Hey, Mikeb--still basking in the glow of "gun control's" epic "victory" with regard to Facebook? This guy seems a lot less impressed.
Why do you think he's such a Negative Nelly?
That was in response to my
I still say it's a major victory, as opposed, let's say, to a statement that no restrictions or limitations will be issued to Facebook users who advertise guns. Just like Starbucks could have gone further, what they did was a major victory for our side. Same with Facebook.
It seems that Facebook really does need to go further.
Should I not hold my breath waiting for you to say "I guess you were right"?
ReplyDeleteYou definitely were right to question my use of "major victory."It doesn't look so major any more.
DeleteI'll accept that as a gracious and humble admission. You've surprised me, Mikeb. Thank you.
DeleteI would be remiss if I did not add that in harboring the belief that you were utterly incapable of such magnanimity, I wronged you--unjustly maligned you. I hope you will accept my apology.
DeleteI don't think Mike is incapable of admitting when we're right, but does still have some issues retaining the memory of concessions like this. I wouldn't be surprised if six months from now he goes back to calling Facebook a "major victory".
DeleteThanks, Kurt. Harvey Keitel's line from Pulp Fiction comes to mind. Follow me?
DeleteDon't worry, TS. The sting of making an unequivocal concession like this one will burn in my memory for a good long time, unlike some of those other past instances in which your contrived interpretation added up to a "concession" that only you could see.
Harvey Keitel's line from Pulp Fiction comes to mind. Follow me?
DeleteI believe I know precisely which line you're referring to, and yeah--I have little doubt that I won't have long to wait before you again call me a "liar" for expressing an entirely subjective opinion that you don't like, but I still owed you the kudos, the thanks, and the apology in this discussion.
“Contrived interpretation”, huh? Ok, Mike, you asked for it…
DeleteHere’s the thread where you conceded:
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2010/11/robert-farago-on-adomas-grigonis.html?showComment=1289058648031&m=1
This is the comment I had that preceded your concession:
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 thier 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.
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.
Here 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".
Then you answered my question with this:
DeleteMikeB: “You're right TS, it's wrong to say "nobody wants to ban all guns." Fine. There have been those who want that and I guess there still are. They are not representative of the gun control movement, however, and certainly they aren't present in the gun control blogging world that I know.
Anonymous, I don't think you're paying attention. "So then you'd be OK with the government banning Blogging?" My whole point in belaboring the definition of "banning" was to say we DON'T want that. As TS rightly pointed out there have been exceptions to it, but my point has been clearly made. I'm not suggesting we ban all guns any more than I would suggest we ban blogging.”
I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to explain how I contrived what seems to be a pretty clear concession out of your comment. Read the whole thread. This all started from Jadegold saying no one wants to ban all guns. I pointed out Prop H in San Francisco. You both said, “nuh uh, it’s not a total gun ban”. I pasted the parts of the bill showing the money line, with links to the entire text of the bill. Then you said, “You're right TS, it's wrong to say "nobody wants to ban all guns.”
Please explain how I misread you, if this was not a concession.
Simple, TS. He had his fingers crossed when he made that concession, so it doesn't count.
DeleteYes, I admitted that it's wrong to say "no one wants to ban all guns." What I have not conceded is that Dianne Feinstein is one of them. Nor have I conceded that a rare and singular voice from the extreme end of the gun control spectrum is representative of the movement, which is exactly what you guys accuse us of. I've been told many times that I harbor those hopes myself and that I'm lying in order to present a more acceptable situation like disarming 50%, only to increase the restrictions afterwards.
DeleteSo, no, I don't concede anything except the very narrow and literal idea that at least one person somewhere has called for total civilian disarmament.
You win again, TS.
What I have not conceded is that Dianne Feinstein is one of them.
DeleteOf course you don't concede that. After all, our only evidence supporting our contention that she wants to ban all guns is that she once . . . banned all guns. Oh, before you get tempted to inexplicably try to refute that point by saying, "But, but, it was only in one city!" as if that changes anything, I'll amend my statement to say that she once banned all guns in every place over which she had authority.
At least one person? This was 57% of the population of San Francisco.
DeleteBut you are admitting that this example is a ban on all guns, correct?
Kurt: “I'll amend my statement to say that she once banned all guns in every place over which she had authority.”
DeleteAnd I’d have a hard time believing that she would treat citizens of- say rural Arkansas with more respect and trust than the citizens of her beloved home town, which happens to strongly align with her liberal politics.
And I’d have a hard time believing that she would treat citizens of- say rural Arkansas with more respect and trust than the citizens of her beloved home town, which happens to strongly align with her liberal politics.
DeleteIndeed, but I made the narrowest, most limited statement possible, to protect Mikeb's delicate sensibilities.
"that she once . . . banned all guns. "
DeleteThis must be an example of how we speak different languages with the same words. I showed quite clearly how she in fact DID NOT ban ALL guns.
I showed quite clearly how she in fact DID NOT ban ALL guns.
DeleteShe banned handguns, rifles, and shotguns. What else is there? Granted, I suppose it's true that she did not ban howitzers or Vulcan anti-aircraft guns, but since those were already banned in San Francisco under other laws before she became mayor, I thought it would be safe to not introduce the extra, superfluous complexity of that qualifier into my statement. My mistake.
What is with your fixation on grandfather clauses meaning it’s not a ban? Maybe I can put this into terms you can understand. If an extremely conservative right-wing politician got a law passed banning all abortions with no exceptions for rape and health of the mother (I’d call it a “total abortion ban”), but included a grandfather clause such that those currently pregnant at the time the law goes into effect can still legally abort their pregnancy- would you say the same things you do here? “Oh, that’s not a ban on abortions. Some people can still get abortions… for a while- it’s not a total ban.” And liberals aren’t supposed to be upset about that?
