Because if so, I’m pretty sure I’d vote for him or her.
Because I’ve freaking had it. I’m tired of the comparisons we always hear between the US and every other developed country in the world about gun deaths. I’m tired of the gun lobby always managing to shut down conversations in the wake of whatever the latest tragedy was because that’s never the time to discuss getting rid of guns.
Not control. Getting gøddámņ rid of them. Done. Finished. Overturn the Second Amendment or else add an amendment that requires EVERY gun owner to be in a government regulated militia, which was the point of the dámņëd thing in the first place. I swear, if I ran for President, I would run on that sole platform and see just how much of an organized anti-gun lobby we can get rolling.
UPDATE: 2:58 PM. Just to save us some time from the people who aren’t getting it, I will be taking the unusual step of disemvoweling any further comments that disagree. Just to make it abundantly clear that I’ve stopped giving a dámņ about their opinions. And several blindingly insulting comments, I’ve already trashed.
PAD
• 
You know the politicians in the race will just make the something should be done bleatings and then just drop the whole thing right? There are so many ways some progress could be made on this and it just gets stonewalled every time.
I don’t know if there is a way to fix it all in one go, but certain steps would make the massacres less likely, like mandatory background checks, strict sentences for gun offenses, and an assault weapons ban.
Jim Jefferies US Gun Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzHMFZalsMM
I understand your heartfelt emotion.
Unfortunately, history and the Supreme Court are sided against you.
In this, you are like an anti-abortion activist. Earnest, concerned, frustrated, but unable to get what you want.
It’s far too lengthy to explain the subject here, but I do have some explanatory posts I can refer you to, and I’d be happy to talk by email anytime, or in person at DragonCon, schedule permitting.
Yes, but I don’t give a šhìŧ.
PAD
In fact, let me be more clear: I don’t give a šhìŧ about every counter argument. I don’t give a fûçk. I don’t give a dámņ. I am sick to fûçkìņg God of people like Michael Z. Williamson, whose every photo on Wikipedia has him wielding a gun, giving me cold blooded responses and ignoring the fact that PEOPLE ARE FÙÇKÍNG DYING.
So any pro-gun people who want to respond, let me assure you that YOU ARE WASTING YOUR GØÐÐÃMN TIME BECAUSE I HAVE NO INTEREST IN WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. I am FURIOUS at this country, I am FURIOUS at the people like you whose mindset has a dozen reasons why we need everyone to be armed so we can all fûçkìņg shoot each other. Enough. ENOUGH. SHUT THE FÙÇK UP because I am FÙÇKÍNG SICK OF YOU.
DO YOU GET IT NOW?
PAD
Well I don’t give a šhìŧ about your opinion either sparky and what’s more I think I’ll pass on putting any money in your pocket.
Okay: Who had four hours in the “How long before some idiot declares they’ll stop buying Peter’s work because they don’t like his opinion” pool?
PAD
Firearms account for 2,370 deaths per year, averaged over 14 years (1999 to 2013) per the CDC and the National Center for Health Statistics’ National Vital Statistics System database of mortality reasons listed on death certificates.
Per that same study, motor vehicles account for 2,441 deaths per year.
Poisonings (accidental, intentional and criminal) account for 3,351 deaths on average per year. Same study.
But people aren’t screaming for cars to be banned. Nor are they willing to give up bleach or disinfecting cleaners.
And you’re on the losing end of that argument anyway: See DC v. Heller[1] and McDonald v. Chicago.
My civil, legal and natural rights are not negotiable. You’re arguing like Southern Democrats in 1965. And that’s not going to fly.
[1] I’ll let the Honorable Chief Justice Scalia do my talking on the entire concept that /even/ limiting firearms back to 1791-technology levels would be okay: “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.)”
Have you considered psychiatric help for your hatred of an inanimate object?
Apparently, PAD, you didn’t get the memo that this isn’t your site, but Scott’s!
I can’t say I’m surprised at the hit-and-run posts today.
Peter’s request for an anti-gun candidate is not unreasonable. Ever since Roe v. Wade, the Republicans have had an anti-abortion candidate — no compromise, no middle ground, but the view that abortions should be criminalized and should not occur. The current candidates are falling over themselves over who can be more extreme on the issue (e.g. denying abortions to rape victims).
This position has allowed them to chip away at abortion rights and to restrict access with ridiculous requirements for abortion clinics.
By comparison, gun control advocates are flat-out having their áššëš kicked. They have nothing similar to show for their efforts. Pro-gun control Democrats still have to pose at a rifle range to prove their bonafides.
And fhe result of this coddling is that it is harder to implement common sense gun laws than when Reagan was shot. The Brady Bill would never happen now. The NRA puppets would just say that laws won’t stop gun violence… while proposing laws to prevent abortion.
So, we need full-on “repeal the 2nd amendment” candidates if you want to even see progress. The NRA labels Clinton and Obama as extremists for their moderate positions. When you’re dealing with slime like the NRA, moderation doesn’t register with them.
Unfortunately, history and the Supreme Court are sided against you.
I was going to post that any President would first need Congress to WRITE anti-gun legislation before that President could SIGN the legislation. It would not be enough to elect an “anti-gun” President without an “anti-gun” Congress.
However, Michael’s post reminded me that the next President has a good chance of replacing one or more of these Supreme Court Justices in 2017-21:
Antonin Scalia, age 81-85
Anthony Kennedy, age 81-85
Ruth Bader Ginsberg, age 84-89
Stephen Breyer, age 79-83
Two of these Justices voted for the 5-4 HELLER decision that struck down municipal gun safety regulations, and two voted against.
In that light, yes, the next President absolutely does wield power over future gun legislation, because that President has the power to change our Supreme Court.
BTW, Title 10, USC, Ch 13, Sec 311 defines the militia.
That you don’t like the definition is, unfortunately, of no import.
I’m just going to drop this here
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423183/rant-second-amendment-repeal
After that all I have to say is Molon Labe and who pray tell are you going to get to confiscate all those guns from 80 to 100 million Americans.
It seems like after every mass shooting, the gun enthusiasts come out of the woodwork saying “Gee, if everyone had a gun, this wouldn’t have been so bad, because he would’ve been killed sooner!”
Well, we’ve had two recent incidents (the guys on the train & the guys in Louisiana) where bystanders WITHOUT guns took out the guy with the gun (though admittedly, in the last case, it doesn’t sound like the guy was doing much other than wandering around aimlessly holding the shotgun). And no amount of guns around the newscasters would’ve prevented, or even mitigated, that incident. But maybe, just maybe, if guns were harder to come by, he wouldn’t have had one in the first place.
It doesn’t need people with guns, it needs people willing to step up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCtD3OJ-_Es
It would only require violation of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, probably Seventh, definitely Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution.
No, not seeing a problem with that at all…
And if you think there’s not an organized anti-gun movement, then with all due respect, you haven’t been paying attention for the past, oh, thirty-plus years.
Part of the anti-gun side’s problem is, when this (all the violations of the Bill of Rights required for them to achieve their goals) is pointed out to them, they won’t actually get started doing the work to Amend the Constitution to ALLOW them to try to violate the rights of tens of millions of peaceful, innocent, law-abiding, firearms-owning American citizens who killed no one, shot no one, harmed no one, threatened no one – not yesterday, the day before that, the week before that, the year before that, the decade before that, EVER. They want to skip over that part with all that work, and just… make it happen. Without removing the Constitutional protections of inalienable rights that they want to violate.
