Trying To Discuss Gun Control With A Pro Gun Control Liberal Is Like Trying To Nail Down Water

Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent has been on a rip about gun control following the Newton massacre. I pointed him to this article as an example that anti-gun enthusiasts might not be having the desired effect.

His response was this.

After a bit of back and forth about ad hominem attacks he asked a serious question.

To which I replied.

After some back and forth about how I don't think banning high capacity magazines will do much (have you heard of, "reloading"?) and an acknowledgement by me that several states and localities already have restrictions on magazine size (pdf), and my concceding that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect every conceivable "weapon" (a strawman of the first degree) we get to the crux of the matter...how does Sargent, an advocate of an assault weapons ban define the term "assault weapon".

So there we have it. He doesn't have a definition of "assault weapon" or Obama's new term "military style guns". But if you don't agree with him, then you're, "fighting for maniacs to have easy access to mass child slaughter machines,".

It's impossible to have an actual conversation who demands you agree with him but he'll let you know later what you're agreeing to, in the meantime, you're pro-child slaughter.

My guess is what Sargent wants or will want once Obama tells him the right position to take is a ban on either "scary looking guns" or banning all semi-automatic rifles leaving only single shot, bolt action rifles.

It's an idiotic position but in fairness to the people promoting it, they haven't a clue what they are talking about.

Added: I should say I appreciate that Sargent at least engages with critics. The Washington Post's (allegedly) conservative blogger simply refuses to do the same.

Posted by: DrewM. at 02:06 PM



Comments

1 A tweet for his bumper sticker:

"Driver carries $200 in cash and no weapons of any kind."

Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2012 02:08 PM (FcR7P)

2 It's like hitting your head against a wall, isn't it? And it does just as much good.

"Look here, I'll overlook all these facts you have given me, and feed you my feelings."

Posted by: Jay in Ames at December 19, 2012 02:09 PM (i2Lsf)

3 Arguing with them is a lost cause. I got into several times with Everett from CSGV back when Starbucks allowed CCW in their stores.

Bullshit strawmen and illogical thinking rules the day with them

Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 02:09 PM (fWAjv)

4 Yeah. Well, at one time bolt-action rifles were state-of-the-art military weapons. This is just the "Common Sense Gun Control" argument -- common sense for Nancy Pelosi is quite different from that for me or you. Devil, details, some assembly required.

Posted by: joncelli at December 19, 2012 02:10 PM (RD7QR)

5 Why are you wasting your time arguing with that imbecile?

Posted by: Captain Hate (more dagny and less curious) at December 19, 2012 02:11 PM (+ksWj)

6 You should ask him why gun bans will be successful while drug bans have been an utter failure.

Posted by: Brewer at December 19, 2012 02:11 PM (eV1I0)

7 I continue to be unaware that guns have an inherent ability to go on killing sprees all on their very own.


I am so utterly exhausted with those who claim to be on the side of The Children refusing to accept that people have agency and are responsible for their own actions.


Here's a question for him -- does he support radically altering the process by which a person is involuntarily committed? I mean, if he wants to ban scary looking guns, he should also support banning scary looking people.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Burn you all to ashes, SMOD at December 19, 2012 02:11 PM (VtjlW)

8 "Mass Child slaughter machines"?

Since when have you been pro abortion?

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 19, 2012 02:12 PM (t06LC)

9 >Trying To Discuss Gun Control With A Pro Gun Control Liberal Is Like Trying To Nail Down Water


I compared it to explaining algebra to a goldfish

same diff


BTW last Friday night, after the Newtown killings, I went on a Twitter feed for #NRA and ripped into the gungrabbers and their insane rants. Twitter banned me for 72hrs shortly thereafter.

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 19, 2012 02:12 PM (8sCoq)

10 from 'The Lawdog Files' is a great way to look at 'common sense' gun control.


I hear a lot about "compromise" from your camp ... except, it's not compromise.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

There I am with my half of the cake, and you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we have your compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Then we compromised with the Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble), the HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble), the Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM), the School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with compromise. Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise".

Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 02:12 PM (fWAjv)

11


my favorite is the idea of banning certain calibers of bullets. Not specific rounds, cartridges, or loadings, mind you, but BULLETS.

Lovely.

I'm going to get an AR-15 pistol ASAP, I'll tell you what.

Posted by: imp at December 19, 2012 02:13 PM (UaxA0)

12 Gun control worked! There were no law-abiding citizens at that school who had a gun.

Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2012 02:14 PM (FcR7P)

13 I see he's still at it.

The dude has 40k+ followers???

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 19, 2012 02:14 PM (piMMO)

14 Had a discussion similar to this atmy wife's PTO board Christmas Party the other night; the discussion began with the statement "why does nybody need weapons like that" followed by several harrumphs of agreement. I said "Its not a question of need; its a question of want, and the right to own thereof;" After everyone looked at me as if I sprouted a second head, I added "why does anybody need to drive aCadillac or Mercedes? All people need is transportation; isnt a Yugo transportation? Why don't they just make everybody drive Yugos?" Well, that didnt go over too well. Oh well.

Posted by: DaveinNC at December 19, 2012 02:14 PM (boNGU)

15 The 2nd Amendment IS MY HILL to die on.

Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 19, 2012 02:14 PM (GFM2b)

16 I got into an argument with some idiot yesterday on slate or something, I forgot what. Anyways, she said I wanted people to die because I was against gun restrictions. No matter what I said, it was I am a fraud and don't care about people.

SO, I asked how many were shot last month in Chicago(information provided by the sidebar link). I asked why all the sudden there is outrage now as opposed to then. Then asked what the difference is between the two situations. Then I told her racists like her make me sick. That shut her up. Haven't heard a thing since.

Posted by: SnowSoul at December 19, 2012 02:15 PM (qJlNG)

17 I mean, if he wants to ban scary looking guns, he should also support banning scary looking people.

Yeah, that'll happen. It's like that dicks/donuts thing...makes too much sense.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at December 19, 2012 02:15 PM (/kI1Q)

18 Yes, the inevitable 'military' versus civilian weapons.

That concept didn't exist until after WWI.

What the fuck do these assholes think the privateers owned? Water guns?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 19, 2012 02:15 PM (cEtVC)

19 The problem is trying to engage Greg Sargent in the first place. You'd get as much traction talking about adoption with Sandra Fluke or dieting tips with David Frum...

Posted by: Darth Chipmunk at December 19, 2012 02:15 PM (niW49)

20 "Mass Child slaughter machines"?

Since when have you been pro abortion?


Heh, that would have been a great comeback: "You mean vacuum cleaners?"

Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2012 02:15 PM (FcR7P)

21 You stupid wingnut, how dare you expect me to articulate my argument before my fascist overlords tell me what to think!!

Posted by: ycrt at December 19, 2012 02:16 PM (/KzjV)

22 I endorse "Christina Hendricks style" guns.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at December 19, 2012 02:16 PM (LyF0H)

23 Wow.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 02:16 PM (QdVWw)

24 I love their response to this.

Maniacs can get guns easier than you can buy printer toner!!!!!!!

One, that's the dumbest fucking argument they can make. No you can't. Plain and simple. And FUCK YOU for thinking like that, you mental moron.

Two, THEY'RE EXPENSIVE!!! Odds are against anyone just having the jack lying around to go get an assault rifle. I know I don't.

Three, maniacs are usually mentally deranged in some way that should've been detected for observed LONG BEFORE they hatched the plan to KILL a group of people.

Four, my response to them is, "You would've been MUCH HAPPIER were these poor innocent children were ABORTED BEFORE BIRTH and then MAYBE they wouldn't have been brutally murdered by a GUN 7 years later, right?"


Liberals are assholes, plain and simple. With NO USE for logic or clear thinking.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 19, 2012 02:16 PM (UK9cE)

25 Trying To Discuss Gun Control With A Pro Gun Control Liberal Is Like Trying To Nail Down Water

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a flintlock.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at December 19, 2012 02:17 PM (LyF0H)

26 Here's a compromise for you, I give up my gun rights and Obama, Pelosi and the usual suspects give up their abortion rights.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 19, 2012 02:17 PM (Hx5uv)

27 Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovelyfloral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise.

Sorry. That's not a compromise.

Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 19, 2012 02:17 PM (GFM2b)

28 13 I see he's still at it.

He'll be at it until your guns are taken away. They won't be happy until then.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at December 19, 2012 02:17 PM (i2Lsf)

29 I'll put it out there as clearly as possible.
I believe the second amendment provides the right of the people tobe armedwith assault weapons to protect themselves from an evil government.
And no, I don't think we're there yet.
If you're not up to the task, you don't have to own one, but please study history before you say it can't happen.

Posted by: Gerry Parker at December 19, 2012 02:18 PM (UmkDS)

30
Every firearm out there could be used to 'assault' someone.

So...every firearm could be labeled an 'assault weapon'.

Posted by: wheatie at December 19, 2012 02:18 PM (K4wCe)

31 The high capacity magazine ban isn't really a good idea. Several of these clowns have had their sprees end when their weapons jammed. The tacticool, high capacity magazines suck wind. What you don't want is a nut job with a bag of reliable magazines.

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 02:18 PM (/Bbvl)

32 Guns are yucky.

Posted by: Baby Killers For the Children at December 19, 2012 02:18 PM (Hx5uv)

33 He'll be at it until your guns are taken away. They won't be happy until then.

You're forgetting gluten, butter and salt. Must eliminate military style gluten.

Posted by: George Orwell what knows being American means free rubbers and gun control at December 19, 2012 02:19 PM (LyF0H)

34 "Liberals are assholes, plain and simple. With NO USE for logic or clear thinking."

Chicom FB post of the day, quoting Obama: "Are we prepared to say that such violence
visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price
of our freedom?”

But other people paying to have your unborn child's head crushed in the womb, that's a right.

Sometimes I sincerely wonder if these people actually hear the words coming out of their own mouths.

Posted by: Filly at December 19, 2012 02:19 PM (/Mvc7)

35 Does he also like soup sandwiches?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 02:19 PM (QdVWw)

36 Every firearm out there could be used to 'assault' someone.

---

That's kind of the definition of weapon.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 19, 2012 02:19 PM (Hx5uv)

37 I endorse "Christina Hendricks style" guns.


Extremely large caliber guns like those require the use of two hands at all times.




Two hands and maybe a mouth too.

Posted by: EC at December 19, 2012 02:19 PM (GQ8sn)

38 I asked why all the sudden there is outrage now as opposed to then.
Then asked what the difference is between the two situations. Then I
told her racists like her make me sick.


That's beautiful, really.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at December 19, 2012 02:20 PM (/kI1Q)

39 Sorry. That's not a compromise.
Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 19, 2012 02:17 PM (GFM2b)

That's the point.

Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 02:20 PM (fWAjv)

40 I have a letter opener that could be labeled an "assault weapon".

Posted by: The Mega Independent at December 19, 2012 02:20 PM (sEGrB)

41 Buy your Beta C-Mags now before Joey Bidet finally finds his way out of the bathroom to ban them.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 02:20 PM (QdVWw)

42 Why do they want to ban guns, but only tax tobacco?

/rhetorical

Posted by: Jay in Ames at December 19, 2012 02:20 PM (i2Lsf)

43 and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.
Okay, we compromise.
Sorry. That's not a compromise.
Posted by: rickb223


Jonah Goldberg uses different example to point out the asinine concept of 'compromise.'

