commerce laws that Federal gun laws are based on??) bodyguards can kiss my Hoosier ass when it comes to gun bans.

    Shit, I voted for Obama this time around because I finally became convinced that the Repub culture war bullshit about ‘Obama the gun grabber’ was just that, bullshit.

    Just remember that if West Virginia has went Democratic in 2000, like it had for literally decades before, Florida would have been irrelevant and Al Gore would have been President.

    Instead we had Gore bragging about his Brady endorsements and he fucking lost West Virginia and his own home state of Tennessee.

    Either of which would have put him over the top and made 2001-2009 unnecessary.

    But hey, what the fuck do I know.
    Go ahead a disregard all of the surveys over the years that show public support for gun regulations of the type you apparently support to be a ‘mile wide and an inch deep’.

    IOW, the only voters willing to make gun laws a ‘do or die’ issue are the NRA supporters and not the whackaloon Brady Campaign nutjobs.

  85. 85
    MattR says:

    @dziliak: What law did Bloomberg or anyone associated with the gun show investigation break? What he did was essentially investigative journalism to show that the regulations in place were not being followed.

  86. 86
    asiangrrlMN says:

    @dziliak: How the fuck is it straw when it comes from the damn gun-nuts themselves? No one on this post is saying, “Take all the damn guns.” In your ill-thought-out screed, you mention that you agree pistols should not have the 30-round magazines. That’s pretty much what the asshat in the piece is arguing against–and what most of the people on this post are supporting. So, unclutch your pearls and your guns and your anus and stop being such a jackass.

    @MattR: And, on a more civilized note, what you said.

  87. 87
    Yutsano says:

    @asiangrrlMN: Hon, you are just so sexified when you are righteous like that. I thought the comment was so idiotic that it warranted no response meself.

  88. 88
    dziliak says:

    Unless his agents were actual residents of Arizona, if they bought handguns they broke the Federal laws dating back to GCA 1968 regarding the interstate transfer of handguns that forbid a resident of a state from selling firearms in interstate commerce unless the person buying or selling holds a Federal FFL (license to buy and sell firearms in interstate commerce) and that the sale would be legal under the laws of both states.

    IOW, if the undercover officers had NY state ID and represented themselves as NY residents, any handgun sale would be illegal under Federal law and both the dealers and the sellers would be liable.

    If they represented themselves as Arizona residents, then the buyers would be liable, as NY police have no authority to enforce Federal laws in Arizona.

    Or more simply, the NY State or city police acting undercover in Arizona had no police authority to do so.

    I don’t oppose reasonable gun restrictions.
    In fact I believe my own home state’s gun laws (Indiana, BTW) should be somewhat more restrictive as to who gets a carry permit.

    That said, as a rule I don’t favor magazine limits.
    Though I am willing to compromise and accept the original design capacity of a firearm as a limit.

    IOW, 33 round magazines for a Glock handgun would be unacceptable, but 30 round AK or AR magazines would be because the AK and AR commonly use such magazines in military service while the Glock pistol* does not.

    *the Glock 18 full automatic machine pistol uses a 33 round magazine, but since legal Glock 18’s are *very* hard to come by and very expensive, they are not relevant to the discussion other than my saying that I agree with prohibiting them for sale to anyone who doesn’t legally own a Glock 18.

  89. 89
    dziliak says:

    To add, I meant this to appear in the previous topic WRT Bloomberg is his idiotic ‘stings’, so if this appears to be out of topic, that’s why.

    I say ‘idiotic’ because the tone of the article makes it appear as if buying extended capacity magazines was a ‘big issue’.

    Well, it may be an issue in California or New York, but it’s certainly not an issue in Arizona or Indiana, or indeed, under current Federal law.

    We have are own gun laws and are satisfied with them and we certainly don’t need a NYC Mayor telling us that we need to ban certain guns and gun accessories.

  90. 90
    dziliak says:

    Blech…ignore the typos and misspellings (‘are’ instead of ‘our’, etc.)

