Q:The difference being that a speed limit is a restriction on use of a vehicle, not on what vehicle you can own.
Anonymous
Yes, there’s no such thing as a illegal vehicle. Everything is “street legal.” I can strap the engine from a 747 onto a old semi tractor frame and use it for my freeway commute, right?
I hate it when people argue with the metaphor anyway, since it’s just a distraction from the core argument. I’m not as interested in derailing the conversation as you are.
In this case, the question is, “Can you support gun regulations without supporting a blanket ban on all firearms?” And the answer to that is a resounding “yes.”
To take that position and say it’s “anti-gun”… Well, calling that argument “spin” would be charitable.
Q:Not only is your knowledge on firearms negligible at best, but you also look like a fucking homeless man. Why would anyone take your opinions seriously!?
This is the sort of reasoning we’ve all come to expect from the geniuses on #Gunblr; “I don’t like your fashion choices, therefore your points are invalid.”
![The gun lobby’s fine with exceptions to the Second Amendment — and hoping you won’t notice. Something that’s occurred to me about the gun debate is that gun lobby arguments aren’t exactly coherent. They glom onto the Second Amendment phrase “shall not be abridged,” in order to shoot down any regulations at all on firearms. As I’ve already pointed out, they’re absolutely fine with some weapons beingillegal in a civilized society. And the Second doesn’t say “firearms,” it says “arms.” “Arms” means any weapons, not just guns. Yet Dzhokhar Tsarnaev gets charged with using WMD and there isn’t a peep from the NRA. Likewise, we’re not seeing a big push to overturn state laws against switchblades. Clearly, in the way the gun lobby uses the words “rights” and “infringed,” your right to use the arms of your choosing are definitely being infringed — constantly. But I’d also point out that the Second Amendment doesn’t spell out exceptions to who can own a gun. Yet the blood lobby is constantly saying we” need to enforce the laws we have” against possession of firearms by felons and those who’ve been deemed mentally unfit, “We don’t have a gun problem, we have a mental illness problem,” they say. But where in the Second Amendment does it say you can take weapons away from or deny them to certain mentally ill people? I’ll tell you where — nowhere. If the NRA were really as concerned about an unarmed populace being crushed by government (an insane fear in and of itself, ironically), they wouldn’t back this exception. After all, you could just declare an epidemic of mental illness and disarm anyone who gives you any trouble by saying they have “Rightwing Nutjobitus.” It’s no more stupid, ridiculous, and paranoid than any conspiracy theory fantasy about gun registries. I’m not sure what else to say here, other than it points out the hypocrisy of the gun lobby and the gullibility of the fools who believe them. After all, the NRA demands exceptions to the Second Amendment and all the gun nuts repeat everything they say — never realizing that they too are demanding the government carve out exceptions to the Second Amendment. I guess it just shows that gun fetishists just repeat thing like parrots, without giving what they say any thought at all. [photo by bixentro]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/0ce5f06afe8095d91da66f882fde3e9b/tumblr_mlvjxyi2Bo1qfengno1_1280.jpg)
The gun lobby’s fine with exceptions to the Second Amendment — and hoping you won’t notice.
Something that’s occurred to me about the gun debate is that gun lobby arguments aren’t exactly coherent. They glom onto the Second Amendment phrase “shall not be abridged,” in order to shoot down any regulations at all on firearms.
As I’ve already pointed out, they’re absolutely fine with some weapons beingillegal in a civilized society. And the Second doesn’t say “firearms,” it says “arms.” “Arms” means any weapons, not just guns. Yet Dzhokhar Tsarnaev gets charged with using WMD and there isn’t a peep from the NRA. Likewise, we’re not seeing a big push to overturn state laws against switchblades. Clearly, in the way the gun lobby uses the words “rights” and “infringed,” your right to use the arms of your choosing are definitely being infringed — constantly.
But I’d also point out that the Second Amendment doesn’t spell out exceptions to who can own a gun. Yet the blood lobby is constantly saying we” need to enforce the laws we have” against possession of firearms by felons and those who’ve been deemed mentally unfit, “We don’t have a gun problem, we have a mental illness problem,” they say.