How exactly does one compromise on the length of a bridge?

Posted by: weft cut-loop at December 19, 2012 02:20 PM (cEtVC)

44 BOX CUTTERS....3000 dead...

Posted by: Hello, it's me Donna let it burn really.really bummed at December 19, 2012 02:21 PM (9+ccr)

45 And remember -- twenty minutes. Guy could have used a war hammer and killed twenty kids.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/ba8v5u4

which are sold online, and require no background check.

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 02:21 PM (/Bbvl)

46 The high capacity magazine ban isn't really a good idea. Several of
these clowns have had their sprees end when their weapons jammed.


I've wondered why some shooters' mags fail to feed. What are they doing that causes them to jam? Are they using shitty ammo? Damaged magazines with crap followers? Dirty weapons fouling the action?

Posted by: EC at December 19, 2012 02:21 PM (GQ8sn)

47 Hi caps are already banned where I live, but I'm thinking of getting an M1 carbine anyway, just to piss people off.

Posted by: Iblis at December 19, 2012 02:21 PM (9221z)

48 Chicom FB post of the day, quoting Obama: "Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price

of our freedom?”


I'm not a fan of graphic abortion imagery, but that quote is just begging for it.

Posted by: HeatherRadish™ at December 19, 2012 02:22 PM (/kI1Q)

49 How's this:

Pass a law mandating that all firearms must be painted pink and have either "the serenity prayer" or "We shall overcome" engraved on the barrel in a florid script.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2012 02:22 PM (XkWWK)

50 Chicom FB post of the day, quoting Obama: "Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?”

You're saying that the government refusing to protect our children, and forbidding us from doing so, is freedom?

Please, Barky, I'm all ears...

Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2012 02:22 PM (FcR7P)

51 Buy your Beta C-Mags now before Joey Bidet finally finds his way out of the bathroom to ban them.

Ahh. The old Beta C Jamapalooza's.
Happiness is a belt fed weapon.

Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 19, 2012 02:23 PM (GFM2b)

52 "Still fighting for maniacs to have easy access to mass child slaughter machines, in the name of "liberty," I see"

Proper response to this is, "no we need easy access to the tools patriots need to kill copperhead media assholes"

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 02:23 PM (/Bbvl)

53 Buy your Beta C-Mags now before Joey Bidet finally finds his way out of the bathroom to ban them.


Go to Brownell's website; everyhigh cap mag for AR-15s is already out of stockand backordered.

Obama: World's greatest gun salesman.

Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at December 19, 2012 02:23 PM (6BgmB)

54 Buy your Beta C-Mags now before Joey Bidet finally finds his way out of the bathroom to ban them.

I've heard they're notorious for FTF'ing. Those and the Surefire hi-cap mags.

Posted by: EC at December 19, 2012 02:24 PM (GQ8sn)

55 It has already been reported that that Lanza kid was very calculating and determined to carry out the massacre.

Without access to a gun, I'm betting he would have used chemicals, or a bomb. The death and destruction would have been even greater because, as chilling and nausea-inducing as it is to think of, his killings were targeted. A bomb or chemical attack would have been indiscriminate.

Some asshole went off on me on twitter yesterday about how folks don't use chemicals or bombs. I responded with OKC, the Tokyo subway...

He slinked off in a corner.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 19, 2012 02:24 PM (piMMO)

56 Rickb. Yeah they are junk. But I bet could make a mint selling them for inflated prices...

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 02:24 PM (QdVWw)

57 PMags were up to 60 bucks a pop yesterday.

Let's check today...

Wow. Down to 30 bucks at CTD. Must have been getting a lot of bad press with price gouging.

Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 02:24 PM (fWAjv)

58 @12: I was in a "discussion" with another party who was most concerned, it seemed, with emoting. He said, why would anyone choose a school full of children to commit this sort of evil? To which I said:

1. Because he was insane.
2. Because he was a coward.
3. Because the location he chose is a "gun free" zone and so he knew he wouldn't be challenged with anything close to equal force for awhile.

This drove my interlocutor to stammering and spittle launching and otherwise ended the "discussion".

Posted by: steve walsh at December 19, 2012 02:24 PM (+TVT8)

59 I'm tired of attempting to argue with them. I vote for punching them in the mouth every time they bring the topic up. While they are down on the ground inform them that the US Supreme court decided in Chicago v McDonald that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and that you don't want to hear any more talk about taking away one of your fundamental rights.



Seriously, I think we would do well to just start getting violent with Media people who say this shit. Punch them in the mouths.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:24 PM (bb5+k)

60 Would the any ban have stopped the shooter? No. What is the point of the ban? To make you feel better.
Does that bring those little kids back to life? No.

Jane you ignorant slut.

Posted by: SmileyNH at December 19, 2012 02:24 PM (hlZx/)

61

More children die each year from automobile accidents...than from firearms.

Cars are "mass child slaughter machines".

Stop the UAW before they kill again!

[Just trying out some liberal logic.]

Posted by: wheatie at December 19, 2012 02:25 PM (K4wCe)

62 24 Liberals are assholes, plain and simple. With NO USE for logic or clear thinking.

Posted by: © Sponge at December 19, 2012 02:16 PM (UK9cE)


The only way to win an argument with a liberal is by taking their side to the most extreme magnitude.

My argument would be, "I see your point, but if Nancy Lanza could have euthanized Adam when he started getting unstable, then the Sandy Hook massacre would not have happened."

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2012 02:25 PM (XkWWK)

63 I've wondered why some shooters' mags fail to feed. What are they doing that causes them to jam? Are they using shitty ammo? Damaged magazines with crap followers? Dirty weapons fouling the action?
Posted by: EC at December 19, 2012 02:21 PM (GQ8sn)
Beta mags (100 rd drum) are kinda known for it. I don't have one for that reason. That, and mag changes are really quick, so I don't see much point in it

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 19, 2012 02:25 PM (t06LC)

64
@greg sargent and others

Still fighting against the use of profiling in the name of "liberty," I see.

Posted by: soothsayer at December 19, 2012 02:25 PM (CXoSL)

65 Pass a law mandating that all firearms must be painted pink and have either "the serenity prayer" or "We shall overcome" engraved on the barrel in a florid script.

****

I joked on the ONT that all guns should be color-coded with "assault weapons" being red because only angry people carry them. Or, because blood is red, and all teh murdering and such....

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 19, 2012 02:26 PM (piMMO)

66 Something on the order of 262,000,000 people were murdered by governments in the 20th century. All the civilian murders put together are a spitwad in that hurricane.

Oh, and virtually all of those governments were leftist.

I spent probably ten years debating hundreds of people on this issue, and you know what? Even the ones who seemed to change their minds mostly turned around a week later after "recharging" on NPR or CNN and said the very same things that had been *conclusively and admittedly* debunked a week prior.

They have a *severe* learning disorder - something about progressivism demands you surrender the ability to understand cause, effect, and consequence.

Seriously, I don't think a progressive has correctly nailed down a large-scale cause and effect chain since Rousseau.

"Debate" is impossible. The only thing to do is deny them the political power to impose their will on others. Unfortunately, kind of fucked that one up.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 19, 2012 02:26 PM (bxiXv)

67 You should ask him why gun bans will be successful while drug bans have been an utter failure.

Posted by: Brewer at December 19, 2012 02:11 PM (eV1I0)


Drug bans have not been an utter failure, that is just Libertarian propaganda that has been spread continuously for decades. Current drug interdiction efforts are holding down the addiction rate to the 2% level, same as it was a hundred years ago.





Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:26 PM (bb5+k)

68 Liberal say theFounding Fathers never anticpated repeating rifles capable of such murderous fire, so the Second Amendment doesn't apply to them.
I saythe Founding Father's understood the Second Amendment toallow citizens to own and operate ships with as many cannons as the ships could carry. I want some of that...

Posted by: Where's My Cannon? at December 19, 2012 02:26 PM (m7EhJ)

69 Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 02:21 PM (/Bbvl)

---

I had no idea that such war hammers, maces etc. were on the market.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 19, 2012 02:26 PM (Hx5uv)

70 I feel lucky as hell for ordering some PMags a couple of weeks ago. I don't believe I'll have a chance to buy one again for less than $14.

Posted by: EC at December 19, 2012 02:27 PM (GQ8sn)

71 Wow. Down to 30 bucks at CTD. Must have been getting a lot of bad press with price gouging.
Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 02:24 PM (fWAjv)

Fuck CTD with a rusty bucket. Those assholes gouged and caved. Its impressive really. I can find shit elsewhere usually cheaper.

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 19, 2012 02:27 PM (t06LC)

72 Biden just appointed Lee Paige to be the chief firearms instructor and demonstrator.

Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 02:27 PM (fWAjv)

73 Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 02:27 PM (QdVWw)

74 7 Here's a question for him -- does he support radically altering the process by which a person is involuntarily committed? I mean, if he wants to ban scary looking guns, he should also support banning scary looking people.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Burn you all to ashes, SMOD at December 19, 2012 02:11 PM (VtjlW)



Wait, scary looking according to who exactly? Cause some people are freaked by gingers and...well....

Posted by: BCochran1981 at December 19, 2012 02:27 PM (GEICT)

75 EC, any double stack is a potential failure point. In a modern weapon, probably the most likely. So more rounds, more problems. Additionally, The high capacity ones are not made for military or law enforcement customers, so specs are looser. And, at a mechanical level, maintaining spring constant over a long travel and greater variation of load has to be a factor. I just know they suck.

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 02:27 PM (LKr5H)

76 Fuck these people.

Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 02:28 PM (sFXh8)

77
"It has already been reported that that Lanza kid was very calculating and determined to carry out the massacre."

If the news out of this event could possibly be any more sickening, it became so for me when I read that he wasn't on a random killing spree. He targeted the children his mother volunteered with last year-- that's why they were all first graders.

Pure unadulterated evil.

Posted by: Filly at December 19, 2012 02:28 PM (/Mvc7)

78 My argument would be, "I see your point, but if Nancy Lanza could have euthanized Adam when he started getting unstable, then the Sandy Hook massacre would not have happened."

And to think that some folks say partial-birth abortion is bad!

Posted by: Barry O, As Clear On The Concept Of America As Any Other Indo-Kenyan Marxist at December 19, 2012 02:28 PM (FcR7P)

79 Tell this fucktard the next time he has an idea for a blog post to grab a quill and a bottle of ink, write it out longhand on a piece of parchment, and give it to the first motherfucker in a horse and carriage he can find to go nail it up in the village square.




Posted by: B at December 19, 2012 02:28 PM (MT+0i)

80 Liberal say theFounding Fathers never anticpated repeating rifles
capable of such murderous fire, so the Second Amendment doesn't apply to
them.

---

The Founding Fathers never anticipated the digital technology that would make porn so readily available so the first amendment doesn't apply to porn.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 19, 2012 02:28 PM (Hx5uv)

81 Don't forget Dick's has pulled 'modern firearms' to re-evaluate.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 02:28 PM (QdVWw)

82 Fuck CTD with a rusty bucket. Those assholes gouged and caved. Its impressive really. I can find shit elsewhere usually cheaper.
Posted by: Jollyroger at December 19, 2012 02:27 PM (t06LC)

Exactly. Said that yesterday. Was just checking price, never giving them any business.

Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 02:28 PM (fWAjv)

83 >>have you heard of, "reloading"?

Ya know, a sane leftist could actually bring up the one or more cases of a shooter being tackled while reloading.

(crickets, crickets everywhere)

Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2012 02:29 PM (SUKHu)

84 Drug bans have not been an utter failure, that is just Libertarian propaganda that has been spread continuously for decades. Current drug interdiction efforts are holding down the addiction rate to the 2% level, same as it was a hundred years ago.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:26 PM (bb5+k)

And yet, shootings are way below the 2% level....

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 19, 2012 02:29 PM (t06LC)

85
Whatever the outcome of this fucking mess, Cheaper Than Dirt has all but destroyedit's already-shitty reputation with us crazy inbred gunfolk. Screw 'em.

Posted by: Jaws at December 19, 2012 02:30 PM (4I3Uo)

86 67: OK, maybe utter failure is too much of an exageration. But my point is people can and do get access to illegal drugs.

The same will happen with gun bans. The criminals won't care about the ban and find access to weapons regardless of the ban.

Posted by: Brewer at December 19, 2012 02:30 PM (eV1I0)

87 Anyone have any schematics for a home built railgun? I think it is high time to use some American ingenuity to this gun grabbing shit.

Posted by: Invictus at December 19, 2012 02:30 PM (OQpzc)

88 Still fighting for maniacs to have easy access to mass child slaughter machines, in the name of "liberty," I see

What a fucking galloping asshole. It's all emo with these dinks.

Posted by: eleven at December 19, 2012 02:30 PM (KXm42)

89 Drug bans have not been an utter failure, that is just Libertarian propaganda that has been spread continuously for decades. Current drug interdiction efforts are holding down the addiction rate to the 2% level, same as it was a hundred years ago.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:26 PM (bb5+k)

Not sure if serious

Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 02:30 PM (sFXh8)

90 All debates/discussion should start with rules:

"Are facts and logic allowed or should we stick to emotions, feelings, and non-sequitors?"

Posted by: Tonic Dog at December 19, 2012 02:30 PM (X/+QT)

91 Do you want the 40MW version?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 02:30 PM (QdVWw)

92 I agree completely about limiting access to mass child slaughter machines.

However, I want easy access to rampaging rioter killing machines and home invader killing machines.

Please explain how they differ.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 19, 2012 02:31 PM (GsoHv)

93 >
Gun control worked! There were no law-abiding citizens at that school who had a gun.

Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2012 02:14 PM (FcR7P)



Early threadwinner?

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 19, 2012 02:31 PM (8sCoq)

94 Anyone have any schematics for a home built railgun? I think it is high
time to use some American ingenuity to this gun grabbing shit.


Step 1: acquire miniature super-conducting magnet

Step 2: ?????

Step 3: never miss again!!!

Posted by: EC at December 19, 2012 02:31 PM (GQ8sn)

95 These are the people that think the CA 'bullet button' has an impact on crime.

Imbeciles.

Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 02:31 PM (fWAjv)

96 And remember -- twenty minutes. Guy could have used a war hammer and killed twenty kids.




Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 02:21 PM (/Bbvl)



Someone did it with a Knife in China the day before.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:31 PM (bb5+k)

97 According to that article, the assault rifle ban expired in 2004. I must've missed my chance to buy an M16.

Posted by: CUS at December 19, 2012 02:31 PM (84pE9)

98 My favorite, and the most simple retort to the cry of "guns kill!" I've ever seen.

http://bit.ly/NGKGjH

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 19, 2012 02:31 PM (piMMO)

99 I've wondered why some shooters' mags fail to feed. What are they doing that causes them to jam? Are they using shitty ammo? Damaged magazines with crap followers? Dirty weapons fouling the action?

Posted by: EC at December 19, 2012 02:21 PM (GQ8sn)


Cheap shit and ignorant users, mainly. Cheap, badly made magazines, cheap ammo, poor handling, etc.

PS I'm not a C-Mag expert but I've never had a problem with one (yes used a few). But I do know the reputation has been worse since the cheaper Korean clone versions hit the market, which is not really Beta's fault.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 19, 2012 02:31 PM (bxiXv)

100 I've wondered why some shooters' mags fail to feed. What are they doing that causes them to jam? Are they using shitty ammo? Damaged magazines with crap followers? Dirty weapons fouling the action?

One reason? Too much spring. By the time The 100 round Beta C has pushed out 80 to 90 rounds, the spring doesn't have enough reliable "umph" to push the rest out properly. Harder springs make it harder to get the last 20 or so rounds in. YMMV.

Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 19, 2012 02:31 PM (GFM2b)

101 Reason and proportion = patriarchal fiction.
Arguing anything with your basic Commie-fag-junkie is fruitless when their main hobby is psychotomimesis.
Btw, repeal the national Firearms Act of 1934. It is Unconstitutional. Period.

Posted by: Thorvald at December 19, 2012 02:31 PM (1V6Pv)

102 Ya know, a sane leftist could actually bring up the one or more cases of a shooter being tackled while reloading.



(crickets, crickets everywhere)





Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2012 02:29 PM



Sane leftist?

Posted by: huerfano at December 19, 2012 02:31 PM (bAGA/)

103
Current drug interdiction efforts are holding down the addiction rate to the 2% level, same as it was a hundred years ago.


Yeah, and Obama has held down unemployment to just 8%. 470 million jobs 'saved'.

Posted by: Entropy at December 19, 2012 02:32 PM (TULs6)

104 The real goal is to ban conservatives.

If this guy had been wearing a che guevara shirt, they'd be discussing youth disaffection.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 19, 2012 02:32 PM (Hw3Gh)

105 104 The real goal is to ban conservatives.

If this guy had been wearing a che guevara shirt, they'd be discussing youth disaffection.
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 19, 2012 02:32 PM (Hw3Gh)

No, they'd be saying conservatives drove him to it.

Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 02:33 PM (sFXh8)

106 Or lasers. Fine, I won't shoot the intruder.They don't object if I blind him for life, right?

That wouldn't even count as gun violence.

Posted by: Invictus at December 19, 2012 02:33 PM (OQpzc)

107 I like cake.

Anyways, she said I wanted people to die because I was against gun restrictions.


Ask her why she wants that I should have died instead of being able to protect myself. I mean, that's the logical conclusion. If my belief that I should be allowed to have guns means I support the murder of children, then her belief that I should not have guns means she supports the murder of me.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD. Burn you all to ashes, SMOD at December 19, 2012 02:33 PM (VtjlW)

108 Added: I should say I appreciate that Sargent at least engages with critics. The Washington Post's (allegedly) conservative blogger simply refuses to do the same.

Is that Jen Rubin? Dumb as Meggie Mac and not nearly as attractive.

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at December 19, 2012 02:33 PM (zF6Iw)

109 67
You should ask him why gun bans will be successful while drug bans have been an utter failure.



Posted by: Brewer at December 19, 2012 02:11 PM (eV1I0)


Drug
bans have not been an utter failure, that is just Libertarian
propaganda that has been spread continuously for decades. Current drug
interdiction efforts are holding down the addiction rate to the 2%
level, same as it was a hundred years ago.


When we didn't have the current laws?






Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:26 PM (bb5+k)

Posted by: Jack Wagon at December 19, 2012 02:34 PM (KUPae)

110 In other news, another greatly compassionate titan of tolerance of my acquaintance just made a post inviting people to comment on their extreme dislike of Judge Bork.

What is it about liberals and their obsession with permitting and exploiting the end of human life?

Posted by: Filly at December 19, 2012 02:34 PM (/Mvc7)

111 Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 19, 2012 02:31 PM (GFM2b)

Yup.

And that's why that silly old relic, the Colt 1911A1, with its childish 7-8 round mag, just doesn't fail to feed.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at December 19, 2012 02:34 PM (GsoHv)

112
Some asshole went off on me on twitter yesterday
about how folks don't use chemicals or bombs. I responded with OKC, the
Tokyo subway...



He slinked off in a corner.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 19, 2012 02:24 PM (piMMO)

And that's the whole point. You can't prove them wrong fast enough to undo the mental damage to others which they cause by making their stupid statements.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:34 PM (bb5+k)

113 Getting gun-grabbers to define "assault weapon" is as fun as it is frustrating.

Posted by: CTD at December 19, 2012 02:34 PM (5RsqW)

114 105
104 The real goal is to ban conservatives.



If this guy had been wearing a che guevara shirt, they'd be discussing youth disaffection.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at December 19, 2012 02:32 PM (Hw3Gh)



No, they'd be saying conservatives drove him to it.


It's a fucking miracle that Adam Lanza wasn't a registered Republican or else we'd be in the middle of a real shooting civil war right now.

Posted by: EC at December 19, 2012 02:34 PM (GQ8sn)

115 You'll have to pass unconstitutional bills in order to see what the definitions are.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 02:34 PM (xAtAj)

116 The 2nd Amendment IS MY HILL to die on.
Posted by: rickb223 Let. It. Burn. at December 19, 2012 02:14 PM (GFM2b)


-----------------------------------------------


Even though I believe the hysteria will die down, they will do some things, however minute, just to say they did something. However, since the JFK assassination, the minutia is starting to add up. It's how they've been doing things since the beginning of the 20th century.

BUT, we'll be happy with minutia, won't we?

It's time to start disobeying. Not only as individuals but as groups, states, regions. For us in the red states, we need to start encouraging our governors and legislatures to start disobeying DC. Not with little things, but voice blatant disobedience. We cannot afford to play along to get along any more. We'll become slaves if we keep adhering to this mindset.

I'm willing to put myself in harm's way to protect the freedoms gauranteed to me by the US Constitution. I will not give up my weapons. If I die in that struggle, so be it.

Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2012 02:35 PM (yboFM)

117 I guess that whole '...well regulated militia ....' language meant the foundersdidn't want citizens to have 'military style' guns.

These people are deaf , dumb and blind on top of being retarded monkeys.

Posted by: polynikes at December 19, 2012 02:35 PM (m2CN7)

118 Whatever the outcome of this fucking mess, Cheaper Than Dirt has all but destroyedit's already-shitty reputation with us crazy inbred gunfolk. Screw 'em.
Posted by: Jaws at December 19, 2012 02:30 PM (4I3Uo)


CTD's own facecrook page has been swamped with thousands of complaints, and the "boycott CTD" page got 13k followers in a few hours.

They really did a number on themselves.

A few days before, they had posted a picture of an "evil black rifle" with a pro-gun message attached. Beclowning - how do it work?

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 19, 2012 02:35 PM (bxiXv)

119
"I think it is high time to use some American ingenuity to this gun grabbing shit. "

There are people working the kinks out of fabbing them on 3D printers as we type. It *will* happen sooner rather than later.

You can't stop the signal.

Posted by: Jaws at December 19, 2012 02:36 PM (4I3Uo)

120 There are people working the kinks out of fabbing them on 3D printers as we type. It *will* happen sooner rather than later.

Those don't survive more than 15 rounds. Other than that, it's a perfect throwaway gun.

Posted by: EC at December 19, 2012 02:37 PM (GQ8sn)

121 I don't even bother participating in arguments with the gun grabbers anymore. Or rather, it's a one sentence debate: "I'm not disarming. How bout the Ravens?"