And you want to use what to accomplish these violations of the rights of all those people who’ve never done anything more wrong than maybe driving faster than those little white signs say you should, ultimately? Oh right – guns. But THOSE guns are okay, because they’re being held by people with badges, which magically makes things better. Somehow. :rolleyes: Except when you’re (generically speaking, not specifically) up in arms about police brutality and abuse of governmental authority, of course. THEN those guns, and those people with badges, are bad and should be opposed. (By who, if you succeed? Hoping that other government people with guns will shut them down? I wouldn’t hold my breath…)
More guns are in more peoples’ hands than at any time in the past.
And homicide rates are *DOWN FORTY-NINE PERCENT* from their all-time high in the early 90s, according to the FBI’s latest numbers. To levels not seen since the NINETEEN-SIXTIES. Violent crime rates overall are *DOWN MORE THAN FIFTY-ONE PERCENT*, over that same period, according to those same numbers.
Perhaps the problem is not, in fact, the firearms?
Don’t give a šhìŧ. Next.
PAD
Don’t give a šhìŧ that things are better than ever (with regards to violent crime rates in general and homicide rates in particular) in the past FIFTY YEARS?
Don’t give a šhìŧ that the founding legal charter for this country has more than half a dozen outright prohibitions against what you want to do?
Don’t give a šhìŧ that the anti-gun movements that have been around and organized for 30-plus years haven’t gotten off their butts and done ANY of the work necessary to move towards what they claim they want, other than lying about their opponents, what they themselves are seeking to do, what firearms they’re actually talking about, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Don’t give a šhìŧ that we are all of us members of the militia per US Code? Well, I think you’re above the upper age limit for mandatory inclusion, but you get what I’m saying. Incidentally, does that mean that you support us mustering in the local park for 4 hours of small-unit tactics, marksmanship with actual select-fire assault rifles and grenade launchers that we own and bring with us, and assorted other useful training (first aid, improvised construction, etc.), one Saturday a month or something? Cool, I’m in! I could use the practice! (What did you THINK the Founders meant by “well-regulated”? They didn’t mean “bound by laws”, which was not the common usage of the phrase at the time.)
Don’t give a šhìŧ that you’re proposing to violate the rights of tens of millions of peaceful, innocent, law-abiding, firearms-owning American citizens who have done nothing whatsoever to deserve what you would see done to them?
Yeah, that’s telling. And highly disappointing.
Your specious claims that we pro-rights types “don’t care”, that we’re heartless monsters (and all the other libelous assertions so commonly attributed to those who don’t believe that firearms are inherently evil)? They do you no credit. You know they are not true. So why go there? To call people names?
And making critical decisions at a time when emotions are in control of you is *NEVER* a good idea – because you will inevitably fail to consider at least one and probably multiple very important consequences of your choice. Your choice, when you’re doing so for yourself.
You don’t get to do so for me, or for the rest of the tens of millions of peaceful, innocent, law-abiding, firearms-owning American citizens who have done nothing to deserve the violations of our rights you would see inflicted on us.
Yes, I realize that your unwillingness to consider the facts about what you propose will have you responding, “Don’t give a šhìŧ. Next.”
Guess I don’t give a šhìŧ about that. Those facts are *IMPORTANT*. Especially in the face of repeated calls to blindly destroy the rights protected for 325 million (and climbing!) people by the Constitution, when they didn’t do anything wrong.
Still not caring. I mean, you’re obviously not getting that. I don’t. Care. I don’t care about the cold-hearted excuses. I don’t care about the indifference.
I care about the children in school. I care about the newscaster KILLED ON THE AIR. I care about getting rid of the dámņëd guns.
Period.
PAD
Despite having less than five per cent of the world’s population, the United States was home to 31 per cent of the world’s mass shooters (where four or more people were killed) between 1966 and 2012.
That’s more than five times the number of second-place finisher the Philippines.
62 per cent of all school and workplace shootings happened within the U.S.
U.S. ranks first out of 178 countries when it comes to gun ownership. A 2007 survey showed Americans own 88.8 guns per 100 people. Canada ranked 13th, but is not even close to the U.S. with 30.8 guns per 100 people.
(Source: University of Alabama professor Adam Lankford.)
No, not seeing a problem with that at all…
Then you’re the only one. However, spinning up this much over something a few times more likely than being killed by lightning, while doing nothing whatsoever to deal with a far-LARGER problem (the criminals violating multiple existing local, state, and federal laws against all SORTS of things, resulting in a much larger death toll) seems… short-sighted.
And taking all the guns from all the people who aren’t any part of EITHER problem? Well, I’ve already addressed a number of the issues against that.
Move to one of the bastions of unarmed serfs that you apparently worship. There are no private guns in many other çûņŧrìëš… go there. Don’t let the freedom hit you on the ášš on your way out.
Don’t give a šhìŧ. Next.
PAD
You can’t reason with a fanatic.
Seemed to work well in Australia when they acted rationally after 1 mass murder. We are what, number 34,817 and still nothing – besides Wal-Mart deciding it wasn’t making money off of automatic weapons anymore…
Walmart has never sold automatic weapons.
This is a deeply disappointing post to read, coming from an author whose name occupies almost an entire shelf in my home (love the New Frontier series, BTW).
Not your opinion, I disgree but respect that, but your attitude and rudeness towards a fellow author that made a polite and respectful comment. If you treat fellow authors this way, how do you treat your fans?
I will be rude to anyone who doesn’t agree with me on this. It’s that simple.
PAD
Like he doesn’t give a šhìŧ?
PAD’s just using one of the far right’s prime tactic back against them. “If you don’t agree with me then shut up, ’cause I’m not listening to anything you say.”
He was polite and respectful to me, a fan, when I met him at ECCC. He was also very frank and open with his opinions which is something I respect.
I don’t see that being an author gives someone special status though. I understand professional courtesy but that’s in the domain of your profession – this conversation has nothing to do with their jobs.
How about a bit of courtesy and respect for someone with VASTLY more knowledge in the field in question here (firearms and firearms law) than he himself has?
Or the simple civility due any other human being?
No, apparently his righteous emotion trumps all of that. And justifies treating tens of millions of innocent people as though they were criminals, without the bother of actually even CHARGING them with a crime, let alone trying them for it or respecting their Constitutionally-protected rights under most of the Bill of Rights. No, that’s the merest TRIFLE, hardly worthy of consideration!
Eric,
How about a bit of courtesy and respect for someone with VASTLY more knowledge in the field in question here (firearms and firearms law) than he himself has?
In an ideal world, agreed. Of course, in an ideal world PAD also wouldn’t have gotten hordes of abuse for other opinions he’s posted, or for when he discusses things about which he is actually an expert. (I’m not saying that you’ve provided such abuse, BTW … just that I understand his situation.)
Or the simple civility due any other human being?
Look, I’m not saying I agree 100% with the level of fury he’s showing here, though I completely understand it and agree with most of his overall points. But for you to come here, to his site, and start claiming he’s acting inappropriately is, well … a bit lacking in civility.
“But for you to come here, to his site, and start claiming he’s acting inappropriately is, well … a bit lacking in civility.”
He’s calling ME a monster, accusing ME of responsibility for heinous crimes which I have absolutely ZERO connection to or actual responsibility for. He’s proposed punishing ME for actions taken by others, who themselves are already breaking multiple existing local, state, and federal laws. And he’s done so in a public setting, albeit not an especially well-traveled one.