But where in the Second Amendment does it say you can take weapons away from or deny them to certain mentally ill people? I’ll tell you where — nowhere. If the NRA were really as concerned about an unarmed populace being crushed by government (an insane fear in and of itself, ironically), they wouldn’t back this exception. After all, you could just declare an epidemic of mental illness and disarm anyone who gives you any trouble by saying they have “Rightwing Nutjobitus.” It’s no more stupid, ridiculous, and paranoid than any conspiracy theory fantasy about gun registries.
I’m not sure what else to say here, other than it points out the hypocrisy of the gun lobby and the gullibility of the fools who believe them. After all, the NRA demands exceptions to the Second Amendment and all the gun nuts repeat everything they say — never realizing that they too are demanding the government carve out exceptions to the Second Amendment.
I guess it just shows that gun fetishists just repeat thing like parrots, without giving what they say any thought at all.
So I’ve seen this spread around facebook and I have 2 things to say:
SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU CRAZY CONSERVATIVES.
-And-
No one is condemning all Americans who own guns. They want to restrict mentally unstable people from getting guns. READ THE FUCKING PROPOSED LEGISLATURE AND MAKE INFORMED GRAPHICS YOU IDIOTS.
Adventures in gun nut “reasoning.”
9/11 resulted in a weapons ban on planes. It’s about the worst example you could possibly pick, because it cuts off your own argument at the knees. No, we didn’t ban Islam after 9/11, we banned weapons — because that made sense, dipwad.
And I’m so sorry that you’d be inconvenienced for a bit by a background check, but we’ve got some kids who’d kind of like to grow up. We think that’s a little more important than your need to get a gun on demand without a moment’s delay. Not everyone believes that buying a gun is always a big five-alarm emergency.
Maybe you’d like to take the time to grow up as well, whiners.
![The stupidest argument you’ll read today. Politico: [The Obama budget] centerpiece is a highly controversial plan to trim Social Security cost-of-living increases — a move one longtime Obama adviser called a “goodwill gesture” to Republicans and liberals decry as a shocking departure from Obama’s 2012 campaign rhetoric, a betrayal that warrants retribution. […] That liberal anger — boiling to a level not seen since the fractious debate over health care reform — serves a tactical purpose for Obama. Taking a page from Bill Clinton’s 1990s playbook, Obama is courting public confrontation with his party’s powerful liberal wing to prove he’s willing to flout party orthodoxy in hopes of reviving the ever-elusive “grand bargain” to set the country on a sustainable fiscal path. […] “We’re not going to have the White House forever, folks. If he doesn’t do this, Paul Ryan is going to do it for us in a few years,” said a longtime Obama aide, referring to the 2012 Republican vice presidential candidate who proposed a sweeping overhaul of Medicare that would replace some benefits with vouchers. Yes, we should rush to hold Republican policy positions because Republicans will eventually take back the White House. By this logic, we should be banning abortion and same-sex marriage, pitching poor families off cliffs, making practicing Islam illegal, instituting the death penalty for undocumented immigrants, and launching an immediate attack on Iran, North Korea and — oh, I don’t know — Canada or someplace. After all, Republicans will just do all this crazy-assed, stupid shit eventually, so it makes absolutely no sense not to go ahead and get it over with now. Let’s just go ahead and privatize Medicare and sell off National Parks, while we’re at it. I mean, it only stands to reason… I realize that this is just spin. But it’s the most idiotic spin I’ve seen in a good, long time — at least, from a Democrat. And that it’s so hard to spin tells you all you need to know about how lousy the underlying policy is.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/89e0c9a963f92d2cba2f0edba85c7c7f/tumblr_ml3nc5gRKP1qfengno1_1280.jpg)
The stupidest argument you’ll read today.
Politico: [The Obama budget] centerpiece is a highly controversial plan to trim Social Security cost-of-living increases — a move one longtime Obama adviser called a “goodwill gesture” to Republicans and liberals decry as a shocking departure from Obama’s 2012 campaign rhetoric, a betrayal that warrants retribution.
