 |
| Three triple decker burgers, please. And super-size 'em |
Remember this: as I've sagely noted, gunloons like to talk about getting tough on crime--more enforcement, longer sentences. But when a (white) gunloon commits a gun crime....well, laws are for other (black, brown) people.
HAHAHAHAHAH!!!
ReplyDeleteCome now, Roy K. your small penis isn't *that* funny.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your basic point: Aitken was in violation of the law and thus deserved to face its consequences. The problem in this case was that the Judge refused to let the jury hear defense claims of extenuating circumstances. In fact, during their deliberations, they asked the judge three times if there WERE any such circumstances. The judge refused to answer.
ReplyDeleteAll Americans, no matter what their color or creed, have the right to mount a proper legal defense. Aitken's case would have dragged on in appeal and, ultimately, have been reversed or retired on this "technicality." Christie did the right albeit highly political thing.
While I agree that you've identified hypocrisy, I implore you to reconsider resorting to name-calling, baseless charges (or racism) and incendiary invective. I understand and appreciate your passion for gun control. I get the "us" vs. "them" dynamic.
But why not engage in a civilized debate? If your cause is just, it can withstand rational examination and critique. Besides, surely you see that there are gun owners who abhor violence as much as you do. Why not explore that common ground? What do you have to lose?
Always wrong; curse; etc.
ReplyDeletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/12/always-correct-gift-etc.html
RF: You omit the fact Aitken opted not to testify on his own behalf during his trial. Instaed, Aitken chose to take his case to the court of public opinion.
ReplyDeleteAs for invective, why is it gunloons are free to engage in such tactics? Even your site serves up the red meat. Why is it the gun control-types have to obey Marquis of Queensbury Rule while gunloons act like it's the WWE.
TS: And where was I wrong?
ReplyDeleteAww, Jadefool, you're being too kind to me. Not only are you continuing the hilarious (if slightly puzzling) "Roy" thing (with a last initial now, too!)--you're even topping it off with the forcible citizen disarmament advocate's desperate "small penis" last resort. If I laugh any louder, I'll scare the rottweiler (who's not the easily frightened type).
ReplyDeleteAnd to think I didn't get you anything for Christmas. I almost feel (a little) bad about that.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Jade: “And where was I wrong?”
ReplyDelete-about Brian Aikin belonging in prison.
-about San Francisco not banning long guns.
-about being six times more likely to be a robbery victim in the US vs. the UK.
-about AK clones being easier to convert than other semi-autos.
-about no one wanting to ban all guns.
-about the IRS knowing everyone’s income.
-about there being no states which don’t issue CCW permits.
-about you never smearing anyone.
-about linoge not posting comments of which he disagrees.
-about Jetliners being safer if the airlines would dismantle and reassemble them between flights.
Anyone want to add to this? This could be fun.
Brian Aitken's only crime was moving to America's septic tank: New Jersey.
ReplyDeleteI believe I sagely told you that this would happen!
ReplyDeleteFurther, expect some of the more draconian laws in that backward, repressive state to fall.
Mark my sage words.
Seriously, this is the best you can muster, Guy? You're not even trying anymore.
ReplyDeleteSince I've been frequenting this blog, I think both sides have been pretty well behaved, with the obvious exceptions of you, Commie and Ban-boy. Notice a theme there? And, so I can save you the time of typing it again, "You should see the comments we delete and blah blah blah blah." Man up and print 'em, or don't even bother with that lame-ass defense.
I wouldn't mind Aitken getting out of jail as long as he'd have to forfeit his natural human right for the rest of his life. He did some very suspicious shit with those guns, putting them back in the truck of the car after they'd been safely moved to the house in Hoboken (or Bayonne or wherever it was). For me that constitutes one strike, and one strike you're out in my book.
ReplyDeleteAbout the name calling and penis jokes, get over it will ya. I'm talking to all you pseudo-indignant pro-gun guys who love to play the victim to Jadegold's attacking style.
My take on it is this. The name calling means nothing. I've deleted some really vicious ones, but gunloon is not like that, so just get over it.
