The Watering Hole, Saturday, January 5, 2013: Another False RW Argument Against The Assault Weapons Ban

In response to Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s efforts to reintroduce a ban on assault weapons similar to the one she got passed in 1994, during the Clinton administration, the Right Wing has, as it often does, presented false arguments against the ban. [Fair warning: I am going to link to and quote from Breitbart.com and other RW sites. Have your barf bags handy.] Speaking on “Meet the Republican Hack Pretending To Be the Press“, Sen. Feinstein said

that she would introduce an assault weapons ban on the first day of the next Congress. “It’s a first-day bill I’m going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons,” Feinstein said. “It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession–not retroactively but prospectively–and it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

For a gun supporter’s understanding of the 1994 AWB, see here. Please note that there is a word missing from that quote above: “rifles.” This is significant, but more on that later.

Now, if you think a new ban on assault weapons has no chance if becoming law, think again. Sen. Joe “Dead Aim” Manchin, who got an “A” rating from the NRA, backs it. That’s right, the man who ran this ad in his bid to get elected to the US Senate

said this on “Morning Joe” recently

“I want to call all our friends at the NRA and sit down,” Manchin said. “They have to be at the table. This is a time for all of us to sit down and move in a responsible manner. I think they will.”

Manchin said it was crucial to involve the NRA in the conversation. “You have to have everybody at the table, not just the people you think will support this. I’m a lifetime [NRA] member and I’m willing to sit down and ask all of my colleagues to sit down.”

Manchin has voted in support of many pro-gun laws, earning the NRA’s endorsement for his recent reelection.
“Seeing the massacre of so many innocent children has changed everything,” he said. “Everything has to be on the table.”

The proposed ban also has the support of President Obama. You’d think with the prospects of such a ban becoming law again being good that the Right Wing would just take a hint and STFU, and you would be wrong.

Now, it is true that assault weapons are not used in all that many murders, but the point isn’t to prevent any guns deaths at all from these weapons, but simply to reduce the number of people killed when one of them is used. The rationale for the ban on extended magazine clips, and other multiple round devices, is so that once a nutjob starts shooting up a place, he won’t be able to fire as many rounds before needing to reload, which would give survivors of the incident an opportunity to subdue the gunman. That’s all. If the shooter only has ten rounds in the clip, he would have to either pull another gun out right away or risk being overcome. If he can shoot 15, or 30, or 100 rounds before reloading, it’s likely more people will die before he needs to either reload or leave.

Enter the Right Wing Noise Machine. After posting a column on Breitbart.com (get those barf bags handy), Awr Hawkins made the absurd argument that “A rifle ban is as illogical as it is unconstitutional.” His rationale? “According to the FBI annual crime statistics, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outnumbers the number of murders committed with a rifle.” Many other RW sites based posts on this article including Alex Jones, Fox News Nation, Daily Paul, and Free Republic. You may want to go get a second bag if you plan on reading any of the comments.

Since we’re dealing with right wing arguments, it’s natural (if you have an IQ in the three-digit range) to ask, “Is it true? Are more people really killed by hammers and clubs than by guns?” The answer is, technically, yes. It’s true, but it’s not truthful. FBI statistics for the years 2005-2009, 2010, and 2011, do show that fewer people are murdered by rifle than by a combination of various kinds of blunt instruments. But Sen. Feinstein never said the word “rifle” in that quote. She said “assault weapons.” And there are certain kinds of hand guns that would qualify as “assault weapons.” And if you look at the statistics on murders with hand guns (no specific type mentioned), you’ll see that there are more than ten times as many murders committed with hand guns as with blunt objects.

So the whole “rifle” argument is a false one from the beginning. But there’s another reason it’s a bad argument. Generally speaking, people don’t go around with hammers and blunt objects and kill four or more people at one time. Murders committed with these weapons are usually crimes of passion, where one person completely loses it and beats another person to death with whatever is handy, be it a hammer, a club, a baseball bat or, quite possibly, a rock. Nobody is proposing a ban on rocks (or hammers, clubs, or bats) because there is no fear that someone will go on a mass killing spree with a blunt object and kill 20 school children.