Posted by: DC in Towson at December 19, 2012 02:37 PM (P47hr)

122 119
"I think it is high time to use some American ingenuity to this gun grabbing shit. "

There are people working the kinks out of fabbing them on 3D printers as we type. It *will* happen sooner rather than later.

You can't stop the signal.
Posted by: Jaws at December 19, 2012 02:36 PM (4I3Uo)

You can make a freakin AK out of a SHOVEL!

And mechanically, its easier to make a full auto than a semi-auto

Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 02:37 PM (sFXh8)

123 OK, I will be a dick.

The constitution expressly supports my right to bear arms. The constitution does not anywhere contain the word abortion. But when some lunatic with a gun kills 20 kids, pants on fire. When abortion kills about 60 million kids, it is a constitutionally guaranteed 'right'.

Posted by: CUS at December 19, 2012 02:37 PM (84pE9)

124 I guess that whole '...well regulated militia ....' language meant the foundersdidn't want citizens to have 'military style' guns.

Aircraft carriers are still ok, right? I'm, uhhh, asking for a friend...

Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2012 02:38 PM (FcR7P)

125 Do you want the 40MW version?
Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at December 19, 2012 02:30 PM (QdVWw)

It's for home defense, so I can hook it to the Mr. Fusion with an extension cord.

Posted by: Invictus at December 19, 2012 02:38 PM (OQpzc)

126 Jaws, there is always a way, lookup the guy making a AK out of a shovel

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 02:38 PM (dmcx3)

127 Should ask him why murdering being illegal hasn't worked even though It's illegal and horrid?

Why taking guns from Those that will hand them over,will make criminals less concerned about being a killer or rapist or car jacker, robber or whatever

ask if knives, axes, gas and matches will be next?

Ask why cars that run over groups of people are also not banned?

Why is it the one thing that might Save a person from a maniac is what they want to ban?

Posted by: ette at December 19, 2012 02:38 PM (nqBYe)

128 Liberal say theFounding Fathers never anticpated
repeating rifles capable of such murderous fire, so the Second Amendment
doesn't apply to them.



Posted by: Where's My Cannon? at December 19, 2012 02:26 PM (m7EhJ)

To which I respond, the Founding fathers never anticipated the brain washing capability of modern day Television/Movies, so the first Amendment doesn't apply to them. (Indeed, we used to regulate offensive content before the 1980s.)

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:38 PM (bb5+k)

129 119

Yep. Home-printed guns will be ubiquitous in the future. The genie is out of the bottle. Period.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at December 19, 2012 02:38 PM (X/+QT)

130 I'm willing to put myself in harm's way to protect the freedoms gauranteed to me by the US Constitution. I will not give up my weapons. If I die in that struggle, so be it.

I will not submitand ifI must die let me die on a pile of hot brass surrounded by dead statists.

Posted by: Larsen E. Whipsnade at December 19, 2012 02:38 PM (6BgmB)

131
anyone have any schematics for a home built railgun? I think it is high time to use some American ingenuity to this gun grabbing shit.

tinyurl.com/8pmy22p

Will that work for you?

Posted by: Entropy at December 19, 2012 02:39 PM (TULs6)

132 #67

So, addiction levels are running at the same percentage rate as when you could mail order a ten pound jar of cocaine in the Sears catalog. (I'm not kidding about that.) Which means you're saying that interdiction has been an utter failure.

I hope you were being sarcastic.

Posted by: epobirs at December 19, 2012 02:39 PM (kcfmt)

133 I don't even bother participating in arguments with the gun grabbers anymore. Or rather, it's a one sentence debate: "I'm not disarming. How bout the Ravens?"

How about, "I'm not disarming. But, if it makes you feel any better, I won't protect you."

Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2012 02:39 PM (FcR7P)

134 Liberals don't understand that


1) the writers of 2A were referring to a pre-existing right, and

2) the need for a standing militia was the rationale at hand ]i]at the time to put that right beyond the reach of government

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 19, 2012 02:39 PM (8sCoq)

135 @DrewM or any of the other front page posters:

Jeff over at protein wisdom had a frigging masterstroke of a post about this whole gun-control/gun-grab hysteria and how pointless it is and what arguments should be pushing back on it with, it really deserves some press.

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=46061

Posted by: Gaff at December 19, 2012 02:39 PM (jyzMD)

136 As a reminder, the "well regulated" phrase in the 2nd Amendment had a different meaning when enacted than the term does in modern lay usage. It did not mean "heavily legislated", but rather "highly skilled". As in, the 2nd can be correctly paraphrased as: "because a skilled militia is necessary to protect our country, all those rednecks need to get plenty of shooting practice with their own personal weapons."

To use the "modern" interpretation of Kristof and Sargent requires the 2nd to be read as a grammatical and logical monstrosity. Why talk about a severely red taped militia, and then give "the people" the right to bear arms? As in, "we need to have lots of laws and restrictions controlling our militia, so lets allows everybody have an unrestricted right to muzzle loading guns." It is absurd.

Posted by: Wooga at December 19, 2012 02:40 PM (btaBX)

137 Last year, 28 kids were killed in Switzerland (Switzerland!) and this year, another approx. 50 in Egypt by the mass child slaughter machine called the "bus". Ban all vehicles carrying more than 10 kids NOW!

Posted by: Captain Wombat at December 19, 2012 02:40 PM (VhR1N)

138 The same will happen with gun bans. The criminals won't care about the ban and find access to weapons regardless of the ban.
Posted by: Brewer at December 19, 2012 02:30 PM (eV1I0)

Hello Mexico

Posted by: polynikes at December 19, 2012 02:40 PM (m2CN7)

139 The Chinese are using 3D printers to make an aircraft carrier??

Posted by: Mama AJ, skimming the comments at December 19, 2012 02:40 PM (SUKHu)

140 Doug Ross has an interesting take about the Great Gun Control Debate of Ought-Twelve, revolving around those 3D-printed, AR tests.

[ here --> http://tinyurl.com/cl8cw4a ]

As to the debate over whether South Carolina's legislature (and the guys in Wisconsin who want to copy them) planning on making Obamacare enforcement a crime, it looks like someone came up with a term for this concept. They call it Interposition. There's a weaky-pedia page on it and everything. Not really a lot of info on it yet.

[ here --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interposition ]

Professor Jacobson at legal insurrection agrees with Gabe. I agree with Vic. There is not one word in the Constitution that says only the Supreme Court may decide what is or is not Constitutional. And as a smart guy said in the "discussion" page of the wikipedia entry, the Constitution does not grant the Government the right to its own, idiosyncratic interpretation, either.

Folks should read the article, and start to encourage more debate on this.

Posted by: K-Bob at December 19, 2012 02:40 PM (Psols)

141 In other news, another greatly compassionate titan of tolerance of my acquaintance just made a post inviting people to comment on their extreme dislike of Judge Bork.What is it about liberals and their obsession with permitting and exploiting the end of human life?
Posted by: Filly at December 19, 2012 02:34 PM (/Mvc7)


-------------------------------------------


They are worshippers of death. They celebrate death as much as the muzzies do (and I think that's why they get along with each other so well).

For every conservative death, they think they'll be that much closer to their communist utopia.

Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2012 02:40 PM (yboFM)

142 EC, so print two

Posted by: Jean at December 19, 2012 02:40 PM (dmcx3)

143 ask him if taking away guns will stop murders from finding a gun? and what would He DO if the killer had a gun?

can He save anyone Like this Without a gun?

Posted by: ette at December 19, 2012 02:41 PM (nqBYe)

144
And yet, shootings are way below the 2% level....

Posted by: Jollyroger at December 19, 2012 02:29 PM (t06LC)


Chemicals work on physiology to create addiction. Not comparable to incidence of insanity.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:41 PM (bb5+k)

145 >>Ban all vehicles carrying more than 10 kids NOW!

Short buses for all! That way everyone is special.

Posted by: Joey B. at December 19, 2012 02:41 PM (SUKHu)

146 They can take my 3D printer out of my cold, dead hands!

Posted by: EC at December 19, 2012 02:42 PM (GQ8sn)

147 Every gun in the world is an "assault weapon". It's a gun, not a fucking lolipop therefore it's a weapon that you can use to assault someone. When they say oh we want a reasonable ban on assault weapons what they really says is no more guns, period.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 19, 2012 02:42 PM (HDgX3)

148 >Liberal say theFounding Fathers never anticpated

repeating rifles capable of such murderous fire, so the Second Amendment

doesn't apply to them.


to which I would reply, the Founding Fathers never anticpated 1,000,000 abortions a year either, but somehow SCOTUS found a right to said carnage in penumbras of emanations of the Constitution

Posted by: Jones in CO at December 19, 2012 02:42 PM (8sCoq)

149 >> Short term answer would be for ban on more military style guns.

I've got a leftist coworker (who calls himself "moderate" though he voted for Obama, gets his news from Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Mahr, Media Matters, etc.) who owns a 1911. If he dares to start up with this "military style," "weapons of war" bullshit, I'll be sure to kindly ask him to surrender his own potentially kiddie-slaughtering "weapon of war." He'll just move the goalposts and misdirect as leftists are wont to do, though, which is why I don't bother arguing with them anymore.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke's solid gold diaphragm at December 19, 2012 02:42 PM (9SwFX)

150


If we do not choose a hill to die on, the left will choose for us a ditch to die in.


Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2012 02:42 PM (XkWWK)

151 Our coutnry's entire discourse is set by people who actively avoid defining the meaning of the terms they use.

Is it any wonder that our schools are failing in reading and math?

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 19, 2012 02:42 PM (wDG5U)

152 Anyone have any schematics for a home built railgun?
I think it is high time to use some American ingenuity to this gun
grabbing shit.

Posted by: Invictus at December 19, 2012 02:30 PM (OQpzc)


I agree. I looked at doing this very thing some years back. Make the technology ubiquitous and fuck those bastards.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:42 PM (bb5+k)

153 150


If we do not choose a hill to die on, the left will choose for us a ditch to die in.


Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2012 02:42 PM (XkWWK)


Epic

Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 02:43 PM (sFXh8)

154 Drew, you're a fool, though I do not mean it harshly. The Second Amendment clearly means the people get to possess military-grade weapons. Think about it, and don't think about how the debate *has* been going, or the ground we must cede to liberals because they control the press, think of the Amendment itself. I hardly think Jimmy Madison was thinkng of target plinking, or if home defense against burglary was his first priority.

Very little practical civilian use for a sword in 1787, other than dress, but the people could have them (the Highlanders in Britain were banned from possessing such). They could have a pike, they could have a spontoon. None exactly great for farming. Sort of the same for a musket, for that matter (a rifle gave better accuracy and range, a fowling piece was lighter and easier to hunt with. A musket is good for being robust emough to carry on field service, for taking a bayonet, and for being able to be reloaded quickly due to lack of rifling. But it is mainly a military arm. In other words, not every gun in 1790 was a Brown Bess musket. The inability of colonial guns to take bayonets was an issue during the Revolution.)

There is no reason to yield to the Sargents. They can't prevent the people from owning military-grade guns if the Second Amendment is held to. Doesn't mean it is held to, because it is not. But the people actually have the right to such instruments. There's an amendment that says so.

