Category Archives: authoritarian swine
In case you haven’t heard, Virginia’s frothing leftist Attorney General has decided that Virginia will no longer recognize concealed carry permits from 25 states that currently have reciprocity agreements with the Commonwealth.
I warned about this when the vagina voters (this includes the supposed “libertarians,” who were scared the evil GOP was going to limit their right to have their uterii scraped and decided to vote with their giblets instead of their brains) decided it was much more important to elect a leftist carpetbagger Clinton crony to the highest office in Virginia, because VAGINA! I cautioned that Terry McAwful, Ralph Northam, and Mark Herring would work to take large, steamy dumps on the right of peaceable citizens to defend themselves, but the vagina voters were afraid the GOP would climb up their collective twats with a Republican flashlight, so they elected these authoritarian shitbags.
And now, we’re reaping the collective “benefits” of their obsession with their giblets.
Herring has decided it’s time to strip those traveling through the Commonwealth of their basic human right to self defense by ending reciprocity agreements that would allow Americans from outside Virginia to legally carry concealed.
Now, it is legal to open carry in Virginia, so those who used to legally carry their firearms concealed can simply openly carry, and anyone intent on hiding a firearm will do so regardless of authoritarian diktats issued by Herring, McAwful, or anyone else. So I’m not exactly sure what Herring thinks (if you can call it that) his retardery will accomplish.
That said, the reaction of Virginians was not at all positive. In retaliation the Virginia GOP has moved to defund Terry McAwful’s executive protection unit. Virginia state senator Bill Carrico proposed a budget amendment that could strip that leftist, carpetbagging twat, who is working tirelessly trying to disarm the very people who put him in office and who pay his salary, and who has no problem using those same taxpayers’ money to protect his own worthless hide, of his protective detail. “If he’s so afraid of guns,”Carrico said, “then I’m not going to surround him with armed state policemen.”
Hey, this is what you elected, vagina voters! Aren’t you proud?
Meantime, as I wrote for the Zelman Partisans today, it’s instructive to see just who pulls the strings of Virginia’s gun-grabbing pud wankers. John Richardson at No Lawyers – Only Guns and Money did just that.
I know you’re not going to be surprised to find out that the pernicious fuckbag with the gargantuan dead caterpillar on his head wasn’t the only one who contributed $25,000 to elect McAwful as governor of Virginia, the biggest contributor to McAwful and Herring’s campaigns is that statist cock mange Michael Bloomberg.
If you want to find out who pulls the strings for the festering yambags who infest the governor’s mansion and Virginia’s highest legal office, you need not look any further than Bloomberg’s wallet.
Lo and behold the top donor to his campaign for Attorney General was none other than Independence USA PAC. They gave $1,292,417 of in-kind donations to his campaign. The money went for media production and advertising buys. To put this into perspective, the next two highest donors gave approximately half this amount each. The only candidate to get more money from that PAC was Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D-VA).
And would it surprise anyone to know that Independence USA PAC is Bloomberg’s personal vendetta against our Second Amendment rights, and is dedicated to helping to elect candidates who support stricter gun-control laws? It was founded in October 2012 by Michael Bloomberg, and, so far, has been entirely funded by the former New York City mayor, according to FactCheck.org.
So Bloomberg says “Jump!” and Herring says, “How high, master?” And if he’s good, Bloomberg will toss him a bone
Thanks a lot, vagina voters! You certainly showed those evil Republicans!
Jan Schakowsky (D-umbass, IL) has never been a friend of freedom or the Second Amendment. After all, this is the harpy who suggested in 2013 that the plans for another scary black gun ban and the proposed elimination of the right to lawfully sell your own property to another individual were only the beginning of the leftard assaults on your Second Amendment rights.
The opportunistic sow from Illinois has never been one to allow a crisis to go unexploited, so this week, she decided to use the terror attacks in Paris, France for her own odious purposes – namely, more gun control in the United States.
“No, uh, obviously it is frightening for every western country, but I do want to remind you, before we killed a jihadist named Awlaki, he did a video that said to Americans, ‘join the jihad and get guns, because it’s so easy in the United States of America to get a weapon,’” Illinois Rep. Jan Schakowsky said on SiriusXM radio this week.
“And that ought to be a chilling reminder because, aside from blowing themselves up, which is uh, of course, not about small weapons,” she continued. “These people used the kinds of weapons that are still available in the United States of America. And I think it ought cause us to have another consideration of sensible gun safety laws.”
Uh… does she even.. uh… know what it takes to legally acquire a machine gun in this country? Well, NRO lists the steps…
Pay a tax of $200, which in 1934 was worth over $3,500
Fill out a lengthy application to register your gun with the federal government
Submit passport photos
Get your chief law enforcement official to sign your application
Wait for the results of your background check to come back
A violation of the national firearms act results in a felony punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison, a $100,000 fine, and forfeiture of the individual’s right to own or possess firearms in the future.
Moreover, because the 1986 Hughes Amendment made it illegal for non-dealers to own automatic weapons that were manufactured after May 19th 1986, the cost of the guns Schakowsky fears is astronomical. You want an AK-47 of the sort used in Paris? You’re looking at spending at least $10,000.
Maybe the opportunistic sow ought to shut her yap before she embarrasses herself any further.
Oh, and we want to also gently remind Schakowsky that the not-so-dearly departed Awlaki wasn’t the one pointing out the alleged “ease” of getting guns in the United States. That was the pig-fucking dick weasel Adam Gadahn. In her froth-flecked zeal to shred Americans’ Second Amendment rights, Schakowsky couldn’t even get her camel humpers right.
And if you want to hear this sow squeal, you can listen here.
Billionaire busybody and self-anointed nanny to all Michael Bloomberg has spent lots of money in Virginia, trying to turn the state Senate over to the gun grabbing leftist dick weasels, so that our carpetbagging, opportunistic governor can easier implement his progtard gun control agenda. Bloomberg spent $2.2 million on ads targeting Virginia Republicans – repugnant spots that use the relatives of violence to push a political agenda. Frankly, I don’t know what’s worse – a non-resident, busybody jerk trying to affect Virginia politics and the lives of the residents of this state, or the opportunistic jagoff Andy Parker, the father of television reporter Alison Parker, who was killed in Roanoke in an August on-air shooting along with her cameraman.
This is the same Parker, by the way, who physically threatened Virginia Senator Bill Stanley in a direct message on Facebook that said, “I’m going to be your worst nightmare you little bastard” and threatened “YOU BEST WALK THE OTHER WAY LEST I BEAT YOUR LITTLE ASS WITH MY BARE HANDS.” Class act, Parker.
Makes me wonder why gun grabbers are such a violent lot. Perhaps that’s why they demand more gun control – they’re projecting their violent tendencies on the rest of us.
Luckily Virginians gave Bloomberg (and Parker) the big, fat middle finger yesterday, and Bloomberg’s millions bought governor Terry
McAuliffe McAwful exactly nothing.
The Senate still belongs to the Virginia Republicans, and no amount of Bloomberg cash changed that. Let’s just hope the Virginia GOP remains true to the Second Amendment and torpedoes any attempt on the part of McAwful to infringe on the rights of law-abiding Virginians.
For a while there, the Democrats screeched “VOTER IRREGULARITIES!” in one hotly-contested district, and Democrat Dan Gecker refused to concede to his Republican opponent last night, even after the AP called the race in favor of the GOP candidate. Thankfully, that’s all over now, as Gecker conceded to Glen Sturtevant today.
I will admit, I have no idea about either of the candidates in Powhatan County. I just know one thing, anything that kicks Boomberg and McAwful in the nuts on election day is a positive thing!
Lawson Clarke is an ad exec and a “Gun Owner Who is Perfectly Comfortable With Gun Control.”
Translation: he’s a serf, who has no comprehension of the meaning of a right and thinks the Second Amendment protects his “right” to hunt.
In his article for NPR, he details the laborious process he underwent as a Massachusetts resident to get state permission to exercise his rights, and he apparently doesn’t mind the numerous forms, background checks, and exorbitant costs associated with being able to exercise a fundamental right, because MASS SHOOTINGS!
STEP 1: I enrolled in a four-hour firearms safety course registered with the state.
A safety course is always a good idea. Only four hours? Most gun owners I know train much more often and much longer with their self-defense tools. But when mandated by the state, it really becomes a perfunctory gesture. I won’t even get into the whole “registered with the state” thing!