[…]
That liberal anger — boiling to a level not seen since the fractious debate over health care reform — serves a tactical purpose for Obama. Taking a page from Bill Clinton’s 1990s playbook, Obama is courting public confrontation with his party’s powerful liberal wing to prove he’s willing to flout party orthodoxy in hopes of reviving the ever-elusive “grand bargain” to set the country on a sustainable fiscal path.
[…]
“We’re not going to have the White House forever, folks. If he doesn’t do this, Paul Ryan is going to do it for us in a few years,” said a longtime Obama aide, referring to the 2012 Republican vice presidential candidate who proposed a sweeping overhaul of Medicare that would replace some benefits with vouchers.
Yes, we should rush to hold Republican policy positions because Republicans will eventually take back the White House. By this logic, we should be banning abortion and same-sex marriage, pitching poor families off cliffs, making practicing Islam illegal, instituting the death penalty for undocumented immigrants, and launching an immediate attack on Iran, North Korea and — oh, I don’t know — Canada or someplace. After all, Republicans will just do all this crazy-assed, stupid shit eventually, so it makes absolutely no sense not to go ahead and get it over with now. Let’s just go ahead and privatize Medicare and sell off National Parks, while we’re at it. I mean, it only stands to reason…
I realize that this is just spin. But it’s the most idiotic spin I’ve seen in a good, long time — at least, from a Democrat.
And that it’s so hard to spin tells you all you need to know about how lousy the underlying policy is.
Yeah, no need to follow my link or anything. After all, a forty year study on national gun trends can’t possibly be more scientific and sound than your anecdotal evidence gained from comparing what you’re hearing in one town today with that one time a year or so ago.
The only way this argument could be weaker is if it contained the words, “This one guy my friend knows says…”
Untraceable, metal-detector-proof guns on demand — who thought this was a good idea again?
Technophiles have been playing around with 3D printing for years, but mostly just to make things like little statues or plastic trinkets. Now, however, it’s possible to print items with the potential to leave more of an impact.
Items like guns, for example.
Such is the goal of Austin, Texas-based Defense Distributed, a company that makes gun parts using 3D printers and publishes the designs online for anyone to download. Now, co-founder Cody Wilson said he has received a federal license to distribute and sell firearms. And last week Wilson also announced he’s trying to raise $100,000 to launch a new search engine called Defcad, which would let people share 3D printing blueprints for things like gun parts.
It’s a thorny subject considering the current debate over gun control in the aftermath of a mass shooting at an elementary school in Newton, Conn., in which 26 people—20 of them children 7 years old and younger—were murdered.
Yet at SXSW Interactive in Austin, Texas, earlier this month, Wilson shared Defense Distributed’s vision for the future—one in which anyone can easily access the technology to print gun parts themselves, so that eventually the 3D printing of firearms will become so advanced and widespread that it will make gun control laws meaningless.
Well no, not “meaningless.” Just because a law’s easy to break doesn’t mean no one is punished for breaking it. Ask anyone who’s ever got a DUI. Getting behind the wheel when you’re hammered is the easiest thing in the world. In fact, there are a bunch of easy to commit crimes, from jaywalking to opportunistic murder — oddly, this hasn’t rendered the laws against these crimes “meaningless.” You could use that printer to print out any number of illegal items, but that doesn’t knock the laws off the books. If it’s illegal to own a certain type of weapon, but you print one out anyway, it’s no different than obtaining it any other way — you’re going to need to get yourself a lawyer if you’re busted with it.
But typical “golly whizbang!” tech magazine hype aside, how stupid is all of this? If I download an episode of Mad Men, I’m public enemy number one. If I download and print out one hundred murder machines without any background checks, I’m freakin’ golden.
America has one seriously fucked up set of priorities.
![Sen. Graham: I need an AR-15 because [insert paranoid fantasy here].
Raw Story:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says that if his family were victims of disasters like Hurricane Katrina then they would need to have military-style AR-15 assault rifles to protect themselves against “armed gangs roaming around neighborhoods.”
During a hearing Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, the South Carolina Republican pressed Attorney General Eric Holder about his support for a proposed assault weapons ban.
