Gun control proponents couldn't buy a clue if the NRA gave them a stipend to do so. The Hill reports that noted firearms and hunting expert*, Rep. Rosa DeLauro proposed the following legislation:
Gun owners would receive tax breaks for voluntarily turning in high-powered assault rifles under new legislation proposed Monday.
The Support Assault Firearm Elimination and Education of our (SAFER) Streets Act expected to be reintroduced next week by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) would provide gun owners with an incentive to turn in their firearms to local police departments.
“Assault weapons are not about hunting, or even self-defense,” DeLauro said. “There is no reason on earth, other than to kill as many people as possible in as short a time as possible, that anyone needs a gun designed for a battlefield.”
Though DeLauro is in favor of stronger guns laws that would completely ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition, she emphasized this bill would not force gun owners to turn in their firearms.
The legislation would provide up to $2,000 in tax credits for gun owners who voluntarily hand over assault weapons to their local police departments.* Obvious sarcasm at the expense of a rather clueless politician.
This proposal is so rife with absurdity, I'm not really sure where to begin. Why is the gun control camp comprised of not a single member who has a clue about firearms? Sadly, every politician should be an expert on the Constitution, but we know that few of them are.
Aside from the obvious and enduring fact, that the gun control camp cannot define what they feel an "assault weapon" is....at least beyond some apparently scary looking cosmetic features.....the rifles that they refer to are commonly used in both hunting and self defense. She lies. Worse, she knows she lies.
She then claims that these rifles in question were "designed for the battlefield", and that nobody needs this type of rifle. Again, aside from the fact that the 2nd Amendment resides within the Bill of Rights, not a 'Bill of Needs', she is either perfidious or ignorant that every class of firearm was 'designed for the battlefield' [that is where firearm innovation occurs] - and - that our law enforcement officers at all levels [who are NOT military nor on a battlefield] are routinely equipped with this class of rifles.
I really have no idea what "high capacity ammunition" is, beyond a string of words she relied on as an appeal to emotion.
As for the tax credit scheme, she is apparently unaware of dismal track record of "gun buy-backs", where law enforcement usually nets a crateful of inoperable or low grade 'junk guns', at a rather hefty bill for the taxpayer - and - the fact that she is again setting up LEO's to be taken advantage of, at the expense of tax payers. I'd seriously consider trading in a low end Colt or DPMS in return for the $2000 tax credit. It would allow me to obtain the items needed to build my own, or purchase a better quality rifle [or optics and furniture for my current.]
As usual, I'm left believing that there are only two viable options here.....either Rep DeLauro is stupid, or she thinks that gun control proponents are. I'd actually have more respect for them if they simply came out publicly and proposed a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. That's what they really want; but they haven't the courage nor the integrity to do so.
Tax breaks? Not a bad idea. More money in the hands of the people, and less in the hands of those in power who abuse power. But to be fair, we need a tax break of the same amount to those who keep their guns too.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, there is no way the proposal you tell about will make anyone "safer".
Regardless, there is no way the proposal you tell about will make anyone "safer".
DeleteYep. It surely won't given the fraction of gun crimes committed with this class of demonized rifle. The real target of gun control is the handgun. Many of them are on record as stating such; but that's not a proposal that the American people support, writ large.
So they attempt to nibble at the edges in order to continue establishing precedent. Its gun control theater.
"The real target of gun control is the handgun."
DeleteWhich is why it makes sense to get a good one of you don't have one, and at a gun show or from a private person to legally avoid the roadblocks put in place to hassle innocent people ( and eventually steal their handguns)
Good points. Yes, of course all such efforts should be resisted/blocked/overturned.
ReplyDeleteGood points. Yes, of course all such efforts should be resisted/blocked/overturned.
ReplyDeleteAnd let's hope sense prevails on this discussion. None of the reliance on misleading polls at the expense of the Constitution, arrogant contempt of our rights coupled with a bootlicking worship of government power, appeals to emotion, and proof of ignorance throughuse of the 'assault weapons' term. It gets kind of predictable.
ReplyDeleteBut sometimes there are surprises... like the gunless and childless pontificating on guns and child-rearing.
"What rough, ineducable beast slouches toward Mom's basement to be born..."
CI: Gun control proponents couldn't buy a clue if the NRA gave them a stipend to do so.
ReplyDeleteThe first thing your commentary has wrong. The NRA funnels money into the campaigns of the PRO-gun Congresspersons. They give no money to those Congresspersons who wish to do the will of The People and pass reasonable gun control legislation.
