Monday, January 12, 2015
The cognitive dissonance of the gun control cabal
“You have a mayor who hates guns; If it was up to me, we wouldn’t have any handguns in the District of Columbia. I swear to protect the Constitution and what the courts say, but I will do it in the most restrictive way as possible.” - Muriel E. Bowser - Mayor, Washington D.C.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wow. I'm amazed. A Democrat Progressive who still acknowledges the constitution.
ReplyDeleteTrue, but her acknowledgment is so tepid, it comes off like a pre-emptive signing statement.
DeleteCon: Yes.
DeleteThere should be stated intent from our officeholders, especially those who swore an oath, to embrace, protect, and defend the law of the land.
Those who openly threaten to do their damned to take away our basic human rights (such as self defense) while remaining just within the letter of the law? They have no respect for the Constitution, and are treating this like a game.
"....You have a mayor who hates guns..."
ReplyDeleteThere are many politicians with personal preferences like this. That's no problem.
There are way too many who violate the ideals of good government, the Constitution, and the public interest by forcing their preferences on others. That is a bad thing.
Anyway. Mayor hates guns? Fine. He's free not to buy any for himself. Problem solved. Next...
Correction: Her. not him.
ReplyDeleteJust 40 years ago, banning handguns was a real possibility. It's a shame we were not mature enough to follow through. They should be banned. Even Lynyrd Skynyrd had a song about getting rid of them. They really are good for nothin' but puttin' a man six feet in a hole.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Absolutely true; they've been putting holes in criminals since before the founding of our nation. Sure, ban them....and wave your bloody shirt when citizens have no means to defend themselves against those same firearms.
DeleteExactly, CI. Jersey's idea is the most immature, rash, ill-considered thing being discussed here.
DeleteEspecially when we're confronted daily - and provably - that law enforcement is utterly reactive and ineffective at stopping crime and acts of terrorism before, and even as, they happen.
DeleteAnd CI, is there anything more "mature" than someone who is stuck forever in a childish phobia and ignorance about firearms? Jersey's comments seem to all come from "eww! Guns! Icky" attitude.
DeleteLike a child who hates broccoli. Agree?
As exemplified in their transparent rebranding from 'gun control' to 'gun safety'....though they don't wish for anyone to actually be educated on actual gun safety....because guns=icky.
DeleteYes, the gun control attitude is very childish.
DeleteLittle children and their toys... what can ya' do?
DeleteJMJ
Perfect description of the greedy brats who want to steal others' toys.
DeleteAs long as we are using this analogy.
It has nothing to do with "maturity" that this never happened.
ReplyDelete" They really are good for nothin' but puttin' a man six feet in a hole."
If you are so uninformed about them to believe this, then by all means don't own any, Jersey. But don't use rock lyrics to justify stripping the rest of us of our basic rights.
dmarks, compared to you I am as informed as all the world's encyclopedias combined.
DeleteThe point I was making about that song, you idiot who obviously knows nothing about your own country's culture, is that back then, in the 70's, even country rockers, who would never dare produce such a song today, were singing popular songs about banning handguns.
JMJ
"dmarks, compared to you I am as informed as all the world's encyclopedias combined."
DeleteYou have proven otherwise. You insulted me and called me a liar when I mentioned several irrefutable things, including that Obama has been close to twice as bad on the debt as G.W. Bush was.
You ran away when I extensively sourced it.
As for your supposed point, so? Rock stars are often known for their ignorance and ill intent on some matetrs. This is an example.
In some ways, the country has improved, gotten more mature. Rejected some really bad ideas. I commend that singers have gotten smarter and wouldn't think as much of producing such an immature, ill-intended song.
If you have to call names to make your point...you've already lost the argument.
DeleteCI: Especially when Jersey makes such over the top blanket insults devoid of any meaning other than a cloud of negativity.
DeleteAnd I will repeat the fact: There are many things that Obama has been much, much worse than GWB on. The debt is one of these.
Guys, grow up. The point I'm making is that very recently in our culture the idea of banning handguns, in particular cheap, mass produced, small handguns, was a pretty popular idea. We've gone long past that today. You guns groupies have won the day.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame, in my opinion, as these guns have wrecked a lot of havoc in the hands of dumb, childish people.
Carrying around a larger, visible weapon can have the effect of reducing violent encounters. Hiding small handguns only seems to exacerbate bad situations.
They are not really useful weapons, as that clever Skynyrd song points out, but for a way to sneak a weapon around - to shoot someone at close range with surprise. Hunting with one would be silly. Protecting your home with one, risky.
JMJ
Yes, clearly it's the gun guys who need to 'grow up'. It's not us constantly reframing the argument when the idiocy of intentional obfuscation is exposed...again...and again.
DeleteGod forbid a Constitutionally protected and lawful item, actually be affordable for the private citizen. And proffering that pistols are not useful as a personal defense firearm, only exposes that you know precious little about shooting or self defense.
Jersey is blowing it again. We'll never see any thing factual on his ridiculous claim that Obama wasn't much worse than GWB.
DeleteNor will we see him backpedal on his claim that handguns are "silly" for hunting or that they are risky in the home other than against robbers trying to murder the homeowners. (and yes I am referring to safely stored guns as the NRA advises).