As for the claim that most gun murders are committed with stolen weapons, a Frontline report showed that to be false. Many illegally purchased guns are done through straw man purchases (where one person buys a gun for someone who may not be allowed to buy one for himself), corrupt licensed gun dealers, and street purchases, all of which are illegal. Of course, if the gun were never made, it couldn’t be sold illegally.

This is our daily open thread. Feell free to discuss guns, bullets, ammo, or even non-gun-related things.

157 thoughts on “The Watering Hole, Saturday, January 5, 2013: Another False RW Argument Against The Assault Weapons Ban

  1. Re: Up With Chris
    On the subject of tax breaks for NASCAR to build more racetracks, we’ve got enough racetracks. The only tax breaks I would support would go to bulldozing those high banks at Daytona and Talladega down to about 20 degrees so they could end the ignominious ‘restrictor plate era’.

  2. Nadler is half right on the Payroll Tax Holiday. He said Republicans never liked it, but the only reason they opposed it at the time was it would have a stimulative effect on an economy they wanted to sink to make Obama less popular.

  3. The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own “arms”. There is no mention of a right to own ammunition. Some argue that guns don’t kill. I argue, bullets do kill. A gun without bullets is a great deal less deadly.

    • A bank robber was convicted of “using a gun” during teh commission of an robbery because he struck one of the people in the bank with the butt of his rifle. He never fired it, but Scalia argued that he had “used a gun”, and he got several years tacked onto his sentence.

      Some comedian (Woody Allen?) said the thugs in his neighborhood where he grew up were so tough they used to insert the bullets manually.

    • The Fourth Amendment reads:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      George W. Bush and the Patriot Act effectively wiped out the basic premises put forth in the Fourth Amendment, didn’t even need to repeal it. My suggestion in re getting rid of the Second Amendment is perhaps similar: Each and every time an armed “terrorist” (of any kind, and let’s define mass murderers as ‘domestic terrorists’) is found, step one is to ID and define his/her weapon(s), then immediately ban the sales and possession of ALL ammo appropriate for said ‘terrorist weapon(s)’; step two is to introduce and pass legislation which bans manufacture, sale, and ultimately possession of ANY identified ‘terrorist weapon(s)’ or ammunition. No exceptions, ever, period!

      Wouldn’t take very long for the Second Amendment to be as ‘dismissible’ as the Fourth has become in the last ten-twelve years, give or take. And besides, who could argue? It’s parcel to the War on Terrorism, after all, and there’s apparent legal precedent that under that concept, most anything goes.

  4. Virginia is well known as a source of straw-purchased crime guns. I can’t find the study right now, but a significant majority of the guns which were later traced by police came from a small percentage of the gun sellers. Why aren’t they shut down? Congress has deliberately left ATF leaderless and underfunded. When federal firearms violations are found and a license yanked, most of the bad sellers were back in business under the license of a friend or relative within the year. The NRA bleats about how we need to enforce the laws we have. Congress needs to provide funding for aggressive enforcement of those laws, and increase the penalties for those who break them.
    Between the election and talk of regulation, I was unable to buy any ammo for our gun last week, it was sold out. If another fox comes sneaking around my chickens, I will have to try kill it with a hammer. Meanwhile some nut job has got 100,000 rounds hidden in his basement, just waiting for “the shit to hit the fan”.

    • In the real world, Bubba is either too slow and too untrained to make his move without getting shot, or he shoots the wrong person.

        • He used the gun for threatening. Entirely different story. Mass shooters come in and open fire. Until all those law-enforcers could get at their Glocks a fair number of them would be dead or wounded. The Glock was developed as a safe reliable gun for law enforcement and the military. It should not be in anyone else’s hands.

  5. Amendment II. 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.

    Perhaps we could apply a literal interpretation and limit the right to keep and bear arms to those individuals who actually belong to a well-regulated State militia.

    • Amen. I’ve never been able to figure out why it is that the “right to keep and bear arms” clause is presumed to carry so much weight and the “well regulated militia” clause (which precedes) is dismissed by virtually everyone, including, if memory serves, the SCOTUS (don’t have the case/verdict handy, but seems to me there was one).

      If the second amendment really means what the gun nuts say it means, why wasn’t it worded something like “There can be no limits of any kind ever imposed on gun ownership; even fu*king crackpots can keep and bear all the arms they want, and murder whomever it is that’s pissing them off whenever and wherever the moment seems right.”