    Spellcheck can make one lazy indeed. :(

  91. 91
    dziliak says:

    I’ll clarify further and risk getting lynched by those here in Indiana who think I’m commie pink as it is. :)

    I support a law that would require all private transfers of firearms to be completed through an FFL who would run the prerequisite NICS checks prior to completing the transaction.

    IOW, a ‘gun show loophole*’ closing, but only if the law specifies the amount to be charged by the dealer ($20 is reasonable, $100 is not) as affordability is a concern if you want to encourage compliance with the law.

    *actually this is more accurately described as a private sale loophole closing, as the sales regulated would be those between private individuals.

    Sales a FFL dealer makes at a gun show are legally subject to the same requirements as a sale he makes in his shop (federal instant check, any state waiting periods, etc.) would be.

  92. 92
    dziliak says:

    Clarification of a previous post before I go to bed:

    The GCA ’68 only allows for transfers of long guns in interstate commerce under specific circumstances between private individuals.

    Handguns in interstate commerce are required to be transfered between FFL holders only.

    IOW, I can quite legally sell a rifle or shotgun to a Kentucky resident or vice versa, but I cannot legally buy or sell a handgun to/from a Kentucky resident.

  93. 93
    Shalimar says:

    @S. cerevisiae: Caz was nice enough to give us a coherent reason. Because they’re too fucking lazy to reload after 10 shots instead of 30. Which somehow does not make me feel comfortable about his approach to gun safety, also, too.

  94. 94
    soonergrunt says:

    @MikeJ: This!
    The problem with guns and gun control is that a significant portion of the population needs something to make them feel better about the size of their penises. And, living amongst a section of these people, I can tell you that it really does come down to “black men* have big dicks, therefore I need a gun to protect my wimmin-folk.”
    *Yes, ABL, they frequently use the other word, but I ain’t going there. Like LCK said, you thought it anyway…
    If racism weren’t part of the whole shtick, don’t you all think that ‘confederate yankee’ might have otherwise been ‘yankee cowboy’ or something else?
    A hand gun is a tool for a specific kind of job. Nothing more. I don’t walk around with a hand gun for the same reason I don’t carry a fucking circular saw everywhere I go.

  95. 95
    soonergrunt says:

    @MikeJ:
    This!
    The problem with guns and gun control is that a significant portion of the population needs something to make them feel better about the size of their dicks. And, living amongst a section of these people, I can tell you that it really does come down to “black men* have big dicks, therefore I need a gun to protect my wimmin-folk.”

    *Yes, ABL, they frequently use the other word, but I ain’t going there. Like LCK said, you thought it anyway…
    If racism weren’t part of the whole shtick, don’t you all think that ‘confederate yankee’ might have otherwise been ‘yankee cowboy’ or something else?
    A hand gun is a tool for a specific kind of job. Nothing more. I don’t walk around with a hand gun for the same reason I don’t carry a fucking circular saw everywhere I go.

  96. 96
    Ash Can says:

    This country would be a much better place to live if our Founding Fathers hadn’t included in the Bill of Rights a second amendment that the courts could misinterpret all to hell.

  97. 97
    valdemar says:

    Are all American rightists historical illiterates? One person with an AK-47 and enough ammo would have changed the course of history at Hastings, no bother. That’s the point – automatic weapons are not equalisers, they are terrorisers. They confer a huge advantage on those who wield them. Knives and clubs are vastly inferior weapons, which is why Arnie doesn’t carry ’em in all those thrilling movies. How simple does it have to be before these gun-happy clowns get it?

  98. 98
    Michael says:

    @MattR:

    If anyone is interested, I am taking bets on whether I will get off hold with Contintental or Expedia first. There is a separate wager for whether or not that will be before 1 am Eastern time

    If you had used a travel agent, they could be on hold for you or just book you on a different flight.

  99. 99
    b-psycho says:

    @electricgrendel:

    If humans are so dangerous that they can kill that many people with hand weapons and muzzle loaders, then by GOD why would you give them automatics?

    Or cruise missiles, fighter jets, & claimed authority to use them in the name of others, for that matter…

  100. 100
    brantl says:

    @Caz: Why do you parade being stupid? I just don’t get that.

