An all too common tactic among gunloons is the Hear No Evil, See No Evil defense.It works like this. Suppose I say:
The Hear No Evil defense is:When NRA board members and others in leadership (note: I'm not even talking about the rank and file) engage in racist, misogynistic, and extremist rhetoric, we shouldn't take that as an indictment of its membership?
When the NRA and its leadership says we need assault weapons to overthrow the Government, what should we surmise?
Besides, I'm not sure what rhetoric you're talking about. I know that some of their views can be construed as extremist by some, but I'm unfamiliar with any comments made by NRA leadership that were racist or misogynistic.In order to believe the Hear No Evil Defense, one has to pretend the gunloon has never heard of Ted Nugent, Jeff Cooper, Robert K. Brown, and many others who hold--or have held-- leadership positions in the NRA. We must believe that when the NRA endorses a candidate such as Sharron Angle who proposed using "Second Amendment remedies" on the US Congress that such remedies don't involve guns. When the NRA endorses Allen West (R-FL). are we to assume that when his campaign talks of " if ballots don't work, bullets will"--that it's really not about armed rebellion.
Show me definitive factual proof that the NRA has called for armed rebellion against our lawfully elected leaders, otherwise you fail at constructing a factual argument yet again.
Did the NRA endorse Angle? I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link to their endorsement announcement?
ReplyDeleteJade, time and time again you claim you are “always right, it’s a gift”, and time and time again I refute those claim with verifiable proof that you are wrong. When the logic becomes so insurmountable, you usually just ignore it and post some new attacks on Linoge to bury the thread deeper in the annals of Mike’s blog. Well this time I am calling you out. You say “no one has ever called for a total gun ban”. I present the 2005 SF total gun ban. You say it only covered handguns. I present actual text of the proposition stating that it covers all firearms (and even ammunition). You ignore and move on. So back to the top of the post with this one- I’m reposting my answer so that you can grace us with you explanation of how you remain “always right”:
ReplyDelete(from Robert Farago on Adomas Grigonis)
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-farago-on-adomas-grigonis.html
Jade: "Your analogy is somewhat off since we do ban books."
This cracks me up. So we do "ban" books because we ban some books, but we don't ban guns because we don't ban ALL firearms. Even still, I'll address the "all firearms" below.
jade: "The problem with your argument re SF is that there wasn't a total ban on guns. IOW, you could own certain types of guns--so long as they weren't handguns."
No jade. You are totally wrong. You are confusing this with DC and Chicago's bans which allowed for long guns. SF's ban included long guns with an extra provision on handguns in that it was forbidden to keep the ones you currently and lawfully own. Residents had 90 days in which they could surrender them without compensation to the police for destruction. Keep in mind the CA DOJ has a list of all San Franciscans who obeyed the handgun registration requirement. Name, address, make, model, and serial number of all those handguns which the law made illegal to own. That is exactly the "fantasy" that you guys have been claiming as a paranoid fabrication of gun owners, and if not for a court overriding decision (generated by a lawsuit by those intrepid warriors at the NRA, SAF, et al. who fight for rights of citizens) would have been reality. The only part less DRACONIAN about SF's ban (vs. DC and Chicago) is that a non-resident can legally pass through with a properly stored gun in their car.
Here is the text for the actual proposition in plain clear words for you and MikeB to read:
Section 2. Ban on Sale, Manufacture, Transfer or Distribution of Firearms in the City and County of San Francisco: Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition shall be prohibited.
(cont.)
Section 3. Limiting Handgun Possession in the City and County of San Francisco: Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, no resident of the City and County of San Francisco shall possess any handgun unless required for professional purposes, as enumerated herein. Specifically, and City, state or federal employee carrying out the functions of his or her employment, including but not limited to peace officers as defined by California Penal Code Section 830 et.seq. and animal control officers may possess a handgun. Active members of the United States armed forces or the National Guard and security guards, regularly employed and compensated by a person engaged in any lawful business, while actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment, may also possess handguns. Within 90 days from the effective date of this section, any resident of the City and County of San Francisco may surrender his or her handgun at any district station of the San Francisco Police Department, or to the San Francisco Sheriffs Department without penalty under this section.
ReplyDeleteHere is the link to the full text so you can read it yourself.
http://www.sfcap.org/proposition.htm
By the way, this is the second incarnation of the San Francisco Total Gun Ban. the first was in 1982.
jade, Mike, care to comment? at the least, you can stop saying things like "nobody wants to ban all guns".