As opposed to NRA bootlicking and worshipping of the power of this powerful lobbying organization. But such is the arrogance of the gun nutters. Their rights always trump the rights of others.
dmarks: "What rough, ineducable beast slouches toward Mom's basement to be born..."
What is this, Rightwing "poetry"? It is surely a display of how clueless this "poet" is - given his speaking of the fallacy of "appeals to emotion" - then launching into his own fallacy. Ad hominem being "a fallacy in which a claim or argument is dismissed on the basis of some irrelevant fact or supposition about the author or the person being criticized".
Although perhaps dmarks is honestly describing himself?
The will of the people is not in your favor....not sure if you've noticed that. But speaking of conspiracy theories, the notion that the NRA [your favorite stalking horse] is a tool of the gun lobby, and not a member driven organization [by virtue of over 5 million dues paying members] is laughable...but when thats you've got, I can understand why you continue to rely on it.
DeleteAnd yet again, in your conclusion you are quite correct. Thank you for making the point! The right protected by the 2nd Amendment does indeed true another's invented right to feel safe, or good about themselves, or warm and fuzzy.
Yes, the NRA is a legitimate member-driven organization, CI. In sharp contrast to the big labor unions, which most members are forced to join against their will.
DeleteThere is no "reasonable gun control legislation' being blocked at all. The intrusive attempts which are being blocked are unreasonable as they harass and deny the basic rights of law-abiding gun owners (and law-abiding would-be gun owners). Any and all such attempts should continue to be blocked/resisted/overturned.
DeleteWhen the astro-turf gun control organizations fail to attract even a fraction of the NRA, SAF and GOA membership [even when funded by Bloomberg's millions], and one doesn't really have a supportable position, it's probably expected that some rely on such framing.
DeleteAfter all, they use it for any sector of society, oil, pharma, etc....their one trick ponies.
Rights should be subject to the will of "The People"?
DeleteThere's a scary thought.
This is an interesting idea, but what we really need is a mass cash-for-guns program that takes as many guns off the streets as humanly possible, no questions asked. I'd love to see the history of these guns we could cull from such a program, too. I bet a lot of folks would find themselves in trouble when the bloody trails of their guns lead back to their doors.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
Jersey: It would be a pure waste of taxpayer dollars. especially considering the massive debt problem we have in this country. But if a private company were to have a "mass cash-for-guns program" scheme, that would be OK. Because, unlike with a government program, the "cash" would not be taken forcibly from taxpayers in order to fund it.
Delete"OK" meaning it would be allowable. However, I do not think it would be a good idea. I;d much rather see an outfit provide money to people to purchase firearms for their own defense who might not be able to afford them otherwise. Again, nothing taxpayer funded.
JMJ - Hmmmm, a 'gun amnesty'. Do you think that you would net anything beyond what other erroneously named 'buy-backs' do? In other words, the junk that nobody wants?
DeleteBut aside from it sounding like you fantasize about a nation full of murderers, you stated "no questions asked". How would you then trace any of these firearms back to the owners? And how much more [beyond your cash for clunkers scheme] would you be willing to pay for the rigorous ballistics testing required to attempt a match with an unsolved crime?
Vib said: "Rights should be subject to the will of "The People"?
ReplyDeleteThere's a scary thought."
Indeed. Because since these are our rights, each person (the REAL "the people") should be able to exercise them, themselves.
There are restriction on all rights. Remember that there was a Federal assault weapons ban in effect for 10 years? It went away because it expired and was not renewed, not because it was found to be unconstitunal. The gun manufacturers challenged the law in court and lost.
ReplyDeleteCivilans cannot legally purchase a machine gun manufactured after 1986 due to a law signed by Reagan. There are also various other state laws and restrictions. But I imagine that your camp would prefer to do away with *all* such restrictions?
An example of a restriction/limitation on another right would be the fighting words doctrine (9 to 0 SCTUS decision). Although my link is to Wikipedia (gasp!)... So maybe that means it never happened.
The bottom line is that you guys live in a fantasy world in which you throw out simplistic slogans like "it's a Bill of Rights not a Bill of needs". Then you pat each other on the backs thinking you've won the argument (or kiss the ass of your fellow gun nut in dmarks' case).
But in the real world restrictions on rights remain in effect. Restrictions that have (in many cases) been challenged and found to be lawful/constitutional. And new ones continue to be proposed by our legislators AND may be voted on and made law. Libertarians obviously don't like our system, but it is what it is and isn't going to change.
So, yes, Rights ARE subject to the will of The People. dmarks can whine and stamp his feet all he likes, but, this isn't a "scary thought", it is reality. If he thinks it isn't then what is behind his paranoid fearmongering regarding those he thinks want to "confiscate" his guns?