  101. 101
    liberal says:

    @TOP123:

    Seriously, if you were to try to suddenly implement a crushing dictatorship (based, say, on traditional Kenyan Muslim Atheist Sockalist Anti-Imperialism) on this country, would the first thing you worried about be guns? It’s funny, I’d think cars and phone/internet/tv/radio access might come ahead of that.

    Exactly. _Current_ ownership/access to guns is neither sufficient nor necessary. Rather, political organization is. If you have the organization, you stand a chance at being successful. And when you need the guns, you can always steal/buy them, from the gubmint forces if necessary.

  102. 102
    liberal says:

    @Caz:

    …law abiding citizens have had their gun rights reduced to small magazines and calibers, which is not what the Constitution says.

    Actually, the Constitution does say that: “…a well-regulated militia…”

    But so-called supporters of 2nd Amendment rights can’t read.

  103. 103
    rea says:

    Hastings was much, much bloodier than Gettysburg. At Gettysburg, there were about 51,000 casualties–8000 dead– out of 165,000 participants. At Hastings, there were about 7000 dead out of abut 14,000 participants.

    Not that either battle tells us much about civilian firearms policy.

  104. 104
    Tuttle says:

    @PS: You could make a decent argument that the battles of Arausio, Aqua Sextae and Vercellae, fought in 105, 102 and 101 BCE between Germanic tribes and the Roman Republic, were more deadly than even The Somme. 120k, 90k and 140k killed respectively (according to Livy). In one day of fighting per event. With swords and spears.

  105. 105
    soonergrunt says:

    @Caz: No. The Constitution says

    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.

    That first part being pretty important. A well regulated militia
    The Founders never intended for the II to refer to private, unregulated ownership of firearms. Many cities and towns at that time severely limited possession of guns. People’s wills were routinely usurped by the state with respect to the disposition of firearms, particularly pistols.
    Unless you’re mustering on the village green every Saturday morning and every other Sunday morning, the II doesn’t confer any rights upon you, at least as the Founders envisioned it. And those guns were to be commonly held property, maintained and stored by the state.
    It is only through right-winger judicial activism, going against the commonly known and accepted meanings of the II and over a hundred years of law and jurisprudence that allows you, me, or anyone else, to own a firearm.
    And one last thing–if you honestly need more than 5 or 6 rounds in battery at a time to hit the target, you probably ought to take up a different sport.

  106. 106

    […] link courtesy of balloon juice. […]

  107. 107
    honus says:

    @Caz:
    “law abiding citizens have had their gun rights reduced”

    This is another falsehood that the NRA has sold over the past 20 years. The idea of an individual right to gun ownership was never a widely held legal principle until recently. The Constitution says nothing about a personal right to self defense, and citizens have never had, and do not now have, a right to armed redress against government officials. That, despite all the rhetoric, is not what was written or even vaguely intended by the authors of the constitution.
    The purpose of the second amendment is not to allow you to keep firearms to resist the government’s enforcement of its laws. Otherwise, we are not a country of laws. Tax protesters such as Randy Weaver used guns, illegally, to fire on revenue agents who were serving warrants. The second amendment does not legalize or justify this behavior. It is inimical to establishment of government to provide a right to violent resistance to government execution of duly authorized authority. The founders did not do or intend this, and those who insist they did are merely subversives, and certainly not patriots.
    The overtly stated purpose of the second amendment (“security of a free state”) is to allow the governor to have a militia in order to enforce the state’s laws. Not to allow individuals the right to violent resistance to such enforcement. Furthermore, in direct contradiction to Judge Scalia’s reasoning in Heller, neither the Second Amendment, nor any other part of the Constitution makes any mention of a right to arm oneself for personal safety.

  108. 108
    honus says:

    sorry Sooner, you said it first and better than I did.

  109. 109
    Stillwater says:

    @honus: sorry Sooner, you said it first and better than I did.

    Saying

    The purpose of the second amendment is not to allow you to keep firearms to resist the government’s enforcement of its laws. Otherwise, we are not a country of laws.

    captures some of the gun-rights/2nd Amendment lunacy pretty fucking well.

  110. 110
    Li says:

    The thing I never understand is how people can possibly think that banning things means that those things no longer exist. Frankly, it usually doesn’t even make them more difficult to obtain.

    Drugs of various sorts have been banned for decades, but you can even acquire drugs in prison. If we can’t even control contraband in prisons, how are we supposed to control it in the real world? It’s amazing that people are arguing to ban things at all, given that I’ve yet to come across a single ban that was actually successful in ridding society of the banned item. It just wastes a lot of policing time that could be better used pursuing murderers, rapists, and white collar criminals.

    Interesting fact; you can get fully automatic weapons in the US, if you are rich. You see, all automatic weapons produced and sold before the ban date were grandfathered in by serial number. The result is that these weapons have become extremely expensive, but are still quite available. Of course, you need a class III license too, but the only difficulty there is that it costs a lot of money. In effect, the rich are allowed to be much better armed than us plebes. I find that alarming.

    Oh, and the second amendment is not there to make it so that we can resist the governments laws, but rather so that we can resist a government that has gone off the rails and become a tyranny. Personally, I think that peaceful rebellions such as the one in Egypt are actually better long term, but our founding fathers lived in an era before Ghandi, and armed rebellion was the only way they knew.

    One more point; the powerful getting away with massive crimes (torture, theft, murder, engineering profitable catastrophe) destroys the rule of law more effectively than any nut with a gun.

  111. 111
    Bob L says:

    Most of the people killed at Hastings were killed running away from the side who had won. Anyway, what does two armies fighting it out have to do with gun control?

  112. 112
    soonergrunt says:

    @honus: It’s all good. I would simply revise and extend your remarks to point out that within the EXTREMELY limited context of armed rebellion against federal authority that SOME of the Founders envisioned, it was the several states acting corporately under the leadership of elected governors and legislatures that were envisioned to engage in insurrection. Other rebellions and insurrections, not led by elected authority were considered illegitimate and unlawful.
    See Whiskey Rebellion

  113. 113
    soonergrunt says:

    @Tuttle: Hell, just a few years ago, in Rwanda when most of the 850 thousand or so casualties were killed by machete.

  114. 114
    Stillwater says:

    (Oops/deleted!)

    @Li: Oh, and the second amendment is not there to make it so that we can resist the governments laws, but rather so that we can resist a government that has gone off the rails and become a tyranny.

    This is crazy. What would you be ‘resisting’? The laws (the recourse for that is the courts, passage of new amendments, etc), the institutions themselves (then you’re overthrowing the constitution), the elected representatives (then vote them out of office)?

  115. 115
    twiffer says:

    @soonergrunt: @honus:

    adding to that, the US did not have a standing army until 1791. state millitias were the army when the 2nd amendment was first drafted. basically, the 2nd amendment is the federal government’s way of avoiding the hassle of supplying the army with guns. ;-)

  116. 116
    Stillwater says:

    @soonergrunt: @honus: @twiffer:

    All you guys are (IMO) entirely correct about the context, history, practical purpose, legal interpretation, of the 2nd Amendment. Given all this, I’m always amazed when people skip right over these … what do ya call’em? … facts and claim the amendment provides the right to use armed resistance against a government subjectively determined to have ‘gone off the rails’. If the tyranny was so bad, people would resist the government no matter what the constitution said.

    Question to a 2nd-ender: Why would the constitution, a legal document, guarantee the right to use force to overthrow constitution?

  117. 117
    TOP123 says:

    @Stillwater: @twiffer: @soonergrunt: @honus: Absolutely great points, and interesting reading. I learned some good stuff here! I have a question for you all, or anyone else here who is better informed than I on the history of the 2nd Amendment: as stated above, the 2nd A. was focussed on militias. It was my understanding, however, that there were two other points: first, the ongoing conflicts between the expanding states and the Native American populations they were driving from their land (I realize this is linked to the militia issue, and to twiffer’s point about the army), and second, the right of citizens to own fowling pieces and other firearms for purposes of hunting–that the new republic expressly differentiated itself thereby from the old monarchies of Europe by allowing citizens (at least property owning free men) to hunt, rather than restricting this to the aristocracy and royalty. That the militias and hunting were the reason for the right to bear arms (under proper regulation), and not the NRA fantasy of overthrowing a tyrannical government. Is this wildly off base? An historical fantasy of my own, perhaps?

  118. 118
    honus says:

    @TOP123: Probably factually correct about hunters and differentiating from monarchies allowing for citizens to own guns, but, and I don’t mean to sound like a bagger her, but there ain’t no hunting or self-defense in the Constitution. That’s why I get so incensed about the now-commonly accepted conception of “gun rights” There ain’t no individual gun rights, right to hunt or right to be armed to fight the federal government or shoot robbers. The second amendment is about state militias. Until Scalia, virtually all US Courts recognized that.
    Hell, these 2nd enders are all supposed to be such admirers of old west frontier America. Haven’t they noticed the first thing the lawman does when he comes to town is outlaw guns? It’s what Wyatt Earp was doing at the OK Corral, enforcing the Tombstone gun ban on the Clantons. Even John Wayne did it in Rio Bravo.

  119. 119
    Li says:

    *sigh* I’d refer you to the 28th federalist paper, but you are so confident of how right you are I doubt you would read it. I think if you bothered any doubts about the founders concerns about homegrown tyranny would be laid to rest. There are so many misconceptions here that I doubt I can counter them all, but here goes.

    Of course the founders intended the second amendment for militias, but their concept of them was of a group of people who could gather together at a moments notice to defend their freedom against foes foreign or domestic. They kind of detested standing armies, and given the way that standing armies tended to regularly ravage Europe, and their recent experience with the British army starving American women and children to death in prison ships, who can blame them? Saying that our standing army is equivalent to a militia, and that there for means that the 2nd amendment is covered, is kind of missing the point. In their view, since they had no concept of peaceful revolt, people would have to have guns in order to form those militias if need be. You can’t simply wish weaponry into being after you have been disarmed.

    “This is crazy. What would you be ‘resisting’? The laws (the recourse for that is the courts, passage of new amendments, etc), the institutions themselves (then you’re overthrowing the constitution), the elected representatives (then vote them out of office)?”

    A great many evils have been codified into law, even in western nations. I hate to go all Godwin on you, but the holocaust was legal by German law, as were the Soviet programs against the Ukrainians. It is unlikely that either of those groups would have had much success in passing amendments or contesting their murder in the courts. A contemporary example to our founders would the rule of Oliver Cromwell over England. He murdered a great many men of letters who no doubt thought that the laws would protect them, and the founders reasoned that if such a person would take charge here in the US, they would have to be ousted in much the same manner as Cromwell was. Oh, and Cromwell? He had no intention of being voted out of office, or even allowing a vote, for that matter.

    And let us not confuse institutions with the constitution. As we witnessed over the past ten years, US institutions at times have no trouble ignoring the constitution when it suits their aims. By your reasoning, all of the illegal and unconstitutional abuses that Bush oversaw were constitutional by virtue of them having been committed by an institution (the executive) which was created in the constitution. I submit that my logic is less crazy than that sort of circular nonsense. The idea our founders had was to overthrow people who were ignoring the constitution in order to restore it, not to authorize people to overthrow the constitution. I think the response to the whiskey rebellion shows that they did not support rebels that would overthrow the constitution by any means.

    Finally, I note that no one has any answer to the futility of banning things, nor the way that banning weaponry tends to produce two groups, one heavily armed and the other disarmed, very much along class lines. I think it would be to our benefit to debate matters such as this some time after we have overcome the problems of futile, illegal wars, massive loss of public funds into private pockets, and general failure of the rule of law to control our elites. After all, one bomb dropped on a wedding tends to kill more people than that nutcase could have if he had a 100 round clip.