A small penis is a metaphor for psychological inadequacy. That's how it started and only you're insistence on taking it literally and pretending to be upset about it is compromising dialogue.
My belief is that many of you, perhaps most of you are motivated by irrational fear and inadequacy, and that right there makes you unfit.
Mike, that isn't an "attacking" style, it's a just plain insulting style. If the intent of your blog is merely to bad-mouth gun owners, consider yourself successful. If, however, you're looking to spark some interesting dialogue between the sides, you're way off track. If you don't think it's difficult to hold a civilized discussion with someone who starts every sentence with "gunloon," just think how you'd feel if I began all my comments by calling you all "gun KKKontrollers" or something like that.
ReplyDeleteRemember, without us "gunnies" dropping by to offer you guys a good argument (cue Monty Python sketch), your comments section would consist solely of Ban-boy and Commie. Of course, maybe that's your goal after all.
I'm not complaining about Jadefool's puerile, ineffectual attempts at insults--I'm quite enjoying them. The only thing missing from his hilarious outrage over Mr. Aitken's well-deserved freedom is some anguished bleating about "the children!"
ReplyDeleteHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
"I wouldn't mind Aitken getting out of jail as long as he'd have to forfeit his natural human right for the rest of his life."
ReplyDeleteWell then, you should be happy, because that is the case here. Aitken did not recieve a pardon, his sentence was commuted.
Which means his felony conviction still stands.
Colin, I thought we already have a pretty good dialogue over here. It's not as good as some, but it's better than most of the pro-gun blogs which one way or another maintain a nearly unanimous agreement, guys blowing smoke up each other's asses, I like to call it.
ReplyDeleteBesides, Zorro often starts his comment off with a little epithet he invented for me which includes the less than flattering "cheerleader."
I say again, get over it. Quit derailing the discussion into the mundane complaint about Jadegold's namecalling. Please.
"I say again, get over it. Quit derailing the discussion into the mundane complaint about Jadegold's namecalling. Please."
ReplyDeleteAs you delete flames from your comments section---a policy which I practice and support---why do you allow Jade to use them in a post? What do you gain from gutter language and childish name calling?
If you both believe that gun ownership is a form of psycho-sexual compensation, then make the case. Saying so doesn't make it so. Not for anyone who understands and appreciates the process of rational debate.
"You started it!" is only a convincing gambit for children. And not so much for them, either.
Be nice, guys. Name-calling is all The "Sage" One has.
ReplyDeleteWe can't, in good conscience, take that away from him, too.
Christie's action prove he is a far right extremist who supports the gun lobby, and might even support the KKK. I mean really. He releases a gun smuggler, who gets busted for illegal guns, military grade hi capacity machine gun magazines, and cop killer bullets, who just happens to be white enough to be a poster child of the Aryan Nation. If this guy was a man of colour, Christie would've made damn sure he spent his 7 years without a chance of parole.
ReplyDeleteJadegold, bantheNRA and others insisting on playing the race angle in denouncing pro gunners apparently missed the Otis McDonald case. As a matter of law gun ownership was originally incorporated as a great equalizer for newly freed slaves in relation to the heavily armed white land owners and govt. This equal right continues to be championed by gun owners and gun organizations every day.
ReplyDeleteJade: “You omit the fact Aitken opted not to testify on his own behalf during his trial.”
ReplyDeleteTell me again what your big problem is with the 5th amendment? It is a cornerstone of our legal process that not taking the stand shall not be used against the defendant. Laci, back me up on this one. He might listen to you.
Anon: Otis McDonald freely admits the NRA "used" him.
ReplyDeleteTS: First, I reamain correct, it's a gift. Aitken belongs in jail; the fact he isn't doesn't negate my point.
Second, Aitken was under no obligation to testify on his own behalf. But the problem in not doing so is that you can't claim, after the fact, that you weren't allowed to get your side of the story out.
I think BantheNRA touched upon it. Christie is a tough talking politician with big ambitions. What smarter move than to do what he did. Doing the right thing doesn't get you far in that game. But playing up to the NRA and the gun lobby sure does.
ReplyDeleteBantheNRA is correct.
ReplyDeleteImagine if Christie had commuted the sentence of some black guy who had been jailed for a gun offense. Of course, such a thing can't be imagined because if anything, Christie would be ceratin to see if he could get a harsher penalty to show how "tough" he is on crime.
BanTheNRA..
ReplyDeleteIf your stance is so strong, why do you constantly use false information?
I have read your posts here and on other threads where you keep calling hollow points "cop killers", which is a fallacy.
Allow me to try and appeal to you in a logical and intelligent manner..
Take this analogy for example..
What has more pressure per area, the heel of a boot, or the heel of a stiletto?
The same concept applies to bullets. A pointed full metal jacket round will concentrate the same force onto a smaller area than a hollow point which spreads to larger than its original diameter on firing. This concentration of force, along with the point itself, makes it much more likely to penetrate a Kevlar.
Your arguments would hold much more weight if you actually used facts, instead of rumor and folklore. Or, perhaps you believe that Bill Gates will pay you for forwarding an email as well?
Hey, Mikeb...I'm thinking about an article. I think it'll be titled "Robert Farago's Small Penis."
ReplyDeleteWhattya think?
Wow! BantheNRA - way to push all the buttons
ReplyDelete1) Gun loby = KKK ?
2) Cop killer bullets
3) Gun smuggler
4) illegal guns
5) military grade
6) hi capacity machine gun magazines
All of the equipment he owned is legal in about 47 of the 50 states, just not NJ or CA and maybe MA.
Cops actually hollow points. That's because they work.
Hollow point bullets actually expand and do not penetrate armor.
If you actually have something to say, at least get some facts.
What has more pressure per area, the heel of a boot, or the heel of a stiletto?
ReplyDeleteThe same concept applies to bullets. A pointed full metal jacket round will concentrate the same force onto a smaller area than a hollow point which spreads to larger than its original diameter on firing. This concentration of force, along with the point itself, makes it much more likely to penetrate a Kevlar.
Better physics please.
The answer to your flawed analogy is: it depends. The boot heel could exert more pressure depending on the relative velocities.
The fact remains the firearm industry has sought to create rounds and weapons that are deadlier and more destructive.
Jade: “First, I reamain correct, it's a gift. Aitken belongs in jail; the fact he isn't doesn't negate my point.”
ReplyDeleteOK. I’ll accept your point that you believe gun owners should be in jail. You remain correct on that count.
Jade: “Imagine if Christie had commuted the sentence of some black guy who had been jailed for a gun offense. Of course, such a thing can't be imagined because if anything, Christie would be ceratin to see if he could get a harsher penalty to show how "tough" he is on crime.”
We don’t have to “imagine”. Governors pardon criminals of all races without outrage from any particular group. Outrage only happens if the person goes on to murder four cops in a coffee shop. As the “sage one”, where was your outrage when Huckabee commuted Clemmons' sentence?
BanBoy is Mike and Jade's sockpuppet. The fact they post comments telling each other that they are right is pretty creepy actually.
ReplyDeleteI must agree with others that this blog is not the same forum of reasoned discussion that it once was. There were always a few nasty comments on both sides but at least it always had the air of a discussion in spite of it.
Even as hateful and nasty as Laci could be at times, he always tried to make a good argument, wrong or right.
The latest constant name calling for the sake of trolling and plain outright lies is getting old. The BanTheNRA sock puppet is just the icing.
This blog went from one of the few anti-gun blogs that seemed to welcome and even ask for reasoned discourse and discussion into a testimonial to why Jade is banned from so many websites including those that are anti-gun. Mike, the fact that you not only support him in the wanton destruction of your blog but also rally and defend him is baffling. Maybe you should take a look at what the comments, postings and web traffic were like before and after. And why you felt the need for the BanBoy sock-puppet I'll never know.
TS: This is why I remain always correct, gift, etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd you are not.
Did I say all gunowners belong in jail? No. But I do say those who break the law with a gun do.
It's important to remember Christie *commuted* the sentence, he didn't acquit Aitken. That means Aitken is a convicted lawbreaker.
The Clemmons case doesn't support you. As you know, Huckabee pardoned Clemmons (before Clemmons was to kill 4 police) as a sop to his religious right base. Huckabee had done this before in the case of Wayne Dumond.
@Jadegold
ReplyDeleteMy analogy isn't flawed, you are picking at nits.
I assumed that the reader would understand the basics, in an attempt at brevity. Allow me to clarify.
Let's take a full metal jacket round and a hollow point round, of the same bullet weight, loaded in the same casing with the same amount of powder fired from identical weapons traveling at exactly the same velocity.
The full metal jacket round will have more force per area at the point of impact, than the larger area of the hollow point.
Better?
Anon @ 5:10 >
ReplyDeleteWith regards to Otis McDonald, the problem is that his face was not as plastered all over the internet was Aitken's was. The way the 2A extremists handled Aitken, you'd think sliced bread was just invented, but the McDonald case, well, that was just ordinary run of the mill news. I wonder why, oh, Mr. McDonald was black.
Jade: “Did I say all gunowners belong in jail? No. But I do say those who break the law with a gun do.”
ReplyDeleteAh, but you do want laws that make ownership of the gun (in some particular sense) a crime, thus making him a criminal. He did not “break a law with a gun” the law was against having the gun. I am sure you don’t see the distinction. To clarify, I didn’t use the word “all” when I said you believe gun owners should be in jail. You added that.
Jade: “The Clemmons case doesn't support you. As you know, Huckabee pardoned Clemmons (before Clemmons was to kill 4 police) as a sop to his religious right base”
I think you were trying to make a point that white people would be outraged if a white governor would commute the sentence of a black man. Now you are saying he did this as a sop to a right wing Christian base? And it's important to remember Huckabee *commuted* the sentence, he didn't pardon Clemmons. That means Clemmons is a convicted lawbreaker.
TS: Thanks for the mindreading but you remain wrong. I could just as easily say you want criminals to have guns because ..... but that'd be pratcing your kind of psychic ability.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is Aitken was arrested, tried and convicted based on existing laws---not anything I dreamed up or that you imagine I believe in.
Again, Huckabee has a long history of commuting or pardoning those who his religious right masters tell him have found Jeebus. Another good case in point is the Glen Green case.
Jade: “I could just as easily say you want criminals to have guns…”
ReplyDeleteWhat I don’t want is laws where having guns turn someone into a criminal. You don’t have to read my mind to get that.
Jade: “The fact is Aitken was arrested, tried and convicted based on existing laws---not anything I dreamed up or that you imagine I believe in.”
You are taking this stance like the law is always gospel. There are plenty of existing gun laws that you rail against. You and I share the common stance that there are many unjust laws regarding firearms.
Jade: “Again, Huckabee has a long history of commuting or pardoning those who his religious right masters tell him have found Jeebus.”
Sure, but you had this previous point about “imagining” if he were black. Are you dropping that now?
TS: Aitken was convicted of violating existing laws. Not proposed laws. Not laws somebody is thinking about. Not laws you imagine I think about.
ReplyDeleteExisting laws.
Gunloons say we don't need more laws. You say we need better enforcement and tougher sentences.
But when you get waht you ask for, it turns out you really want no laws at all. At least be honest and admit it.
U.S. Constitution, Second Amendment:
ReplyDelete"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"
Gun ownership is legal and the right to own them is part of the very fabric of this great country of ours. So it the right to due process and the right to not testify against yourself.
The police, judge & court violated Aitken's rigths. Clearly.
I have made it pretty clear about the type of laws that I think should not only not be enforced, but repealed. If you are so hung up on “existing laws” being word- never to be questioned- then I presume you have no problem with Arizona’s concealed carry law.
ReplyDeleteExisting laws.
I also presume you have no problem with Arizona authorities stopping every Hispanic looking person on the street and hauling them away if they don’t have papers.
Existing laws.
TS: The difference, of course, being that if I were to violate AZ's existing law(s) in some fashion, I would expect to be prosecuted. I wouldn't violate the laws and then claim I'm a victim because I don't like the law.
ReplyDeleteExisting laws.
Besides, TS, I'm not the one claiming we don't need laws beacuse if we just enforce those we have--everything'll be fine.
ReplyDelete...and what of the existing law that allows for transportation of firearms from one residence to the other, that the Judge supressed?
ReplyDeleteindy: the problem is Aitken wasn't transferring his weapons from one residence to another. He had transferred the weapons from CO to NJ and had taken up residence in NJ.
ReplyDeleteThe clear intent of the law was violated; that is, the purpose of the law permits firearms to be trnsported from residence A to residence B. You can't take up residence at B then transport your guns around in your vehicle.
Kaveman:
ReplyDeleteWell then, you should be happy, because that is the case here. Aitken did not recieve a pardon, his sentence was commuted.
Which means his felony conviction still stands.
But the good guys are still fighting for full restoration of Mr. Aitken's fundamental human rights. I kinda like what his attorney says:
To my knowledge, this is first time in the US a Governor has commuted a prison sentence for a gun charge which was pending an appeal. The fact that the Governor did this extraordinary action speaks volumes to the "peril" of Jersey's gun law and the danger one can face from a judge who stops the jury from even considering the mere slivers of law which allow for legal gun possession in NJ.
If the good guys win, and Aitken's right to lifesaving firepower is restored, I face a potentially fatal laughgasm at the anguished wailing here, but it would be worth it.
Then, the only injustice remaining in this case is the fact that Judge (oos---ex-Judge) Morley isn't hanging from a lamp post.
Jadegold:
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be some dispute on that. He claims he was in the process of moving. One has to wonder, if he wasn't moving, why did the Judge suppress that clause?
If he was not moving, wouldn't the Judge have simply said "it is legal to transfer a weapon when moving, but since Aitken wasn't moving, that does not apply"?
FWM said, "I must agree with others that this blog is not the same forum of reasoned discussion that it once was. There were always a few nasty comments on both sides but at least it always had the air of a discussion in spite of it."
ReplyDeleteIt still has the air of discussion in spite of so much whining and complaining about how we run it. The guys you complain about most, offer far more than insults. They offer opinions that you disagree with. I think that's the real problem. Sooner or later most of you guys get tired of not getting your way.
Let me run this by you, Jadefool's Biggest (Only?) Cheerleader, since you maintain that Mr. Aitken deserves a life sentence of forcible disarmament, for (supposedly) the "crime" of transporting unloaded guns, in locked containers, deep in his trunk, during or shortly after a cross-country move.
ReplyDeleteLet's, for the sake of argument, accept that the move to New Jersey had been completed by the time his car was searched and he was arrested, so he was, technically in violation of NJ's bizarre law.
You, I believe, like to say, "Let's flesh out the story a bit," when you want to use utterly unsubstantiated speculation to support your way of seeing things.
So let me "flesh out the story a bit," and speculate that Mr. Aitken had some doubts about his roommate. Perhaps he drinks too much, abuses drugs, or has anger management problems. Maybe Mr. Aitken feared the consequences of leaving his guns in that guy's reach. In fact, I bet if he had obeyed Jersey law, and left his guns at home, and his roommate had gotten to them and done something terrible, you'd want Aitken thrown in a cage for that, wouldn't you?
Quick Translation of Gunloon-speak:
ReplyDeleteReasoned discussion means gunloons are permitted to spew vitriol and lies while those who oppose them must docilely accept what they say and not disagree.
Guy KKKabot, I can't speak for everyone here, but I've come around for quite awhile and attempted to have a civil, adult, reasonable discussion with you guys. For my efforts, I've been met with nothing but continued derision, personally directed insults and feeble protestations of "you started it / do it worse waaaah."
ReplyDeleteNo more. When you want to grow up and treat me with the respect that I initially offered you two, let me know, and we can resume having a rational discussion. Or, you can start moderating my comments rather than facing them like a man. Either way, I don't really care.
"Anyone want to add to this? This could be fun."
ReplyDelete- about the population of Chicago.
" Doing the right thing doesn't get you far in that game. But playing up to the NRA and the gun lobby sure does."
ReplyDeleteGood thing that in this case playing up the NRA and the gun lobby was the right thing.
Jade, you may think you have nothing to worry about because you don’t own guns, and you are not Hispanic so AZ cops won’t question you, but I don’t believe for a second that you think there isn’t a single unjust law that an innocent victim of the system can be persecuted under. But if you really feel that strongly about “existing laws”, then don’t complain about someone who is following the letter of the law regarding concealed carry and castle doctrine.
ReplyDeleteExisting laws.
Also, your “all or none” attitude is tiresome. You always assume this is what is meant anytime the pro-gun side talks. Examples;
You accuse me not wanting ANY laws because I don’t like this particular law.
When the NRA (not me) says a tagline like “enforce existing laws”- you think that means they support ALL current gun laws. Obviously they have never supported DC and Chicago bans on handguns, though they have been saying that tagline long before Heller.
Yet when you call for a ban on certain types of guns, NOW you get say that doesn’t mean ALL guns… And of course when someone objects to these bans, you again switch back to accusing them of saying you want to ban ALL guns.
“- about the population of Chicago.”
ReplyDeleteAh yes, I heard about that one, but have not personally witnessesed it. Same as the infamous filing of the firing pin.
Indyroadie:
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be some dispute on that. He claims he was in the process of moving. One has to wonder, if he wasn't moving, why did the Judge suppress that clause?
If he was not moving, wouldn't the Judge have simply said "it is legal to transfer a weapon when moving, but since Aitken wasn't moving, that does not apply"?
The answer, of course, is that ex-Judge Morley is a corrupt, agenda-driven hack.
New Jersey should try to shanghai the very Honorable Judge Paula A. Patrick away from Philly.
There is, by the way, nothing to indicate that she is "pro-gun"--just that she is clearly very "anti-due process violation."
That, of course, makes her anathema to the forcible citizen disarmament cheerleaders.
Zorro, That's a good fleshing out, plausible and even possible. It's more or less the opposite of an unspoken supposition, at least I've not said it, that he was on his way to kill his ex because he'd had enough of her bullshit games with the visitation rights.
ReplyDeleteWhatever the truth is, he knew the rules and he broke them. You know what Mickey Rourke said, don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
Colin, Please don't get so righteously upset with us. I realize it gets rough around here sometimes, but there's a lot more going on as far as discussions. You've been a big part of that part and I appreciate it. Don't do what so many others have done before you. They come around for a while, then they get frustrated at not convincing us and they find some pretext for leaving in a huff.
ReplyDeleteIt's not really true what you said. "For my efforts, I've been met with nothing but continued derision, personally directed insults and feeble protestations of "you started it / do it worse waaaah.""
You've been met with a lot more than that. And, for my part, I hope it can continue.
This blog is gold. Thanks for the laughs and head shaking. Since having moved to Cleveland *hangs head* I have witnessed a lot of what the world would use as examples of American stupidity. Thank you for the fun. I shall be back to read again tomorrow. Ah, but you will probably snip this won't you moderator. As read here, you've been said to remove things you don't agree with.
ReplyDeleteMike, don't worry, I'm not going anywhere. I'm just going to quit abiding by the aforementioned "Marquis of Queensbury Rules."
ReplyDeleteSeems to me if he was going to kill his ex, his guns would have been loaded.
ReplyDelete"Hi honey, I am here to kill you, but can you stand still while I load? Thanks!"
Not seeing it :-)
Jug, Actually I don't remove things I disagree with, and besides you didn't say anything.
ReplyDeleteindyroadie, thanks for your comments. I agree he probably wasn't on his way to kill anybody. I was just fleshing it out in the opposite extreme from Zorro.
mike:
ReplyDeleteAh, sorry, read that wrong. mea culpa :-)