Not feeling that I’ve acted at ALL inappropriately. I’ve not accused him of ANY such crimes or moral failings as he has towards me. I have, on the other hand, pointed out both the legal and Constitutional barriers for what he would see done, and at least some of the inconvenient truths which would accompany said assault on the rights of tens of millions of people who’ve done no wrong whatsoever.
And because I’ve done that, he’s going to disemvowel this, and pretend that it’s because I’m a troll. So be it.
The lack of professional courtesy that he showed to Michael Z. Williamson on this page?
IT’S PAD’S SITE!
What are you people NOT GETTING HERE??
“Courtesy” is “not coming onto someone’s site when they’ve EXPLICITLY STATED this is NOT a debate topic, and trying to debate anyway.” “Courtesy” was thrown out the moment people came onto PAD’S OWN SITE and decided their opinions were so MASSIVELY IMPORTANT that they didn’t have to bother with the niceties of listening to the OWNER OF THE BLOG saying “Hey, we’re not discussing this one. Period.”
If I walk into your house, and you say “Don’t piss on the carpet,” and I decide I’m too fûçkìņg special to listen to you, so I piss on your carpet, are you discourteous if you kick my ášš and chase me out? No, you’re enforcing your rule that you made clear, right from the start, in YOUR OWN SPACE!
Seriously, how the Hëll has the internet completely overwritten people’s sense of courtesy and propriety into arrogance and entitlement. “Oh, it’s digital and I can move freely ANYWHERE, and I’m anonymous, so I can say and do ANYTHING ANYWHERE!!” And when someone stifles that mentality with a few posted rules and a MINOR degree of enforcement (seriously, disemvowling is hilarious), suddenly THEY’RE the rude áššhølë for calling you on your rude áššhølë-ìšhņëšš?!
And before someone throws out the whole “First Amendment” bûllšhìŧ, the First protects yoir freedom of speech FROM THE GOVERNMENT. “The government shall make no law,” et cetera. Private people? Allowed to tell you to STFU all day long. And in one’s own private space, even if public people are allowed in, one is especially allowed to tell you to shut up.
Wanna hear something hilarious? I disagree with PAD. I think he’s oversimplifying, and factually in error on at least one major point. And until this moment, I had no intention of saying a dámņ thing because I RESPECT THAT THIS IS HIS SITE AND HE SAID NOT TO. My opinions are not of consequence to him, I show him respect on his property, to his rules, because that’s the right thing to do. And if you choose NOT to follow his rules, you don’t deserve a polite response in kind just because of some idiot view of “he should be the bigger man, he should be more professional.” That doesn’t excuse your behavior, you should have been acting that way first. THAT’S FÙÇKÍNG COURTESY.
Learn the dámņ difference. And seriously, shut the Hëll up.
“…If I walk into your house, and you say “Don’t piss on the carpet,” and I decide I’m too fûçkìņg special to listen to you, so I piss on your carpet, are you discourteous if you kick my ášš and chase me out? No, you’re enforcing your rule that you made clear, right from the start, in YOUR OWN SPACE!…”
Quick correction: He changed his post to say it wasn’t up for discussion, yet his comments section is still open. It’d be like if he had a bulletin board on his fence, posted a flier for, oh, IDK, “Re-enslave and/or kill all negroes!”, then saw people immediately putting up “Black Lives Matter!” posters, didn’t like that, changed his mind and said “This is not up for debate! I’ll deface your posters!” rather than covering or removing that bulletin board. Sure its his own space, but along with that comes certain assumptions on the part of the audience and public at large. I don’t put a bulletin board on my fence and expect it /not/ to have stuff posted on it. If he has that big a problem with it, rather than defacing peoples comments why not just close and delete this comment section?
Guess what: He made comments in public. Yes, it’s his own patch, but public it is. Either he shows backbone and owns his comments (and the reaction to them) or he decides to continue to act like Hillary Clinton and Lois Lerner, caught doing distasteful things.(Conservatives and small-l-libertarians would say illegal, but this is a blog, not a government, thank whatever you the person reading this comment finds holy that We the People have privately-owned firearms to /keep/ it that way.)
“If he has that big a problem with it, rather than defacing peoples comments why not just close and delete this comment section?”
This is a similar argument to the oft spewed (and equally oblivious) argument of “if you don’t like this country, why don’t you move to another one?”
Because it’s still MY country, and it’s still PAD’s message board, and just as one can bìŧçh about the country however they see fit, PAD can run his board however he likes. He has ZERO obligation to run it how you would or how you think he should. “Either he shows backbone . . .” or he doesn’t give a dámņ how you believe he should do it or what your opinion of his actions are. What’s your point?
And it goes both ways, and is substantially more applicable in reverse: If your opinion is so CLEARLY unwanted here, why are you so dámņ invested in it HERE, specifically? It’s NOT your site, there are plenty of places your opinion would be wanted, why are you bothering? Why are YOU still here? Why are YOU still commenting? Principle? Optimism? Some sense of fair play?
I’ll come back to that.
First, the concept that he changed the post after the fact is irrelevant and disingenuous: on NUMEROUS occasions in the past, he has made clear that he reserves the right to moderate HIS blog in any way he sees fit. Hëll, EVERY BLOG IN EXISTENCE pretty much operates this way. He has, in the past, REPEATEDLY asked people to stay on topic or abide by his view on a topic, or not say certain things, and people BLATANTLY ignore him, and he disemvowels them or tells them off or deletes them or bans them, and there is whining like they’re owed the right to be heard. It’s common knowledge, he’s done it before, he’ll readily do it again, the shock and butthurt that he’s doing it NOW on this topic is ludicrous. “He changed his policy on this topic after the fact!” Not if you’ve ever read any hot-button topic that’s gotten him pìššëd before.
And again . . . so what? He changed his post rules. He can do that. His space.
Secondly, “open to the public” has never meant “say whatever you like.” Everyone knows there are rules of decency in privately owned venues in the real world, even publicly accessible ones. Go to a grocery store and start saying offensive stuff to the manager and see how long that “open to the public” policy applies to you. Or, to further the original analogy, if I have an open house showing, and all the public is welcome to come in, and I say NOT A ÐÃMN WORD about not pìššìņg on my carpet . . . NOBODY PÍSSÊS ON THE CARPET ANYWAY. Because we all already know that’s wrong and rude. It is socially understood that it’s just polite to NOT START SHÍT WITH YOUR HOST. And everyone knows that, even WITHOUT pre-posted rules. But because it’s the internet, that just doesn’t apply to you, does it?
Third, it doesn’t MATTER if the comments he made are public. I have my open house, but on the front lawn, I post a sign saying “FÙÇK OBAMA.” I have no home-owners association and no local ordinance saying that sign can’t be there. What happens? People who disagree don’t go to the open house. No one’s forcing them to be there. Why’s it so important that you be here to call PAD out on his position you disagree with? Why do you feel it’s so absolutely necessary to force an opinion in a place it’s obviously unwanted?
And if people DO go to that open house, and they start šhìŧ, they are asked (and if necessary, forced) to leave. Because it’s STILL PRIVATE PROPERTY, and the property holder has that right. But again, it’s the internet, so you think that doesn’t apply to you, and throw a tantrum when you discover it does.
And finally, you have the gall to argue about the childishness of PAD’s policies while, in the same breath, acting like a petty baby by threatening to “*join as a lifetime member*, *pay for a friend* to do so as well, and then *donate regularly to further their aims*.” Because some writer censored your posts on HIS OWN ÐÃMN WEBSITE and you think it’s so unfair, boo-hoo!!