DeleteTo be clear, when you say "ban 'em sumbitches" you are calling for criminalizing possession of and confiscating toys from children. Because if some kid somewhere got to keep their Lil Ranger cap gun they got from Santa, you wouldn't be using the word "ban".
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/12/modern-toy-guns-aint-what-they-used-to.html?m=1
And if the kid had the toy after the expiration of any amnesty period (assuming Mikeb is willing to be even that generous), he loses the right to own real guns, for life, right, Mikeb?
DeleteDamn, TS--you're good.
:)
DeleteThere couldn’t be an amnesty period. That would make it a “future ban”. And any ban that happens over time is not really a ban either. Mike has made that clear.
DeleteMike has made that clear.
DeletePoint taken. A ban delayed is a ban denied.
A total gun ban is not going to happen. Again you earn the gun loon moniker.
DeleteTS, you're truly bizarre abortion example doesn't work very well. Its ban would be complete withing 9 months. The gun grandfather clause would take 50 or more years.
DeleteLet's not segue into the toy gun argument now. This thread is already a bit cumbersome, don't you thing? I promise to post a toy gun story soon.
Its ban would be complete withing 9 months. The gun grandfather clause would take 50 or more years.
DeleteOK, so whether or not a ban ceases to be a ban with the addition of a grandfather clause depends on how far back the clause goes?
Fine, then--so what's the cutoff? How far back does the grandfather clause have to go back, for a "ban" to be a ban, or to put it another way, how young can Gramps be, without watering down the "ban" into . . . whatever term you approve of for a "ban" that doesn't actually count as a ban by your reckoning? We know 9 months isn't enough, and "50 or more years" is--so how about 20 years? 15? 10? 5? I am not, by the way, trying to restrict you to multiples of five, or even to any given integer of years. If you tell me that the cutoff is at 1 year, 67 days, 4 hours, 26 minutes, and 52.71429863 seconds, that's your choice (and would really make this whole idea only marginally weirder than it was already).
I hope you realize, though, that whatever you choose as the cutoff point, you're making this up from whole cloth, rather than basing it in any way, on anyone's established definition (whether dictionary definition or legal definition) of the word "ban." And yet you accuse us of redefining the word.
I knew you'd say that. Ok, so let's say the abortion exemption is for anyone 18 or older at the time of passage- which is far more generous than our gun ban example where no one is allowed to acquire any new guns or ammunition. This abortion ban then only applied to future generations, so is therefore not a ban according to you. Don't liberals give a crap about future generations?
DeleteBut as Kurt pointed out, you are making up your rules as you go along. So what if the grandfather period is shorter in my abortion ban example. According to you, we can't call it a "total ban" if there is grandfathering, so it would be wrong to say "those people" want to ban all abortions if they proposed a law that way.
Delete"And yet you accuse us of redefining the word."
DeleteNo, Kurt, I'm simply objecting to your flip-flopping with the definition of "ban." Sometimes you mean it in that extreme hysterical way: "total civilian disarmament." Other times you mean any single instance of a prohibited gun. I keep pointing out your sloppy and convenient way of using the word - yours and TS's, that is.
No, Kurt, I'm simply objecting to your flip-flopping with the definition of "ban."
DeleteOh--my mistake. Somehow, I got the silly impression that "you keep finding new ways to define ban" was an accusation that TS was redefining the word "ban."
Sometimes you mean it in that extreme hysterical way: "total civilian disarmament." Other times you mean any single instance of a prohibited gun.
Is it so confusing to you that bans come in varying degrees of severity? A sweeping, all out, total confiscatory ban of all privately owned guns is one kind, and the egregious "ban them sumbitches" approach to toy guns is another.
They're still all bans, though.
Very nice site. I made sure to like them so I can at least look at the pretty pictures. By the way, the ad on the left is from a business, therefor they have an FFL. And I am very happy with my M4.
ReplyDeleteLets look at the caveat on the page,
"Gun sales are regulated in most places. Background checks may be required. Follow all applicable laws at https://fburl.com/16417234.
Description
If you wish to purchase a gun out of your home state, you must contact an authorized dealer in your state to help you and to process the transaction. We are not responsible for content of this page, we are simply a reposting service. USE PAGE AT YOUR OWN RISK!
"[Gun/alcohol/tobacco/adult product] sales are regulated in most places and may be prohibited. Follow all applicable laws. Learn more: fburl.com/16417234."
https://www.facebook.com/GunSellerz
Wanna bet someone at ATF is likely wandering here looking for the types of sales? Or even worse, Facebook?
How is selling a gun on facebook any different than posting an ad in the classifieds, or on the bulletin board at the gun club? Not sure what the objection is...
ReplyDeleteLawProfessor
Finally something from you that I can get with. All of them are wrong for exactly the same reason.
DeleteWell, don't feel too bad, Mikeb--people do still buy and sell guns on Facebook, but Facebook is at least making a diligent effort to prevent sales of gun safes:
ReplyDeleteFacebook’s ban on gun ads has been extended to include efforts to keep arms safe and out of the hands of children, such as trigger locks and safes.
In a move that appeared to contradict Facebook’s bid to promote safety, the Internet giant refused to let the nation’s largest gun dealer advertise safes or vaults over Veterans Day.
Still think Facebook gives a damn about "safety"?
Kurt, there's an entire community on Facebook called Gun safes for sale.
Deletehttps://www.facebook.com/pages/Gun-Safes-for-Sale/201624843196742
I'll stick with my admission earlier in this thread.