Yes, we agree!
Although for not the same reasons. Let me explain.
The NRA--and its 926, no, 931 trillionty members--and Sarah Palin have endorsed Christine O'Donnell (Repug-DE) for the US Senate in Delaware. This makes me, a partisan Dem, very happy.
You see, these endorsements are a win-win-win situation for yours truly. If O'Donnell knocks off her Repug opponent, Mike Castle, it means the Democrat--Chris Coons--probably doesn't need to campaign; victory is assured. The endorsements also mean the NRA will be tossing its political capital--and its 3,681 eleventyzillion members--to a candidate so flawed and extremist that even GOP media outlets and blogs are campaigning against her. Here's an exerpt from the rightwing Weekly Standard:
O'Donnell, who is now challenging moderate congressman Mike Castle in the September 14 Delaware GOP Senate primary, sought $6.95 million in damages. In a court complaint, she extensively detailed the "mental anguish" she suffered after allegedly being demoted and fired because of her gender. And, although she didn't have a bachelor's degree until this year, O'Donnell implied she was taking master's degree classes at Princeton University in 2003.
Meanwhile, I get to get to have a blast noting the NRA--and its 6110 septuallion members--threw their awesommmme political clout behind a candidate who:
1) Tried to sue a conservative 'think tank' for nearly $7M smackeroos;
2) Repeated lied about her educational credentials;
3) Called her Repug opponent "secretly gay;"
4) Stated masturbation is wrong and that looking at porn is equivalent to cheating on ones spouse;
5) Claimed she won two DE counties in a 2008 race against Joe Biden when she won none;
6) Has financial difficulties that include liens and foreclosures; and
7) Stiffed 2008 campaign workers on salaries and expenses.
Mike, please ping me: robertfarago1@gmail.com. I'd like to speak with you.
ReplyDeleteO'Donnell certainly has a steep hill to climb, and I find many of her non-gun-related positions to be more than a little odd. Still, ousting anti-gun extremist "Republican" Mike Castle is worth it, even at the expense of just handing the seat to Coons.
ReplyDeleteSure, I have little doubt that Coons is as much of a gun prohibitionist jerkweed as Castle is (although I haven't found anything about Coons' views on private gun ownership--anybody else?), but purging such haters of liberty from the Republican Party is well worth the cost of a less drastic Republican Party gain in November.
The continual use of expressions like "such haters of liberty" to describe gun control folks isn't right. Associating gun control with anti-rights and anti-freedom is attempting to paint an unrealistic picture.
ReplyDeleteThese "haters of liberty" feel that you and your gun friends are preventing folks from being truly free. You're so obsessed with the slim possibility of a bad buy climbing in your window in the night that you purposely blind yourself to the tremendous downside of all that freedom and liberty, thereby baking us all less free.
"These "haters of liberty" feel that you and your gun friends are preventing folks from being truly free"
ReplyDeleteHow? Are we demanding that they wear weapons? Are we forcing them to own a gun when they choose not to?
"You're so obsessed with the slim possibility of a bad buy climbing in your window in the night..."
I don't recall anyone making that "obsession" public.
"...that you purposely blind yourself to the tremendous downside of all that freedom and liberty, thereby baking us all less free."
Again, how? The only downside of freedom is that there is no 'security,' at least from the statist point of view. But as Ben Franklin pointed out, those that would give up essential liberty to obtain a little security will get neither liberty nor security.
So, again, I ask, how do we make you less free by demanding our rights be recognized?
Anonymous asks "How?"
ReplyDeleteYou (all you legitimate gun owners) keep letting your guns slip into the criminal world. You make theft too easy for the thieves and you make too many improper transfers, you lend your guns out and give them away to friends and relatives who in turn give them to criminals.
That's how. And let's not forget the ones among you (all you legitimate gun owners) who stop being legitimate. Some of you were criminals all along but had never been caught, others among you turn bad for any number of reasons.
Then of course you've got all that resistance to sensible gun laws which would save lives and diminish the cost and damage of gun violence. You (all you legitimate gun owners)with the help of the NRA keep the guns flowing into the criminal world and in the hands of many gun owners who shouldn't have them in the first place.
Does that answer you question?
"You (all you legitimate gun owners) keep letting your guns slip into the criminal world."
ReplyDeleteAt what rate? Evidence? Hard statistical analysis that shows this is happening, and at a rate that results in more deaths, more crime, etc?
"You make theft too easy for the thieves..."
At what rate? Evidence? Hard statistical analysis that shows this is happening, and at a rate that results in more deaths, more crime, etc?
"...and you make too many improper transfers..."
At what rate? Evidence? Hard statistical analysis that shows this is happening, and at a rate that results in more deaths, more crime, etc?
"...you lend your guns out and give them away to friends and relatives who in turn give them to criminals."
At what rate? Evidence? Hard statistical analysis that shows this is happening, and at a rate that results in more deaths, more crime, etc?
So far, all you've got is accusation, supposition and guesses. Where is the evidence that this happens, and and what rate? Is there proof that this is happening at such a rate to cause an increase in crime, shootings, etc?
The same response goes for the "criminals amongst us" argument.
"Then of course you've got all that resistance to sensible gun laws which would save lives and diminish the cost and damage of gun violence."
Ah, yes. "Sensible gun laws." As though anyone who would argue against these laws is being utterly unreasonable, nonsensical, and petty. Maybe we just completely disagree that the laws will do what you say, or in some cases, even if they will do what you say they will, it doens't change the fact that infringing upon our rights is still wrong. Disarming us to stop those who will break the law and hurt people is a morally bankrupt philosophy. It makes as little sense as the gradeschool marm that punishes everyone in the class because little Johnny put a tack on her seat.
Freedom is messy.
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteYou (all you legitimate gun owners) keep letting your guns slip into the criminal world.
I still own every gun I've ever owned, except for one that I gave as a gift to my brother-in-law. None of my guns have ever been stolen (which would, very obviously, be 100% the thief's responsibility, and not mine, anyway), and never sold one (I'm not into shrinking my Arsenal of Liberty). This means that I have proof of the falsity of your statement that "(all [we] legitimate gun owners) keep letting [our] guns slip into the criminal world," because I have an example of one who has not (myself).
Besides, though, you've changed the subject. We weren't talking about your strange notion of "shared responsibility" for "gun violence"--you said we "are preventing folks from being truly free." Even if I didn't find your attempts to blame us for "gun violence" laughable, that would have nothing to do with the even more bizarre notion that we're reducing anyone's freedom.
When someone uses the word "you" (plural), do they necessarily refer to every single member of the group?
ReplyDeleteI hate comparisons, but if someone observes that you Americans are obese, doesn't it mean that a certain percentage of Americans is obese and not that every single one is?
I refer to you, gun owners, in a similar way. You just hate being thought of as part of a group.
Here's another example. Those aliens aboard the UFO seen hovering over Shirley MacLaine's house every once in a while, say to one another, "human beings have two eyes, unlike our own species." Now, these are creatures so advanced that they certainly know there are some people with only one eye, others with none. But their statement is true nonetheless.
In this same intergalactic spirit, I refer to all you gun owners as being the ones who feed the criminals with guns.
Is it your contention, then, that the percentage of humans with zero, one, three, or more eyes is comparable (within, say, an order of magnitude) of the percentage of American gun owners who haven't contributed to "gun flow"?
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, actually, I think that any assertion that "Americans are obese" is overly general. "Many Americans are obese"--fine. "The obesity rate in America is higher than in any other country"--no argument. Your example, though, paints with an offensively broad brush.
I still agree that O'Donnell's candidacy is among the longest of long shots, but I wonder what folks here think of this happy assessment of what November is likely to bring in the state legislatures.
ReplyDeleteIf true, we should get some truly progressive gun laws at the state level over the next couple years.
Of course you're right, I always paint with a broad brush, sometimes an offensive one, and you name names.
ReplyDeleteThanks to the link to that unhappy projection for the mid-terms. I'm just hoping Obama or some other Democrat can hang one the big job for another 4 years and get to replace one or two of those Justices. Then we'll see some truly progressive gun laws.
Of course, I may not be here. I offered a deadline of sorts on another thread, I'm sure you caught it, that eventually I'll admit defeat if given a good enough test of time. A year or three's fluctuation is not nearly good enough.
Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader:
ReplyDeleteI'm just hoping Obama or some other Democrat can hang one the big job for another 4 years and get to replace one or two of those Justices. Then we'll see some truly progressive gun laws.
Well, you're apparently also hoping that there will be one or two (nominally) "conservative" justices retiring or dying within the next four (did you mean six?) years--maybe that will happen, and maybe not.
If it does, then gun rights advocates are likely to take a far more cautious approach to challenging gun laws, so Second Amendment issues simply don't come up at the Supreme Court. Even a "liberal" Supreme Court can't write new laws (although "liberal" judges certainly seem jealous of that power).
Of course, even if you do get your even more draconian gun laws, the hard part is just beginning. You have to enforce them. Got enough body bags? Got enough guts?
We'll see.