No, you’re right. It’s not. And no claim has ever been made that it was, or had to be. So why keep railing against an unfair host who has no interest in listening to your brand of “reason?”
The only logical conclusions are hopeless optimism that he’ll listen (and I do emphasize “hopeless,”) or hubris. And knowing the general state of discourse on the internet . . . yeah, hubris. People just have this NEED to have their opinion heard. And no matter how obvious it is that that opinion is unwanted and is going to be blocked out, they just HAVE to say it, and they act all shocked and offended that it happened.
When, again, just a little courtesy from the start . . . like just picking your battles and letting it go and walking away, and we coulda saved all this time and energy instead of shouting into a void.
PAD’s not going to agree with you (or me, for that matter). And I doubt you’re going to hear anything I just said. Argue all you want, I know when to give up the fight. But make no mistake: if someone puts up a provocative sign in their yard, and someone gets offended and starts taking shots at it . . . the one who reacted STILL FIRED FIRST. Same here. PAD may have made an inflammatory statement, but it wasn’t directly aimed at anyone. By responding negatively, directly to PAD, on his property, the respondents shot first. And they’re not entitled to any courtesy as a result.
Let it go. Or keep shouting pointlessly. It’s your time to waste. Just don’t expect any polite discourse in return.
Eric,
He has not called you a monster. He also has not said that you personally are responsible for even a single heinous crime. Nor has he proposed punishing you — he wants rid of the guns, but has said nothing and implied nothing about punishing the owners.
So I’m going to stick with “lacking in civility,” yes.
And as Jay and others have pointed out, you’ve chosen to walk into his house and start an argument he *has* explicitly said he doesn’t want to have. Doesn’t get a lot more lacking in civility than that.
“Eric,
He has not called you a monster. He also has not said that you personally are responsible for even a single heinous crime. Nor has he proposed punishing you — he wants rid of the guns, but has said nothing and implied nothing about punishing the owners.
So I’m going to stick with “lacking in civility,” yes.
And as Jay and others have pointed out, you’ve chosen to walk into his house and start an argument he *has* explicitly said he doesn’t want to have. Doesn’t get a lot more lacking in civility than that.”
Take another look at his OP, sand his first few responses after that. Including his responses to my informing him about (just some of the reasons) why what he wants literally cannot happen in this country. Plenty of unjustifiable venom and namecalling. And that’s BEFORE considering anyone else’s comments. Add to that the fact that he wants to have the government take away my rights when I’ve done no wrong? That would indeed be punishment for crimes I did not commit.
I stand by my assessment.
And he can disemvowel me for bringing facts into the matter or not – I’m frankly a little surprised it hasn’t happened yet. But when someone posts a desire that literally CANNOT HAPPEN for a multitude of reasons physical, moral, and legal, in a public forum and doesn’t close the comments, he’s INVITING comments. And I’ve not done anything but throw out some of the inconvenient truths that render what he would see done in this country impossible to accomplish. While all the Democrat candidates, most of the Republicans, and a few other minor-party candidates qualify as more or less “anti-gun” depending on one’s perspective, NONE of them dares come out as thoroughly anti-gun as he seems to want, because they CAN NOT, regardless of what they may or may not believe. It’s not just political suicide (though it is that), it’s literally ILLEGAL. Violation of civil rights under color of authority is what’s being so casually bruited about – 18USC241 and 242, IIRC. To start with.
When the first step in a struggle is to amend the Constitution to (try to) remove preexisting human rights protected therein for 325 million people and counting, going against HUNDREDS of years of legal precedence, well, that’s a heck of a high bar to clear. And that would be step ONE. Without that, any such discussion is nothing more than pìššìņg into the wind.
I don’t think disemvoweling commenters one disagrees with (or even just shouting them down) helps that at all.
“Eric,
He has not called you a monster. He also has not said that you personally are responsible for even a single heinous crime. Nor has he proposed punishing you — he wants rid of the guns, but has said nothing and implied nothing about punishing the owners.
So I’m going to stick with “lacking in civility,” yes.
And as Jay and others have pointed out, you’ve chosen to walk into his house and start an argument he *has* explicitly said he doesn’t want to have. Doesn’t get a lot more lacking in civility than that.”
Take another look at his OP, sand his first few responses after that. Including his responses to my informing him about (just some of the reasons) why what he wants literally cannot happen in this country. Plenty of unjustifiable venom and namecalling. And that’s BEFORE considering anyone else’s comments. Add to that the fact that he wants to have the government take away my rights when I’ve done no wrong? That would indeed be punishment for crimes I did not commit.
I stand by my assessment.
And he can disemvowel me for bringing facts into the matter or not – I’m frankly a little surprised it hasn’t happened yet. But when someone posts a desire that literally CANNOT HAPPEN for a multitude of reasons physical, moral, and legal, in a public forum and doesn’t close the comments, he’s INVITING comments. And I’ve not done anything but throw out some of the inconvenient truths that render what he would see done in this country impossible to accomplish. While all the Democrat candidates, most of the Republicans, and a few other minor-party candidates qualify as more or less “anti-gun” depending on one’s perspective, NONE of them dares come out as thoroughly anti-gun as he seems to want, because they CAN NOT, regardless of what they may or may not believe. It’s not just political suicide (though it is that), it’s literally ILLEGAL. Violation of civil rights under color of authority is what’s being so casually bruited about – 18USC241 and 242, IIRC. To start with.
When the first step in a struggle is to amend the Constitution to (try to) remove preexisting human rights protected therein for 325 million people and counting, going against HUNDREDS of years of legal precedence, well, that’s a heck of a high bar to clear. And that would be step ONE. Without that, any such discussion is nothing more than pìššìņg into the wind.
I don’t think disemvoweling commenters one disagrees with (or even just shouting them down) helps that at all.
No, he’s really not inviting comment. Since there’s apparently no earthly chance I’ll convince you of that, though, I’ll leave things here.
I agree with you 100%, Peter. A gun is a coward’s weapon, period, and I have no patience for the cowards and fetishists who think they need one.
Because it’s so much nobler and more fair for a 5’nothing, 100-lb woman to have to go hand to hand with a 6’3, 250lb would be rapist. For a grandmother or grandfather to have to go hand to hand with a couple of 20-year old punks intent on knocking them to the ground and taking everything they have, up to and including their lives.
It’s so much better for a gay man to have to get dragged to death behind the truck of a mob of homophobic áššhølëš, rather than to be able to say, NO,” – and make it stick.
That DOES appear to be what you’re saying, Rev.
I remain… unconvinced.
If any of those victims had guns they’re far more likely to have the gun turned on them then successfully defend themselves. Adding guns to those scenarios just makes them more deadly. By the time deadly intent is clear the attacker is so close to the victim they can easily overpower them and take the gun. For your strategy to work every 5’nothing, 100-lb woman would have to assume every 6’3, 250lb who gets within 3 feet of them is a rapist and should be killed. Guns don’t work in close quarters combat for average people. Guns are long-range mass-killing machines. Also this argument is pro-vigilante – hasn’t America moved past vigilantism?
Did you seriously just equate defense against an unjustifiable criminal assault with “vigilateism”?!?
The mind simply boggles…
If it truly were as easy as you seem to think to disarm someone with a firearm, there’d be an awful lot of juggling acts taking place late at night. And it has *NEVER* been that a firearm is some magic wand rendering the bearer instantly safe from all harm. There’s way too much else that comes into play for that to EVER be the case. But in each of the cases I listed, and many others, it is one more defensive option for those who do not deserve to be robbed. To be beaten. To be raped. To be murdered. Those people may choose not to avail themselves of that option – that is their choice.