      • You’d have throngs of whacko paramilitary weekend warrior whackos (yes, twice) hiding under the blanket of the 2nd amendment.

        And could the term, “well regulated militia” be any more wide ranging and vague?

        • I think it’s pretty clear though non-specific. A well regulated militia would have minimum standards, training, and periodic inspections of both weapons and members. There would obviously be a need to establish those standards but the big problem we have is that a bunch of frightened children have convinced themselves that applying any standard is unconstitutional.

          I still think that, if both sides were willing to even discuss the problem, the solution would be quite simple. The first step would be a requirement that all sales of firearms and ammo must be conducted by federally licensed dealers who would face stiff penalties for knowingly selling arms to ineligible buyers. No “gun show loopholes” or private sales would be allowed under any circumstances. The second would be a national database of those ineligible to posses firearms.

          Of course, the Reich-whiners bleat like burning sheep if anyone so much as suggests we discuss these steps so it’s just a pipe dream. The really maddening part is that the same people who block any attempt to regulate firearms are the same people who claim “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” when speaking about surveillance. There seems to be a dearth of reasonable people willing to shout the same thing, speaking of regulating firearms, whenever they are in front of a microphone.

        • And could the term “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” be any more wide ranging and vague?

          Define “arms”, e.g. Being “vague” is a constitutional trait, and with good reason.

          I far more prefer the concept recommended by, say, poet Gary Snyder (among numerous others) who made clever use of the phase, “Support your right to arm bears.” Makes far more sense, at least to me.

            • In the company of a couple hundred million others, I suppose. Or more, maybe? I suppose it’s possible that I’m the only one in the country, standing alone all by myself, that would like to see the second repealed and all guns confiscated, melted down, and turned into bridges, or maybe (more appropriately) sewer pipe.

            • A lofty goal for all civilized people, frugal. However, I’m willing to take the slow approach and begin with open discussion aimed at any rational federal policy. Nothing will happen until and unless we find a way to force the idiots to sit at the table. A minimum standard for all gun sales and a database to match seem quite ambitious enough for a start.

          • …it’s possible that I’m the only one in the country, standing alone all by myself, that would like to see the second repealed and all guns confiscated, melted down, and turned into bridges, or maybe (more appropriately) sewer pipe.

            You are not alone. Perhaps we are the two.

  6. Corporate personhood moves ahead — in the carpool lane

    Corporate personhood takes a new leap forward Monday as a Marin County motorist challenges his traffic ticket by arguing it was OK to drive in the carpool lane because his corporation was with him.

    The fine for such a violation is $478, but Frieman, 59, of San Rafael, says that if the court rules against him Monday, he’s prepared to appeal the case all the way to the California Supreme Court in an effort to expose the impracticality of corporate personhood.

    • Two things about this: 1) If he intends to appeal all the way to the state Supreme Court, I hope he has money he doesn’t mind losing, because it will cost a hell of a lot more than $478. And, 2) if he didn’t legally incorporate himself before this incident, his argument would fall apart in court. At least, that’s what this layman thinks. As usual, on matters of the law, I can be, and often am, wrong. Although I did successfully get my last five traffic tickets dismissed even though I was clearly guilty each time. 🙂

        • My count was in error, but I’ll try to recall. I’ve gotten five tickets in my life, one were for speeding, and another was for illegally passing a truck in a no passing zone. I pleaded both down to Failure to Obey a Traffic Control Device.

          It was the other three that I beat. My mistake. Sorry.

          One shouldn’t count because I had a headlight out and got it fixed the same day, do that was dismissed. Ironically, the headlight was broken and I got it replaced on a rainy day and it promptly blew out on the way home from water getting into the still-broken light. (I had the bulb replaced, not the whole thing.) I took the car off the road within a week and bought a used car from my boss’s mother.

          That same traffic stop I got a ticket for not having a bumper on my car. I successfully argued to the prosecutor, in the unfair and intimidating presence of five State Troopers, that I should not be charged because I had asked my mechanic if it was okay to drive without a bumper and he said yes. He also passed my car for inspection after that, so I brought the inspection notice in to show him. One cop tried to say that my beef was with my mechanic, not the law, but I convinced him that I was trying to do the right thing under the law and how could I be faulted for not knowing he was wrong? Strictly speaking, it shouldn’t have worked, but I was prepared to tell the judge that Ignorance of the law is not only to be expected, it’s fairly common in lawyers and judges. I’m sure judges have to look up laws all the time; they don;t have each one memorized. And NOBODY in this country knows ALL of his state or federal laws.

