"Scary, huh? Can you believe people think like this?"
Of course I could given my experience with gun blog commenters. The caption read "Gun Free Zone" and the photo was the one below.
My first thought was why he would want to look at this all day? What kind of a major fucknut is that loopy about guns that they need to stare at this? And why would he position it so only he could see it? Perhaps not to offend anyone but it also seemed sort of secretive which lends to my theory that the Gun Cult are really a bunch of cowards.
I'm not sure what I'm going to do about this but I know I don't like the idea of someone with this mentality teaching in my daughter's school district. The staff says Mr. Nelson is a good guy and I've met him once and he seemed alright, I suppose,but quiet. Recall as well that the idea that Hitler banned guns and that's why the Holocaust happened is total bullshit.
Fear, paranoia, hate, anger, shit your pants, rinse, repeat...
52 comments:
You post on guns again using a previous post full of lies as your backup? Nice.
Even nicer is how you offer absolutely nothing to back up your claim...
Well you could go look at the comments at your previous post that shows that post to be BS.
You mean the ones that fail to recognize the roots of totalitarianism in Nazi Germany? They disarmed Jews not ordinary citizens.
You just said something blindingly obvious - without recognizing the obviousness of it.....
So, in that picture above.....
Is that full of the bodies of ordinary citizens.....or Jews?
Hitler justified his totalitarianism through what he perceived as the root cause of evil in the world...the Jews. They (and other persecuted classes) were not allowed to have guns. Yet many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years. So, the arguments presented in the previous comments section were wrong (see: pulled out of someone's ass)
Here is Harcourt's paper again.
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=flr
If you disagree with his findings, explain why in a similar and well researched way.
So, the arguments presented in the previous comments section were wrong (see: pulled out of someone's ass)
Uhhh. Ok.
Like when juris said pretty much the same fucking thing as you just said?
The Nazis made use of the Weimar law, and the only "loosening" in 1938 was excluding party members from regulation. Attempting to argue it was a more general de-regulation is pretty much a lie.
So, let's get this straight.....
When the 'gun side' says that Hitler took away the guns from the Jews and then rounded up the now defenceless Jews and killed them......
That's a lie according to you because Hitler relaxed restrictions on gun ownership to loyal nazi's and others except Jews.
Only in your warped version of reality is that even a coherent argument.
Obviously you didn't take the time to review the link above as it is a lot more complicated than that (he said for the nine zillionth time). Take some time and read the link. If you absolutely must skip some parts, start on page 20 as this is where the details of gun legislation in Germany are provided. After you are done, let's hear what you think.
Yup, read it.
It doesn't say anything that disagrees with my above.
Unless you are under the impression that the argument about a government disarming its people and then killing them means that the government in question disarms the people it likes and then kills them. Which is ridiculous enough for you to actually try to argue.
No, a government kills the people it doesn't like - Jews, Christians, Muslims, communists, bourgeois, minorities.... etc. etc. etc.
To argue that the Nazis relaxed gun laws to everyone they did like - while confiscating guns from those they didn't like (and then killing them) proves that the Nazi's didn't actually disarm their people and then kill them is stupid in the extreme.
Again, you said it yourself - in trying to argue against the 'gun free zone' shown using a pile of dead Jews, you said "They disarmed Jews not ordinary citizens."
Yup, exactly.
I think you are missing the point of your side's own argument which essentially states that if there is gun regulation or gun free zones the next step is dead Jews (or some other group the government doesn't like). It's appeal to fear, misleading vividness, appeal to probability and straw man...just like it is with virtually every other argument you make. As noted in the link which you "read."
The toughest question in all of this is how to characterize the Nazi
treatment of the Jewish population for the purpose of evaluating
Adolf Hitler's position on gun control. The truth is, the question itself
is absurd. The Nazis sought to disarm and kill the Jewish population.
Their treatment of Jewish persons was, in this sense, orthogonal to
their gun-control views. Nevertheless, if forced to take a position, it
seems that the Nazis were relatively more pro-gun than the
predecessor Weimar Republic, as evidenced by the overall relaxation
of the laws regulating the acquisition, transfer and carrying of firearms
reflected in the 1938 Nazi gun laws.
The rest of the piece illustrates exactly how that was so. Now, if you have a gripe about the Weimar Republic, at least you'd have a basis in fact and evidence:)
And the Jews and others hoped someone else would protect them. And very few were willing to even imagine how awful things could get until it was too late. Kind of like the so-called kulaks.
A government disarming its own people (or at least those it doesn't like) doesn't automatically mean genocide, or even boot-on-the-neck authoritarianism. But it is a necessary precondition. There was a reason the daimyos of Japan disarmed all non-samurai, and there was a reason when tyrants took over Athens, they first sought to disarm the populace. Arms don't guarantee a good solution, but they guarantee a chance to contest the decision and may deter any attempt to force such a decision.
And that's totally disregarding their usefulness to defend against criminals in the small: your average mugger, rapist, etc. Nothing puts a 5'4" single woman or a 70-year old man on a more equal footing against 1 or more young toughs bent on criminal acts than a firearm. Against targets like that, thugs don't even need firearms if everyone's disarmed (except of course not everyone is, only those that are law-abiding in the first place).
if forced to take a position, it
seems that the Nazis were relatively more pro-gun than the
predecessor Weimar Republic
Ah-ha.
So, a government that doesn't want to kill the people it doesn't like, creates laws that 'just make sense' and is used by a later government to kill the people it doesn't like......
Really Mark, you aren't making a very good case here.
There should be a law to control such types of crimes, so that no innocent people will face such type of tragedy in their life.
________________
Firearms Safety Training MA.
Larry, the question about guns is truly one of balance. How does the high level of irresponsible behavior of Americans with guns (causing accidents and death) compare to the number of short women and old people they protect? I have a friend who got mugged twice and finally went out and got a gun to protect herself. She has had two attempted muggings since getting her gun and they were indeed scared off by it.
But that's anecdata and may not be indicative of general trends. Statistics show a far too high number of accidents with guns. The problem the pro gun side has is having to defend irresponsible people. If they can figure out a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who are irresponsible with guns without infringing upon the rights of those who are responsible, I'd happily support such a policy. Right now, their paranoia about the government has led to irrational thinking and a broad brush that will ultimately be their undoing.
Statistics show a far too high number of accidents with guns.
And yet according to the CDC, in 2010 you were 6.24 times more likely to die from being accidentally irresponsible with water, 42.9 times as likely to die from being accidentally irresponsible with gravity, 54.5 times more likely to die from being accidentally irresponsible with various chemicals, and 55.6 times more likely to die from being you or someone else being accidentally irresponsible with motor vehicles (often in conjunction with being irresponsible with certain chemical compounds).
When you've got those much more serious issues taken care of, then come talk again. BTW, accidental gun deaths rates are generally falling.
Good thing for your smarter friend who armed herself and learned to use it. I can hear Nikto's head exploding from here, "What, she didn't wildly spray bullets all over the neighborhood killing innocent babies in strollers and inoffensive poodles, then get shot by responding police because they thought she was the bad guy? But that happens almost every other day in Amerikkka!" It's fortunate the first two times that what they wanted was money, and not also rapine and no witnesses. Because you have no idea what they really want until it's a bit too late for you to do much about it unless you're both sharp, quick-thinking, and very lucky.
Oh, and thank you very much for your advice that we'd better just surrender now because our cause is hopeless. Thank you so much for that timely information, Pyongyang Sally. "Concern troll is concerned."
I think you need to realize, Larry, that the rest of the world is not a blog comments section. Most of you from Kevin's site are either overcompensating due to insecurity or simply deluded if you are under the impression that there are a significant number of people who think as you do.
Moreover, it's becoming very apparent every day that the Right is simply a party of anger and negativity rooted in an immeasurable immaturity. Why don't you you just shout, "But, you don't understand!!!" and stomp down the hallway to your room?
Moreover, it's becoming very apparent every day that the Right is simply...
Actually, it is very apparent that you have no idea what you pontificate about daily and when called on it, fall back to ignorant positions repeatedly. You have no idea what the 'Right' is like nor are you aware enough to figure out that your positions are ignorant and full of trite stereotypes that allow you to feel good about your stupid ideology. What is worse is that you aren't even interested in learning, just falling back to your safe ignorant bubble and start over again in the next post. Keep trying though. You make a great case study for rigid lefty idealists.
Nowhere in your comment did I see just what the Right is all about...just criticism of me...which is what the Right is all about:)
I addressed a specific point of Markadelphia's mindless screed and what do I get? Self-righteously smug snide insults as our host diverts attention to me (and Kevin, oddly enough -- what is it with this unhealthy obsession, Therapy Boy?) and pretends he doesn't have to address any factual points.
Why don't you just get your skirts up in a huff and stomp off saying, "You're just a poopyhead and icky!" Oh, wait. That's just what you've done. Never mind.
I rest my case:)
.just criticism of me.
Because you are the one posting.
Don't you see, though, that by offering nothing but criticism you do a great disservice to your cause? No one really takes people seriously who just bitch without a viable alternative. And the anger...giant turnoff...
"Viable alternative" == "something I want to do"
--Markadelphia
BTW, Miss Marksie, did I or did I not specifically address factual points, and did you or did you not respond like a little bitch?
Words have meanings, Larry, so viable alternative means something different than my ideas. And while you did address the point somewhat, you descended into right wing blog douche and completely lost any credibility you may have earned.
So, I ask again, what do you propose we do about the annual culling of our citizens?
Your entire post was your thoughts and ideas about why an English teacher had a postcard on his desk. Your first thought was to call him a 'major fucknut'. You came to conclusions about him and his thoughts without even asking him or finding out anything. Just your ignorance and paranoia being projected in this post against 'The Right'.
Then....
But that's anecdata and may not be indicative of general trends.
It is anecdotal but studies have shown defensive use FAR exceeds the irresponsible behavior.
Statistics show a far too high number of accidents with guns.
Says your opinion. The trade-off statistically is tilted FAR better for responsible use.
The problem the pro gun side has is having to defend irresponsible people.
No, really not a problem. Nobody defends irresponsibility. We defend our rights.
If they can figure out a way to keep guns out of the hands of people who are irresponsible with guns without infringing upon the rights of those who are responsible, I'd happily support such a policy.
Gee, utopian boy, I think everyone can agree with this. Unfortunately nobody can do this because most likely it is impossible to do two opposite things at once. The minute you try to regulate rights, they are infringed by definition. Regulation on rights historically has lead to abuse by government, sometimes with catastrophic results. This isn't some guesswork. This happened throughout history and at least the founding fathers recognized and enshrined it in the bill of rights.
Right now, their paranoia about the government has led to irrational thinking and a broad brush that will ultimately be their undoing.
Paranoia about the government is healthy based on history and experience. Extreme paranoia is found in small groups and has existed forever. You point to a small, statistically insignificant group and paint a broad brush that the entire spectrum on the right are thinking that way but you are wrong as usual. Here you have an entire post claiming things about the right that are wrong or blown out of proportion and that is why you are called on it. Sorry, your thought processes are faulty as usual.
You came to conclusions about him and his thoughts without even asking him
I'm glad we have come back to him. What kind of a person keeps a photo of a mass of dead bodies on his desk so that only he can look at it every day? Doesn't that strike you, at the very least, odd?
studies have shown defensive use FAR exceeds the irresponsible behavior.
Unbiased evidence please.
Nobody defends irresponsibility. We defend our rights.
The minute you try to regulate rights, they are infringed by definition.
But you are far too overzealous and allow very irresponsible people to have access to guns. You'd serve your cause better by figuring out a way to maintain your rights and not allow those who abuse their rights to have guns. For the Gun Cult, any further refinements of existing gun laws means Hitler/Stalin. Don't you see how you are totally fucking yourselves by being so paranoid and obstinate?
This happened throughout history and at least the founding fathers recognized and enshrined it in the bill of rights.
based on history and experience.
Ah, the "throughout history" meme with no examples given. By history and experience, do you mean Hitler? The right to bear arms is not unlimited, 6 Kings. That's in Heller and that's the law. There is a reason for this. People are irresponsible and need a certain degree of regulation. Or would you rather have this?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/03/22/libya-out-control-weapons-spread-across-region-fueling-conflicts/
Libya, where hundreds of militias hold sway and the central government is virtually powerless, is awash in millions of weapons with no control over their trafficking.
My God, it's heaven!
Well, based on the actual numbers, I say we ban cars and motorcycles, bodies of water, high places, alocohol and other drugs. That way we save 150-160 times as many people from accidental death than what you propo.... oh wait. You didn't propose anything, either.
What's more, for the innumerate, it's such a tiny fucking number in a nation of 313,000,000 that the payoff in regards to time and expense is absofuckinglutely infinitesimal compared to much more productive things we could do.
BTW, you of all people protesting that "words mean things" is like a fucking thief protesting that the police are taking his private property as they relieve him of stolen goods. Truly, Planet Markadelphia (pronounced "imafukkinloon" in the local patois) is rich in unintentional irony.
Both here and at Kevin's site which have read many times there have been well documented and cited statistics and examples given to you and you ignore them and ask for them again? What a moron.
You really can't argue you points without using straw men and hyperbole can you?
None of your points were stated by me but those straw,en we're sure easy to whack, right? Congrats, you won against your own imagination.
Well, fellers, I can't say that I didn't warn you. You have the opportunity to get ahead of what's coming and you steadfastly refuse. Oh well...
Consider this...what is the average age of a gun rights person today? Here are the statistics...
http://www.statisticbrain.com/gun-ownership-statistics-demographics/
What are you going to do in 20 years?
Really?
Did you even bother to credulous when looking at those 'stats'?
First thing - it says 39% of the population owned guns in 2010 and that dropped to 36% in 2011.....
uh-huh.
Lets see... the population in 2010 was 308.4 million, increasing to 310.5 million in 2011.
Doing the math...carry the 4....
That means they are saying there were 120,276,000 gun owners in 2010 and 111,780,000 gun owners in 2011.....
Meaning, if you can believe that in a year when there were 16 million background checks performed for gun purchases there were also 8,496,000 less gun owners.....
Yeah - keep believing polls there buddy.
It surely can't be that some people would be lying to pollsters (or just people calling and claiming to be pollsters about whether or how many guns they own, now could it?
And, of course, Grima Wormtongue counsels our immediate surrender because he's soo concerned that our side could lose a lot more ground than if we don't. Riiight.
Nevertheless, if forced to take a position, it
seems that the Nazis were relatively more pro-gun than the
predecessor Weimar Republic
Utterly absurd and absolutely unsupported by anything approaching reality.
In other words, pretty classic Markadelphia use of "evidence".
Words have meanings, Larry
Like the child who murdered his parents and threw himself upon the mercy of the court because he was an orphan - that is fucking chutzpah.
That means they are saying there were 120,276,000 gun owners in 2010 and 111,780,000 gun owners in 2011.....
That's kinda my point, GD. If you took everyone over 50 and set them aside, what percentage of the population would own guns? What percentage of the population would be conservative for that matter?
Utterly absurd and absolutely unsupported by anything approaching reality.
Fine. Back it up using similar evidence to what I offered.
You don't have a point Mark,
Look at the "data" for 1987, 1988 and 1989.
46%, 40% and 46%....
You don't see anything wrong with that?
Another question avoided...at least you are consistent.
If you have a problem with the data, then present alternative data that makes a counter argument. It doesn't take that long to find another poll. Here's one...
http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/section-3-gun-ownership-trends-and-demographics/
Look at the older groups compared to the younger groups. What do you see?
Back it up using similar evidence to what I offered.
Already been done, you clearly didn't read it then and you won't read it now. You should stop lying about what it would take for you to change your mind.
It doesn't take that long to find another poll. Here's one...
No, it doesn't, and we've discussed before why polls aren't all that. Yet here you are - when you find it convenient - all certain about something based on a poll or two.
Another question avoided...at least you are consistent.
If it's a question based upon incorrect assumptions then it is an irrelevant question. That's the point you are ignoring.
How, can gun ownership, in both the links you posted, swing so dramatically so quickly? Does that not ring some alarm bells over the accuracy of the polls?
I know what you see you want to, really really want to believe. But it's unrealistic to see such swings in such short periods of time - the data is flawed.
The question you should ask is why is the data flawed - not asking questions based upon flawed data.
That's why I provided another source.
Most of the people that own guns are older. What happens to the gun lobby when those people are gone in 20 years? Where are the significant numbers of young people who own guns and are ready to take over command of the Gun Cult? Where are the women who own guns? The second link shows that it's mostly men...I wonder why that is:)
How, can gun ownership, in both the links you posted, swing so dramatically so quickly?
Read for comprehension.
So now both links are faulty. I see. Should I find a third link that shows that gun ownership skews older?
Obviously you are avoiding the issue and it's clear why. Young people don't like guns, dude. Women don't seem to like them either. What will happen to your cause?
So now both links are faulty
Yes. Because you are not paying attention.
Second link - both polls show wild fluctuations in gun ownership over short periods of time - just like the first poll did.
Again - unrealistic. Better question to ask - and first question to ask, is why are the polls showing unrealistic answers.
Besides, according to your own polls, women are the fastest growing segment of gun owners....
Most of the people that own guns are older. What happens to the gun lobby when those people are gone in 20 years? Where are the significant numbers of young people who own guns and are ready to take over command of the Gun Cult?
Add to this - faulty reasoning.
What is the percentage of young people with IRA's, 401k's, home ownership, new car ownership, etc....
A gun cost money, young people don't have money - ergo less young people have guns.
Hell, I got my first rifle at about 12 years old - but that gun still 'belonged' to my dad.
Stayed with him until I came back from college - let's say about 20 years old.
For someone who 'owned' a gun for eight years, I didn't actually 'have' one, as would be represented in these polls, until I was twenty.
Then, of course, since one has to be 21 to own a handgun - an entire class of guns is off limits to several years of reportage for the purposes of these polls.....
I have 'several' guns now, in my forties. I had less guns in my thirties, and even less in my twenties.
Yeah, wouldn't surprise me in the least to see younger people with 'enough' less to not have any ----- yet.
Here are some more details from Gallup.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/men-married-southerners-likely-gun-owners.aspx
Take a look at their list and see who is at the bottom. Women. Scroll up to the top and you will see these two numbers.
Men 50+years old 52 percent
Men 18-49 years old 41 percent
To your point about getting older and buying more guns
50-64 years old, 34 percent.
The survey methods are at the bottom.
Here's another report.
https://www.vpc.org/studies/ownership.pdf
One of the reasons listed?
The aging of the current-gun owning population—primarily white males—and a
lack of interest in guns by youth.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/160223/men-married-southerners-likely-gun-owners.aspx
Same poll as I already commented on....yet you still ignore the points I made about it....
And you actually have a link to the vpc? What's that you like to say....oh yeah, got an unbiased source?
Look dude, address how ownership rates can drop by millions one year and increase by double that millions the next year....
Until you do that I don't give a shit about what you think you are trying to say, because the base data is tainted.
Perhaps you should direct your concerns to the polling outfits and ask them about their methodology. I love your hubris on this...they have to be in error somehow...it can't be your lack of knowledge and/or understanding. Typical conservative insecurity.
You don't want to face declining gun ownership among younger people...oh well. It's just another slap in the face from reality that I guess you will have to find a way to endure. It won't be as bad as when people you know and love get killed due to some sort gun accident or incident. At that point, it will all come crashing down and then we can move past this insanity...
Where are the women who own guns?
Friend of ours just post about her first gun on Facebook. So there is one.
Young people don't like guns, dude.
I guess my 25 year old son isn't a young person, dude.
Typical conservative insecurity.
You aren't that cute when you project M.
More anecdata..yay...
More anecdata..yay...
Like your ACA arguments? Oh, that's right - the rules are only for the other guys.
I love your hubris on this...they have to be in error somehow...it can't be your lack of knowledge and/or understanding.
Well, we don't know what it is because you have yet to even address my points - at all.....
Post a Comment