It is not yours.
My mother has twice been robbed in mall parking lots. Both times, she gave she robber what he wanted, nobody got hurt, and insurance reimbursed her for her losses.
My sister-in-law got woken by a loud thud in the middle of the night while my brother was out of town. She went to the safe and got their gun. When the bedroom door burst open, she shot my 3-year old niece in the shoulder. The girl had gotten out of bed to ask mommy what the noise was. The dog had gotten up on the kitchen table and knocked a stack of books onto the floor.
I stand by my statement.
Because in Eric’s world, guns solve ëvërÿfûçkìņgŧhìņg.
Was the armed private citizen that saved a police officer a coward?
http://www.news9.com/story/29008359/witness-pulled-gun-on-burglary-suspect-who-was-beating-okc-officer
Yes, actually. He stood at a safe distance and made threats. That requires much less courage than actually physically engaging the suspect himself.
This is for the singularly-named Rev. Wulff who wrote
United States Marshals, Special Agents of the FBI, U. S. Secret Service Agents, and U. S. Postal Inspectors all carry firearms in the normal course of their duties. Are they all cowards?
Uniformed U. S. Federal Protective Service officers who stand watch at the entrances to federal office buildings carry firearms in the normal course of their duties. Are they all cowards?
State Highway Patrol and State Police Officers carry firearms in the normal course of their duties. Are they all cowards?
County Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs carry firearms in the normal course of their duties. Are they all cowards?
Municipal police officers carry firearms in the normal course of their duties. Are they all cowards?
United States Marines and Soldiers in the recent difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan carry firearms in the normal course of their duties. Are they all cowards?
Rev. Wulff:
Rodger Wilton Young (April 28, 1918 – July 31, 1943) was a United States Army soldier during World War II. An infantryman, he was killed on the island of New Georgia while helping his platoon withdraw under enemy fire.
Rodger Young was 5’2″ tall, wore thick glasses, was partially deaf and growing moreso, and bore an astounding resemblance to actor Gary Burghoff, who portrayed Cpl. Radar O’Reilly in both the movie and television series M*A*S*H
In his youth, despite his height, he was an athlete and hunter, becoming an expert marksman.
During a high school basketball game he was fouled and slammed headfirst into the floor, permanently damaging his eyesight and hearing. He had to drop out of high school because he couldn’t see the blackboards or hear the teachers. He didn’t think the U. S. Army would accept him for enlistment, so he joined the Ohio National Guard, where he was assigned to Company “B” of the 148th Infantry Regiment, attached to the 37th Infantry Division. Despite his infirmities he was eventually promoted to the rank of Sergeant.
When his National Guard unit was activated for World War II, he deliberately asked that his rank be reduced to Private, because he didn’t want to lead men to their deaths because of his vision and hearing difficulties.
His platoon was on patrol on the island of New Georgia near dusk when they were ambushed by a Japanese machine gun nest on a hill above them 75 yards away. Two men died immediately, Young was wounded. They were pinned down, with no exit possible.
He saw a path which would give him some concealment as he crawled toward the machine gun, firing his rifle as he moved forward. His lieutenant ordered him back, and Pvt. Young was said to have called back “I can’t hear you, Lieutenant, I’m deaf!”
He sustained three more bullet wounds as he advanced, to both legs and an arm, which also shattered his rifle. He continued forward until he was within throwing range, stood up, and even as the machine gun bullets slammed into his face and chest, with his dying breath threw a grenade which killed every man in the nest, saving all the remaining men in his platoon.
He was awarded the Medal of Honor, posthumously, for conspicuous bravery above and beyond the call of duty.
And if the name “Rodger Young” sound familiar, it’s because it is. Rodger Young is the soldier after whom Robert A. Heinlein named Johnny Rico’s troop transport in Starship Troopers.
Was Rodger Young, who carried a firearm, a coward, Rev. Wulff?
David, I personally take it for granted that the Rev. Wulff was not including soldiers and police officers. I have no quarrel with armed, trained men and women fighting to protect the peace and battle for America’s interests, and I doubt the Reverend has any either. No responsible person does. And no sane person would refer to soldiers and cops as cowards and fetishists.
PAD
You’re so afraid of logic your response is to just say you don’t give a šhìŧ. You started this dialog, why not defend your position? Or are you afraid that you really can’t? @ nutters built a bomb in Boston with a pressure cooker, yet I can buy one of those anywhere…..
You are mistaken. I started no dialogue. I made a frank statement. And I have said repeatedly that I’m not interested in the opinions of those who are opposed. YOU are endeavoring to carry on a dialogue that I’ve zero interest in.
Further responses will be disemvoweled.
PAD
If only a pressure cooker had a purpose other than death and destruction…
Unfortunately, the NRA is just too powerful and with all of these deaths they somehow continue to get even more powerful – even being against many actions they used to be in favor of. I can’t see any serious candidate being able to go against them.
“they somehow continue to get even more powerful”
They use fear. Like I said above, it’s a cowards weapon.
Wow, the very definition of facts, critical thought, history, statistics, and the constitution don’t matter because I’ve already made up my mind.
Obviously, banning guns will work, because banning did great things when we had Prohibition, when abortions were illegal, and the war on drugs.
If only those victims in Virginia had thought to put up a “Gun Free Zone” sign, then this tragedy would not have happened. This line of “logic” is what liberals thing is brilliance. Then again, they probably liked the emperor’s new clothes.
This is why I avoid hiring liberals. They like to propose unworkable solutions that just won’t work. And then when it makes things worse, they claim we need more of it.
So your opinion on gun ownership?
Don’t care.
Your plea to do something?
Still don’t care.
Anything you write?
Really don’t care.
Gun control has worked in almost every other country in the world – worked better than America’s easy access to guns by several orders of magnitude.
Not unless (as you clearly understand) you could find someone willing to sponsor repeal of the Second (and Ninth) amendments.
Furthermore, to be successful there, you’d need ratification by 37 states (and more likely 37 states would vote against it).
Finally, there are 350 million firearms in private hands in the United States (including my own). A government gun grab would foment a revolution and the shootings of tens of thousands. Because what ultimately you are advocating is not “gun control” per se but controlling my guns — with your guns.
Seriously, Peter: Could you see me surrendering such an authority to you?
Could you see me surrendering it to Jerry?
You New Yorkers need to get real.
Peter, Peter, language eater,
Had a blog with a deleter
That could slaughter every vowel.
(Sorry, Peter: That’s a foul!)
Against a critic’s stinging hand,
Our Peter wants to hide.
He sticks his head into the sand,
And there it will reside.
He thinks if others cannot see
The words of his detractor,
Then demodonkey thought would be
The only vibrant factor.
But, language is what language does,
And truth is hard to shutter.
Our critic’s words seem harsh because
They make poor Peter stutter!
It’s so, so sad that he’s so bad
When answers he has none;
But, we’ll still try to make him cry,
Because we’re having fun!
“Clever, witty” Robert Crim,
Likes to tease and mock,
All who disagree with him,
And tell him not to talk.
He claims his posts’ evisceration,
Comes from left-wing views,
But he’s too rude to realize,
He hasn’t got a clue.
It’s not about what’s right (or left),
That closed off all debates,
But rather PAD’s right to control,
What’s posted in HIS SPACE!
PAD’s opening was really clear:
“This is just what I think.
My views are not up for debate,
I’ve been pushed to the brink!”
“If discussion is your goal,
Go to another place.
I do not care, so bûggër off,
Just get out of my face!”
But Robert cannot take the hint,
To stifle his strong views.
His POV is SO IMPORTANT,
And now his ego’s bruised.
“You cannot hide, my words are truth!”
He tries to shout and flail,
But ‘gainst Sir Peter’s deafened ear,
He fights to no avail.
“But what about his right to speak?”
Some fail to understand,
The First protects all of his words,
From just the Fed’s strong hand.
The Government can’t silence him,
Although he mocks and teases,
But on PAD’s private message board,
He’ll censor what he pleases.
Crim has a right to speech, it’s true,
And no one’s taking it,
But don’t forgets, we have a right,
To just not give a šhìŧ.
So whine and cry and piss and moan,
About how you’ve been blocked.
PAD’s right to tell you to screw off,
Equals your right to talk.
And as for clever Robert Crim,
Who thinks this all a gas,
Perhaps he’d best remember well,
A clever ášš is still an ášš.
“Seriously, Peter: Could you see me surrendering such an authority to you?
Could you see me surrendering it to Jerry?
“
What’s it like living obsessed with me, Bobby? What’s it like living with me in your head all the time? What’s it like thinking of me so much that you regularly have to throw my name into your posts here even when I have nothing to do with the conversation in some… what… desperate hope that I’ll talk to you?
Ever since I called you out on your lying years ago now, made you look like the ignorant ášš you were, and embarrassed you so badly you sniveled about it for ten or so long postings immediately afterwards where you still couldn’t admit that you were wrong, you’ve been apparently unable to just move on.
Move on, Bobby. I really don’t give two šhìŧš about you, and your mental health would probably improve greatly if you got past it and moved on. Your obsession with me, some guy you don’t even really know, has got to be bad for you at this point.
Let it go, and move on.
Jay needs to work on his meter; Jerry on his manners.
(And both need to work on their reasoning.)
And, if Peter really is serious about using deadly force to confiscate 350 million privately owned firearms in the United States, then by all means: “Fill your hand you son of a bìŧçh!”
I’m in Naples, Florida.
P.S. Everyone knows that the one person on this blog who HABITUALLY calls those who disagree with him “dumb áššëš,” “áššhølëš,” and “fûçkërš” is none other than Jerry Chandler (who would not know truth if it bit him on the leg).
So, if censoring posters for bad manners is the rule of the blog, the first person we ought to shut down is Jerry! That never has happened, which reveals the hypocrisy of so much of what is done here.
Peter:
Do you recall supporting Gov. Cuomo’s effort to boycott Indiana for opposing same-sex marriage?
Do you recall mocking the first person to call for a boycott of your works as a response to your implied threats here?
QED
You are, of course, quite free to behave like a child on your own blog. It is a fact that, in the current political environment (and not just here), discourse is becoming increasingly rare — precisely because of the attitudes you express (the extremists keep driving out the middle and mask with threats and fear any7 possibility of an “outside the box” solution).
This inevitably will doom the democracy (and only the terrorists will benefit from that).
I’ve fought REAL terrorists most of my life, from Saddaam Hussein and the Ayatollah Khomeini to the Symbionese Liberation Army. Indeed, Jerry reminds me most of William Harris, who similarly believes that governments can be used as oppressive instruments as long as he gets to do the oppressing (Harris even employs liberally the same language restricted to words of four letters).
But, my point is that those who’ve dealt with real criminals hardly are deaf to their victims’ protests against the violence. What they recognize beyond that is a fundamental principle of law, which is that criminal laws cannot be enforced safely by injunction. Peter’s gun position essentially is the position of an elitist — he will prevent group “X” from possessing firearms — by threatening group “X” with firearms. That works as long as group “Y” is doing the threatening — and HE is in group “Y.”
Peter knows better than that (he’s Jewish). He KNOWS what can happen when group “Y” becomes group “X,” and group “X” becomes group “Y.”
The Founders knew this too — that’s exactly what had happened in England during the civil war between the Catholics and the Protestants. And, the Founders’ solution was the same one found in the English Bill of Rights — assure that EVERYONE stays armed, as the ultimate guarantee of liberty. That solution DOES risk isolated incidents of horror usually blown out of proportion by the news media, and on one occasion, it led to a war between the States. But, the alternative certainly appears to be much more dangerous — in the final analysis, those First Amendment freedoms Jay seems to belittle are secured by soldiers with rifles slung on their shoulders.
If Peter (or anyone else) really has a better solution, they’re free to state it. So far, however, my own verse has proved more compelling, by mentioning that “answers he has none.” He’s dreaming to believe that he (or anyone he might vote for) can repeal two articles (Two and Nine) of the Bill of Rights, and it’s pure fantasy to think that anyone could collect 350 million privately owned firearms without sparking massive resistance, precisely because of the Hitlerian implications such an attempted confiscation would have.
Peter the Jew needs to take his most recent proposal back to the drawing board and forget about mounting his comic-book charger to attack Florida.
Wow, the gun nuts really came out of the woodwork for this one. Can’t say I’m really surprised. I kind of gave up on the humanity of the pro-gun crowd after the New Town massacre, when I started hearing about how guns aren’t really the problem, it’s the fact that they took prayer out of schools. So, you know, God couldn’t help the children. Hey, what about the shooting in South Carolina, which took place in an actual church?! Pretty sure the liberals hadn’t yet managed to ban prayer there yet. No, there’s no instance of gun violence that couldn’t have been prevented by the presence of even more guns, according to the NRA.
As for finding a true anti-gun politician, I find the prospects very discouraging. You would think you could count on Bernie Sanders, at least, to be reasonable on gun control, but it appears that he’s on the NRA teat, along with every other politician who has even a remote chance of winning. Unfortunately, I think we’re going to have to live with the perpetual threat of gun violence until the youth of this country, who seem to have a lot less love for guns than previous generations, start to have more influence in the political process.
I think the problem is that the NRA is too powerful. We on the sensible-gun-laws side of the fence have many different organisations while the pro-gun extremists have just one large one. We need to put our resources behind ONE organisation that can go toe-to-toe politically with the NRA.
At the moment, Bloomberg’s Everytown is looking like the strongest contender for that. My hope is that it will grow into an umbrella organisation that can represent both your point of view (a blanket ban) and mine (sensible gun laws).
The NRA is composed of two parts, the NRA proper and the NRA-ILA. Aside from them, there are the JPFO, GOA, CCRKBA, LEAA, NSSF, SAF, USSA, TNUSA, PFOA and the NAGR. Then there are various state and local groups (PFOA, (Pennsylvania) NFOA, (Nebraska), GOAL, (Massachusetts)ISRA, (Illinois) ASRPA (Arizona)…
I’m sorry, but I cannot in good conscience, take seriously a group who happens to be majority funded by a person who by example says “Good for me, but not for thee”. (Bloomberg has an armed security detail and likely a concealed handgun permit due to his former occupation of” Mayor of NYC”. In the state and city of New York, no less. (It’s about as rare as a unicorn, those permits) That’s nice for him, but what about the other 99 and twenty nines of a percent of the nation who cannot afford, nor would qualify, for around-the-clock armed bodyguards.) Further, I can’t take seriously a group whose explicit and implicit goals are to deprive people of recognition and protection of their natural rights.
Which is worse, a group of people pooling their money together to get a result, or one person spending their money to have the opposite result applied to the former group? (And if the former, will you be working to outlaw the DNC next?)