          The other was for trying to make an illegal left turn. It was snowing and there was a truck jackknifed on a hill ahead of me. I sat and debated about turning around going the other way, and when I finally did so, some asshole kid came whipping up on my left (yes, in the snow) and came up beside me after which I turned my car and drove right into him. No injuries, just damage to the cars. I had signed the plea agreement to a traffic ticket (because the State Trooper told me in these cases they usually dismiss the charges), when the prosecutor asked me who my family was. I told him and he said he knew my father, crossed out my signature and wrote “Dismissed on evidence.” The judge said, “I can’t imagine what evidence would satisfy the prosecutor but if he’s satisfied, so am I. Case dismissed.” “Thank you , Your Honor.”

          So, I was wrong. I only got out of three tickets, not five. Don’t hire me. 😆

  7. Why won’t anyone in the “librul media” or Democratic party point out that a gun is useless to anyone who isn’t willing to kill and people who are willing to kill have no place in a classroom? Here’s an idea that actually makes some sense. Install solid steel doors on every classroom and remote locking systems at the teacher’s desk and a central security office. It would probably be simpler to just have all the doors lock at the sounding of an alarm but then you run the risk of locking a bunch of kids in with a mass murderer.

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/05/1402751/alabama-lawmaker-to-introduce-bill-arming-teachers-despite-opposition-from-school-officials/

    • I rather like this interpretation.

      …it has been speculated that the animals might either be giving in return, or consider humans too inadequate at hunting and in need of a free meal.

      We share this planet with remarkable creatures!

  8. I have experience with two different gun law situations. I have already told you, that I am a target shooter. Think Olympics (very boring) sans the good results. So, when still living in Germany, I was member of a sports club, went to practice regularly, using a gun provided by the club. I had no permission to own a gun or ammunition. After a while, when I a) realized I would really want to stick to this sport and b) the club was interested in having me as a competitor in tournaments, I decided I needed my own gun. One which had a fitted grip my hands are small, and whose sights were adjusted to my eyes, I can only aim with my left eye, while right handed and which had the correct weight, I am not strong. These were the reasons why I thought I needed an own gun. I seriously wanted to improve my marksmanship.

    So, I had to go through this process:

    I had to apply for a gun ownership permit. For this, I needed to provide a certificate from my club, that I attended training regularly, which discipline I was training, under which parent association the club and discipline was registered and yes that I should have a gun ( one gun ), caliber .22 and a permit for .22 ammunition. This certificate could only be issued to me after I had attended a legal and safety training, which ended in a test, that was more than a perfunctory thing. So, having secured the papers, I went on to get a background check to prove I had no criminal record. This file I took to the town’s department for security. I paid some fee, can’t remember how much, and left my application there. Then I waited. For weeks, six at least, and then I was invited to pick up my permit. With this I went to a dealer and purchased my sports pistol. Now I had, I think, two weeks to bring my permit back to the town’s office, along with the invoice of the purchase. They checked, if the purchase was compliant with the permit, entered make and serial number onto the permit. Another fee and there I was a gun owner. Total time: Almost two years.

    Then we relocated to Switzerland.

    Here we would have been able to just purchase, if we hadn’t been on a limited residency permit. Since then there is now a requirement to obtain a license to purchase. It took the “Zug” massacre and 14 dead magistrates for the change. There is a gun culture in Switzerland, though it is nowhere near as liberal as NRA lore has it. Just this week there has been a shooting with three dead. The discussion about more gun control starts here again, as it should.

    • But but but but … aren’t you afraid?

      Americans, see, have nothing to fear: Americans are ARMED to the teeth, therefore as safe as if in their mothers’ arms.

      We have, see, the presumed constitutional RIGHT “to keep and bear arms.” But actually, I think it’s obvious that Jefferson misspelled the word ‘bear’, that he instead meant to enshrine the right ‘to keep BARE arms’, and that even members of “a well regulated militia” should forever have the right to go sleeveless. That’s really what the constitution was meant to say.

      • 😆 afraid? No. I was 17 when I wandered the streets of Soho and Paris all by myself. I moved to the big city when I was 19, of course, I never had a single situation, where a gun would have been a) needed and b) useful. And I really have been out and about a lot. Here I still can go on a nighttime stroll without any qualms at all.

        When I traveled in Virginia, N.C., S.C., Georgia and Florida I WAS scared. There was such an unhealthy sense of anger in the atmosphere, I never felt at ease at all.

        • Well? Europe has a few centuries more experience of civilization than we do and Europeans have witnessed the horrors of war in their home towns. I sincerely hope that isn’t necessary for us to take the next step towards being civilized. Sigh…

          The gun nuts are all over the local paper saying things like; “an armed society is a safe society, By taking away guns we are moving in the wrong direction”. One can’t really argue with that kind of “logic” so we just need to keep working on outnumbering those who “think” that way.

          • I’ve been fighting gun nuts on the WaPo and other newssites. They are incurable. In one memorable exchange one wanted me to provide a link to the fact that NOT every Swiss household has guns. My living here did not qualify as fact, nor did the links of a fellow swiss resident. So, I found he guy a link and all he said was this link was BS because it was liberal and, as we know all liberals are liars anyway. Incurable.

            • True. But it’s ancient history. I traveled Europe in the 1970s and one still saw many scars such as public buildings with small arms, artillery, and bomb damage. The few places where one can still see evidence of the Civil War are few and mostly confined to parks and monuments rather than town squares.

        • Some years ago, I got into an ‘argument’ of sorts with a couple of gun nuts on an internet discussion group. I spoke my views, that guns were useless for all but one thing: killing, and that they should be banned, destroyed, and never allowed to return. I also pointed out that I didn’t own a gun, and didn’t ever want to own a gun. Period.

          One of the nuts asked me, “But what if you were walking down a dark alley at night and, say, five black guys with guns demanded your wallet?” (or something close to that, I don’t have a copy of the ‘conversation’ anywhere).

          My reply: “I suppose I’d make a murderer of each and all of them.”

          Crickets. Conversation over.

          Interesting, though, that it was “black guys” that were the threat I should probably be most concerned about. Good to remember that in Wingnutistan, all really bad criminals are ni**ers, that when it’s white people that commit mass murder, it’s only because they’re loony. Yeah, right.

          • Well? WIngnuts are afraid of everything, everyone, and everywhere.

            I was once confronted by a guy who thought I was staring at “his” woman and he informed me that he was going to “fuck me up” as soon as I walked out the door. I told him he had every right to try but that I would rather buy him a beer and let him call me names. We didn’t become fast friends but were laughing at each others jokes within a half hour.

            I figure that I would use the same approach if I was ever confronted by a mugger or muggers. I never carry more cash than I can afford to lose and, if someone is going to take it from me, i figure they probably need it more than I do. And, if they are willing to kill me for what’s in my wallet, i don’t figure I would have a chance to draw a weapon anyway.

          • Do they ever stop to consider that logical people stay away from areas of their town that have dark alleys? I’ve never been in a dark alley. The alleys in my neighborhood have lights.

            • I’ve taken a few shortcuts that made me a little nervous. It’s actually rather odd. I have some anxiety issues but not about strangers. Get me in a group of people who know me, but without being able to hear what they are saying, and I climb the walls. Walking down a street, whether lighted or not, doesn’t even phase me. Of course, I’m 6’2″ and between 180 and 200 pounds so there really aren’t that many people who could best me without a weapon and i don’t do things to provoke violence. I’m a negotiator and peace maker by nature and have broken up more than a few fights.

            • Fifty feet from our bedroom window is a ‘dark alley.’ Not a worry, though, because since we’re the last place on this edge of town, the vacant prairie stretches out just beyond the “alley” and goes about a mile before it intersects with the eighteenth hole on the local golf course. Most of the ‘criminals’ we’ve seen in or near the alley are either coyotes, foxes, or deer. Oh, and don’t forget the occasional feral cat. And we do see cougar tracks in our back yard every now and then. No worries, though: none of those critters carry guns! And most likely, not a single one of them is a member of the NRA (they’re way too smart to engage in THAT level of stupid silliness!)