STEP 2: I joined a properly licensed gun club to demonstrate I was merely interested in hunting and recreational shooting. While this was by no means mandatory, it was encouraged by my local police department.
I wonder how much the kickback is for said “encouragement.” And I wonder why this particular brand of stupid doesn’t consider paying to join a club “encouraged” by the police to “prove” that you are only interested in exercising your right to engage in activities that have little to do with the intent of the Second Amendment isn’t a gross violation of said right and a twisted perversion of freedom.
STEP 3: I then visited my local police station, where I presented my application for a license to carry, my firearm safety certificate and a letter from my gun club stating my membership was in good standing.
STEP 4: Along with my paperwork I had to pay a $100 application fee. NOTE: In Massachusetts a firearms license is only valid for six years, and the $100 application fee is due any time I reapply.
A $100 fee to exercise a right, eh? I have to wonder once again if this serf even understands the basic definition of a right.
I also have to wonder how poor people, who ostensibly don’t live in safe, often gated communities unlike Boston ad executives, but want a means to protect their homes against armed thugs, can afford all these extra expenses in addition to the several hundred dollars for the purchase of the actual gun!
Why do you hate poor people, Lawson?
STEP 5: I sat through a face-to-face interview with a police officer and submitted to a preliminary background check.
STEP 6: My photo and fingerprints were taken and filed digitally with the Massachusetts State Police, along with the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health and the national criminal records database.
Are you applying for a top secret clearance or begging the “authorities” to allow you to exercise a fundamental right?
STEP 7: I made an appointment at the police firing range on Moon Island in Boston Harbor to demonstrate my proficiency with a firearm in front of a state trooper.
Hopefully it wasn’t this guy.
A Massachusetts State Trooper is expected to survive after accidentally shooting himself in the leg, State Police said.
STEP 8: I waited approximately 30 days for my license to be approved.
STEP 9: My class A license to carry arrived in the mail.
I’m sure if you ask any assailant trying to victimize you really nicely to wait until you get your state-sanctioned permission to own a firearm, they’ll oblige. No. Really! Stop laughing!
STEP 10: I visit a nearby gun store, which by law is registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms as well as the Massachusetts Firearms Records Bureau. After presenting my license to the clerk, I was then allowed to browse the store’s inventory.
It’s instructive that you need a license to even go shopping in the People’s State of Massachusetts!
STEP 11: I selected my very fist firearm: a 30/30 Winchester Model 94, a tried and true staple of New England deer hunting.
Because that’s what the Second Amendment is really about — deer hunting. It says so right there in the text. Wait… no? But… but… but… we in Massachusetts know what the Second Amendment is about!
STEP 12: While in the store I submitted to yet another background check, this time over the phone with the FBI.
Sure! What’s another background check to make a constitutionally-protected purchase between a master and its slave?
STEP 13: I waited three days.
Luckily you weren’t a woman who was being stalked and needed a tool to protect herself, eh? But I’m sure if you asked very nicely, the stalker or a violent ex would wait for you to finally purchase your gun!
STEP 14: I returned to the store and picked up my Winchester 30/30, effectively adding my name to the list of over 250,000 legal gun owners in Massachusetts.
Good to know that you don’t mind being added to a state-maintained list of innocent people whose only crime was a desire to exercise their rights. How do those chains taste?
From start to finish, the entire process unfolded over the course of several months, but then again so did acquiring my driver’s license and first car. In fact, one could argue automobiles and firearms are equally lethal machines: each responsible for over 30,000 deaths per year in the United States; so perhaps there’s justification for requiring patience in this endeavor.
I’m willing to bet that acquiring your driver’s license took several months, because the state wanted to ensure that while you’re operating a machine weighing several tons on public roadways, that you are properly educated and trained to do so.
Did you have to pass a background check to buy your car? Did you have to get fingerprinted like a common criminal? Did you have to wait several days before you could take your car home? I don’t think so, Sparky.
Don’t conflate purchasing a car with the months of bureaucratic hoops you had to jump through to purchase a gun. The auto purchase takes a couple of hours and the mere ownership of it does not require training, background checks, fingerprinting, or even a license! The mere purchase requires you have money or sufficient credit to pay for said vehicle. Of course, I don’t expect someone who doesn’t comprehend or respect the plain language of the Second Amendment to understand the difference.
As a gun owner, I’m perfectly comfortable with the notion of sensible gun control, and in the stark light of recent tragedies, I’d say the process of acquiring my first firearm in Massachusetts was exactly as difficult as it needed to be.
While we’re all thrilled that you’re “perfectly comfortable” – OK, we really don’t give a shit, but still… – let me ask you something, Lawson: Are the people who take the time to go through months of background checks, the training, the fingerprinting, and the waiting periods the ones committing violent acts with firearms? Are all these measures effective crime reduction techniques?
Massachusetts has a national reputation as a bastion of gun control, but crimes and injuries related to firearms have risen — sometimes dramatically — since the state passed a comprehensive package of gun laws in 1998.
Murders committed with firearms have increased significantly, aggravated assaults and robberies involving guns have risen, and gunshot injuries are up, according to FBI and state data.
But… but… but… that’s because illegal guns are flowing from other states!
That’s not what I asked, Sparky. Are the people who are legally licensed to keep and bear arms in Massachusetts the ones committing the crimes?
Not if you judge by the records kept in these states! The majority of people willing to undergo all that rigamarole will, in fact, never commit a single crime with that gun, so how is it, exactly, you think you’re helping mitigate violence by subjecting yourself to statist regulations?
Some vocal conservatives are quick to accuse Massachusetts of being a bastion for the liberal elite who are grossly out of touch with the fundamentals of the Second Amendment. It seems they’ve forgotten this is where the “shot heard round the world” was fired in the name of Independence; where simple colonists in 1775 formed a militia and rose up in arms against a formidable force of British Army regulars.
Do you think those colonists registered their weapons? You think they paid some gold to be able to keep a simple defense tool in their homes? They would have probably slapped you stupid at the thought, you quivering-lipped coward! I would submit that given your ardent willingness to submit yourself to onerous infringements of your rights, you are the one who has forgotten Massachusetts’ history of liberty. Not only that, but you spit in its face!
You’re welcome, by the way.
Oh, please fuck off!
If it had been you and your fellow vassal colostomy bags fighting the war for Independence, begging the government’s permission to allow you to own a simple firearm, we’d still be a British colony!
Trust me, in Massachusetts we know our history and we know the significance of the Second Amendment. However, we also understand that owning firearms is an immense responsibility, and we have carefully balanced our right to keep and bear them with what I would argue are an appropriate amount of institutional safeguards.
You keep referring to that knowing the significance of the Second Amendment thingy… I do not think it means what you think it means.
If you know your history and the significance of the Second Amendment, then you should also know that responsibility has nothing to do with paying what amounts to bribes to petty statists to allow you to exercise a fundamental right.
And no, I don’t trust you when you tell me how much you respect the right to keep and bear arms, even as you gleefully submit to noxious infringements on said right! I know how to reason.
Is it a perfect system everyone can agree on? Certainly not. But in a time when contentious shouting has largely supplanted meaningful debate, perhaps that’s too much to hope for. However, there is data to suggest our state gun ownership laws are working. Well, that is to say, they seem to work better than the gun policies of most other states. In a recent study, Massachusetts stands out as having one of the lowest rates of gun-related deaths, second only to Hawaii, a state with a population one-fifth our size.
Actually, no. You lie. And the statistics you cite for only one year are deceptive at best. If you refer to the Boston Globe article I cited above, you will see that gun-related deaths have nearly doubled from 1998 when your state first ushered in its tyrannical infringements on people’s rights!
In 2011, Massachusetts recorded 122 murders committed with firearms, a striking increase from the 65 in 1998, said Fox, the Northeastern professor. Nationwide, such murders increased only 3 percent from 1999 to 2010, the CDC says.
There were increases in other crimes involving guns in Massachusetts, too. From 1998 to 2011, aggravated assaults with guns rose 26.7 percent. Robberies with firearms increased 20.7 percent during that period, according to an FBI analysis conducted for the Globe.
So not only has gun-related violence increased in Massachusetts since the package of draconian gun control measures was passed, but said violence has increased at a higher rate than the rest of this country! How are those “gun ownership laws” working out for you, Lawson?
Clearly the epidemic of gun violence is an issue that needs to be addressed on a national level. For any gun owner or gun rights advocate to suggest otherwise is not only stubbornly myopic, but inhumane.
And here we have the emotionalist rhetoric we’ve so grown accustomed to from gun-grabbing freaks and their obedient chattel.
If you don’t support tyrannical infringements on your rights, you’re heartless.
If you don’t like useless bureaucracy making your right to self defense cost-prohibitive, you’re stubborn.
If you aren’t willing to submit yourself to a metaphorical anal probe in order to exercise your fundamental rights – an anal probe that has no hope of actually reducing violence – you’re myopic and inhumane.
Clearly you haven’t heard the news that overall, violence has been on the decline in the United States. So maybe, before you decide to spew another load of nonsense into the Interwebz, you’ll do some research, and also look up the meaning of the word “epidemic.”
So if we’re earnestly looking to take steps towards reducing the number of gun-related deaths in the United States while respectfully preserving our Constitutional right to legally own firearms, perhaps the rest of the country should, once again, look to Massachusetts to lead the way.
And watch our gun-related violence nearly double, as it did in Massachusetts? You’ve got to be shitting me!
Please keep your statist mitts off my rights. I can see you obviously enjoy your shackles, but the rest of us are just a bit smarter than that!
Stick to advertising, Lawson. Obviously logic, basic research, and policy are not your strong points!
I posted this fisk earlier at the Zelman Partisans, but I kept it PG-rated. I’m posting it here as well, because we all need a good laugh at this dumbass’ expense.
The Washington Post editorial page editor tripped and his dick fell into a bout of honesty about the gun grabbers’ true intentions when it comes to our rights. This authoritarian swine named Fred Hiatt vomited forth this bit of douchebaggery entitled “A Gun-Free Society.” Given the fact that this beta male has seen it fit to at least be honest about the gun grabbers’ ultimate goal, I figured he deserved a fisk, so here we go.
Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.
Here we go. A progtard “courageously” challenging the big, bad NRA and America’s gun owners from the safety and comfort of his computer. Because doing so in person would make him soil his unmentionables.
A gun-free society.
Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.
Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe?
No. It sounds stupid, irrational, cowardly, and tyrannical.
Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?
You mean the countries that experienced increases in violent crime subsequent to banning firearms? No.
Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.
Glad you can ascertain the emotions of millions of American gun owners. You must be psychic! Hell, personally, I’m just happy you’ve stopped being disingenuous invertebrates and have finally stated your final goal. It’s much easier to fight the enemy you know.
And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.
Considering that gun ownership is on the rise and more Americans than ever support the right to keep and bear arms, how are you planning to implement this cultural shift, Freddie?
But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”
It’s not succeeding, because we can see right through you. We can see through your lies, and we’ve discredited your duplicitous statistics. The fact that you don’t want to admit how badly you suck at this promoting gun control thingy doesn’t negate the sad reality that you do.
In response, a few states have tightened restrictions, a few states have loosened them. But as a nation — in Congress — we are stuck.
That’s because there’s this little document called the Constitution, and Congressleeches are a bit afraid to tread on it with too heavy a boot, lest the Great Unwashed figure out what they’re doing and kick them out of ofice.
Meanwhile the strategy of modest reform has its own vulnerabilities.
“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn’t have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?
Why, indeed? I’m sure you’ll tell us, Fredster.
To be clear, I believe the NRA is wrong on this, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is right.
Well, no shit! You don’t say! I couldn’t have guessed that from your irrational squawking that a gun-free utopia sounds oh-so logical.
Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime. The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons. Every gun in a home with children should have a trigger lock.
I note the deceptive wording here. “The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.” CAN? But it hasn’t. Even the majority of law enforcement officials believe that law is useless, and there has been zero evidence that these handgun purchase limits reduce crime. Nice try at obfuscation, Freddie.
And how long will you continue beating the “gun show loophole” strawman before you acknowledge that it does not exist and that your real aim is to eliminate private sales writ large? Fact is that gun show regulations are no different than other firearm laws.
Come on, Fred. You were doing so well at being honest! Why stop now?
And while you’re sniveling aimlessly that closing the nonexistent “loophole” will stop criminals from obtaining weapons, tell us why you think that your average thug will just walk away dejectedly after failing a background check at a gun show and not get a cheap pistol from a drug dealer down the street? “Darn, I thought I could get a gun at a gun show. I guess I won’t go rob that liquor store at gun point. Darn those laws closing the gun show loophole!” Go ahead! Try!
Fact is that less than one percent of guns used in criminal activity come from gun shows, but you need to blame something. You need to do something. You keep playing with your flaccid pee pee in hopes that something will come out of it, but fact is you’re impotent, so you have to pretend to be doing something to make yourself feel better.
But how many members of Congress will risk their jobs for modest, incremental reform that may or may not show up as a blip on the following year’s murder statistics? We’ve learned the answer to that question.
“Modest.” You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. And repeating it again and again won’t make it any more true. And by the way, thanks for admitting that your proposed reforms are meaningless.
Fine, you say, but then why would those same members commit political suicide by embracing something bigger?
They won’t, of course. Congress will not lead this change. There has to be a cultural shift. Only then will Congress and the Supreme Court follow.
Oh, this ought to be good.
As we’ve seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible. Wyatt Earp, the frontier mentality, prying my cold dead fingers — I get all that. But Australia was a pioneer nation, too, and gave up its guns. Societies change, populations evolve.
I guess Fred hasn’t noticed that the cultural shift that’s been going on has headed in the direction of both gay rights and gun rights? And that Americans are beginning to realize in bigger numbers that giving up their rights to tyrannical, self-absorbed narcissists in Washington may not be the way to go? And maybe giving up your rights for no appreciable decrease in crime is not the way to go? And maybe, just maybe, Australians didn’t give up as many guns as Fred thinks they did.
And people are not immune, over time, to reason.
That’s why the cultural shift over time has been in favor of the Second Amendment. That gives me a warm fuzzy, while it makes Freddie here shit himself in rage and fear.
Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue.
Wait! A progtard actually admits that black communities are decimated by violence? Oh, I shouldn’t get too excited. After all, it wold be politically incorrect to blame the actual people in those black communities for shooting one another! They’re not responsible! It’s those evil guns that are violating the civil rights of those black people who apparently aren’t shooting one another. /sarcasm
Given how many small children shoot themselves or their siblings accidentally, it is a family issue.
Small children… According to the CDC, 147 children ages 0-9 died by firearm in 2013. It’s tragic, and it sucks. A lot. Know now many drowned? 568. Know how many died in fires? 266. These are small children, and yet, I don’t see you soiling your unmentionables at these tragic, preventable deaths.
Given the suicides that could be prevented, it is a mental health issue.
Is that why gun-free Japan has a higher suicide rate than we do?
The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again. If it did not, the Constitution would have to be amended.
Oh, this is rich! Apparently a reporter, who cannot comprehend the plain language of the Second Amendment, feels himself qualified to accuse people whose job it is to actually interpret the Constitution of misinterpreting said plain language. Well… alrighty, then. How pedantically quaint.
I suppose Freddie considers himself an even bigger language expert than the late Roy Copperud, and would arrogantly announce that Mr. Copperud, who was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC, who wrote a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, who was on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and was the winner of the Association of American Publisher’s Humanities Award, was also wrong on the plain meaning of the Second Amendment.
He was wrong because Fred FEELZ he was wrong! And GUNS ARE BAD! Because TEH FEELZ!
It sounds hard, I know. But it’s possible that if we started talking more honestly about the most logical, long-term goal, public opinion would begin to shift and the short-term gains would become more, not less likely, as the NRA had to play defense. We might end up with a safer country.
We’re certainly glad you’ve exhibited this bout of honesty, Freddie, and I hate to tell you this (not really), but we already knew what your long-term goal was. And guess what! The trend is still in favor of gun rights.
There are strong arguments against setting a gun-free society as the goal, but there are 100,000 arguments in favor — that’s how many of us get shot every year. Every year 11,000 Americans are murdered. Every year some 20,000 kill themselves with guns.
Hmmm, I assess with high confidence that 2.5 million annual armed self defense instances > 100,000 shot each year. But Fred must have taken common core math in school.
Plus, see above about Japan’s suicide rates, genius.
Without guns — with only kitchen knives at hand — some of those people would die. Most would still be living.
Really? See again about that high suicide rate in gun-free Japan. And if you’re trying to claim that violent criminals will cease being violent because guns are illegal, I have this beachfront property… in Nevada.
Maybe it’s time to start talking about the most logical way to save their lives.
That would require you to sit out of the conversation while adults are talking. Logic ain’t your strong suit.