People forget that the NRA is composed of like-minded individuals who choose to be members, who choose to fund them, and who choose which way that organization moves.
MDA/EFGS/”whatever group Bloomberg decides to create tomorrow” works towards the opposite, but tell me, do you (or the rank-and-file members) honestly have a say in its goals and how it approaches them?
“Okay: Who had four hours in the “How long before some idiot declares they’ll stop buying Peter’s work because they don’t like his opinion” pool?
PAD”
I strongly disagree with your opinion on this matter and am deeply disappointed with how rude, condescending, and uninformed you are on the subject and unwillingness to even attempt a civil conversation on the subject. If you are not willing to entertain a discussion on the subject, you could ahve simply disabled comments.
However, I am able to not judge an authors work by their personal politics. You write great books that I do enjoy and for that reason, you will always have a spot on my shelf.
And if you ever decide to broaden your horizons, there are plenty of writers and fans that would be more then happy to take you to a range and do their best to ensure that you have a educational and fun day.
Oh, I get that you feel strongly enough on the issue to brook no dissent, but have you considered everyone on the other side of the issue feels just as strongly?
Consider the converse: How would you feel if Uncle Sam decided SF was divisive and subversive, and installed carrier-level deep packet inspection and modification just to disemvowel you as an SF author. What I’m seeing is a basic lack of respect, on your part, for the first two amendments. That’s just un-American.
Don’t you make money on the concept of weapons, through your books? Isn’t that dishonest? Here’s your challenge: Be honest in your convictions and write books without weapons in them.
Disemvowel me if you want, but consider that in doing so, you’re about as bad as the North Koreans and People’s Republic of China.
Nonsense. It’s his blog. He can do what he pleases on it. I don;t think he is making very good points but that’s his call. There are lots of perfectly good people who have some issue that there is absolutely no sense in talking to them about it. They have their feelings and no amount of reason will change them. Trying to do so is pointless at best.
If he shows up on your facebook page with this, have at it but this is his sandbox. North Korea, c’mon.
Yes, because the North Koreans *don’t* stifle dissent and promote the viewpoints of others that agree with theirs nor use their power to advocate the use violent force against their peaceful opposition. As I’ve said, I get that it’s his sandbox. That doesn’t necessarily mean his actions are in line with the tenets of our country. To extend that sandbox analogy a little bit further, He happens to be advocating changing of the rules to our (your, his and my) sandbox through the initiation of what ultimately amounts to violent force. I find such a concept to be repugnant.
I have questions to pose: How does he intend to take my, and the other (anti-gun funded and reported) *estimated* 21% of the country’s, firearms away?
I’ll give a lot of credit to “I will come knock on your door to collect them myself” (I mean, I’ll still tell you to take a long walk off of a short dock) But I’m betting his answer is “I will let the police do it.”
Has he considered the idea that there are gun owners that are less than inclined to submit meekly (or even just as I would likely do; tell you which lake to go jump in) to a confiscation, and that this will, not may, lead to American Civil War #2?
Has he also considered that that anti-gun funded firearm owner (self reported, which I’ll get back to) estimate of 21% is still 66.9 million people, that the number of police and military in the US is much less than that number? Even if 10% of that 66.9 million (roughly 6.7 million) decided to resist violently, they’d still outnumber armed police and military by a vast margin.
Shall I also point out a few other uncomfortable objective realities and truths? Sure: That estimate is based on *self-reported* owners. With the climate of vilification of owners, d’you think people would be more, or less, inclined to self-identify? Second: The 5th Amendment has been roundly held to require just and equitable compensation for takings. The estimated (Manufacturer reported (which private individuals are not (federally) required to do if its a modern self-loading, stocked, firearm with a barrel longer than 16″ and an overall length of at least 26″, among other things, that is, “not NFA applicable”) number of firearms in this country is 270 million. At fair market value, you’re looking at multiple trillions. Can you say “Inflation and bankruptcy”? I knew you could.
Tell me also: If said estimates are correct and we’re a smaller minority than African Americans, why it’s legitimate and conscionable to oppress us?
Now, Does he still want to have them confiscated, or has he come back to reality?
Again, disemvowel me if you must, but know that it’s no better than what you accuse the NRA of doing. (Speaking of which, I’m not a member, nor do I give them money, but if you continue to act so childishly, I will *join as a lifetime member*, *pay for a friend* to do so as well, and then *donate regularly to further their aims*. Your actions can only hurt your cause if you continue down this road.)
You’re right, Bill, but please read my own reply above.
to respond to free speech with more free speech… that’s the way this democracy we live in is supposed to work
http://www.peterdavid.net/2014/09/12/frank-miller-vs-wizard-magazine/
For me, living in a free society isn’t always a comfortable thing, and that’s the part we should appreciate–and often don’t. Just ask all the would-be censors who want certain books, certain comic books, certain TV shows, certain movies, to just go away or, even better, be driven away through means ranging from organized boycotts to legal prosecution. They’re all in favor of free speech, as long as it’s within their comfort zone. Why would anyone want to share any traits, on any level, with people like that? Lack of comfort is what you should be willing to deal with. That’s the price of a free society.
http://www.peterdavid.net/2011/11/01/a-note-of-appreciation/
How can you claim to support free speech when you censor respectful disagreements on you’re own page?
Because it’s his page.
I fully believe in freedom of religion. I also reserve the right to throw feces at the Westboro Baptists if they ever show up on my lawn. Even if they’re just asking for directions.
Rev. Wulff:
Are you saying that my comment (http://i.imgur.com/Pi5S2Za.jpg) was the blog equivalent of the Westboro Baptist Church?
Your experiences on the internet must have been really sheltered.
No, I said that Peter’s right to censor the content on his board is no less hypocritical than my right to do the same on my own property.
However, I do think gun defenders are nearly as reprehensible as the Westboro folks.
Throwing feces at perceived enemies is behavior common among baboons.
You disemvoweled your own words that I quoted back to you. That, sir, takes some chutzpah.
And you are so fûçkìņg obsessed with me that you’re crossposting onto my Facebook page because I’m disemvoweling you here. That sort of bizarre mindset, coupled with armament, is exactly why your side makes so many people nervous.
Don’t bother responding; I will continue to disemvowel you.
PAD
For those who object to Peter’s statement as lacking in logic or factual support, I do not think those words mean what you think they do.
Peter is saying he wants all guns gone.
Any argument based on Constitutionality or legality or political feasibility is irrelevant. Peter is not laying out a path to the future he wants. He is defining the goal. It is not illogical to dismiss these considerations, and it is not a rejection of facts to ignore these considerations. They are not relevant to the point he made.
Any argument based on absolute freedom to do anything, with the rest of us limited to responses after the fact, is an appeal to principles that Peter does not share. Few people do. It is not illogical to reject this absolutist principle.
Any argument based on declining rates of gun deaths is irrelevant because it says nothing about the acceptability of current risks. At most, it says that past levels of risk were even more unacceptable. It is not a rejection of facts to point out that certain statements, even if true (and many of them are not), have no bearing on the question as framed.
Any argument based on civility ignores the conditions Peter laid out. He said, as directly and plainly as one could, that he was not interested in contrary positions and would treat anyone rudely if they insisted on offering such positions (regardless of how civilly they made their points). No one is entitled to insist on their own issues for discussion, their own framing of those issues, and then civility from those they have imposed on in this way.
I happen to think the anti-gun argument can be well defended on the merits, but it was made clear that this is not the forum to have that argument.
And I’m fine with that.