Nobody wants to ban all guns. Never has.
ReplyDeleteAlways correct.
Gift.
Unbelievable. Even when faced with irrefutable evidence. Here it is again:
ReplyDeleteSection 2. Ban on Sale, Manufacture, Transfer or Distribution of Firearms in the City and County of San Francisco: Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition shall be prohibited.
What is happening? Ban (they used the word).
What is being banned? All firearms and ammunition.
Where is it being banned? City and County of San Francisco.
Who does it cover? Everyone.
You know what else Jade? The Earth is not 5000 years old and Obama was born in Hawaii. I don’t know what else I can do to convince you.
"Nobody wants to ban all guns. Never has"
ReplyDeleteDid you forget about your queen and Brady poster girl Diane Fienstein?
TS: "No jade. You are totally wrong."
ReplyDeleteC'mon, "totally?"
Yes. Totally.
ReplyDeleteJade stated that books on bombmaking were banned from libraries. So this is obviously impossible. Heck, it even happens in the U.K.
I'm not aware of issues regarding books containing child porn, but it seems libraries defend that too.
Jade is always right. It's a gift.
This:
ReplyDelete""Section 2. Ban on Sale, Manufacture, Transfer or Distribution of Firearms in the City and County of San Francisco
Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, the sale, distribution, transfer and manufacture of all firearms and ammunition shall be prohibited.
"Section 3. Limiting Handgun Possession in the City and County of San Francisco
Within the limits of the City and County of San Francisco, no resident of the City and County of San Francisco shall possess any handgun unless required for professional purposes, as enumerated herein. Specifically, any City, state or federal employee carrying out the functions of his or her government employment, including but not limited to peace officers as defined by California Penal Code Section 830 et. seq. and animal control officers may possess a handgun. Active members of the United States armed forces or the National Guard and security guards, regularly employed and compensated by a person engaged in any lawful business, while actually employed and engaged in protecting and preserving property or life within the scope of his or her employment, may also possess handguns. Within 90 days from the effective date of this Section, any resident of the City and County of San Francisco may surrender his or her handgun at any district station of the San Francisco Police Department, or to the San Francisco Sheriff's Department without penalty under this section."
from here:
http://www.municode.com/content/4201/14140/HTML/ch036a.html
seems like a pretty stupid idea. I do not see, though, that it bans long guns or the procurement of such (along with ammunition) so long as the purchases are made outside of the city/county of San Francisco. IANAL, but the ordinance looks, to my untrained eye, like a difficult one to enforce.
One of the things that I notice from a lot of gunzboyz is that, as Mikeb30200 says, they tend to be dismissive of charges relating to levelled against their heroes and the NRA's (some overlap occurs) public utterances on the issues that Mikeb brings up here. They are also quite happy to pounce on anything said by anyone whom they perceive to be anti-gun (me for example--sorry, boyz, I don't hate the gunz, just the fuckheadz wit gunz) and say that ALL people who are in favor of ANY sort of controls on firearms are EXACTLY the same.
I guess for some folks certainty is not an option, even if being certain has nothing to do with being correct.
That's okay, we don't hate antigun folks--just retarded antigun folks, especially those who cant speak or write in English ("sorry, boyz, I don't hate the gunz, just the fuckheadz wit gunz").
ReplyDeleteDemocommie: “I do not see, though, that it bans long guns or the procurement of such (along with ammunition) so long as the purchases are made outside of the city/county of San Francisco.”
ReplyDeleteBut you can’t bring it back. That is the ban on the transfer of all firearms and ammunition. This applies to handguns as well. SF can’t stop anyone from possessing handguns outside of the city.
I'm aware of that bogus article written by the entirely fair and unbiased group known as VPC (this is hardly how you frame a factual argument: "Scrutiny of many of the members of the NRA's board of directors reveals a picture more akin to Norman Bates than Norman Rockwell") with a couple of weak pieces of supporting evidence that claims Jeff Cooper was a "racist." Their proof is that he had used the term "Nips," which I would submit is a pretty common thing among people of that generation. I know my grandparents said similar things, but I wouldn't have described them as particularly racist. As for the sister cities comment, LA has a large population of illegal immigrants, so saying that it was "formerly occupied by Americans" is a humorous statement of fact; illegal immigrants aren't Americans regardless of race. And if the Nuge uses the "c" word to describe two particular women (Hillary Clinton and SumDude's girlfriend), that hardly qualifies him as misogynistic. He's hardly referring to the entire female gender there. I would have failed many a term paper in college if that was the best supporting evidence I could muster.
ReplyDeleteFinally, for the insurrection bit: the NRA has never called on anyone to fight against our government. They have pointed out that armed revolt is our right as a people, and that the 2nd Amendment is there for the protection of that right--which is why proposed removal of that right is taken with suspicion by many concerned people. You can argue this all you want, but our government (and any government for that matter) exists at the consent of the governed. If the people decide its time for a change, the government better damn well change (see the Declaration of Independence for my proof). In their infinite wisdom, our Founding Fathers designed a system through which this should occur--our process of lawfully electing new leaders. But if a particular individual or branch of government were to decide that it knows better than its citizens and refuses to step out of the way gracefully, then those citizens have the right and the duty to dispose of it violently if necessary. I do not believe our country is at such a point, unless a whole bunch of Dems refuse to leave their positions in our legislative branch this January. Then we'll be having an entirely different discussion. Finally, since the NRA didn't endorse Angle, you fail on facts yet again, Guy.
TS:
ReplyDeleteReally? You know that the law, which does not plainly state what you claim it states means that? Since it never got put to use it's pretty hard to say if it's ambiguous or you're just being disingenuous.
Tennessee Budd:
Oh, I am wounded to the quick by your charge. Would that I were able to carry on discourse in the measured and honeyed tones that your pal, "Anonymous" uses in his comment at 3:48. But that's the real problem,innit? When I talk to people who refer to other people as "cunt" and don't even have the courage to use their gunzboyz blognomens, well, it's just pretty much a waste of time to bother speaking to them at all, much less with any concern for how they view one's command of the language. As far as the rest of the commenters here, the ones whose paranoid fantasies require them to arm up for a trip to the grocery store, their kids pre-school activities or a cuppajoe at Starblasters, they're not "discussing" anything, just painting all NON gunzboyz as sissies, wimps, idiots and liars.
Yeah, I'm gonna get real worked up about how you view my command of the english language or anything else.
Colin:
ReplyDelete"But if a particular individual or branch of government were to decide that it knows better than its citizens and refuses to step out of the way gracefully, then those citizens have the right and the duty to dispose of it violently if necessary."
You're a fucking idiot. And you're talking treason, as much as you like to think otherwise. Read some fucking history, moron.
Sorry democommie, I removed that comment to which you referred. It sounded a lot like kaveman, who by using his blogname gets special scrutiny. As Anonymous, he sometimes succeeds in slipping one past the moderators. Fuck him or whoever it was who wrote it.
ReplyDeleteWay to prove a point, Demo. Dropping the F bomb, saying I'm wrong, and calling me a traitor to boot. You really showed me the error of my ways. Besides failing repeatedly in your usage of the English language, you also are completely unable to construct a coherent argument.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, read the Declaration of Independence. Government is not bigger than the people, it is of the people. When people are ready for the government to change, they typically vote it out and replace it with what they want. All I'm saying is that when that government doesn't abide by those democratic principles, then the people can use whatever means they want to implement a government that represents their wishes. This doesn't apply when your particular party doesn't get voted in, or gets voted out as the case may be. Also, nowhere did I say that we have such a government now, nor did I advocate armed rebellion of any kind. BTW, I'm a historian by degree, and what I said is backed by numerous examples throughout history, in addition to our own War of Independence. Pay attention to what's written and engage your brain before firing off a flippant remark next time.
Democommie: “Really? You know that the law, which does not plainly state what you claim it states means that? Since it never got put to use it's pretty hard to say if it's ambiguous or you're just being disingenuous.”
ReplyDeleteI was here locally in 2005. You can see the prop H thread for a more complete answer.
Regarding The Nuge, let’s not get too upset over a rockstar using foul language. Need I remind everyone that Courtney Love spoke at the million mom march?
ReplyDeleteWay to prove a point, Demo. Dropping the F bomb, saying I'm wrong, and calling me a traitor to boot.
ReplyDeleteProfanity is a crutch for the weak. Democommie proves this with nearly every incoherent comment he leaves. I'm surprised there weren't more Z's in his commentz. The overuse must have broken that key on his keyboard.
I like democommie's profanity and sarcastic mimicking of the way some people talk.
ReplyDeletePlus, he's honest.
I like democommie's profanity and sarcastic mimicking of the way some people talk.
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised. As I said before, profanity is a crutch for the weak. If you can't argue against someone's points, the next best thing is personal attacks. There is a lot of that on this blog.