“Can you imagine a circumstance where an AR-15 would be a better defense tool than, say, a double-barrel shotgun?” Graham asked. “Let me give you an example, that you have an lawless environment, where you have an natural disaster or some catastrophic event — and those things unfortunately do happen, and law and order breaks down because the police can’t travel, there’s no communication. And there are armed gangs roaming around neighborhoods. Can you imagine a situation where your home happens to be in the crosshairs of this group that a better self-defense weapon may be a semiautomatic AR-15 vs. a double-barrel shotgun?”
Holder pointed out that the senator was “dealing with a hypothetical in a world that doesn’t exist.”
“I’m afraid that world does exist,” Graham insisted. “It existed in New Orleans, to some extent up in Long Island [after Hurricane Sandy], it could exist tomorrow if there’s a cyber attack against country and the power grid goes down and the dams are released and chemical plants are — discharges.”
No, it didn’t exist post-Katrina nor did it exist post-Sandy. The closest thing that I can think of to armed gangs was New Orleans cops using Katrina as cover for a series of racist killings. Somehow, I doubt Lindsey’s got much to worry about on that point. He seems better protected by his skin color than he could ever hope to be by an assault weapon.
The larger problem here is that this use of hypotheticals is completely illogical. You can use a hypothetical to justify anything: “What if a rogue elephant showed up and started stomping on schoolkids and I didn’t have a bazooka to blow it up? Do you want that? Why do you hate innocent children?” When arguments start to turn this way, you know the one doing the arguing is (excuse the expression) out of ammo. This is, quite literally, just making stuff up to defend your position. When that happens, you’ve lost.
Lindsey Graham can’t defend his position on assault weapons. He’s just throwing out horseshit now.
[photo via Secretary of Defense]](http://24.media.tumblr.com/ab9dc851c455fce22054505aa2b6c8ab/tumblr_mj9bvgfKQH1qfengno1_1280.jpg)
Sen. Graham: I need an AR-15 because [insert paranoid fantasy here].
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) says that if his family were victims of disasters like Hurricane Katrina then they would need to have military-style AR-15 assault rifles to protect themselves against “armed gangs roaming around neighborhoods.”
During a hearing Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Wednesday, the South Carolina Republican pressed Attorney General Eric Holder about his support for a proposed assault weapons ban.
“Can you imagine a circumstance where an AR-15 would be a better defense tool than, say, a double-barrel shotgun?” Graham asked. “Let me give you an example, that you have an lawless environment, where you have an natural disaster or some catastrophic event — and those things unfortunately do happen, and law and order breaks down because the police can’t travel, there’s no communication. And there are armed gangs roaming around neighborhoods. Can you imagine a situation where your home happens to be in the crosshairs of this group that a better self-defense weapon may be a semiautomatic AR-15 vs. a double-barrel shotgun?”
Holder pointed out that the senator was “dealing with a hypothetical in a world that doesn’t exist.”
“I’m afraid that world does exist,” Graham insisted. “It existed in New Orleans, to some extent up in Long Island [after Hurricane Sandy], it could exist tomorrow if there’s a cyber attack against country and the power grid goes down and the dams are released and chemical plants are — discharges.”
No, it didn’t exist post-Katrina nor did it exist post-Sandy. The closest thing that I can think of to armed gangs was New Orleans cops using Katrina as cover for a series of racist killings. Somehow, I doubt Lindsey’s got much to worry about on that point. He seems better protected by his skin color than he could ever hope to be by an assault weapon.
The larger problem here is that this use of hypotheticals is completely illogical. You can use a hypothetical to justify anything: “What if a rogue elephant showed up and started stomping on schoolkids and I didn’t have a bazooka to blow it up? Do you want that? Why do you hate innocent children?” When arguments start to turn this way, you know the one doing the arguing is (excuse the expression) out of ammo. This is, quite literally, just making stuff up to defend your position. When that happens, you’ve lost.
Lindsey Graham can’t defend his position on assault weapons. He’s just throwing out horseshit now.
Required reading. Every time I wind up debating some wingnut or gunhumper, at least two of these come up.