His sentences do show a fear based out of ignorance. I wonder if enrollment in a some good NRA classes on handgun target practice, safety and hunting would cure his this.
Well, whatever. That was the argument back in the 70's and I think it was a good idea. And I have to tell you, the way you guys argue back, only reinforces my opinion.
DeleteJMJ
You haven't proffered a cogent argument. You presented one argument from the 70's, and have attempted to portray it as the prevailing opinion. As evidence....you offer...Skynyrd.
DeleteBravo. Well done.
CI, what the...? I did what??? I just noted that it was once considered a good idea by a lot of Americans. I made a f'n anecdotal reference to make my point.
DeleteHow come a smart guy like you goes all googly-brained on this issue and can't comprehend a simple reference in context?
JMJ
Oh, and yes, it was a good idea then, and it still is one now. The very fact that Americans want these things shows they are not mature and responsible enough to have them.
DeleteJMJ
Pay attention to what you wrote: "that was THE argument back in the 70's".
DeleteThank you for your opinion. You have the liberty to not own a firearm.
You have to be kidding...
DeleteJMJ
CI is not "kidding". He is respectful of our rights, skeptical of claims of responsibility where none exist,and very opposed to fascistic bad public policy.
DeleteI've read him enough to see this. Hardly surprising.
That is your opinion, Jersey. and you are welcome to act on it in your own life: if you are so clumsy that you can't use a firearm such as handgun properly, feel free not to own one.
ReplyDeleteBut you are not welcome to act on the informed decisions of other law-abiding citizens... those whom you are so very insulting and condescending about. Which proves your ignorance of the matters.
Okay, dmarks. Let me ask you something. If I asked you for a gun, and you gave it to me, and there was no documentation for that transaction, and no legal recourse against you if I use that gun in a crime, do you think you should be in any way accountable for that?
DeleteJMJ
If I loan you my car, and you plow into a herd of schoolchildren...should YOU be held liable?
DeleteCI: You would be held accountable if attorneys lied in the courtroom and said you were. Because this is simply not true. and any claim like this is a lie.
DeleteYes this car analogy is very appropriate.
You and dmarks both completely avoided a key premise in my hypothetical.
DeleteJMJ
Well, first, there is a very real danger of confiscation. This threat means it makes sense to purchase firearms in the way you mention: so there is no documentation that the government can use to steal someone's gun.
ReplyDeleteOf course there should be "no legal recourse" against a person who has done nothing wrong. I hate frivolous lawsuits.
Now, if I know you are a felon and give/sell you the gun, that is one thing. But normally that is not the case.
There's no way I should be "Accountable" for something that is not my fault, whatsoever.
So, using your logic, and I sell you a perfectly good working car (corresponding to a working gun) and you choose to run it off a bridge or drive on a sidewalk with it? The exact same thing. The accountability goes to the person who actually did something wrong.
I'd be interested in what C.I. says about this. He will surely have a different view from mine, though I am sure he will be against the idea of holding completely blameless people "accountable" for something they had nothing to do with.
People like you, I'm afraid, are the reason I think we should ban these guns.
DeleteJMJ
Jersey: You are entitled to your uninformed opinion about these "Reasons". But not to force it on me. Because you have absolutely no qualification or right to make this decision for me. No one does.
DeleteYou and CI both completely avoided a key premise in my hypothetical.
DeleteJMJ
Lay it on us......
DeleteRead the hypothetical.
DeleteJMJ
Complete the sentence. "Hypothetical" is an adjective. I am waiting for the noun that goes after it.
DeleteThere's no legal accountability for loaning, gifting or selling a firearm in a private transaction....and the buyer/receiver committing a crime with the lawful item. Period.
DeleteAnyway, we covered all parts of Jersey's comment dated "Jersey McJonesJanuary 12, 2015 at 10:35 PM"
DeleteYou guys are seriously irresponsible people.
DeleteJMJ
We are very responsible, Jersey. You have given no evidence of anything otherwise.
DeleteOf course we are responsible for our own actions, not those of others. To make claims otherwise is to use illogic and say things that are not true.
By all means, lay out the legal case for your "key premise".
DeleteAnyway, I strongly support laws/efforts to block individuals from frivolous lawsuits involving instances of the use of guns in which the individuals being sued are entirely uninvolved and had nothing to do with the actions in the lawsuit.
ReplyDeleteBecause, after all, and such claim of responsibility is an instance of making a false claim in the courtroom. Lying... and in the case of profiteering trial attorneys, lying to get rich. It's a greedy, dishonest act. Very sleazy. I oppose it. Jersey again and again supports it.
Didn't the murder rate in D.C. go DOWN after they got ride of the gun ban down there? I mean, I know that these politicians aren't all that interested in evidence and all but it is kind of important, no?
ReplyDeleteIt did, but you know...that'll be explained away...perhaps global warming?
DeleteDo you want the data to show that's a lie?
DeleteJMJ
Will: Murder rates are a poor reason to justify keeping or abolishing our rights anyway. But they do show that the "gun control" agenda is very destructive and puts people in the grave.
ReplyDelete