You said yourself that there are 'bad laws', so you merely pat yourself on the back when there are laws you agree with. The point lost upon you however, is that the Bill of Rights are enumerated specifically, and explicitly, to be protected against violation from the State without due cause. That due cause is when a citizen harms, steals or attempts to restrict the liberty of another. You are forced to project that Libertarians favor no rules, and no regulations...it's a reflex with you...I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't even know that you were doing it. But your forced to do so, because your narrative wouldn't work without it.
DeleteIt's good to know that you favor a political system where the citizen has no inviolable rights. I wonder what your narrative would be if another enumerated right was subject to the same political whims as is the 2nd. I have a feeling the tune would change.
CI said: "It's good to know that you favor a political system where the citizen has no inviolable rights"
DeleteCI, At the risk of bringing other discussions into this, Mr. Sanders has elsewhere supported strongly limiting the rights of Americans to speak out on political issues. It's not only our basic rights under the Second Amendment he opposes. He's quite hostile to the First as well.
dmarks: Mr. Sanders has elsewhere supported strongly limiting the rights of Americans to speak out on political issues... He's quite hostile to the First as well.
DeleteI strongly support the rights of Americans to speak out on political issues. Unlike dmarks, who expresses extreme hostility in regards to the first amendment. In that he strongly desires this right to be based on a wealthy person's (or corporation's) right to buy more speech than the average person. Because (in dmarks' world) speech rights should be based on how much money you have. Rich people and corporations speaking with a louder voice and average/poor people's speech being ignored makes dmarks very happy.
Unlike dmarks, who expresses extreme hostility in regards to the first amendment. In that he strongly desires this right to be based on a wealthy person's (or corporation's) right to buy more speech than the average person.
DeleteFeel free to provide a substantive foundation for this assertion.
dmarks (incorrectly) claimed *I* am hostile to the first amendment *before* I correctly pointed out that the opposite is true. Why are you asking me for a "substantive foundation" but not dmarks?
DeleteIn any case, dmarks has expressed his support for Citizens United many times. This is the legislation that says free speech rights in regard to political issues should be based on money. More money = more speech.
Last year I withdrew my support for "Citizens United", as my blog stalker well knows (I stated this it on a blog that Mr. Dervish has been banned from but continues to monitor and spam with unwanted messages).
DeleteI await a libertarian solution to "Citizens United": one that does NOT come from "Move to Amend" (and respects our First Amendment rights completely).
Regardless, Mr. Sanders summary of what my reasons for the support of "Citizens United" were are entirely incorrect. I never stated any preference for "wealthy person's (or corporation's) right to buy more speech than the average person."
I'm fairly new to libertarian ideals. A reason-based statement on "Citizens United", the First Amendment, and campaign funding would be most welcome.
dmarks: Last year I withdrew my support for "Citizens United"...
DeleteI do not believe you because (see below)...
dmarks: I never stated any preference for "wealthy person's (or corporation's) right to buy more speech than the average person."
You have. Many times. Including in this thread. You say I am I am in favor of "limiting the rights of Americans to speak out on political issues" - this is a reference to my opposition to Citizens United allowing the wealthy to buy more speech. Since you're still making this criticism based on my opposition to the idea of more money = more speech you obviously still support Citizens United.
The Chaplinsky decision references far more than just "fighting words". Somehow I imagine that if the government were to start locking people up for speech that was " lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting" on the grounds that "It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." You would be screaming bloody murder.
DeleteThere is no "paranoid fearmongering". The gov. Of New York said that the government stealing guns from people should be on the table. Other legislators have chanted "confiscate, confiscate, confiscate".
ReplyDeleteI wish the danger to our rights, property, and ultimately our lives weren't real. But they are. As shown in these dangerous and harmful threats by members of the ruling class, and the very bad idea put forth by the legislator in the parent post.
Ignoring these pervasive threats to our rights doesn't make them go away.
You know, perhaps Dervish has a point...after all, if the 'people' decide that one needs to register one's blog or cellphone with the State, be required to get licensed and trained [at the users expense] and be subject to political whims.......or that a citizen cannot refuse to incriminate himself in a legal case...what's the harm right?
ReplyDeleteBecause THAT is what Dervish expresses support for; not punitive actions for the commission of a crime, but bureaucratic regulation of an enumerated right. And there's only one right that he would grant this extrajudicial attitude towards.
All of which would be solved, CI, if Mr. Dervish showed some maturity instead of an infantile megalomania... and respected the informed choice of others even if they disagreed with him.
ReplyDeleteNo one is forcing him to ever own a gun, or has ever even suggested it. Likewise, he shouldn't get upset at law-abiding Americans who choose to do so. There's room for both choices: we should respect this, rather than abuse the law in order to see our own personal choices forced on everyone in the nation.
------------------
CI said: "Because THAT is what Dervish expresses support for;...."
Exactly. Support for unnecessary, abusive, and harassment activities against law-abiding Americans who have never done any wrong.
That dingbat you featured in this piece reminds me of the leftwing wackadoo in the Colorado legislature who voted for the magazine ban.
ReplyDeleteShe though magazines were single use items, and that if they banned further manufacture, they would all quickly be 'used up.'
Unfortunately such people are eternal, and they have enabled dictators in every age of history.
dmarks: he shouldn't get upset at law-abiding Americans who choose to do so.
ReplyDeleteI don't. dmarks is projecting his irrational fear of gun confication onto me. I don't support confiscation, only reasonable gun control laws.
CI: ...if the 'people' decide that one needs to register one's blog or cellphone with the State... [Blah blah blah] ...or that a citizen cannot refuse to incriminate himself in a legal case.
You refer to unreasonable laws that will never be proposed or passed. If they were they would be challenged in court and overturned. And the legislators who voted for it would be challenged in the next election. Their opponents would surely bring up voting for such legislation.
Any law abolishing the 5th amendment right would be challenged and knocked down quickly. Not that any such law would ever be passed.
So you DO only favor regulation of ONE enumerated right found in the Bill of Rights. Thank you for completely dodging the point and proffering only your point of view as "reasonable".It illustrate exactly how you disdain reason in favor of personal bias. I didn't mention "abolish" [as that is what I would wish for the gun control camp to have the stones to proffer], I said regulate.
DeleteOnce again, you can't argue an issue on it's merits, but only on it's biased perception.
You still haven't had the integrity to provide your premise where the 2nd Amendment has been "misinterpreted" in accordance with the Founders own words. Telling.
You're upset because I pointed out how ridiculous your examples are.
DeleteI'm not upset at all....I'm laughing at you and your shallow, illogical assertions. You have provided me with more entertainment value than anyone else on this blog, or most other sites I interact on with any regularity.
DeleteThat being your response is not merely telling, it's confirming.
DeleteCI: That being your response is not merely telling, it's confirming.
DeleteThat being YOUR response is not merely telling, it's confirming.
The above comment, stamped "April 12, 2015 at 2:50 PM", is not even attempting to add anything at all. Just a strong "I know you are but what am I!!!" meaning. Which is pure filler, angry retort, which resulted in a single sentence being repeated 3 times in a row... with nothing to be lost by ignoring all but the first instance of it at 2:39.
ReplyDeleteWelcome to romper room.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Deletedmarks: The above comment, stamped "April 12, 2015 at 2:50 PM", is not even attempting to add anything at all. Just a strong "I know you are but what am I!!!"
DeleteThis is something you do ALL THE TIME. Lots of comments where you say (essentially) "I love you, CI!" as well, which also add nothing to the conversation.
Anyway, I decided I was done with that particular conversation, given the absurdity of CI's prior 4 comments. I SPECIFICALLY noted that there are restrictions on many of the amendments in the bill of rights, but CI ignores that and repeats his falsehood in which I "only favor regulation of ONE enumerated right".
No, you didn't noted a restriction on a right similar to that of what is levied upon the 2nd. You noted a punitive consequence based upon an action deemed criminal. The infringements upon the 2nd Amendment that are opposed by those who actually support liberty, are punitive measures enacted prior to any action on the part of the citizen. As I stated before, akin to being required to register one's medium or intention to exercise one's freedom of speech [along with the taxation for registration, license, training, etc]
DeleteSpeech can't kill someone. It could incite someone to commit a murder, but it can't kill someone directly. A firearm can. Treating the two the same would be extreme foolishness.
DeleteSuggesting that requiring training for someone with a blog is the same as requiring training to be licensed with a deadly weapon is stupidity of the highest order.
If you have a sliding scale for one enumerated right, for the State to infringe upon at will, you have precedent for doing the same for all other enumerated rights. Thus, you are left with no rights at all.
DeleteMr Sanders "Treating the two the same would be extreme foolishness"
DeleteThing is, there's no "sliding scale" (CI's words, yes, and quite apt) to be found in the Constitution. No different weightings of the rights. Of course. someone could use the proper process to amend the Constitution to apply varying values to the parts of the Bill of Rights. But until that happens, this concept of varying weights on rights simply does not exist, and the only "stupidity of the highest order" involved is imagining that one right is more important than than the other with absolutely no reason to.
Legally, constitutionally, and all, requiring training for a blog is no different from requiring training for handling firearms.
----------------------
As an aside, if you are interested in firearms training, you should strongly support the NRA. It is a big part of what they do, with more than 10,000 instructors/coaches/etc . I have direct experience with them myself, and can personally vouch for their knowledge, ability, and sense of responsibility. The efforts of the NRA definitely make the country safer.
dmarks - they're not interested in 'gun safety' despite the transparent reframing of their label.
DeleteConstitutional Insurgent: Indeed. In fact, someone who rants about "assault weapons" (a term which makes as much sense to firearms experts as talking about dragons does to paleobiologists) would probably be quite dangerous with a weapon. I wouldn't trust anyone who revels in ignorance about guns to handle one, would you?
Deletedmarks specifically speaks against training, then CI states *I* am not interested in safety... Riiiiiight. You need training and a license to operate a motor vehicle (which can kill). You should be required to obtain training and a license for a gun. Your suggestion that using common sense in conjunction with deadly weapon will result in the erosion of our other rights most certainly is stupidity of the highest order. But this is the territory you've staked out. Continue on in your stupidity, but I think I'm done with this conversation.
DeleteBTW, shot anyone yet dmarks? I noticed (in another thread) that you asked Will if he supports "right to fire", then you spoke of trespassers on your property... You are clearly very eager to shoot someone.
Reminds me of the following story... A Minnesota homeowner who shot and killed two teenagers during a break-in was convicted Tuesday of premeditated murder. Bryon Smith had claimed he was simply defending himself during the break-in at his home... But prosecutors argued that Smith waited in his basement and intended to kill the teens. A total of nine shots were fired at 17-year-old Nick Brady and 18-year-old Haile Kifer.
I don't know what the laws in MI are, but this story shows that - in in the case of a home invasion - a murderer can be convicted. But dmarks clearly wants to find out if he can get away with killing someone.
dmarks: someone who rants about "assault weapons"...
I've never mentioned these weapons.
dmarks: I wouldn't trust anyone who revels in ignorance about guns to handle one, would you?
DeleteSo dmarks would take away gun rights from some based on them exercising their free speech rights to say something he does not like? This after arguing that ignorance about firearms should be no hindrance to obtaining one? Libertarian "logic" in action.
......then CI states *I* am not interested in safety....
DeleteAre you "they"? Are you the gun control camp?
You need training and a license to operate a motor vehicle (which can kill).
Driving a motor vehicle is not an enumerated Constitutional right. Given the upside to comparing cars and firearms, I don't think you've really looked at how equating would benefit the gun rights camp, as opposed to the gun control camp.
What constitutes "common sense" is both politically loaded and subjective. Your "common sense" doesn't trump my "common sense" in the legal [or logical] sense.
....but I think I'm done with this conversation.
Are you though? Are you really?
....would take away gun rights from some based on them exercising their free speech rights....
DeletePlease detail where dmarks stated that he would "take away rights". I'll wait right here.
Or is it simply easier for you to employ the blanket statement regarding Libertarians?
I love liberty, our basic rights, ALL of the Bill of Rights, due process, and the rule of law. That is what my comments "essentially" amount to.
ReplyDeleteWhile you see mancrushes everywhere, this is simply not the case that the bromance that so thrills you is here.
It's just a matter of principle. If things were reversed and you were arguing for Second Amendment rights against a pro-gun-control CI, I'm sure I would be agreeing with you instead, Mr. Dervish.
I not "thrilled" at all. And I've never used the words "mancrush" or "bromance". Those are your words. Words you frequently use when you speak of feelings you wish I had for you.
DeleteI've never argued against 2nd amendments rights, BTW.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteLooks like CI didn't like what dmarks had to say.
DeleteLooks like CI didn't like what dmarks had to say.
DeleteOnly if you ignore your comments that were deleted as well.
I thought it went without saying that you don't like anything I say.
DeleteContraire....I've told you at least once [probably more] that you provide great entertainment value. I sort of admire your perseverance in the face of both factual basis and conceptions of individual liberty.
DeleteI don't care for some two bit feud carried over from another blog(s).
CI gave fair warning.
DeleteOK, thanks! You should note, however, that the Progressive caucus is the largest in Congress while there is no Libertarian caucus. All you have is your belief that you are right. What your side lacks is enough adherents to effect the change you desire. There is a reason for that... A reason that provides great entertainment value for me.
DeleteA warning dmarks CLAIMED he was heeding. But he lied.
DeleteYou should note, however......
DeleteThat's fine, duly noted. I never seek to match popularity contests, I gave that up in Middle School. I seek redress of infringements on individual liberties by the State, whether it be firearms rights, free speech zones or corporate bailouts. There are distinct reasons why the Progressive Caucus has a higher membership, some altruistic.....some despicable.
Whatever entertainment value exists for you, is of no great concern for me. Leaving behind a better society for my daughters, is.
"That's fine, duly noted. I never seek to match popularity contests, "
DeleteWhen discussion of those are involved, with those who rely on them, they often educate in nothing but hypocrisy. You get someone saying that this or that cause has "the people" behind it, if a majority in some poll says so. But when the polls show something else, the person making this claim goes rather silent.
(No one should take the above statement personally: it is a very general observation)
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSo much for "trusting the voters" as "someone" frequently says he does (Certainly someone participating in a poll can be said to be a voter in that poll). In this conversation "someone" has reacted quite negatively to citing polls. Might this be due to arrogance wherein the critic thinks he knows the life of the voter better than the voter himself?
DeleteAs for "someone" going silent, that did not happen. The person in question responded and noted that this particular poll also verified that past polls had shown the opposite for a VERY long time (check historical trends here. Then that person guessed that the trend would go back to what it was after the next mass shooting.
Disagee, but this is not "silence", despite lies claiming it is. Anyway, most people believe gun Laws should either remain the same or be made stricter. The number of people who believe gun laws should be less strict is a small minority
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn the parent post, CI said: "I really have no idea what "high capacity ammunition" is, beyond a string of words she relied on as an appeal to emotion."
ReplyDeleteWell, she could have said "high capacity assault ammunition"...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteDid dmarks catch CI in a fib? The "high-capacity ammunition" is a quote from the article by Tim Devaney. The phrase isn't within any quote marks that indicate Rep. Rosa DeLauro said it.
DeleteThe phrase is also not in the legislation (linked to in the Hill article). If you look at the bill you'll see references to magazine capacities. So much for CI's hearty-har-har in regards to Rep. Rosa DeLauro for being a "rather clueless politician" (for a phrase she didn't use).
Good catch dmarks. CI almost got away with this fib.
You're absolutely correct. I should have said 'he' rather than 'she'. No matter, I have quite enough 'hearty-har-har's' from the gun control camp umasked ignorance regarding firearms.
DeleteThis will get even more interesting with Clinton's announcement to run.....given her multiple references to 'automatic weapons' [part of that camps' tactic of trying to confuse the public between semi and auto, for emotional effect].
DeLauro's quoted comments does nothing to refute her cluelessness.
Wouldn't you, as I do, like Rep DeLauro to provide some sort of foundation for stating that "And they have been disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers in the line of duty."
Deletehttp://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1876:delauro-marks-national-public-health-week-by-announcing-reintroduction-of-safer-streets-act&ca
Or her claim that theses rifles are "not about hunting, or even self-defense...."
Or, how "nobody" needs this type of "battlefield rifle", except the police?
Or do the ends simply justify the means for you?
CI: I trust this Rep to act on her own ignorance and paranoia and steer clear of those "icky guns" personally. I do not trust her to run rampant on my rights
Delete---------------
Personally, I don't like extreme sports like base jumping, etc. They are rather dangerous looking. I am ignorant about them. But Ill be damned if I would act on the combination of my dislike and disdain for them and ever seek to ban these activities, or use lame insults and call those who enjoy them "nuts".
I wish those who were ignorant about firearms and had a disdain for the shooting sports and similar activities had a similar mature attitude toward the whole matter.
CI: Or do the ends simply justify the means for you?
DeleteWhat ends? This bill will go nowhere. That being the case, I didn't examine the particulars to see if I agreed with them. Most of it looks reasonable, however.
dmarks: ...steer clear of those "icky guns" personally...
If we all could "steer clear" of being shot when we did not wish to be - that would be great. There would be no need for any reasonable gun control laws at all if that were possible. Unfortunately what dmarks suggests (dodging bullets if someone shoots at you) is a hard thing to do.
dmarks: I do not trust her to run rampant on my rights...
You do not have the right to kill someone with your gun while expecting your victim - should they find that "icky" - dodge the bullet.
What ends? This bill will go nowhere. That being the case, I didn't examine the particulars to see if I agreed with them. Most of it looks reasonable, however.
DeleteNo, the ends and means used by the gun control lobby that relies on an emotional demonization, willful conflations and abject ignorance regarding firearms.
Wouldn't you expect, if not demand, that the elected representatives pursuing a goal that you fervently support, actually be both reasoned and informed on the very subject they were spending so much time and money on?
But it's interesting to note that you likewise don't take the meager time to educate yourself on the actual issue presented, but rather find some apparent satisfaction in merely being oppositional on ideological grounds.
CI: Unfortunately, our representatives do often refuse to be reasoned and informed about these issues. Remember the infamous Rep. John Conyers admitting he was too lazy to read the laws he voted to enact. Dangerous, that.
DeleteI'm sure dmarks reads all legislation proposed at both the federal and state level and that the very first thing he did after reading CI's post was to follow the links and read the legislation. Right.
DeleteAnyway, when CI objects to legislation that has no chance of passing I see no issue with me being oppositional on ideological grounds.
CI: ...you likewise don't take the meager time to educate yourself on the actual issue presented...
It doesn't take much education to recognize gun nuttery.
As a nutmegger myself, I am well aware of this bimbo already and it doesn't surprise me one iota that she is coming out with yet another budget buster along the lines of cash for clunkers. a) The vast percentage of murders are committed by handguns. b) Her definition of an assault rifle is cartoonish at best (guns that just look scary and which are not a wit different from standard hunting rifles). And c) the people who would take advantage of this law would be the law-abiding citizens!!......Bottom-line - this woman is a walking, talking advertisement for term limits
ReplyDeletedmarks: ...extreme sports like base jumping, etc ...are rather dangerous looking. But Ill be damned if I would ... use lame insults and call those who enjoy them "nuts".
DeleteYou'll kill yourself if you screw up engaging in a dangerous sport. With a gun you could kill yourself or 1 or more other people. Not the same. And I would absolutely refer to someone saying they were using the word "nut".
Will: ...term limits...
We already have term limits. They're called elections. And here Will suggests they electorate voted wrong in selecting this woman to represent them. I expect dmarks to scold Will for his arrogance.
I actually have some ambivalence when it comes to term limits. But the fact that we have it for President and many states have it for Governor leads me to conclude that they aren't ALL that antidemocratic.
DeleteRepublicans are for term limits because corporate stooges are a dime a dozen. They can find another easily. Plus then the stooge can go on to a highly paid job in the private sector.
DeleteTerm limits are about getting rid of representatives who have integrity and actually represent the voters. The presidency is term limited because the Republicans couldn't stand that the voters elected FDR over and over. Because they realized that the Republicans got the country into the Great Depression and that a Democrat was needed to get the country out of it.
Republicans are for......
DeletePresuming that you find it logically unsound and fundamentally unsupportable when people say "Liberals/Progressives/Statists are for......."
Why would you engage in the same tactic. Now, if you're fine with your ideological opposition employing absurd blanket statements.......I'll stand corrected.
CI: I've never met anyone who favors term limits who favors them for the reasons he describes anyway. Never.
DeleteInteresting alternative history take on the Great Depression there, don't you think?
dmarks: I've never met anyone who favors term limits who favors them for the reasons he describes anyway. Never.
DeleteNot any duped Republican voters or true believing politicians. I meant those Republicans who are aware that the GOP serves the interests of the wealthy. Sorry I wasn't more explicit in regards to who I was talking about.
As for the "alternate history take", I didn't present one. I described what actually happened. A proposal (which became the 22nd amendment that limited the presidency to two terms) was passed "when the Republicans swept Congress in the 1946 midterm elections". That FDR was elected to a fourth term and, following that, the Republicans pushed for term limiting is a part of the historical record.
And if someone is elected 4 times it is certainly proof that the voters thought he was doing a good job. Certainly according to dmarks. To suggest otherwise would be arrogance.
wd is partially correct. It was a Republican President (Hoover, a progressive) who took what was a garden variety downturn and turned it through his idiotic interventions (wage and price controls, a 49% increase in federal spending, a 152% increase in the top tax rate, his signing into law the Smoot-Hawley tariff and the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, etc.) into easily the worst depression in U.S. history.
Delete" I expect dmarks to scold Will for his arrogance."
ReplyDeleteI leave it to Dervish Sanders to put on his apron and run after Will with a frying pan. I will just sit back and laugh.
Thanks, now I can't get Tom and Jerry out of my noggin.
DeleteA bipedal mouse being chased by a bipedal cat has as much to do with reality as Rep Rosa DeLauro's views on firearms.
DeleteIt is dmarks who says questioning the way people vote is "arrogance".
ReplyDeletedmarks tells me I'm arrogant for voicing my opinion on why people who might vote for Romney are wrong...
dmarks: ...I lack this arrogance, I respect the informed decisions of voters. People who vote for Obama are right and are acting in their interest. As are Ron Paul voters, and Romney voters. No less. (link... To a soon to be deleted comment).
Will has demonstrated this "arrogance" before, yet it is ONLY I who dmarks has ever gone after for it. BTW, if Will wants to say he thinks the people who voted for DeLauro were wrong, I really don't care. I've never called disagreeing with voters "arrogance". Only dmarks has. But when someone he agrees with politically does it? Then the huge hypocrite dmarks' standards change.
"No less", dmarks claims (in the linked to comment that dmarks may now delete out of embarrassment). Meaning he always respects the decision of voters. But when Will does it? dmarks dodges and he does do LESS than call out Will's "arrogance".
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy comment above *is* on topic, as I am addressing Will's assertion that Rosa DeLauro (an individual laughed at in CI's "parent" post) "is a walking, talking advertisement for term limits". That reminded me of your previous comments concerning suggestions that the voters chose wrong. Now you're refusing to stand behind your prior comments (made many many times)... which is why you object. Not because of any concerns about CI's rules.
DeleteI'm not objecting. I'm congratulating you for you cogent arguments.
DeleteThat's it. You two are turning the comment section into a personal slap fight; and it's going to deter anyone else who actually wants to comment on the topic.
ReplyDeleteIgnore each other; go somewhere else; or discuss the issue at hand on it's merits [or at least a reasonable tangent].
All others will be deleted or comment moderation instituted.
Fair enough. I can't think of any new, in-topic points about the threat to our rights in the parent post. Unfortunately, there will likely be more, similar threats soon.
ReplyDeleteThere is no "threat to our rights in the parent post". The parent post discusses a reasonable gun control law put forward by a representative elected by the people. People who know their own lives and that voting for Rosa DeLauro is in their interest. Because she reflects their values. Values that include protecting 2nd amendment right while being in favor of reasonable gun control laws, such as limiting magazine sizes and hunters not needing military weapons.
DeleteNOT that this bill has any chance of passing. As I already pointed out. Too many in Congress who do the bidding of the NRA. Or are afraid of the NRA.
Why do you frame it as "reasonable"? The label has no legal or logical metric, it's merely a subjective descriptor to make yourself believe that your premise is morally superior. Without that label, I would agree with you that this bill is by itself not a threat to our 2nd Amendment rights. This bill however, is part of a much larger body of work...past, present and future...designed to chip away the said right, in pursuit of a goal.
DeleteHow is limiting magazine size reasonable. Oh, I'm waiting for the standard narrative to come forth, but my responses will be equally reasonable.
And "hunters" aren't using military weapons. The scary looking rifle referred to by the gun control camp as an "assault rifle" isn't the battle rifle used by our armed forces. Further, every common firearm known to man, throughout history has been or was designed as "military weapon".
I'm almost disappointed that you haven't attempted to employ the framing of "high powered" as many of your cohorts do. Perhaps you actually know something about ballistics, velocity, FPS and calibers....to know that it's a canard?
Good point that this law/idea will not destroy our 2nd Amendment rights, but is part of a pattern erosion, a slippery-slope. And as such, needless and counter-productive.
ReplyDeletedmarks: [reasonable gun regulation] ...is part of a pattern erosion, a slippery-slope.
ReplyDeleteAn excerpt from a site that is "my speed" to point out the fallaciousness of dmarks "slippery slope" argument...
In logic and critical thinking, a slippery slope is a logical device, but it is usually known under its fallacious form, in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question.
In this case, there is an overwhelming demonstrable mechanism for the inevitably of the event: Democratic politicians in power calling for confiscation.
ReplyDeletedmarks: Democratic politicians in power calling for confiscation.
DeleteBut there are none. dmarks keeps citing Andrew Cuomo, but Cuomo never advocated a broad blanket "confiscation". He was referring to assault weapons only. And he also said mandatory sales or permitting (under which people could keep their assault weapons) would be acceptable. In any case, even though Cuomo made his personal preference known, the NY legislature never voted on any legislation that included any form of confiscation. And there was never any possibility that they would.
dmarks slippery slope argument is irrational and fallacious as I said in my previous comment. It's fear mongering designed to stir up the gun nuts and nothing more. The REALITY of the situation is that there will NEVER be any gun confiscations. This is the exact opposite of inevitable.
The definition of confiscation is not restricted to "broad" or "blanket". If you are censored from one venue of speech, have you lost all freedom of speech, or were you merely censored. Your answer, should you have the wherewithal to proffer it, will be quite telling in how you view Constitutional rights; subjectively or objectively. I think we already kWh the answer though.
DeleteIt's a shame you cannot avoid your reflective, scripted use of 'nuts' when having a disagreement regarding the liberty of the citizen.
You're also reliant on the use of an invented label ["assault weapons"] that the gun control camp cannot logically define.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete