You really have to hand it to those 2nd Amendment folks in terms of fascist like purity. There is no one in our country right now that can top them. All Dick Metcalf did was state the obvious: “all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.” That's exactly what Antonin Scalia said in DC v Heller and that wasn't a problem for the Gun Cult.
So why did Metcalf get banished? Let's look to one of those "voices in my head."
“We are locked in a struggle with powerful forces in this country who will do anything to destroy the Second Amendment,” said Richard Venola, a former editor of Guns & Ammo. “The time for ceding some rational points is gone.”
After I posted this link, an FB friend of mine wondered "I guess they really think they are at war. I've yet to figure out who they think is coming for all of their guns" I think that perhaps Mr Venola should up his tranquilizer dosage and invest in a tin foil hat. Or maybe not have arguments with his neighbor and shoot them. Ah well, he's obviously setting an example in terms of what happened with Mr. Metcalf.
The backlash was swift, and fierce. Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions. Death threats poured in by email. His television program was pulled from the air.
He vas disobeying their vill! Seig Heil!! As I have always asserted, every so called "rugged individualist is a closet fascist. Some other points in the piece worthy of note...
His experience sheds light on the close-knit world of gun journalism, where editors and reporters say there is little room for nuance in the debate over gun laws. Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced. When writers stray from the party line promoting an absolutist view of an unfettered right to bear arms, their publications — often under pressure from advertisers — excommunicate them.
I suddenly feel kinda bad for Kevin Baker. Ironic that for all his talk about freedom, there is absolutely none in his little community of gun bloggers.
“Compromise is a bad word these days,” he said. “People think it means giving up your principles.”
The part he forgot add in was "only if you are a FUCKING PSYCHO!"
I have to say I feel pretty bad for Mr. Metcalf. He seems like a genuinely great guy, just like Jim Zumbo and Jerry Tsai before him. He rightly believes that gun owners are completely out of touch with constitutional reality. Every right is regulated and requiring someone to submit to a background check or training if they want to have a conceal and carry license is no infringement.
Of course this is exactly where the adolescent belligerence comes into the mix. Just because you want to do something or own something, doesn't mean you automatically get to do so. The fact that we have to explain this to these immature assholes again makes me wonder if they ever matured past the age of 16.
27 comments:
Figures you are confused even after years of having this explained to you over and over. 'Adolescent Belligerence' and will full ignorance fits you to a T.
Every right is regulated and requiring someone to submit to a background check or training if they want to have a conceal and carry license is no infringement.
If that was the only thing you bastards EVER wanted, but that just ain't the case.
Your ilk always wants another infringement, followed by another and another.
Where things are RIGHT THIS MOMENT is a position after compromises followed by compromises. At some point taking and demanding even more is not going to be considered a compromise and is going to be labelled exactly what it is - cominz ta get 'im.
Your ilk always wants another infringement, followed by another and another.
Right here, exactly your problem.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html
"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"
Same argument and same logical fallacy. Ultimately, this will be your undoing.
I did not say that your ilk MIGHT ask for another infringement. I stated as a historical FACT that it has been done so, over and over.
You really need to stop throwing around the idea of logical fallacies when you have absolutely no idea what defines such.
What do you suppose the end game is for "my ilk" in the "ominz ta get 'im" scenario? You assert that if liberals had there way, they'd disarm the populace. Alright. What then?
What is your end game? WTH kind of question is that? You don't think people should have certain guns. You find it hard to believe that there are people who are even more extreme and don't think people should have any guns? Don't be stupid.
I'm sure there are people that don't want anyone to have guns. So what is their end game? What happens if the government takes away everyone's guns?
You don't think people should have certain guns.
Wrong. I don't think CERTAIN people should have guns. Ideally, I'd like anyone to have whatever gun they like (including automatic weapons) as long as they go through regular background checks, training, and psychological evaluations similar to what our armed forces and police go through. If I had my way, we'd adopt a system similar to Israel's system.
Wrong. I don't think CERTAIN people should have guns. Ideally, I'd like anyone to have whatever gun they like (including automatic weapons)
Really?
To quote one of my favorite Americans, General Wesley Clark, "Ordinary Americans have no business owning any kind of gun, other than rifles and shotguns, for sport. If someone NEEDS to have an Uzi, handgun or an assault rifle, then they should get themselves a pair of boots and see me. I have a job for them." Markadelphia
Honestly, though, I think the real reason why they don't want to have the discussion about what weapons are OK and which ones aren't... Markadelphia
The other side has yet to provide a reason that is not grounded in paranoia and fantasy as to why people should be able to own the type of gun that Adam Lanza used last Friday. Markadelphia
They do not have the right to own weapons of a military grade that are specifically used to kill as many people as people. Markadelphia
But what I don't get is the ridiculous notion that an AR-15 is for home protection. Or a Glock with a high capacity clip is used to protect oneself on the street. Markadelphia
If we do to the gun manufacturers what we did the tobacco lobby... Markadelphia
End game? No guns. For a surprise they seem to be pretty honest about that.
My position has evolved over the years. That's what happens when people are open minded. Any room for you to change?:)
So, what happens after no guns? Internment camps? Forced...something? What?
You're being an asshole Mark
Right here, exactly your problem.
No shit fer brains - that is exactly what has happened in California. One law piled on top of another - usually after the first one failed to fulfill the intentions of progressives. Having failed to straight-up vote away handguns (see here) they have chipped away a little at a time ever since.
So, NO YOU STUPID MOTHERFUCKING MONKEY, it is NOT a fallacy, it is fucking REALITY.
Neither of you are answering my question. What happens when all the guns are taken away? One answer might be that you would be left defenseless if you live in a tough area. Fair enough. But you guys are continually intimating that if the liberals had their way, they'd take away all our guns. Fine. Why? For what purpose?
ut you guys are continually intimating that if the liberals had their way, they'd take away all our guns. Fine. Why? For what purpose?
Already answered. End game? No guns. For a surprise they seem to be pretty honest about that.
What, you don't think that people who don't like guns and want to take them away can't actually JUST want there to be no guns?
No, you are being an asshole because you are trying to conflate the subject of 'no one is trying to take your guns' into 'no one is trying to put you into concentration camps'. So fuck you.
So, they just want there to be no guns. No other motive? Why is that bad?
Why is that bad? That's a different conversation from your original contention.
Do you retract your original contention before we move on?
I'm not really making any contentions here. I'm simply trying to figure out why you so worried about the government taking away your guns. You couldn't defend yourself against them anyway and would be a stain in less than a second if they were so inclined to come after you.
But they aren't. So, if there are no guns allowed, then only criminals have guns and that's who will come after you?
You couldn't defend yourself against them anyway and would be a stain in less than a second if they were so inclined to come after you.
Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it true.
So, if there are no guns allowed, then only criminals have guns and that's who will come after you?
Do you know anything about history? Have any idea of the rules of the world when physical force alone made the rules? When the bigger, stronger, younger could impose their will on the smaller, weaker, older? Yeah, my wife, mother and grand-mother have just as much right to life as I do.
One doesn't need a gun to threaten the old, and the weak. But those do need something that could equalize the force equation.
Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it true.
Fine. How is it not true?
But those do need something that could equalize the force equation.
Do you honestly think your little gun collection to could stop the government? Even if all you guys banded together, air power alone makes your statement preposterous.
At least you are getting close to admitting that you fear liberals will turn Hitler or Stalin and take us all over. I guess that's something.
So, Markaderpia, what's the end-game for gun-rights advocates? Huh? Huh? What's their end-game? What's their master plan for the future? You keep warning about all the dire shit in spite of the evidence all around you of falling murder rates (down 50% in 20 years despite all the caterwauling from your side over the years in every single state that voted for shall-issue CCP about how it would be blood in the streets, and shootouts on every street corner, with skyrocketing murder rates). And that has been bullshit. We're approaching near-record lows in homocides committed with firearms, and your response is to shout that we're doing it all wrong? That's some weapons-grade stupidity there.
Why is that bad?
Because your life is not for me to order, or vice versa. Attempting to do so is bad.
Fine. How is it not true?
You bitch about adolescent behavior and then you act out like a 4 year old.
air power alone makes your statement preposterous
Pilots don't spend all of their time in the cockpit.
But really, if the govt ever got that oppressive I figure the military will split so air power won't all be on one side.
Fine. How is it not true?
Last time the subject was brought up you said you had no interest in discussing it, has that changed?
Do you honestly think your little gun collection to could stop the government?
Wow. Let's look at how you failed reading comprehension 101.
You said "So, if there are no guns allowed, then only criminals have guns and that's who will come after you? "
I replied with "One doesn't need a gun to threaten the old, and the weak. But those do need something that could equalize the force equation. "
Comprehension. The discussion at this point is referring to things like criminals and the weak being able to defend themselves.
You come back with bullshit about needing guns to protect from the government. What kind of moronic bullshit is that? PAY ATTENTION!
It sure would be nice if you at least pretended to read what is written. If you don't bother to try then conversing with you is pointless.
Then we finish with this:
At least you are getting close to admitting that you fear liberals will turn Hitler or Stalin and take us all over. I guess that's something.
Really? I am getting closer? Where? I said not a god damned thing about government other than to say your claim that the government would easily defeat an armed populace is not true.
Really Mark, show, using small words where I even intimated such a thing. You can't, because I didn't. But you can't read, you can't comprehend. Do you just make up conversations with your little imaginary conservative friends and accidentally make your replies to those imaginary conversations rather than the actual ones here?
Do you just make up conversations with your little imaginary conservative friends and accidentally make your replies to those imaginary conversations rather than the actual ones here?
That is a rhetorical question of course. We've had years of observing the same behavior, over and over and over again. He has no intention whatsoever of growing up and dealing with reality - it is much easier to converse with the voices in his head. I think that must be why people who snap and go on shooting sprees must frighten him so much - he is a little too close to relating to that.
Good point Juris.
Perhaps it's a valid point that I need guns to protect myself from crazy ass people like Mark who live in a fantasy make believe world and have pathological hatred and fear of anyone they perceive to be the 'right'. Such people could snap at any time because there's no way to know what kind of make believe conversation they are involved in.
"We are told NOT TO judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics."
BUT on the other hand, We are also encouraged TO judge ALL Gun Owners by the actions of a few lunatics.
How is that supposed to work.....??????
-- Roger
Yeah, Markatwattia, hows that supposed to work?
Must be like these individuals sprinkled with governmental magic pixie dust: Ready ... aim ... point ... talk!" or Lawyer defends officer in BSL shooting investigation I know the answer already, it'll be "ehh." "Because you see it's assymmetric, don'cha know? Head I win, tails you lose. You didn't expect a fair debate, did you? Silly gun rights morons."
Post a Comment