The simple meaning is "rigorous; unusually severe or cruel: as in Draconian forms of punishment." Wikipedia has the whole story of Draco, from whom the word comes.
Of all the words misused by the pro-gun crowd this one takes the cake. They call people "liars" for their opinions and they frequently misuse the word "hypocrite," but nothing beats the silly repetition of the word "draconian" when referring to American gun control laws.
We have to use a little common sense to arrive at this conclusion, which I realize is a problem for some of the very offenders, but here goes.
Numerous gun laws, even the oft-vaunted tens of thousands they talk about, are not draconian when they are in large part ineffectual, unenforceable or easily circumvented. Draconian would be severe and cruel. Furthermore, in certain places where there are fairly serious restrictions on guns, driving an hour or two to the neighboring State where laws are lax, makes that a joke. Those so-called draconian laws in places like New Jersey and California are ineffectual because they are easily circumvented.
Requiring background checks on gun transfers is not onerous when you can simply step over to the next booth or car trunk and buy guns without any check at all.
So, why the frequent use of this inappropriate word to describe the situation? Well for one thing, by exaggerating the problem they can more easily resist additional laws which might indeed be effectual. It's the-best-defense-is-a-good-offense mentality. Another reason is that many who use this word are mindlessly repeating what they'd heard from some charismatic pro gun speaker. Maybe Wayne was the first to use it, although I'd bet it predates even him.
Of course, we have to admit, the word is cool. Let's face it when folks quote Latin they seem scholarly, but when they drop a little Greek, they can fantasize about being Oxford Dons or Harvard Fellows. Let's not underestimate the fantastic imaginations of the gun folks.
What's your opinion? Do you agree that it's a bit silly to use the word "draconian" to describe gun laws that obviously don't work?
Please leave a comment.
Mikeb: "Numerous gun laws, even the oft-vaunted tens of thousands they talk about...are in large part ineffectual, unenforceable or easily circumvented."
ReplyDeleteMikeb: "...laws in places like New Jersey and California are ineffectual because they are easily circumvented."
So if more laws that will be "in large part ineffectual, unenforceable or easily circumvented" are proposed, and I point out that such laws would be "in large part ineffectual, unenforceable or easily circumvented" UNLESS more Drac..., er, stricter follow-up laws are also passed, am I unreasonably crying "slippery slope"?
The simple meaning is "rigorous; unusually severe or cruel
ReplyDeleteMikeb: Numerous gun laws, even the oft-vaunted tens of thousands they talk about, are not draconian when they are in large part ineffectual, unenforceable or easily circumvented. Draconian would be severe and cruel.
Mikeb: Do you agree that it's a bit silly to use the word "draconian" to describe gun laws that obviously don't work?
HUH?
Mikeb, you correctly define Draconian as "severe and cruel," and then you incorrectly redefine it as something that works.
Something that fails to achieve the purpose by which it was justified can still be "Draconian" and "severe and cruel" upon those who are affected.
"Severe and cruel" is of course subjective, and you are welcome to argue with gunowners as to whether any particular gun laws are "severe and cruel." But "Draconian" has nothing to do with whether something fails to achieve the purpose by which it was justified. You certanly will find no shortage of gunowners who will agree that many gun laws have failed to achieve the purpose by which they were justified.
I don't think it is a huge deal that a couple of gun bloggers are misusing a word or two. With the way you throw statistics around and make them up out of thin air, it's not exactly like this is some kind of scholarly journal.
ReplyDeleteReally, so numerous laws that would make me a felon for "crimes" that involve my committing no actual harm to either persons or property are not "unusually severe or cruel?"
ReplyDeletein certain places where there are fairly serious restrictions on guns, driving an hour or two to the neighboring State where laws are lax, makes that a joke.
So if Delaware passed a law reinstituting slavery or denying my right to vote that would not be "draconian" because I could drive to another state where the laws didn't infringe upon my rights?
Newsflash. That doesn't help those that LIVE in such states.
Of course the real answer is that gunloons are so insecure--anything and everything is draconian.
ReplyDeleteThink about it; imagine living in a world where you are convinced you are in imminent danger of being raped, assaulted, murdered, etc.. 24/7. That the Government is actively and continually plotting to kill you. That your only hope of being perceived as something approximating a male requires you tote around a firearm.
It's pretty easy to see that when you hold such a worldview, "draconian" would easily apply to the cost of Cheetos going up a nickle.
--JadeGold
MikB: “Numerous gun laws, even the oft-vaunted tens of thousands they talk about, are not draconian when they are in large part ineffectual, unenforceable or easily circumvented.”
ReplyDeleteDC and Chicago’s bans are very effectual at preventing its citizens from owning handguns. It is just ineffectual at crime prevention.
MikeW: “Really, so numerous laws that would make me a felon for "crimes" that involve my committing no actual harm to either persons or property are not "unusually severe or cruel?"”
I was about to post that I would only use the “D word” on Chicago and DC, but MikeW brings up an excellent point. I read an account from a police officer in CA who arrested a gun owner leaving the range after the cop discovered the “bullet button” on his AR-15 was loose. He said he could fix it in 10 seconds, but the cuffs were already on him. Two turns of an Allen wrench would have made it perfectly legal- as it was he was a felon and could lose his gun rights forever. I’d call that “cruel”. How about you, MikeB?
it's not exactly like this is some kind of scholarly journal.
ReplyDeleteAmen, brother.
Why do you assume that the laws of Draco were effective? That says more about you, and your personality than about anyone else.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course "draconian" is now an English word. No knowledge of Greek, ancient, or modern required.
Pull the other leg, it has bells on.
Don Meaker is, of course, semi-retarded.
ReplyDeleteLet us talk a bit about "draconian."
Gunloons believe laws which require gun purchasers to wait 24 hrs are "draconian." Indeed, they believe that a law requiring a background check to buy a gun is "draconian."
Yet, today, we have the state of AZ enacting a law that says a police officer can demand any citizen of that state prove they are US citizens for no other reason than the color of their skin or their accent.
Not a peep from from our white male gunloons.
--JadeGold
Not a peep from from our white male gunloons [sic].
ReplyDeletePerhaps that's because, you stupid, pig-fellating dipshit, this blog is devoted mostly to gun regulation, rather than the efforts to keep foreign invaders out of the country.
"Not a peep from from our white male gunloons."
ReplyDeleteI also don't recall us mentioning smooth or crunchy, boxers or briefs or blondes or brunettes either.
I thought we were discussing silly gun laws Jade? Why would you call someone names for failing to mention something else?
Jade didn't mention Pumpkin Spray that is available from Bath & Body Works, that makes him a white, male loon.
"Yet, today, we have the state of AZ enacting a law that says a police officer can demand any citizen of that state prove they are US citizens for no other reason than the color of their skin or their accent.
ReplyDeleteNot a peep from from our white male gunloons."
So which is it? Can the police demand any citizen prove they are a US citizen or is it only the ones of a certain skin color?
You're getting to the point where you tell so many lies, you can't even keep them straight from one sentence to the next.
In reality, you can't only be questioned on your citizenship status after "lawful contact" with the police.
I suggest you actually go read the legislation, but I doubt it would make a difference. You've been a liar all these years. Why would you change?
Zorro said to jadeGold, "you stupid, pig-fellating dipshit,..."
ReplyDeleteJust curious, why such strong animosity towards JG all of a sudden? I don't think I saw that before from you.
Have you just run out of patience? Do you feel this way about me too?
TS told us about the California gun owner who failed to turn his allen wrench a couple times and became a felon as a result. "I’d call that “cruel”. How about you, MikeB?"
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't say "cruel" as much as "excessive." I'd even call it abuse of power on the part of the cop.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteJust curious, why such strong animosity towards JG all of a sudden? I don't think I saw that before from you.
The disgusting, mendacious libels--inventing "words" like "gunloons," to describe gun rights activists, referring to pro-freedom rally-goers as "domestic terrorists" (multiple times, in quick succession), spewing toxic lies along the lines of "the vast majority" of gun rights activists being racist, ignorant, uneducated, inbred hicks--he's a pernicious fucking liar.
I do apologize for calling him a "stupid, pig-fellating dipshit"--that's an inexcusable insult to stupid, pig-fellating dipshits everywhere.
Have you just run out of patience? Do you feel this way about me too?
You at least go to the trouble of trying to conceal your vitriolic hatred of gun rights advocates under a "kinder, gentler" veneer, the better to maintain your fiction of trying to have a serious discussion about guns, through which a frank exchange of ideas might someday unearth some valuable wisdom.
To my acute embarrassment, I actually believed you about that, for rather a long time. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me 6,798 times, shame on me.
When you repeatedly make utterly ridiculous statements, that are obviously meant to simply provoke reasonable people into choking on their outrage, such as "Because in the enlightened state of California, where all good trends begin, they realize that guns are in fact evil inanimate objects," it becomes (belatedly, in my case) obvious that the outrage you provoke is your entire perverse point.
It's your blog, of course, and your prerogative to be a troll. Despite your dismissal of the "troll" label as being overused to the point of meaninglessness, you are the very definition of the term.
Again, that's your right, but if you were wondering why I've found better ways to spend my time than coming here very often, now you know. I don't flatter myself with the idea that this will entice you to change your behavior, but you asked a question, and I've answered it to the best of my ability.
Zorro, Thanks for a good and honest answer. I can assure you I have a much higher opinion of you than you seem to have of me, but that's life, huh?
ReplyDeleteConsider this though. Quite a number of pro-gun guys came to the point you described so well. They take between a month and a year to do so. Often I suspect it's about not winning. That's not to say I'm winning the argument, but you guys aren't either. I'd describe the discussion over the last year or two as one which is at loggerheads, one which is blocked or stuck, a stalemate if you will. And this is what some of you cannot accept. You must win, or else.
There are a few exceptions, and of course some who have stopped commenting did not do so for this reason. But I believe many have.
Most of you talked of the great benefit of having a forum to make these points for the "fence-sitters." You talked about the casual readers who might be swayed even if I am not. But, eventually you get to the point that you just can't stand not winning.
I'd be sorry to lose you, really. You are one of the best, I've always said that.
he's a pernicious fucking liar.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention he personally attacks anyone and everyone who disagrees with them AND tries to out them.
I'm not the least bit suprised you're best buds with someone as despicable as Jadegold.