tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post392624172841628262..comments2023-10-29T09:04:15.189-04:00Comments on The Sarcastic Liberal: Progressive and Abrasive: Gun Regulations Modeled off of Abortion RestrictionsAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18390041907725949822noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-31566192583457204382012-12-02T00:20:16.426-05:002012-12-02T00:20:16.426-05:00I have no problem with guns (I am a very good shot...I have no problem with guns (I am a very good shot), just as long as they are tightly controlled and only those who are rational can get their hands on them. Agree completely with this statement, but then wouldn't the course of action be to to do just that, instead of banning specific types of guns which won't effect the black market anyway, to just make sure the only people who have them are sane, law-abiding people?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-37320834810741474842012-12-02T00:14:48.724-05:002012-12-02T00:14:48.724-05:00Only one such assault weapon that I know of was ea...Only one such assault weapon that I know of was easily modifiable into full auto because it fired from an open bolt, and that was the pre-ban Tec 9, and later versions of it were corrected by closing the bolt to prevent said modification. This criticism doesn't seem to apply to many of he guns people consider assault weapons, like the AR-15. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-21637878974051120962012-12-02T00:10:50.777-05:002012-12-02T00:10:50.777-05:00understand that the term "assault weapons&quo...understand that the term "assault weapons" is a legislative fiction, but this doesn't change my opinion of them as a group. Even though the connection between such weapons is synthetic, the fact remains that the weapons within this category are unusually dangerous and are conducive to mass-murders. Could you elaborate on this, not being sarcastic but I'm genuinely confused by this. Unlike alot of the anti-assault weapon crowd, you recognize that the term is in effect hollow and the connections between the guns is superficial, but then why do they deserve special regulation? What is it about these guns that makes them more dangerous? I thinl you'd agree we can't ban something just because its used in homicides, there has to be something about it that makes it more dangerous, what is it about them? We don't wanna end up like England which bans kitchen knives and virtually all guns despite an incredibly high gun crime rate which has not been effected by the legislation because most of it is related to gang crime which has access to black markets.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-80706923637924932662012-12-02T00:05:33.869-05:002012-12-02T00:05:33.869-05:00Though I appreciate you debunking the antisemetic ...Though I appreciate you debunking the antisemetic assclown above (the supposed "Jewish" Bolshevsists, murdered deported and murdered many Jews because like the Nazis, they bought into antisemetic scapegoating that identified Jews as subversive foreigners, and created Jewish only region where they may have been planning to deport all Jews) I'd have to disagree that Americans high gun ownershup rate and relatively lax regulations are the cause of its gun crime. Switzerland arguably has a higher-per capita gun ownership rate and an incredibly low gun crime rate, while gun-rights activists could attribute this to an armed population, Switzerland also has better social services than the US like Scandinavia, which despite tough gun laws, has very rates of gun ownership and low gun crime, suggesting its our society rather than the presence of guns in and of itself that causes gun crime. Michael Moore even came to a similar conclusion in Bowling for Columbine. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-5296579814663794222012-12-01T23:58:34.598-05:002012-12-01T23:58:34.598-05:00I understand that the term "assault weapons&q...I understand that the term "assault weapons" is a legislative fiction, but this doesn't change my opinion of them as a group. Even though the connection between such weapons is synthetic, the fact remains that the weapons within this category are unusually dangerous and are conducive to mass-murders.<br /><br />Most of the weapons that are considered "assault weapons" are easily modified to full-auto (it just takes minor modifications to the firing pin, reloading mechanism and magazine)and are not reasonable for self-defense--I understand that some people may want them, but there is little justification for people needing them and no constitutional protections for their right to own them (as you pointed out earlier, they were already banned before, and this was upheld as constitutional at the time).<br /><br />In my opinion, the risk of mass-shooters getting ahold of powerful weapons far eclipses the desire of collectors, paranoids and gun enthusiasts as a national legislate priority--we need gun control now.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18390041907725949822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-78889691467850839242012-12-01T23:44:54.663-05:002012-12-01T23:44:54.663-05:00Sorry, correction, the Hughes amendment applied to...Sorry, correction, the Hughes amendment applied to the Firearm Owner Protection Act, Not the NFA. Also I'd like to clarify that I'm not saying your ignorant about guns, but that you seem to like the general public outside of the firearms community, be unaware of the fact that assault weapon is a legal buzzword distinct from assault rifle which no longer applies because the law is no longer in effect and several guns that people consider assault weapons were not considered so under the law unless they had a certain number of banned features.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-45612183483114399012012-12-01T18:02:40.076-05:002012-12-01T18:02:40.076-05:00Interesting article but it falls victim to a falla...Interesting article but it falls victim to a fallacy which is the "assault weapon" fallacy. I don't think this is a deliberate distortion on your part, but a common mistake made by people who are not familiar with the technical aspects of firearms (I'm not trying to insult you, its just that "assault weapon" is a legal term and media buzzword, and isn't usually used by gun owners or user). Assault rifles are by definition select-fire (meaning they have an automatic setting in addition to their standard, default semi-automatic mode) that use intermediate power cartridges and are thus already virtually illegal to the general public under machine gun restrictions. "Assault weapon" is a legal term with no technical basis that was invented by the lawmakers who wrote the assault weapons ban. In other words, instead of banning a technical category of firearms that actually exist, the law simply created a new category with no basis in reality and called them "assault weapons" and lumped in any gun with a certain number of superficial features that looked scary to them into this fictional new category. Assault rifles, on the other hand, which are a real category of guns (named after the first widespread select-fire intermediate power rifle, the German Sturmengewur, translated into English as Storm Rifle or “Assault Rifle, hence the term) , are in effect automatic weapons and thus already virtually illegal unless your state issues machine gun licenses and you get special federal permission, pay 200 dollars, and thousands for the actual guns because the Hughes Amendment to the National Firearms Act makes the manufacture of new machine guns for civilians illegal and thus drives up the price by thousands of dollars, making them all but inaccessible to anyone but rich collectors. (Additionally, only one legally owned machine gun has been used in a crime, and it was by a police officer, because of how hard they are to get legally). However, the media confuses the term assault weapon and assault rifle and because of this there is alot of confusion about what they are. For example, the AR-15, widely demonized in the media, and referred to as an “assault rifle”, but it is actually not an assault rifle because it is only semi-automatic, and furthermore it is not even an assault weapon under former federal and state legislation because it only has a certain number of the banned "assault weapon" features, and not enough to be banned in states like Massachusetts, variations of it are even legal in California. Because the media uses these two terms interchangable, there is much confusion over what assault weapons and assault rifles are and what guns they actually apply to. So any new federal legislation should ban real types of guns, not fake buzzwords for guns which look machine guns, but work like semi-automatic hunting weapons. I do appreciate that you at least acknowledge moral and legal justification for the right of self-defense, which in the modern world requires firearms, unlike many who try and deny the 2nd Amendment, which even Allen Dershowitz, who opposes it, doesn't do. But if gun owners and those who seek to regulate firearms are ever going to have a meaningful national dialogue, we're going to have to focus on the technical aspects of firearms, not their cosmetic features and words used to demonize them. (if by “assault weapon” you simply mean civilian versions semi-automatic rifles, a good argument could be made for their danger being overstated, especially since you seem to ok with people owning semi-automatic pistols which are a lot more dangerous than rifles do to concealibility)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-10872059482962980132012-10-03T20:53:35.477-04:002012-10-03T20:53:35.477-04:00At what point did I ever say that I would "tr...At what point did I ever say that I would "track you down"? I fight with words and any resort to violence or the threat of such would be a complete betrayal of my ideals--it would also prove that I was unable to effectively argue my case. I have no problem with people who promote views that are diametrically opposed to mine, just as long as they aren't bigots or fools who lack the ability to argue the issues (you are both).<br /><br />I merely pointed out that when an idiot from Sodahead follows me back to my blog, the fact that he refuses to put his name on his comments makes him look like a coward.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18390041907725949822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-49234403300135217782012-10-03T20:42:34.120-04:002012-10-03T20:42:34.120-04:00Gotcha! You will track me down you say, and there&...Gotcha! You will track me down you say, and there'll be knocks on my door by revolver-brandishing thugs in gray uniforms, banishing me to gulags from which I will never be heard again. Ha! I guess me being "too confrontational for posting in mainstream outlets" doesn't work too well when the point of view is diametrically opposed to yours, eh? Seriously, good luck to you, it's been fun watching how even your thin patina of civilization wears off. And if you're really serious, please, please "track me down" in true KGB-style. You'd really make my day!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-70782156897029246012012-10-03T20:41:03.927-04:002012-10-03T20:41:03.927-04:00My mistake, I was aiming to delete the post above ...My mistake, I was aiming to delete the post above that one--you know, the one where you say that you are bigoted against Jews and because of this, I should move to Israel.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18390041907725949822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-64117156011053192382012-10-03T20:27:23.504-04:002012-10-03T20:27:23.504-04:00Due to racism, this post has been removed.Due to racism, this post has been removed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18390041907725949822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-535907238692034552012-10-03T20:26:29.010-04:002012-10-03T20:26:29.010-04:001) The assertion that there is "junk" in...1) The assertion that there is "junk" in my veins is simply offensive and is bigotry at its worst. <br /><br />2) I like all American Jews, am already "amongst my own" in the United States. However, perhaps you should take this advice and join your local neo-nazi group.<br /><br />3) There is nothing for the world to "forgive" the Jews of, and nothing justifies antisemitism. Your attempts at justifying the holocaust, slavery and pogroms are simply disgusting and prove that you are a worthless scumbag.<br /><br />If you had any balls or courage of your convictions, you would put your name to theses comments instead of posting anonymously (not that it is too difficult to use Google analytics to backtrack your IP address and then trace your name, email, and employer down, but I really don't feel like expending that much effort for a single foolish bigot).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18390041907725949822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-43833889740703359812012-10-03T20:25:44.696-04:002012-10-03T20:25:44.696-04:00Ha, ha - you removed my post noting your failure t...Ha, ha - you removed my post noting your failure to use correct syntax, grammar and words as "racist." Well, then a proud racist I am, you eminent scholar you! I hope you'll grow sweet oranges in the Negev!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-11427764311824346532012-10-03T20:14:04.086-04:002012-10-03T20:14:04.086-04:00This argument is not only bigoted, but it is the s...This argument is not only bigoted, but it is the same trash that the Nazis threw out there to inflame the masses against the Jewish people. Jews are as nationalistic as any other group and the accusation that we are endlessly attempting to take over is a conspiracy theory that smacks of the Illuminati delusions.<br /><br />The only reason why this comment isn't getting blocked for racism is because it bears debunking and there is no effective way to do so without the original comment.<br /><br />P.S. It is no wonder you hide behind the anonymous commenting shield, what with you antisemitism and foolishness.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18390041907725949822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-6584342560154736702012-10-03T20:09:22.729-04:002012-10-03T20:09:22.729-04:00This article is a pure opinion piece and doesn'...This article is a pure opinion piece and doesn't present itself as a scholarly article. I wrote it to suggest an interesting legal ploy that could be used in order to disrupt the ideologically schizophrenic right wing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18390041907725949822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-32573073379363482852012-10-03T20:07:56.914-04:002012-10-03T20:07:56.914-04:00Due to racism, this post has been removed. Due to racism, this post has been removed. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18390041907725949822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-14357341978988512582012-10-03T20:04:46.363-04:002012-10-03T20:04:46.363-04:00The background of the amendment is immaterial beca...The background of the amendment is immaterial because the plain reading of the amendment contradicts these discussions--if everybody who ratified the Amendment thought as Madison, then they would have included such wording in the constitutional amendment rather than the militia qualifier. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18390041907725949822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-68570535599516156032012-10-03T20:02:03.977-04:002012-10-03T20:02:03.977-04:00As the constitution is a framework for the law rat...As the constitution is a framework for the law rather than a complete legal code, such a process is unnecessary -- for example: after the creation of airplanes, there was no need for a constitutional amendment in order to give the government the ability to regulate air travel.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18390041907725949822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-9262569891042208682012-10-03T19:59:56.978-04:002012-10-03T19:59:56.978-04:00While it is possible for future Supreme Court deci...While it is possible for future Supreme Court decisions to reinterpret the law, once the Supreme Court decides upon a case it is considered binding. That means, that for as long as Roe v. Wage isn't overturned by a future ruling, it is the constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment and only overturnable through a constitutional Amendment.<br /><br />As to your Dred Scott analogy: The passage of the 14th Amendment superseded the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision and ensured that it could no longer be used as a precedent; until this happened, the case was the current legal interpretation for the constitution at the time. <br /><br />If you don't like abortion rights or wish to guarantee everybody a universal right to bear arms, you can work towards a constitutional amendment to change the current interpretation of the constitution. Unless this happens, my commentary on this subject is perfectly valid and in line with the current interpretations of our constitutional rights.<br /><br />If you are telling the truth about your past (which is highly unlikely given your lack of knowledge regarding constitutional law), I suggest that you retire--this country can't afford constitutional scholars who have no understanding of the law or how it is changed.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18390041907725949822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-54347304478047519652012-10-03T19:24:10.457-04:002012-10-03T19:24:10.457-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-3831870101740044292012-10-03T19:21:22.717-04:002012-10-03T19:21:22.717-04:00Point 8: It’s probably not easy to admit that the ...Point 8: It’s probably not easy to admit that the guy in the mirror is born with as much junk in your veins as your kind has (in case you wonder, do a little reading on a few “occupiers” of the Soviet Union such as Trotsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev, Kaganaovich, Primakov, Slutsky, Orlov, Zavenyagin, Lyushkov, Yagoda, Reiss, Yakir, Zadov, Krivoshein, Sverdlov, Gamarnik – it’s a little hard to transcribe the names but my Master’s in Slavic Studies helps), but what a personal “triumph of the will” (to reluctantly use the Nazi movie’s title) would it be if you would go away to be amongst your own. The world never forgives the Jews, and whether it’s going to be in the form of slavery, pogroms or a holocaust, the day of reckoning will come again and you people can prevent that this time by retreating to Israel and not allow yourselves to be victims anymore.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-8759307365505891912012-10-03T19:20:25.061-04:002012-10-03T19:20:25.061-04:00Point 7: Being born here does not “make” you an Am...Point 7: Being born here does not “make” you an American in anything but the legal sense and even that’s a tenuous argument (read the Fourteenth Amendment and the requirement to be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”). Millions of Jews thought of themselves as Soviets too and were the spearhead of the Russian communist revolution, the most bloodthirsty of its perpetrators and the most savage of the persecutors of the Russian masses, all of which didn’t save them from being turned against by Stalin because perhaps even him, the “father of the people”, realized that most Jews are not attached to any country or system, but rather seek to place themselves on top regardless and will forever keep themselves from being truly assimilated (see for reference Golda Meir’s appointment as Israel’s ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1948 when thousands of Moscow’s most prominent and Jews greeted her in the streets chanting "Am Yisroel chai", making obvious their allegiance to Israel to the detriment of the Soviet Union).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-42546891701945666472012-10-03T19:19:21.350-04:002012-10-03T19:19:21.350-04:00Point 6: Read the Second Amendment yourself and no...Point 6: Read the Second Amendment yourself and note the use of commas, go to the Virginia constitutional ratification debates and read Madison's comments about what gun rights are for (obviously for defense against government tyranny, which logically cannot then be put in control of the population's access to guns as has already been happening and the further limitation of which you advocate), and if not convinced, the Federalist Papers have some telling pages about it as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-84896154708544110192012-10-03T19:17:05.988-04:002012-10-03T19:17:05.988-04:00Point 5: I had read your "article" - it&...Point 5: I had read your "article" - it's actually too light a read and devoid of any source material to be called an article, it is more of a pamphlet and brings nothing new to the anti-gun rights narrative.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7542525748336276741.post-9136686100452800462012-10-03T19:16:22.449-04:002012-10-03T19:16:22.449-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com