            • What’s the problem with dark alleys? 😀

              Really, we did not have all those lighted cities when I was younger. I am not and never was afraid of the dark. And then I have to consider, I am invisible now. “The Invisibles” is what they call us 50+ girls over here. Nice. I’m safe now, might even start a career as a superhero 🙂

          • I’d give the guys my wallet. I’m not shooting anyone over stuff.
            I talked my racist mom-in-law (southerners have nothing on Boston Italian racists) out of buying a gun to protect herself from black guys on the street by getting her to define exactly when she would pull out the gun. If an armed robber is pointing a gun at you and demanding your wallet, it’s too late. If my mom-in-law’s imaginary black guy is only stopping you to ask the time, it’s way too soon to pull out the gun. I just don’t believe there are many times when a gun helps a civilian protect himself. These people over-estimate their skills.

            • Excellent point! Even if you openly carry the gun on your hip, once a gun is pressed against your head (from behind), your own gun is useless to protect you from harm. You’d have to walk down the street pointing it at everyone who came too close for your own comfort. Do we have the constitutional right to be afraid of our own imaginations?

            • I know what you mean about Northern racism. One hears the “N” word a lot in rural Minnesota but the hicks don’t really bother me. They don’t know any better but they have the excuse of simple lack of experience.

              My stepmother was a different sort. She claimed to be a liberal and a pacifist, which led to some completely unproductive arguments. She was educated and so urbanized that she was contemptuous of people, like me, who lived in the boonies. She would tell you that she was modern and sophisticated. But? When she would see a black person, or someone wearing a John Deere cap for that matter, she would move her purse strap over her head and clutch it tightly if she wasn’t close enough to a cross-walk to cross the street. And I still chuckle about her expressions the time I brought an Iranian girl home to meet my dad.

            • Pete wrote:

              And I still chuckle about her expressions the time I brought an Iranian girl home to meet my dad.

              Heh. Reminds me of the time about ten years ago that my wingnut cousin’s youngest daughter married an Arab from Kuwait! I still laugh when I think about how long it took him, and all the questions I had to ask, to get his ‘grunt’ admission that his new SiL was a Muslim! Now he has two grandchildren who are, very likely, considered “Muslim” by birth.

              Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving ‘grandpa’ is all I can say about it. Plus, of course, the children are beautiful no matter the imposed burdens!

              Strange world, this one, but good for a chuckle every now and then. 🙂

            • Most probably she would have taken herself out. Them damn guns are dangerous, that’s why I had to have all that safety training. So many people so many guns and most don’t have a clue.

            • A cyclist was attacked by three men on a trail about 15 miles from where I live. They knocked the guy off of his bike, beat him up, threatened him with a gun, and then took his wallet and left. One of the muggers returned a few minutes later and the cyclist shot him. The cyclist had a gun, chose not to use it when he was first attacked but when the perp returned, he decided that he wasn’t going to take his chances with a second attack. This is one of the very rare cases where someone that owned a gun protected himself from further injury.

            • The cyclist is lucky they didn’t find the gun on him the first timer, or it’s likely they would have shot him with it and left it at the scene (or thrown it in a lake miles away.)

  9. Case in point. There’s no arguing with this guy.

    Leonard Johnson · Top Commenter · Works at The US Constitution
    “Time to debate the fact that mental health issues and the lack of a conscience is the factor most common in violence. Debate the fact that most gun murders are in urban areas, controlled by Democrats with strict gun control… Debate the fact that the only provable way to reduce crime is arming law abiding citizens… But the leftist liberals want to double down on stupid and take away the self defense rights of law abiders.. It is time to debate leftist liberal control, they seriously screw things up!”

    • Okay, let’s try:
      Debate the fact that most gun murders are in urban areas, controlled by Democrats with strict gun control

      “Urban areas” are where most people live, so most human interactions of any kind happen there. There are more births in urban areas, too. Meaningless argument.

      Debate the fact that the only provable way to reduce crime is arming law abiding citizens

      Hold the phone! Provable? When has this EVER been “proven”? If no one had a gun at all because they didn’t exist, then no one would be murdered by one. There, I just proved my argument.

      But the leftist liberals want to double down on stupid and take away the self defense rights of law abiders

      Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to self-defense? Quote the Article and Section, please. Your “defense” is in our system of laws, which are supposed to be a deterrent against others harming you. But if the assailant has no fear, or intention, of going to jail, you probably wouldn’t be able to defend yourself ahead of time anyway. IMHO, Stand Your Ground laws are inconsistent with the rest of our legal system. I also interpret them as giving someone a legal right to deprive you of your life without due process of law, and that would violate the 14th Amendment.

    • “Debate the fact that most gun murders are in urban areas…”

      So much wrong but where to begin…

      How about that most PEOPLE are in urban areas, you twit.

      • I have a sneaky suspicion that when this guy says “urban areas,” he means where the minorities live. And if he did, he would still be wrong. I believe most homicides are by white people against white people, again, because there are more white people.

        • Assuming that he lives in Minnesota I would guess he’s too chicken to even visit the Twin cities (Minneapolis/St. Paul for those unfamiliar with the state). I don’t know where he goes to drink but I would feel safer in a dark “biker bar” than wherever he chooses to ram a stool up his rump. Bikers, even when they are high on meth, have a code but little chickens like Leonard can pop off for no reason at all.

    • I think lack of a conscience is a major factor in gun worship. Think hard gun nuts, what are you really willing to kill for?

    • Do they still do their internet show, where they started? I know it didn’t pay as much ass a gig on cable TV, but if they kept that show going, they might still be able to make a living until Cenk crawls back to MSNBC asking for a job. 🙂 (I hope he left on good terms.)

        • Jan 5, 2013 – 12:02AM PT
          In the wake of Al Jazeera, The Young Turks declares its Current independence

          ————

          Cenk Uygur takes the time to clarify a point: The Young Turks and the entire TYT Network are independent. TYT was not ever owned by Current TV, but produces a TV show for the channel called, “The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur.”

            • Damn. Well, in re Wingnuts, I guess it might make some sense. But, hmmm … I don’t know what sense it makes …

              Tough life these days, for those of us who are not wingnuts. 51%, or so, based on the last election. Scary scary, that statistic. How long till we’re outnumbered? Not very, I’m thinking.

              Uh oh. I said the shit word: “thinking.”

              I’m doomed.

    • PA has the “castle law” and I tell people that are not familiar with the rural area where I live to NOT knock on doors of people that they don’t know because the teabagger/yahoos that live around here would just a soon shoot you instead of talking to you. It’s scarier in rural PA than in the cities.

      • Cats, this is scary. I cannot, if I as a tourist lost my way, ring a bell, or knock a door just to ask for directions? They should put that as a warning on every dashboard of any rental car. Phew.

        • You would be better off stopping at a gas station or deli or some other business to ask directions. Or even a police station if you happen to see one along the way, although there was that guy who shot three NJ cops inside the police station.

          • Heh! Do you ever sleep?

            I remember once in Yamassee we had lost our way. My husband asked for directions in a small store which was packed with black young men. A perfect no go area in the eyes of the average racist. They couldn’t have been nicer and some minutes later we were on our way in the right direction.

            • On weekends, I sleep for a couple of hours at a time, then go to bed early Sunday night. I might send out a tweet at 7 AM before I leave for work during teh week. 🙂

              The idea of asking directions in a store, especially a garage convenience store, is that it’s a public place. If someone wants to harm you, there are usually cameras and witnesses. So you’re safer than you would be going to someone’s private house, where they might feel the law allows them to shoot first, call the police later.

  10. All this talk of dangerous places has reminded me that I need to get ready for the night’s debauchery. It’s Vikings vs. Packers and i still have to get the ribs in the oven.

    G’night, good people.

  11. In case you or I missed this somewhere else:

    UK’s First Atheist Church Set To Open Tomorrow
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/uks-first-atheist-church-set-to-open-tomorrow/

    “We thought it would be a shame not to enjoy the good stuff about religion, like the sense of community, just because of a theological disagreement,” he said.

    The announcement of Jones and Evans’ church is timely, as well, as a census last week revealed that one in three residents of the UK are atheists.