I'm willing to negotiate on the "well-regulated militia" portion that will provide some sanity and public safeguard. I am firm that the people get to be loaded for bear if they wish to be. We do not have English-style freedom of speech, and we are not going to have English-style gun control either.

We do not sacrifice freedom in America because it gets abused. If we did, we could end freedom of speech and the press tomorrow (and should, at least as libel goes). Nor do we make it conditional on a journalist agreeing with its need. Mr. Sargent needs to propose what safeguard he would like besides banning. Otherwise, he can pound sand.

Posted by: N. at December 19, 2012 02:43 PM (JoWAx)

155 SCOTUS is printing penumbras on a 3D printer??

Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2012 02:44 PM (SUKHu)

156 Does the man realize that Because Others /Teachers/ Principals/ Janitors followed the Law that guns weren't allowed in that specific area is Why the killer that STOLE guns was able to kill so many with No-One to help?

Posted by: ette at December 19, 2012 02:44 PM (nqBYe)

157 Aircraft carriers are still ok, right? I'm, uhhh, asking for a friend...
Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2012 02:38 PM (FcR7P)

Sure if you afford one.

Posted by: polynikes at December 19, 2012 02:44 PM (m2CN7)

158 153 Epic
Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 02:43 PM (sFXh

Thanks. Time to copyright it. But how I wish the times did not reflect that sentiment.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2012 02:44 PM (XkWWK)

159 Yep. Home-printed guns will be ubiquitous in the future. The genie is out of the bottle. Period.


Posted by: Tonic Dog at December 19, 2012 02:38 PM (X/+QT)

_____________
Time to ban printers!!!!!

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 19, 2012 02:44 PM (HDgX3)

160
"Jaws, there is always a way, lookup the guy making a AK out of a shovel "

Yup. She's a thing of beauty too. OK, that's a stretch - but she works. 8^)

I knew there was a reason I held onto my bending jigs and homemade rivet squashers after fabbing my Romanian Rustbucket.

Posted by: Jaws at December 19, 2012 02:44 PM (4I3Uo)

161 Been busy today. But since I am in Uniform today, I'd look pretty good with a 9mm wrapped around my leg.Just saying.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 19, 2012 02:45 PM (jE38p)

162 Okay, 3-d printing. The famous "3D-printed AR" was nothing but a lower receiver. In that particular gun, that is a low-stress part. And it still broke after a few shots.

Eventually some dimwit will realize that they used the wrong media, because composite lower receivers have been around since at least as far back as the early 90s.

But I admit to being a little annoyed at how the details get rewritten constantly. Basically the internet is the largest game of Chinese Whispers ever made.

I mean, people have been using 3D printers to make guns for years, ones that worked, this was just the *cheapest* 3D printer to make a gun part, and it broke.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 19, 2012 02:45 PM (bxiXv)

163 Next they'll be telling us they can put laws on the books that will make organized crime syndicates give up their guns. It's the next logical step. Oh, sorry. I said "logical". Libs don't see their hypocrisy.

Posted by: MrX at December 19, 2012 02:45 PM (PxmNZ)

164 151 Our coutnry's entire discourse is set by people who actively avoid defining the meaning of the terms they use.

Is it any wonder that our schools are failing in reading and math?
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at December 19, 2012 02:42 PM (wDG5U)


With them, that's a feature, not a bug.

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2012 02:45 PM (XkWWK)

165 >>>Is that Jen Rubin? Dumb as Meggie Mac and not nearly as attractive

Don't distract me. I'm working on my bi-hourly article about how great Mitt Romney will be as a candidate, and how much every other Republican sucks. Nomnomnom.

Posted by: Jen Rubin at December 19, 2012 02:46 PM (btaBX)

166 159

I will print a printer on my printer. So F you. :-P

Posted by: Tonic Dog at December 19, 2012 02:46 PM (X/+QT)

167 Yep. Home-printed guns will be ubiquitous in the future. The genie is out of the bottle. Period.
Posted by: Tonic Dog at December 19, 2012 02:38 PM (X/+QT)


-----------------------------------------------


I've seen this over and over on this blog and the concept still eludes me. Please explain.

Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2012 02:46 PM (yboFM)

168
I mean, people have been using 3D printers to make guns for years,
ones that worked, this was just the *cheapest* 3D printer to make a gun
part, and it broke.


Fuck the 3D printer, I want my own CNC maching tool. I could make.....anything.

Posted by: EC at December 19, 2012 02:46 PM (GQ8sn)

169 OK libs. You're right. The framers never envision an AR-15 so the 2nd Amendment is no longer applicable.

But they also never envisioned a court room with a TV in it, so I guess the 5th is no longer applicable either.

Posted by: Mr. Moo Moo at December 19, 2012 02:46 PM (HDgX3)

170
CT already had an 'assault weapons' ban.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at December 19, 2012 02:47 PM (69Mdf)

171 158 153 Epic
Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 02:43 PM (sFXh

Thanks. Time to copyright it. But how I wish the times did not reflect that sentiment.
Posted by: J.J. Sefton at December 19, 2012 02:44 PM (XkWWK)


http://gunscarstech.com/2012/12/19/thought-for-the-day/

I just figured out how to italicize. URLs are next on my list

Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 02:48 PM (sFXh8)

172 128 Liberal say theFounding Fathers never anticpated
repeating rifles capable of such murderous fire, so the Second Amendment
doesn't apply to them.
------------

The Founding Fathers would have watered the tree a LOOOOOOONG time ago.

Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 02:48 PM (fWAjv)

173 >>Libs don't see their hypocrisy.

I keep saying it's notcognative dissonance if they aren't listening to themselves.

Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2012 02:48 PM (SUKHu)

174 There were between 75,000,000 and 100,000,000 AK-47 and AK variants manufactured between 1947 and the present. And that is the the fully automatic assault rifle that the gun grabbers natter about, not a semi-automatic version.

Posted by: TANSTAAFL at December 19, 2012 02:48 PM (52QEX)

175 Fuck the 3D printer, I want my own CNC maching tool. I could make.....anything.

Posted by: EC at December 19, 2012 02:46 PM (GQ8sn)


Did you know you can rent time on those multi-million dollar 3-axis milling machines?

When making guns, you have to worry about who gets credit for making it, though. If the shop gets credit it's an illegal transfer, if you get credit it's perfectly legal to make your own gun.

Non-receiver parts are fine.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 19, 2012 02:49 PM (bxiXv)

176 who owns a 1911. If he dares to start up with this "military style,

---

The Colt M1911 is definitely a military style weapon. A century of history says so.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 19, 2012 02:49 PM (Hx5uv)

177 Drug bans have not been an utter failure, that is
just Libertarian propaganda that has been spread continuously for
decades. Current drug interdiction efforts are holding down the
addiction rate to the 2% level, same as it was a hundred years ago.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:26 PM (bb5+k)



Not sure if serious

Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 02:30 PM (sFXh

Serious. I argue this issue with Libertarians all the time. Normal progression of addiction with drug availability is a logistical growth function. (Like an infectious disease.) Keeping drug usage flat is essentially denying it growth.

Look up the importation of Opium to China by the East India company to see what I mean by logistical growth in addiction. By 1906, Half of Adult Male population of Manchuria was addicted to Opium.


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:50 PM (bb5+k)

178
Drug bans have not been an utter failure, that is just Libertarian
propaganda that has been spread continuously for decades. Current drug
interdiction efforts are holding down the addiction rate to the 2%
level, same as it was a hundred years ago.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:26 PM (bb5+k)

So the only positive you can find that it "saved or created" non-addicts?

Aside from the easy availability of all types of drugs, the historically low price, the massive infringements on our liberty, the way it hurts the inner-city poor and minorities...

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 02:51 PM (xAtAj)

179 I hesitated to tell this story, but I will anyway.

My sister was diagnosed as bipolar years ago but didn't believe it and wouldn't seek treatment.

As a child she had trouble in school and as an adult she has been in and out of jail. When she is manic,, she is the hardest working and most productive person I know, but when she crashes, she lives on the street, doing drugs and worse.

Last week she called and, for the first time ever, said "I can't live like this any longer". Presently, she is approaching her manic peak and knows the crash is just around the corner. So, I picked her up and drove her to Baptist Hospital.

My sister has no money and no insurance, so we are grateful that they agreed to see her, but because she would not say that she is suicidal, they refused to treat her other than to give her a prescription for Prozac and turn her lose, unmonitored.

After Baptist my sister was so determined to get help that we went to another hospital and sat for hours before they got her a bed in a city hospital nearby. First thing the next morning, they released her with a list f phone numbers, no meds, and no follow-up appointments.

While at Baptist, the guy in the bed next to her had been in their psych ward the week prior. They released him on new meds and he was hallucinating. His diagnosis was schizophrenia. During the course of the evening he revealed that he had been hunting when he began to see things in the woods and had taken off running, including climbing a fence to get away from the danger. He admitted that he was unable to care for his kids and that he had taken to locking them out of the house and making them "shit in the yard" because he was worried about them being around him while he's hallucinating.

They offered to give him a prescription and he told them that he wouldn't even have the money to fill it for two weeks.

Too bad.

How the hell do people without a family member to help them ever get any relief from their mental illness? Because we have made dozens of phone calls and she still hasn't been able to get help.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at December 19, 2012 02:51 PM (piMMO)

180 @177 Do you believe that obama created or saved eleventy billion jobs, too?

Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 02:52 PM (sFXh8)

181
fighting for maniacs to have easy access to mass child slaughter machines


Make mental institutions gun-free zones, and put the maniacs in them.

Easy.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at December 19, 2012 02:52 PM (4u2LN)

182 Look up the importation of Opium to China by the
East India company to see what I mean by logistical growth in addiction.
By 1906, Half of Adult Male population of Manchuria was addicted to
Opium.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:50 PM (bb5+k)
You are citing a single historical example (not even in the West) and throwing down 'statistics'.
As with guns, I think you'd find that it is by and large driven by culture. If heroine was deemed legal tomorrow, I doubt we'd see even a doubling of usage.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 02:53 PM (xAtAj)

183 Ban guns? Yeah, this will never happen here...

http://tinyurl.com/bkdms5x

Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 02:53 PM (fWAjv)

184 Its a mistake to confuse knowing propagandists for misinformed debaters. Sargent know precisely what he's doing.

P.R.E.C.I.S.E.L.Y.

When you "debate" someone like this YOU ARE NOT talking to them, you're talking to the audience, which may number in the thousands.

Use precise language. Cite unimpeachable sources (like the US govt's own data), and cite it 2nd hand by linking some blog or news story.

Search out the FBI/DOJ/BJS reports and link/quote them exactly.

DO NOT use any data attributed to the NRA/GOA, etc. Its often quite accurate, but the brand tarnishes it from the get go. Again, search out the sources those guys used and cite them instead. Whenever possible, go to the most original source. Yea, its more work, but it cuts through all the bullshit.

DO frame the conversation in a direction they don't expect and can't respond to.

ex. Suppose they trot out the militia argument? Force them to have to argue AGAINST equal rights for women by citing the Federal statute that defines "militia" as MALES between the age of 18-45 not in the military.

DO mention that murder is largely an urban phenomenon (cite unimpeachable FBI UCR data as support). DO mention that firearms ownership skews rural.

Invite them to explain that.


Posted by: @PurpAv at December 19, 2012 02:54 PM (JwFAO)

185 Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 02:51 PM (xAtAj)

Never smoked dope and the only reason was that it was against the law. Sounds simplistic but there are a lot of people just like me. That said I don't think drug and gun issues are anywhere comparable.

Posted by: polynikes at December 19, 2012 02:55 PM (m2CN7)

186
When we didn't have the current laws?








Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:26 PM (bb5+k)



Posted by: Jack Wagon at December 19, 2012 02:34 PM (KUPae)

If you knew the history of Drug laws and when and why they were enacted, then I wouldn't have to explain to you why you have a misconception. Since you do have a misconception, I don't have the time to remedy it.

Hit me up on Free Republic or TalkPolywell sometime, and I can link all the connections for you.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:55 PM (bb5+k)

187 My bad -- "and cite it 2nd hand" should be :

"and DON'T cite it 2nd hand "

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 19, 2012 02:55 PM (JwFAO)

188 http://www.globalpost. com/dispatch/news/regions/europe/120718/d rug-decriminalization-portugal-addicts

Portugal decriminalizes, and addiction goes down.

Anecdote stalemate.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 02:55 PM (xAtAj)

189 Notice how since they couldn't tie him to the Tea Party or conservatives, they make the conversation about guns and blame us anyway.

Posted by: The Mega Independent at December 19, 2012 02:56 PM (sEGrB)

190 "Anyways, she said I wanted people to die because I was against gun restrictions."

Right. Note that this works only one way.

Pissed-off liberal: "We need to get rid of guns. Just ban them, and round up the ones people have." [Note: This may be a distinct minority view but several people I know hold it, and if it runs afoul of the 2nd Amendment, let's pass an amendment that cancels that one.]

Conservative: "That's not the kind of society I want to live in."

Pissed-off liberal: "You heartless bastard. It's because of you and people like you that 20 kids just died in a mass shooting."
--------
Different liberal: "Do you believe this idiot thinks we need teachers to be armed and trained to shoot a mass shooter? Like that's going to help."

Different conservative: "He's not an idiot. Whether you think that's good policy or not, these mass shooters tend to off themselves when someone shows up who can stop them. So why not have that person right there?"

Liberal: "That's not the kind of society I want to live in!"

Posted by: JPS at December 19, 2012 02:56 PM (yv7DK)

191 "Well regulated" means "skilled".
That means putting ALL rounds in a man-sized target at 200 yards as a beginner.

Posted by: Thorvald at December 19, 2012 02:56 PM (1V6Pv)

192 Fuck the 3D printer, I want my own CNC maching tool. I could make.....anything.

You know you can build your own, right? I'm trying to get my act together to do the same.

Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2012 02:57 PM (FcR7P)

193
"And it still broke after a few shots."

You mean it was supposed to work perfectly the first time out? Someone get those damn Wright Bros. on the phone!

But seriously, a journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. It's where garage tinkerers live.

Posted by: Jaws at December 19, 2012 02:57 PM (4I3Uo)

194
There are people working the kinks out of fabbing them on 3D printers as we type. It *will* happen sooner rather than later.

You can't stop the signal.

Posted by: Jaws at December 19, 2012 02:36 PM (4I3Uo)

The weak point is manufacturing barrels. All of the rest of it just looks pretty without the barrel.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 02:58 PM (bb5+k)

195 My long time argument with libs has always been framed like this-

The framers INDEED intended for us to have weapons that were equal to what the government had, they wanted us on equal footing...period. If the military carries it. we are supposed to have it too. If the fucking government arms theirs stooges with it, we are supposed to have it too.... period.

They wanted the US citizens to have access to the same level of arms that potential enemies of america would use... period

The framers intent was that American citizens would not be outgunned by the government.... period


The put the second amendment in the fucking bill of rights because it was aimed at the PEOPLE, not the fucking government.

It was put there to defend the constitution from the exact type of domestic enemy of the constitution the libs have proven to be..period.

Posted by: Berserker at December 19, 2012 02:58 PM (FMbng)

196 The Colt M1911 is definitely a military style weapon. A century of history says so.

Posted by: WalrusRex at December 19, 2012 02:49 PM (Hx5uv)


It gets worse than that.
I've been looking at replicas of the 1871 Colt single action Army revolver.
The M1911 replaced that.

Posted by: jwb7605 (Let It Burn) at December 19, 2012 02:58 PM (Qxe/p)

197 I am so utterly exhausted with those who claim to be on the side of The Children refusing to accept that people have agency and are responsible for their own actions.

It's very simple: they're for The Children, which they consider to be everyone.

Posted by: Colorado Alex at December 19, 2012 02:58 PM (3x3F6)

198 176

The Colt M1911 is definitely a military style weapon. A century of history says so.



Posted by: WalrusRex at December 19, 2012 02:49 PM (Hx5uv)

Right, no argument here. I was just pointing out that this guy, being the lefty douche that he is, would be unlikely to make that connection since HIS firearm isn't all scary-looking.

Posted by: Sandra Fluke's solid gold diaphragm at December 19, 2012 02:59 PM (9SwFX)

199 >> hesitated to tell this story, but I will anyway.

Prayers and hugs, NDH.

Posted by: Mama AJ at December 19, 2012 02:59 PM (SUKHu)

200 Posted by: Berserker at December 19, 2012 02:58 PM (FMbng)

Should we have RPGs? Nukes?

Serious question.

I think we should be allowed automatics and the like. If we ever need to overthrow the govt bombs aren't *that* hard to make. And 100 million guns in the bushes should be enough to ward off tyranny.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 02:59 PM (xAtAj)

201 There's strap on CNC stuff for those cheap $500 Chinese milling machines. These's a whole subculture of hobbyists who turn those cheapie mills and lathes into high precision tools with some simple tuneups.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 19, 2012 02:59 PM (JwFAO)

202
Drew,

You're part of the problem. Every time someone on our side gives credence to the liberal meme that the second amendment is meant for hunting or target shooting or even home defense from burglars, we lose.

Next time you're asked, let them know that we have a constitutional right to arms that are designed to be able to defend our freedom from a repressive government. Semi automatic assault rifles with high capacity magazines are what is needed.

Posted by: jwest at December 19, 2012 02:59 PM (ZDsRL)

203 WaPo’s Dana Milbank Blames Opposition To Chuck Hagel As Defense Secretary On “Neocons” And “Zionists”…

The veiled anti-semitism is just below the surface

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 19, 2012 03:00 PM (jE38p)

204 Been busy today. But since I am in Uniform today, I'd look pretty good with a 9mm wrapped around my leg.Just saying.

Posted by: Nevergiveup


How YOU doin'?

Posted by: Swooning 'ettes...and Gabe at December 19, 2012 03:00 PM (NF2Bf)

205 #159

You can bet that feds are watching the progress of 3D printers closely. Keep in mind the Treasury Department keeps a very close eye on printing technology already.

Simple experiment. Find a high quality color copier and try to reproduce a $20 bill. The result is fascinating.

I have no doubt that some federal outfit has legislation ready to go to require government certification of the firmware in 3D printers in preparation for the day when they get good enough to go beyond speculative projects and produce finished goods of a legally restricted nature. Charles Stross, although a lefty, has written some very believable settings in the near decades of how this sort of issue could play out.

I'd expect future devices to require a live connection to their manufacturer or regulatory agency, much like the makers of video game consoles use their online multi-player infrastructure to test for modified units that will play pirated discs. connecting to Xbox Live with a modified Xbox 360 will get the machine banned and your account locked.

This doesn't stop determined people. Most of the mod kits sold by places like Console Source allow for switches to make the machine appear stock when necessary.

Posted by: epobirs at December 19, 2012 03:00 PM (kcfmt)

206 Sounds to me like somebody needs to keep a watchful eye on the slaughter machine between Greg's ears, -- for his own good.

Posted by: Fritz at December 19, 2012 03:00 PM (K/NRd)

207 Did you know you can rent time on those multi-million dollar 3-axis milling machines?

techshop.ws
Multi-thousand-dollar machines, Tormach in my area, I think. $100 a month plus I think $100 for a class on each machine you want to use.

Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2012 03:01 PM (FcR7P)

208 186

Have a decent understanding of the history, but did not mean a complete repeal of ALL drug laws.

I believe that the hemp and marijuana laws should be revisited, as a good argument can be made regarding the cost/benefit of said laws.

Posted by: Jack Wagon at December 19, 2012 03:01 PM (KUPae)

209 Would your gun fall under the ’94 weapons ban?
Upload a photo of your gun and share your thoughts on gun control.
------------

Yeah, i'll get that right to ya CNN. Do you want my home address as well?

Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 03:01 PM (fWAjv)

210 "I mean, people have been using 3D printers to make
guns for years, ones that worked, this was just the *cheapest* 3D
printer to make a gun part, and it broke.
"
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 19, 2012 02:45 PM (bxiXv)

Yeah, those args go with the discussion of viability, and they've been pretty well beat to death at various gun sites. Doug's point is more at the fact that this shows that the people will bear arms, no matter what the feds try to do.

Posted by: K-Bob at December 19, 2012 03:01 PM (Psols)

211 @200... Back in July, Justice Scalia was musing that that question may come before the court. Not nukes, but some heavier infantry weapons for sure.

Posted by: Thorvald at December 19, 2012 03:01 PM (1V6Pv)

212 How YOU doin'?
Posted by: Swooning 'ettes...and Gabe at December 19, 2012 03:00 PM (NF2Bf)

OOh, what do I have a fan?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 19, 2012 03:01 PM (jE38p)

213
So, addiction levels are running at the same
percentage rate as when you could mail order a ten pound jar of cocaine
in the Sears catalog. (I'm not kidding about that.) Which means you're
saying that interdiction has been an utter failure.

I hope you were being sarcastic.



Posted by: epobirs at December 19, 2012 02:39 PM (kcfmt)

I'm not being sarcastic. It was the truth in labeling act that first drew people's attention to the fact that most of the patent medicines contained cocaine or opium derivatives.
In China, where there were no laws against drug usage, the rate of opium addiction increased from 2% to 50% in the course of 80 years. Allow drugs to be legal, and you will see a massive spike in addicts.






Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 03:02 PM (bb5+k)

214 Ah.. the peaceful child loving liberals.
same ones making abornaments... yes, dead baby Christmas ornaments http://tinyurl.com/ckfk85j

i wont disarm. fuck em.

Posted by: Jumbo Shrimp at December 19, 2012 03:02 PM (DGIjM)

215 Should we have RPGs? Nukes?Serious question.I think we should be allowed automatics and the like. If we ever need to overthrow the govt bombs aren't *that* hard to make. And 100 million guns in the bushes should be enough to ward off tyranny.
Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 02:59 PM (xAtAj)

RPGs maybe. Nukes no. Any weapon that can be handled and carried by an individual is up for debate.

Posted by: polynikes at December 19, 2012 03:03 PM (m2CN7)

216 In China, where there were no laws against drug
usage, the rate of opium addiction increased from 2% to 50% in the
course of 80 years. Allow drugs to be legal, and you will see a massive
spike in addicts.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 03:02 PM (bb5+k)

http://www.globalpost.com /dispatch/news/regions/europe/120718/drug- decriminalization-portugal-addictsc-c-c-c-c-combo breaker!

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 03:03 PM (xAtAj)

217 "Well regulated" means "skilled". That means putting ALL rounds in a man-sized target at 200 yards as a beginner.
Posted by: Thorvald at December 19, 2012 02:56 PM (1V6Pv)


-------------------------------------------


I tell the leftists, when they try to throw this portiong of the 2nd against me, that if the situation warranted, I could get a well regulated, trained militia standing in front of my house in less than three hours.

My secret? There's a lot of military and ex-military that lives in my neighborhood, who also live in probable every neighborhood in the nation. All of us trained. Many battle-tested.

Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2012 03:03 PM (yboFM)

218 woops break up that url. my c's are not part of the url

http://www.globalpost.com/ dispatch/news/regions/europe/120718/d rug-decriminalization-portugal-addicts

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 03:04 PM (xAtAj)

219 To use the "modern" interpretation of Kristof and
Sargent requires the 2nd to be read as a grammatical and logical
monstrosity. Why talk about a severely red taped militia, and then give
"the people" the right to bear arms? As in, "we need to have lots of
laws and restrictions controlling our militia, so lets allows everybody
have an unrestricted right to muzzle loading guns." It is absurd.

Posted by: Wooga at December 19, 2012 02:40 PM (btaBX)

The precedent is Edward III of England's (If I remember correctly.) requirement that people have Bows and Arrows and that they must practice with them weekly or be penalized by law.




Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 03:04 PM (bb5+k)

220

Yep. Home-printed guns will be ubiquitous in the future. The genie is out of the bottle. Period.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at December 19, 2012 02:38 PM (X/+QT)





-----------------------------------------------





I've seen this over and over on this blog and the concept still eludes me. Please explain.

Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2012 02:46 PM (yboFM)






Because the technology to build firearms, even if you discount the new 3d printing methods, has been available for decades. Not just in terms of building receivers, but for building every single part of a firearm. Hell, I have several pdf's of plans for building button-rifling machines to make barrel blanks from scratch. The parts are all simple stuff from Home Depot and your local machine tool supplier.

Reloading components for ammo might be different. Making bullets is fairly simple using bullet molds or swaging dies with a press. Primers can actually be reloaded using the tips of strike-anywhere matches. There's no homemade substitute for modern smokeless powders though.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at December 19, 2012 03:05 PM (TIIx5)

221 In China, where there were no laws against drug usage, the rate of opium addiction increased from 2% to 50% in the course of 80 years. Allow drugs to be legal, and you will see a massive spike in addicts. Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 03:02 PM (bb5+k)


----------------------------------------------------


AND we just think we've seen out-of-control welfare spending.

Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2012 03:05 PM (yboFM)

222 There's a lot of military and ex-military that lives in my neighborhood, who also live in probable every neighborhood in the nation. All of us trained. Many battle-tested.
Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2012 03:03 PM (yboFM)

Maybe in Red States, but in Blue States like mine, you can go for days and days and miles and miles without running into current Military or Vets, unless you count WW2 types and they are dying off fast.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 19, 2012 03:06 PM (jE38p)

223 Simple experiment. Find a high quality color copier and try to reproduce a $20 bill. The result is fascinating.

Posted by: epobirs at December 19, 2012 03:00 PM (kcfmt)

Have fun when the USSS visits you. A coworker did that back in the mid 90s. I don't know what his sentence was.

Edit - I guess it is legal if you only copy one side and at a reduced size.

He would make $20s and go to street vendors and buy a .50 cent bag of chips and get real money as his change.

Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 03:06 PM (fWAjv)

224 Lots of children died due to Operation Fast and Furious. Do Leftists not care about Mexican children? /rhetorical

Posted by: baldilocks via iPad at December 19, 2012 03:07 PM (Su0W2)

225 Back in July, Justice Scalia was musing that that question may come
before the court. Not nukes, but some heavier infantry weapons for sure.


Current Federal weapons and arms dealing law (theoretically) permits private ownership of everything up to, but not including NBC which are international treaty stuff.

Could you obtain a 155 howitzer and ammo under current Federal law? YES. There are hoops to be jumped through, but its not explicitly prohibited.

Could a private citizen build an aircraft carrier? YES, if they could afford to do so.

There's already a number of jet fighter aircraft in private hands.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 19, 2012 03:07 PM (JwFAO)

226
You know you can build your own, right? I'm trying to get my act together to do the same.

I built a 3d printer but I haven't wired it yet as I got hit with a lazy spell.

Posted by: Entropy at December 19, 2012 03:07 PM (TULs6)

227 Should we have RPGs? Nukes?

Serious question.

I
think we should be allowed automatics and the like. If we ever need to
overthrow the govt bombs aren't *that* hard to make. And 100 million
guns in the bushes should be enough to ward off tyranny.


Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 02:59 PM (xAtAj)

They wanted us to have whatever a potential enemy combatant, or one of our own soldiers carries into battle...period.
No I don't think WMDs fall into that catagory, but whatever that was conceivably carried by soldiers does apply. That was their thinking. In the end they wanted parity with a potential enemy and hostile government.

Posted by: Berserker at December 19, 2012 03:08 PM (FMbng)

228 Anyone know about how many morons tend to be staring at AoSHQ threads at any time of the day? 'Coz last night there were over 16,000 folks online at the AR15 forum when I took a look to see what was happening there.

Posted by: K-Bob at December 19, 2012 03:08 PM (Psols)

229 Two World Wars proved you can do a lot of mass slaughter with bolt action rifles.

"I want a harumph from that guy!"

Posted by: Mikey NTH - sees the gods of the copybook headings on the horizon at December 19, 2012 03:10 PM (hLRSq)

230
So the only positive you can find that it "saved or created" non-addicts?

Aside
from the easy availability of all types of drugs, the historically low
price, the massive infringements on our liberty, the way it hurts the
inner-city poor and minorities...



Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 02:51 PM (xAtAj)

And we talk about the liberals spewing propaganda. Compared to what it would be like if drugs were legal, we have an EXTREMELY low rate of availability and addiction.

1906 China had a 50% addiction rate. Ponder that.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 03:12 PM (bb5+k)

231 Two World Wars proved you can do a lot of mass slaughter with bolt action rifles.

Don't forget 'freezing your ass off in a trench'. Whoever invented global warming should get a Nobel Peace Prize.

Posted by: t-bird at December 19, 2012 03:12 PM (FcR7P)

232 Army seeks death penalty for soldier accused of slaying 16 Afghan civilians
Staff Sgt. Robert Bales was charged with premeditated muder after massacring 16 Afghan villagers, including 9 children, in March. The Army is seeking to punish him with the death penalty.


Hum? Are they seeking the death penalty for Major Nadal?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 19, 2012 03:13 PM (jE38p)

233 @177 Do you believe that obama created or saved eleventy billion jobs, too?

Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 02:52 PM (sFXh


Don't copy the straw man tactics of the liberals. You are better than that.

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 03:13 PM (bb5+k)

234 And while we're at it, in the language of the time, well regulated meant well supplied, and well maintained.

Posted by: Berserker at December 19, 2012 03:14 PM (FMbng)

235 Maybe in Red States, but in Blue States like mine, you can go for days and days and miles and miles without running into current Military or Vets, unless you count WW2 types and they are dying off fast.
Posted by: Nevergiveup at December 19, 2012 03:06 PM (jE38p)


----------------------------------------------


That's why I keep saying that if a conservative lives in a blue state when the shit hits the fan, you're fucked. Move.

Posted by: Soona at December 19, 2012 03:15 PM (yboFM)

236 Gun rights are central to the Left/Right argument about the concept of control.

The Right cherishes self control and know that guns not only aren't the problem, but act as a guarantor.

The left cherishes State control, while asserting that individuals possess none, using the violently mentally ill as a straw dog exemplar.

History properly presented roundly debunks the Left's cynical false assertions about irregular violent episodes.

Again the danger of the MBM brainwash is abundantly demonstrated.

24/7/365



Posted by: ontherocks at December 19, 2012 03:15 PM (aZ6ew)

237
1906 China had a 50% addiction rate. Ponder that.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 03:12 PM (bb5+k)

Ok. So no rebuttal. That's fine as long as everyone sees that we're at an anecdotal stalemate.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 03:17 PM (xAtAj)

238 Heavens, maybe Americans have I dunno... some sort of exceptional-ism that would resist mass drug use even in the face of availability?

I don't see what would be different other than we'd stop throwing drug addicts in prison(where drugs are STILL freely available) and creating a gigantic black market.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 03:19 PM (xAtAj)

239 You are citing a single historical example (not even in the West) and throwing down 'statistics'.




Human physiology works the same in the West as it does in the East. The massive addiction which occurred in China is the single largest real world experiment in history. There are no better examples. A lesser example is "needles park" in Switzerland. Interestingly enough, it too was a disaster for the theory that legalized drugs don't cause major problems.







As
with guns, I think you'd find that it is by and large driven by
culture. If heroine was deemed legal tomorrow, I doubt we'd see even a
doubling of usage.


Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 02:53 PM (xAtAj)


That is nonsensical. Drug addiction follows a logistical growth pattern. By the way, I know many people who have died from drug addiction. How about you?

Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 03:19 PM (bb5+k)

240 Gotta go. Responsibilities call me away.



Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 03:19 PM (bb5+k)

241 That is nonsensical. Drug addiction follows a
logistical growth pattern. By the way, I know many people who have died
from drug addiction. How about you?


Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 03:19 PM (bb5+k)
Claiming a phenomenon follows a statistical pattern and proving it are two different things sadly.
Especially strange to assert is as fact when the empirical evidence is mixed.

Posted by: HoboJerky, now with 75% more DOOM! at December 19, 2012 03:21 PM (xAtAj)

242 233 @177 Do you believe that obama created or saved eleventy billion jobs, too?

Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 02:52 PM (sFXh


Don't copy the straw man tactics of the liberals. You are better than that.
Posted by: DiogenesLamp at December 19, 2012 03:13 PM (bb5+k)


So that's a no?

You've provided a single example: China, a hundred years ago.

Others have provided a counter-example: portugal, over the last decade.

We've spent billions of dollars to achieve....nothing.

Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 03:22 PM (sFXh8)

243 "fighting for maniacs to have easy access to mass child slaughter machines,".
You're fighting for Planned Parenthood?

Posted by: Mr Tea at December 19, 2012 03:24 PM (jy/cR)

244 Out opponents are not arguing in good faith so don't expect consistency or logic from them.

Posted by: toby928© Person of Pallor at December 19, 2012 03:26 PM (evdj2)

245 Our

Posted by: toby928© Person of Pallor at December 19, 2012 03:26 PM (evdj2)

246 #213

There was rather more involved than a lack of regulation. Hint: Look into why the Chinese have a grudge against the Brits.

Every time deregulation was tried despite the threat of junkies lining the streets, it has never happened. At worst, the people who are inclined to destroy themselves do so and leave the rest of the species to get on with life. Just like they do already, except with a lot of additional criminal activity and all the life enhancing features that brings to the world.

A certain percentage of the population is going to destroy themselves with drink or drugs. Nothing has ever put a dent in that. But attempts to alter the situation have made life worse for countless innocents and enriched some of the worst possible people.

Posted by: epobirs at December 19, 2012 03:26 PM (kcfmt)

247 The left is staying classy. Man got kicked out of a mall for wearing a shirt that read "“Has your gun killed a kindergartner today?”

Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 03:29 PM (fWAjv)

248 Should we have RPGs? Nukes? Serious question.

RPG's are currently permitted under Federal law and there are some in private hands. Its classified as a "destructive device", and requires everything that any other NFA destructive device requires.

Ammo for it requires special storage facility specs, handling, and some standoff footage from residential areas that I don't recall at the moment.

Federal arms law, as enforced by BATF regarding nuclear weapons, is intentionally vague and amounts to a single sentence in the statutes directing you to Dept of Energy for answers. DOE is responsible for nuclear weapons.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 19, 2012 03:30 PM (JwFAO)

249 Maniac control is the issue, not the weapons.

Posted by: Sarahw at December 19, 2012 03:31 PM (LYwCh)

250 247 The left is staying classy. Man got kicked out of a mall for wearing a shirt that read "“Has your gun killed a kindergartner today?”
Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 03:29 PM (fWAjv)


He is also a felon, and was arrested for driving on a revoked license after he refused requests from mall security to remove the shirt or leave.

Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 03:31 PM (sFXh8)

251 "Allow drugs to be legal, and you will see a massive spike in addicts."

What is the current rate of alcohol addiction in the US?

Posted by: Baron Von Ottomatic at December 19, 2012 03:32 PM (6WVi+)

252
"Allow drugs to be legal, and you will see a massive spike in addicts."


Meh.

Posted by: Natural Selection at December 19, 2012 03:33 PM (JwFAO)

253 But isn't a child slaughter machine the perfect tool for the child game farms the 'Gun-free Schools Act of 1990' established?

Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at December 19, 2012 03:34 PM (2VCZA)

254 "195
My long time argument with libs has always been framed like this-

The
framers INDEED intended for us to have weapons that were equal to what
the government had, they wanted us on equal footing...period. If the
military carries it. we are supposed to have it too. If the fucking
government arms theirs stooges with it, we are supposed to have it
too.... period.

They wanted the US citizens to have access to the same level of arms that potential enemies of america would use... period

The framers intent was that American citizens would not be outgunned by the government.... period


The put the second amendment in the fucking bill of rights because it was aimed at the PEOPLE, not the fucking government.

It
was put there to defend the constitution from the exact type of
domestic enemy of the constitution the libs have proven to be..period.


Posted by: Berserker at December 19, 2012 02:58 PM (FMbng)"

Yep. I am telling them I reserve the right to own as much firepower as I think I need to take out at least a few petty tyrants like you with me if you make your move. If it turns into a war of attrition, I want to be able to take out at least two of those fucks.

Maybe if the Left hadn't morphed into a bunch of bloodthirsty savages baying for the blood of their political enemies over the past 20 years, I'd trust them a bit more. As it is, I don't trust the Left one iota.

The reality is there aren't enough Leftists or their sympathizers in the country to round up all guns, if the owners are unwilling to part with them, which is why they are pushing the "shaming" route to get people to voluntarily relinquish their rights. If every raid on a gun owner ends with even one dead Federal agent, the number of willing volunteers will be even lower.

Posted by: BS Inc. at December 19, 2012 03:39 PM (eP0u9)

255 Greg Sargent serves as a perfect example of what liberals mean when they say, "We need to have a discussion..."

Posted by: Peregrine Took, Hobbit S.O.B. at December 19, 2012 03:40 PM (Mwakv)

256 So- single shot? Does that mean I should turn in my Winchester 1873?

Posted by: marcus at December 19, 2012 03:41 PM (GGCsk)

257 The argument over how much gun a private citizen should be allowed to own is just another ruse for shifting the argument slowly but surely in the Left's preferred direction.

It doesn't matter if machine guns are legal. Most people aren't going to have one because it isn't very practical for a non-battlefield situation. Right off the bat, it's expensive as hell. Those places that let you shoot up an old TV or refrigerator with full auto charge high because the ammo and maintenance costs are not minor. It's a hell of a lot of fun and I recommend everybody do it at least once. But full auto for shits and giggles is just too expensive for most people.

Nor is it very useful for self-defense unless you expect to be attacked by a horde in an environment you don't care about damaging. Most people are going to prefer something that lets them apply greater accuracy. This is a separate issue from capacity as having to pause to reload when several people have invaded your home can be a life or death problem.

Telling people they cannot have a home Howitzer is as silly as telling them they cannot keep a behemoth semi rig in their driveway. It just isn't going to be an issue most of the time as it just isn't practical. (My old neighborhood had several independent truckers who kept rig in their driveways but the nature of the lot design in the neighborhood lent itself to that and nobody complained.)

No, it's really about imposing limits with an eye towards demanding greater restriction as people get used to having restrictions at all.

Posted by: epobirs at December 19, 2012 03:47 PM (kcfmt)

258 "You're forgetting gluten, butter and salt. Must eliminate military style gluten."

Ah, the dreaded MSG. Sorry I'm late to this thread. I was having the exact same discussion on Facebook.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at December 19, 2012 03:48 PM (i0vBR)

259 He is also a felon, and was arrested for driving on a revoked license after he refused requests from mall security to remove the shirt or leave.
Posted by: wizardpc at December 19, 2012 03:31 PM (sFXh

Ha. Good.

Posted by: RWC at December 19, 2012 03:48 PM (fWAjv)

260 When I was a kid one of my friends had a WWII era howitzer in their yard. They lived up on a small mountain and had a commanding field of view over the town.

The blow off a blank round or two every year on the 4th.

I don't recall them ever using it in any crimes.

Posted by: @PurpAv at December 19, 2012 03:50 PM (JwFAO)

261 #254

The last 20 years? They murdered over 100 million during the 20th Century. Obama's buddy Bill Ayers was part of an organization that 40 years ago thought killing 25 million people was an acceptable level of carnage to remake America to their liking.

Go back a few centuries and look at the founding event of modern leftism, the French Revolution. The Left has always been about the carnage.

Posted by: epobirs at December 19, 2012 03:52 PM (kcfmt)

262 So, its a logistical impossibility to deport 10 million illegal aliens, but we can somehow control 300 million guns?

Posted by: Sexypig at December 19, 2012 03:53 PM (dZQh7)

263 261

Fair enough, but I was speaking more about the American mainstream Left. Ayers, even, was radical in the 60's when he wrote about killing millions of Americans.

Granted the international Left going back to the French Revolution, has always been bloodthirsty savages, but the importation of that ideology into the mainstream of the American Left is a bit more recent.

Posted by: BS Inc. at December 19, 2012 04:09 PM (eP0u9)

264 the second amendment is second because the founding fathers thought it was that important.
the second amendment was written to ensure the citizenry would have the weaponry necessary to over throw the government should it become tyrannical.

check your history..the revolution was won, in a big part because the colonist had BETTER weapons than the british army...the kentucky long rifle could drop red coats at a far longer range than they could return effective fire.
the civil war was won, in part, because the north had BETTER weapons than the south...the repeating rifle vs muzzle loaders...

when.....WHEN, not IF...the citizenry of our country need to rise up and over throw the ruling elete that have instituted the soft tyranny we are living under today, we will need to be armed with the same. or better weapons, than the forces the rulers call upon to put down the rebellion. those are the weapons they are trying to limit, or ban today.

Posted by: xtron at December 19, 2012 04:27 PM (x5GOG)

265 Mama AJ: SCOTUS is printing penumbras on a 3D printer??

Or getting ready to ban shovels:

http://tinyurl.com/shovel-AK

Posted by: Kristophr at December 19, 2012 05:17 PM (wYVte)

266 So now their tactic is to regulate "military style guns"?

Well, that make any AR-15 safe from the confiscators. No self-respecting military worth mentioning has armed its troops with a purely semi-automatic weapon, no matter how scary looking it may be, in the last half century. Obama's own Secret Service detail carries more firepower than that.

Posted by: AR Lite at December 19, 2012 05:52 PM (u3N3z)

267 The abortionist's tools are Assault Weapons!

Posted by: Make Libtards Spontaneously Combust at December 19, 2012 06:13 PM (iA0RZ)

268 But seriously, a journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. It's where garage tinkerers live.

Posted by: Jaws at December 19, 2012 02:57 PM (4I3Uo)


I knew that would be one of those things people would come at (and leave) sideways.

Not the first, not viable. Unless you are *extremely* specific as to method of 3D printing, and then still not viable. And it wasn't a gun, it was a single (relatively) low-stress part.

Not saying there isn't a future, there have been composite gun parts since the 80s at least. Just saying the "OMG PRINTED GUN" thing is about as overhyped as 50 Shades of Gray.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at December 19, 2012 06:48 PM (bxiXv)

269 Not the first, not viable.


WTF do you mean "not viable"? Fuck composites (not that Glock doesn't do fine with them), there are 3D printers that print in metal.


The 3D printer tech is advancing. It will be viable. Hell, in 100 years it may be the only way they're still manufactured.

Posted by: entropy at December 19, 2012 06:56 PM (YUttk)

270 The short answer to the question "Do you believe Americans have a constitutional right to assault weapons and high capacity magazines?" is "Yes."

The longer answer is the second amendment was written to ensure people have the means to protect themselves, and one of the specific things that people needed to be able to protect themselves against is a tyrannical government.

If you don't get that, you fail Freedom 101.

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at December 19, 2012 07:51 PM (yh0zB)

271 Didn't these losers have their high-capacity clips jam on them? I'd think the gun-control zealots would want to mandate high-cap clips due to their high failure rate.

Posted by: JSchuler at December 19, 2012 07:57 PM (SmZQt)

272 "and my concceding that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect every conceivable "weapon" (a strawman of the first degree) "... and this is why we never win, even the people on our side don't really believe what the Constitution says.
everyone is firmly convinced that their own little pet curtailment of other peoples freedom is harmless and necessary and anyone who doesn't agree is crazy.
is there some hidden part or clause of the 2nd Amend. that negates the "shall not infringe" part?
or does one of those words not mean what it means?
the 2nd Amend isn't about target shooting or hunting and it's only partially about defending yourself from the local lunatics and thugs, it's about defending yourself from a government gone mad... a pea-shooter ain't gonna cut it, which is why the Framers wrote it they way they did, as short, simple and sweet as possible with the premeditated intent of allow the citizenry to arm themselves with whatever weaponery needed to maintain their liberty, that was the original intent, they left as little wiggle room as possible yet people can read it and still say "but not everything!"the wording is perfectly clear, the words still have the same meaning.

Posted by: Shoey at December 19, 2012 09:13 PM (m6OUa)

273 M1 Garands wouldn't fall into the banned category. I forget what they were made for.

Posted by: SARDiver at December 20, 2012 01:30 AM (y3XdH)

274 Oh, and here's an argument the next time someone mentions that the first amendment isn't absolute, so neither is the second: when a limit is placed on the first, it's because someone was actually harmed through libel, slander, false telling of FIRE!, etc. and even then, there is due process. Gun bans are completely prospective in nature.

Posted by: SARDiver at December 20, 2012 01:36 AM (AqqsJ)






Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.1307 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0974 seconds, 283 records returned.
Page size 170 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat