It's creative ideas like that which make Prof. Lott stand out among gun bloggers. Then presuming his superficial arguments have been convincing, and that contrary to evidence we now believe the president has been pushing for "more gun regulations," he goes on to say this.In fact, Obama allowed the change in regarding the guns in national parks, not because he supported the idea, but because it was a very popular amendment to a bill that he wanted, the “Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009.”
Obama’s push for more gun regulations begs a question he refuses to address. When have any of the laws that he has supported previously reduced crime rates? It would be nice if some in the press, including Dionne, would actually ask whether the previous background check changes reduced crime rates. Yet, again, may be they don’t ask the question because they already know the answer.Talk about creative, talk about innovative, was that a slick way to link to one's own book on Amazon or what?
The fact is, what "they already know" is that "more guns, less crime" is a ridiculous idea that is only supported by biased gun owners desperate for justification.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
If there was an entry in the OED for "Lying-sack-of-shit", John Lott's photo could be used as an example of the type.
ReplyDeleteHere is just one of many stories ignored by Left leaning media outlets such as CBS, NBC and abc, as well as CNN and others;
ReplyDeletehttp://tlinexile.blogspot.com/2011/03/atf-lied-mexicans-died.html
The ATF was buying guns and letting them "walk across" the border. They've been doing it for several years. Because of this practice, a border agent was killed by one of these guns.
As far as I'm concerned...the Second Amendment IS my gun permit, no further documentation is or should be necessary.
Mike
"The fact is, what "they already know" is that "more guns, less crime" is a ridiculous idea that is only supported by biased gun owners desperate for justification."
ReplyDeleteWe/He uses the FBI Statistics. What would you want him to use? The Gun Grabbers use Unicorn sightings and throw out the "children" quote when they can. What else you got?
Please feel free to point me to a book that correctly supports your beliefs.
"It's creative ideas like that which make Prof. Lott stand out among gun bloggers."
ReplyDeleteIt's not a creative idea. It's the truth.
Lott's "seminal" book is based on a "study" conducted and paid for by him? A study for which none of the data is available, none of the subjects or researchers can be found and for which there are no financial records seem to exist? I think in this case, "seminal" might refer to what's on Lott's hands when he's through jerking himself off over his gunz fantasyz.
ReplyDeleteThis:
ReplyDelete"There was not one single question about Wisconsin and the death threats made by union members against government officials. Okay, I know these are special subjects for me and all, but even objectively...right?"
is from that reichwingpieceofshit gunloon website thatmrgguy would like everyone to accept as unbiased, unfiltered truth. Why did I even bother to look?
Well gosh "commie dude", at least we know where you stand, eh? Not once in the several times I've read this blog and the comments section, have I seen you give a cogent argument for "your" side. Everyone else is a "lying-sack-of-shit", to put it in your terms, in every post of yours I've read...why do I waste my time? Perhaps it's because I prefer to live and let live, while progressives like to dictate how others should live. I'm just spreading my truth dude. I'm just not a "fellow traveler" like you and don't believe the government has any business in MY business.
ReplyDeleteTo put it bluntly...if you don't want a gun, then don't buy one. It's as simple as that, but you nor anyone else has the right to tell me or any other person whether or not they may buy whatever kind of gun they want, with the exceptions of articles prohibited under GCA 1968, and I personally think that Act is in contravention to the Second Amendment.
Refute that in a sane and cogent reply if you can.
Mike
Mike, Thanks for you comments. I don't know what the supposedly shabby behaviour of the ATF, which you mentioned in your first comment, has to do with anything.
ReplyDeleteYour criticism of democommie is not wholly appropriate. He gave a pretty concise and legitimate explanation of why many people think John Lott is not credible.
About your extreme understanding of the 2nd Amendment, I'm afraid you and I could not be more diametrically opposed. I feel the 2nd Amendment is not worth the paper it's printed on, that it's totally anachronistic, and has been bastardized over the last 50 years or so to a point of being unrecognizable.
The recent Supreme Court decisions granting some semblance of legitimacy were nothing more than political hack decisions based on party lines and financial interest. And, let's not forget they were by the slimmest possible margin, one single vote.
I would accept your claim that you like guns and you want to have them. That's fair enough. But to convey some sacred meaning to gun ownership based on a document written in the 18th century which was about "A well regulated militia," is just silly.
"based on a document written in the 18th century which was about "A well regulated militia," is just silly."
ReplyDeleteYou lost me, Mike.
This might be my last post here.
You do see where it says Militia in one section, and People in the other, right? For every scholar you can find that says it;s Militia I can find 20 that say it's the people.
If the conservatives had 7 people on the SCOTUS, instead of only 5, would a 7-2 vote change your mind?
You and I can talk regulations and laws, but there is no doubt in my mind that the founders wanted the people to never be disarmed.
You and I can talk regulations and laws, but there is no doubt in my mind that the founders wanted the people to never be disarmed.
ReplyDeleteMarch 21, 2011 12:46 PM
And, by extension, own black people and not allow women or anyone without proppity to vote.
"And, by extension, own black people and not allow women or anyone without proppity to vote."
ReplyDeleteThose issues have been addressed as allowed for in amending the Constitution. All of you in favor of abolishing the 2nd Amendment have a straight forward path to follow - get the Constitution amended to remove the 2nd Amendment. Let me know when you get it on the ballot for a vote.
Jim:
ReplyDeleteYou horse's ass, the right to bear arms had to be ADDED to the original document--to keep the fearful planters from bolting out of the recently formed U.S.
One of the things that folks don't really like to talk about much these days is that the U.S. actually had two civil wars. The first one was fought, concurrently with the war against the British by their tory sympathizers, against those (mostly in the the southern colonies) who were not loyal to the Crown.
Southern treachery against the U.S. is not a novelty.
Dannytheman, Please don't make this your last post here. You're one of the backbones of this blog lately. Besides I like you.
ReplyDeleteDemo - Are you suggesting that the current Amendments to the Constitution do not garner the same power of law as the original document? Again, if you don't like the implications of the 2nd Amendment, then there is a straightforward method for you to change it. It has happened several times in our country's past, including your examples of abolishing slavery and giving all citizens the right to vote. Why try to pass laws that the Supreme Court has already decided were unconstitutional when instead you can simply change the constitution? No Court could say that the Constitution is unconstitutional can it?
ReplyDeleteJim: The point that escapes you is that nothing in the 2A and the recent Heller decision precludes regulation of firearms. Even Fat Tony Scalia wrote this in his opinion.
ReplyDeleteGunloons have to understand the 2A doesn't mean anyone everywhere can have any firearm he wants.
IOW, if *you* don't liike the 2A--you should try to get it removed or amended.
Dannyboy: "More Guns Less Crime" is misleading in that nowhere in Lott's book does he suggest more guns=less crime.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the thesis of Lott's book is that more guns doesn't mean more crime--which is a significant difference from saying more guns means less crime.
I'm always surprised that gunloons who wish to defend Lott haven't actually read Lott's book.
That aside, there's quite a bit wrong with Lott's book in that it employs a survey that very likely never took place or, at the very least, doesn't support what Lott says it does. Additionally, Lott's research has a number of documented coding errors that, when corrected, change the results significantly.
Jade - I am not complaining about the state of the current laws... you are. My suggestion is that instead of trying to implement laws that will be found to be unconstitutional, you should instead focus on your true goal of eliminating the 2nd Amendment. I believe it is Mike that feels the 2nd Amendment is antiquated and no longer needed, so just get it changed/removed.
ReplyDeleteJim: There's no need to repeal or get rid of the 2A--antiquated or not. The law does provide for quite a bit of regulation.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, as much as the NRA is loathe to admit it--there are no groups calling for a total gun ban or anything close to one.
What really ought to worry gunloons are three facts: 1. The SC decisions regarding guns have been 5-4 which indicates there isn't a whole lot of support for your side. Frankly, if Bush Jr. hadn't been selected--Heller would have been 6-3 against you. 2. Public opinion still militates against you. 3. Right now, your only support comes from having to bribe congressmen. As anyone knows, if you have to pay people to be your friends--they probably are really your friends.
Jadegold's right, the real point should be that the 2nd Amendment can be restricted. Scalia said it, which means only the most extreme 3%er-types can bitch about it.
ReplyDeleteI always mention my view of the 2nd Amendment just for fun. I would consider any serious movement to abolish it as extreme as that bunch of nuts over on Sipsey Street.
What I'm really for are common-sense restrictions.
Why don't you just say it Mike B...you want the same restrictions they have in Great Britain where a person can't even own a sporting rifle or fowling piece unless they pay an exorbitant annual tax on it. So only very rich people in GB own any guns at all and no one owns a hand gun. If that's your aim, just say it.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, MrGguy hasn't clue one as to what he's talking about.
ReplyDeleteWhenever gunloons bring up the UK--it's as if they're on acid. They pull out assertions that are plainly made up.
So. mrgguy, Would you care to cite your source for "a person can't even own a sporting rifle or fowling piece unless they pay an exorbitant annual tax on it"
I'll guarantee mrgguy will quote some website run by some gunloon who probably believe fluoridation is a commie plot and not the British Home Office.
My vision of strict gun control would certainly not limit guns to the rich. In fact, under my plan, anybody who now owns guns would continue to do so. But, you'd be constrained to be responsible with them. You couldn't sell them or give them away without ensuring that the recipient was qualified. You couldn't leave the guns lying around for your toddler to play with without going to jail and losing your rights. And so on.
ReplyDeletethatmrgguy, I don't have to ADMIT anything. I'm pretty up front about what I think and would like to see as far as gun control goes.