  120. 120
    soonergrunt says:

    @TOP123: No. You’re not off base. There was widely known at the time, a need for fowling pieces and long arms for hunting. Additionally, people on the frontier had guns and this was considered normal. But if and when someone came to town, if he had a gun, generally had to discharge it at the edge of town or turn it over to the constable/marshal/sheriff.
    I can’t speak or write intelligently about relations on the frontier with Indian tribes and settlements during that time period, so I will not address that.
    As for these militia types running around in the right wing today, there’s a convoluted legal history behind them, but essentially, the legal authority for an unarmed, unorganized militia that was not subject to state discipline was also not allowed to do anything.
    The militia was considered all able-bodied men aged 16 to 50. This meant that ALL of these men were required to muster on the village green or common with their piece that must be .40 to .75 calibre or equivalent gauge, a hatchet, and sufficient powder and ball for 40 shots. Those that did not own such arms would be provided with a pike or arms from storage. The arms that came from storage got into storage when the constable confiscated arms from criminals or from the deceased. In many communities, if a man died leaving one son and had had two long guns, one of those guns would be taken for the armory. Pistols, generally recognized as having one purpose, were almost always confiscated by the constable, and would be used by him and issued to officers and corporals of the militia (who were usually elected to such office).
    The right of people to NOT muster every Saturday for four hours and every other Sunday for two to four hours, was not established until the mid 1880s, even as it had been going on for decades. The militia was split into the Organized Militia, the forerunner of today’s National Guard, and the Unorganized Militia, which consisted of guys who wanted to sleep in on the weekends. That all that the unorganized militia is. Guys who didn’t volunteer for militia duty. They have NO other rights except the right to not drill. They damn sure do NOT have the right to dress up in pseudo-military uniforms and parade around carrying arms.
    I can say that for as long as the militia was a common experience for American men, it was standing custom that the constable or sheriff or marshal would, upon hearing of a party of armed men, go out to enquire of them their business, and if it was anything other than a hunting party, he would probably have called the militia into service for the purpose of arresting them.
    As twiffer pointed out, the purpose of the militia was to have an army without having to pay for it. The Founders believed that a large standing army was dangerous for the country, but they also believed that every man should do his part and that by doing so made a stronger civil society. This is one of the reasons that the units of the Army that have the longest recognized lineages are all National Guard units in New England and Virginia.
    As another has pointed out, one of the first things that any town almost always did upon formal establishment, was to outlaw the carry of pistols within the town limits.

  121. 121
    TOP123 says:

    @soonergrunt: @honus:

    Thanks. Interesting point you both made about the restrictions on firearms (specifically handguns) in the 19th Century West. I appreciate both of your comments.

    T

  122. 122
    Name, required says:

    @MikeJ:

    The same reason we don’t let any threatening people have guns, they have already stated their intention of killing innocent people with them as soon as they get their hands on them, and your so-called “argument” is yet more proof that liberalism is a DANGEROUS mental disorder!

    Imagine how much nicer the world would be if everyone would shoot/stab/nuke/punch/etc just one liberal …

    It’s called SARCASM people, look it up! ..and get over yourself!

  123. 123
    Name, required says:

    It figures this site’s comments are moderated, liberals never could stand the light of truth shining on their shaky points …

  124. 124
    Name, required says:

    @honus:

    What a BOGUS argument! The Second is a “collective” right while the ENTIRE REST OF THE DOCUMENT is about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!

    Oh boy, I say it in a Hollywood movie, so it MUST be true, right? Another idiotic liberal assumption.

    While I am on my soapbox, and this will probably not pass muster with the censors on this site anyway, let me expound on that.

    The Second Amendment is all about the right of the people, i.e., you and me, to keep and to carry weapons, period. It does not say guns only, and neither does it say knives only, or clubs, or any other specific weapon type, but ALL types of weapons, up to and including anything the Federal Goobermint has in its arsenals, so that when the goobermint becomes tyrannical, we the people, in order to restore a more perfect union, have the means to overthrow said tyrannical goobermint and replace it with one that will hold true to the intents on the original framers of the Constitution of the United States.

    Incidentally, why is that only liberals have ever shot or tried to shoot any of the Presidents of the United States? The very first presidential assassination was of the very first Republican President to ever be elected to that office, murdered by an avowed liberal Democrat! JFK, a rather conservative democrat who would probably be a Republican in today’s climate, was shot by a known Communist, another liberal trait. Gerald Ford, another Republican, was shot at twice by two different women in about 7-8 days time, one of which was the infamous “Squeaky” Frohm, one of Charles Manson’s disciples, and women in general tend to be left leaning as a group. Hinkley was a delusional Hollywood worshiper, another known liberal haunt, when he shot Reagan.

    No wonder liberals want to ban all guns, they are afraid of themselves!

  125. 125
    Name, required says:

    Okay, I can see that an English lesson is required here to clarify this Second Amendment issue. I hope you all remember how to diagram a sentence …

    “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.”

    Many liberal arguments and all the court cases that hold the Second to be a collective right, claim that the first part of that statement is a modifying preparatory clause. It is no such thing, it is actually the part of speech known as a present participle, and as all people who remember their English lessons should know, a present participle in NO WAY modifies the statement that follows it. Thus, when people claim that they have a right to keep and bear arms, they are factually correct, and all the impassioned, feel good arguments you want to make against it will never change that one fundamental truth, which is what the recent Supreme Court ruling that reversed all the prior court rulings on the subject was both the correct one and ever so long overdue.

    Incidentally, the term, “regulated” in the Second means being a good shot.

    The greatest thing I learned in college was how to do my own research and think for myself.

    The most dangerous thing I learned in college was how to do my own research and think for myself.

  126. 126
    TOP123 says:

    Outstanding performance!

    Seriously, the best parts of your insane brain damaged person parody were when you suggested that John Kennedy would be a modern GOPer, and when you spun that priceless bit about ‘regulated’ and ‘good shot’… and followed it up with the ‘own research and think for myself’ bit! oh, that’s good.

    Straight comedy, bravo.

  127. 127
    Name, required says:

    Just for the record, I too agree that the reason cited in the article is the dumbest thing I have ever heard as well, since all the examples given were all times of a declared WAR, and the bloodshed occurred between the declared protagonists! A much better argument if one were going to pursue this line would be to point out that in many occupied countries during WW-II, Jews were rounded up and systematically murdered by, in at least one well documented case, (the idiots took pictures of themselves doing it), the “Death-dealer of Kaunas” killed all the Jews in the town using an iron bar, yet guns were readily available to shoot the Jews with if they wanted to, but they just wanted to kill, period. Weapon choice was not even an issue to the murderers. What WAS an issue was the fact that the Jews of that time took a completely passive approach their own defense. Imagine how WW-II might have turned out if all the Jews of Europe had banded together into a cohesive fighting force, (a militia) and launched an assault on Hitler’s Germany like the current Jewish State did when fighting for its right to exist in Israel a few years later? Sure, some Jews would have still died, but certainly not six million plus, and maybe, just maybe, Anne Frank would have been able to finish her diary…

  128. 128
    Name, required says:

    @TOP123:

    You should seriously consider seeking professional help for your mental disorder, but from your tone I fear it may already be too late…

  129. 129
    Name, required says:

    @TOP123:
    In addition to my assertion above, I can see that you have never learned to do your own research, let alone think for yourself, as you obviously do not know how to use a dictionary to look up the true meaning of words. Regulated, like many other words, has several meanings, and the meaning you choose has to do with the context in which the word is used. Among the definitions of the word ‘regulated’ is one that says it means well trained, which in this case means that the people are trained in the proficient use of firearms, in other words, being a good shot.

    So you think it a real stretch to assert that JFK might be a Republican if he were around still today? It has happened many times before, the most famous example being President Ronald Wilson Reagan, who, as we all know, was a Republican President, but back in the days of JFK, Ole Ronnie was the Democratic Governor of California! He even used one of JFK’s best ideas to bring the economy under control during his stint as President; the reduction of taxes to stimulate investment and thus growth. A lot of liberals like to give him crap about this, calling it “Reaganomics”, and “Trickle Up Poverty” and such, but the truth of the matter is, this was not even an original Reagan idea, he copied it right out of the playbook of the Democrat, JFK, who did the exact same thing while he was President!

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] link courtesy of balloon juice. […]

Comments are closed.