  12. Fox News ratings among 18-49 year olds plunge 42 percent year to year as millions realize they’ve been punked by a cable network:

    “Among 18-49s, Fox News lost 42 percent of its audience year to year, while CNN gained 35 percent and MSNBC picked up 24 percent. It was just as pronounced among 25-54 year olds, again Fox News down 35 percent, MSNBC up 28 percent and CNN up 38 percent.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/reese-schonfeld/annual-report-cable-news-_b_2411620.html

    • O’Reilly draws about 2.5 to 3.5 million viewers except on Friday nights, and Mondays during football season. Hannity loses most of a million viewers from O’Reilly’s numbers, and most of the ones he does keep have fallen asleep by the time his show starts. Although Fox usually beats MSNBC in total viewers, Rachel and O’Donnell have beaten Hannity and Greta van Susteren in the 25-54 prime demographic (not to be confused with the Prime Directive), and it’s happening more and more since the election.

            • I’m not clicking on that! I can see where that goes. Toxic shock internet cookies!

            • OK, I’ll post the relevant portion of the article. It’s based on a Zogby poll of Rush Limbaugh listeners:

              Actually, Limbaugh was ahead of the curve in recognizing the source of his ratings success. He often says it is because he is merely confirming what listeners already believed, not because of his powers of persuasion.

              He also says he suspects there is a sizable chunk of his audience who are not conservative like him, but rather are from the other end of the political spectrum. On this point the Zogby/Lear Center Poll shows he is right, er, correct. The extensive interactive survey of deeply held beliefs and behavior patterns – conducted June 26–29, 2007, including 3,939 adults nationwide and carrying a margin of error of +/– 1.6 percentage points – shows that liberals were much more likely than conservatives to listen to commentary and entertainment with which they disagreed philosophically. This could be part of the reason Air America has faltered – there are simply fewer potential listeners.

              While 22% of conservatives said they “never” enjoy entertainment that reflects values other than their own, just 7% of liberals felt the same way. At the other end of the scale, just 11% of conservatives said they “very often” enjoyed programming that ran counter to their personal philosophies, compared to 20% of liberals and 18% of moderates who said the same thing. In other words, Limbaugh’s potential audience is larger than that of liberal competitors because more liberals say they will listen to conservatives than vice versa.

            • The extensive interactive survey of deeply held beliefs and behavior patterns – conducted June 26–29, 2007…

              Aside from the survey being over five years old, people are much more likely to listen to the only talk radio they can get during the workday, thanks to Clear Channel, than they are to watch anything on Fox, with Ed, Rachel and O’Donnell available now, which wasn’t the case in 2007. Besides, Limbought has become much harder for liberals to put up with in the last four years.

    • Hollywood executives have voted Rodham the fourth hottest unproduced script in their annual Black List.

      Interesting that every aspect gets recognition.

  13. http://www.weather.com/news/alaska-tsunami-earthquake-20130105

    JUNEAU, Alaska — A powerful earthquake sparked a tsunami warning for hundreds of miles of Alaskan and Canadian coastline, but the alert was canceled when no damaging waves were generated.

    The magnitude 7.5 quake and tsunami warning that followed caused concern in some coastal communities, with alarms sounding and people rushing to higher ground for safety.

    But the Alaska Tsunami Warning Center later said the waves were too small to pose a threat, reaching just six inches above normal sea level in places such as Sitka and Port Alexander.

    • That passed the county/city/ whatever entity covers the park signage?
      Racists to the core. No excuse – absolutely no excuse!

      • On the dKos blog that had the original post, the author said several people thought the sign might be photoshopped. But several people familiar with it said it;s real. The post author said he lives close enough to this area that he’s going to drive down and take a picture of it for himself to compare. if I learned it’s a fake, I’ll post a retraction.

        • That will be interesting so see if, indeed, the sign is there.

          Blowing up the photo…difficult to tell if photoshopped.
          The Spanish sign appears a bit fuzzier than the English. The rivets, on the English, are leaving a dimple, not so much on the Spanish…

          • Wow, this is interesting. I used http://www.spanishdict.com/translation to translate the Spanish words on the sign, and I got two VERY different results on one key word. Apparently the word “violadores” has multiple meanings.

            Translation 1:
            You must have a permission to play on this field violators will be subject to police action

            Translation 2:
            you it must have a permission to play in this field rapists will be capable to police action

    • My favorite

      NEW RULE Second-term Obama must have a few laughs by acting out the Tea Party’s worst fears. He must order Air Force One to fly everywhere upside-down like Denzel and replace Bo the White House dog with two pit bulls named “Malcolm” and “X.”

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s