Fine, but Peter DOESN’T want to ban all firearms. His proposal was NOT that we take ALL guns and throw them in the Marianas Trench. His proposal is that the military HE expects to control politically confiscate the guns of those not in the military he plans to control.
But, what happens when some heil-Hitler, socialist-terrorist SOB displaces Peter’s control of the military?
He (of all people) well knows that could happen.
If you wish to live in areas that have a firearm homicide rate about the same or better than in Europe?
Move out of areas controlled by the Democratic Party.
For instance outside of Chicago the rest of the State of Illinois has a firearm homicide rate just a little better then Switzerland
There are murderous individuals in the world.
That has never changed since the first murder, and you are never going to change it.
These people also do not care about laws, so please, tell me what kind of laws will affect criminality without chilling 2nd amemndment guarantees?
How about we start punishing those that would kill in such a terrible manner that it becomes a deterrent?
Oh wait, the bleeding-heart libs that would rather leave us all defenseless against this kind of trash couldn’t have that!
I’ve seen the light on how the anti-gun people and the Democratic Party want that “national conversation on gun control” to proceed. To that end, I and a friend will be joining the NRA. And as a disabled veteran, it won’t cost nearly as much as I thought it would. Which leaves me more to donate to them.
Congratulations, actions have consequences.
According to Fox News, aren’t all Democrats anti-gun?
You know you are in trouble when even the most liberal guy on the ballot can’t find a way to support gun control. And I think we are at the point where if an out and out jihadi did something dreadful – like was attempted last week in Europe – the NRA would actually claim we need more white Christians with guns to prevent such things instead of trying to take away the guns from anyone.
I have given up on any hope of there ever being meaningful gun control in America, and just pray I am never at the receiving end of some crazy or angry person with a totally legal firearm.
Over here in Britain, we are saddened and shocked – but never really surprised – when these horrific events occur. America’s gun laws are absolutely insane. They are a sick joke.
As for the argument that more people should carry guns to stop these tragedies from happening – again, insane. The solution to guns isn’t more guns.
If no-one has a gun, no-one gets shot. How does that sound?
Are we even allowed to say that we respectfully disagree with your opinion here?
Hr, ‘ll sv th ffrt nd dsmvwl mslf.
Peter
I think that several people here are missing your points. First is the fact that this is your personal site and are stating your opinion on your site, so you should not have to defend your opinion if you chose not too. Next is that you are heart sick about all of the lives lost to stupid people playing with guns. I don’t blame you at all. You have known me over twenty years and I have the highest respect for you and other professional writers who help us explore dreams and hopes. Then to see the dreams and hopes of people taken from them and families destroyed because imbeciles can get guns easier than law abiding citizens. It is enough to make a person give into dispare. I see the torment in your words. I am not going to give anyone any information as to where I stand on the 2nd amendment this is not my site and not why I am here right now, but until someone decides enough is enough and stops letting people who under no circumstance should be let near a cap pistol have guns I will listen to people like Peter and actually pray for the best.
What I take to many comments here is that it should be obvious to anyone that humans are not nearly mature/evolved enough a species to have its members run around owning, much less wielding lethal weapons.
We’re never gonna get rid of guns from this country. They’re too far-entrenched. At best you might make it more difficult for people to get them, but get rid of them? I don’t see it happening. Not in the current culture.
Personally, I don’t have an “all or nothing” position on the issue. Yeah, I know, Peter didn’t want to hear from people like me—hëll, the guy is so angry that he’s actually using Wikipedia, for fûçk’s sake!—but there are too many problems with getting rid of guns in their entirety, just as there are too many problems with their current proliferation. I have a friend named John Janelli. When he was in high school, my grandfather, who was a custodian at the time, mentored him, and got him interested in hunting and taxidermy, which is what he does professionally today. It’s how he feeds his family, and his home and workshop are covered with posters on gun safety. He doesn’t believe in killing animals for sport, and has never had a problem, as far as I know, with guns. My late Uncle Tony (my grandfather’s son), also liked to hunt, and he once gave us some deer meat that John Janelli stripped off one of his kills. What happens to men like this in a world where all guns are taken away? What happens to the responsible gun owner who wants to be able to effectively defend his home, who isn’t one of those yahoos who ends up shooting his own son stumbling into the house after dark? There has to be some type of middle ground.
Peter David: I will be rude to anyone who doesn’t agree with me on this. It’s that simple.
Luigi Novi: What if the dissenter is a woman? Should we expect you to start talking about blood coming out of her “whatever”…?
Tim Lynch: But for you to come here, to his site, and start claiming he’s acting inappropriately is, well … a bit lacking in civility.
Luigi Novi: No it isn’t. The fact that it’s his site doesn’t justify unprovoked rudeness.
Jay Field: “’Courtesy’ was thrown out the moment people came onto PAD’S OWN SITE and decided their opinions were so MASSIVELY IMPORTANT that they didn’t have to bother with the niceties of listening to the OWNER OF THE BLOG saying ‘Hey, we’re not discussing this one. Period.’”
Luigi Novi: Where did Peter say this? He simply said he didn’t care about counterarguments; he never said dissenters couldn’t post or that this wasn’t a debate topic. Had that been his position, wouldn’t he have closed the post to comments?
“UPDATE: 2:58 PM. Just to save us some time from the people who aren’t getting it, I will be taking the unusual step of disemvoweling any further comments that disagree. Just to make it abundantly clear that I’ve stopped giving a dámņ about their opinions. And several blindingly insulting comments, I’ve already trashed.”
If that’s not a statement that is clearly, blatantly announcing that no dissent will be tolerated, you and I simply do not share the same grasp of the English language.
No, he never said “dissenters couldn’t post.” He simply said that dissenters’ posts would be phonetically castrated, and egregious examples would be deleted. Which is the same thing as saying “dissenters get to post, but no one is allowed to read it. So no, they can’t really post.”
If someone is going so far as to render all disagreeing posts illegible, and all offensive posts nonexistent, they are denying a debate. Creatively, to be sure, and he’s certainly inviting SUPPORTERS to post (hence the comments are still on), but no, discussion is not welcome. He doesn’t give a dámņ about the other side, and doesn’t want it on his site.
No, I only completely trashed the insulting ones–name calling and the like–which have resulted because I told the other side I didn’t want to hear from them. How dare I? Certainly my anger at seeing children being gunned down and nothing changes, and not wanting to bother with the opposition for the first time in 25 years of this blog, warrants being called a kindergartner, a pussy, a fág, a coward, a dumb kike, etc. (all direct quotes.) The opposing side has, in short, been displaying the exact attitude that says to any sane person, “Oh yeah. This are people I want with unfettered access to weapons of death.”
Understand now?
PAD
Jay Field,
I’ve been coming to this blog off and on, sometimes posting but mostly reading, for more than ten years. In all that time, PAD has been very good about not only tolerating dissent but engaging with the other side. This is the only time I ever remember him putting his opinion out and saying, “if you disagree, I don’t want to hear about it.” So the question is really, is it unreasonable for someone who owns and operates a blog, which is routinely open to debate, to every decade or so post an emotional piece that he doesn’t want to argue over? Does that behavior really look like intolerance of dissent? And if it bothers you so much, why keep coming back?
David Bjorlin:
Uh, perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying.
Yes, I am well aware PAD is typically open for debate. And while I am certain I’ve seen him get upset enough to tell people to stop arguing or posting before now, (though I admit my memory isn’t sharp enough to remember the reasons, so perhaps not specifically on social-political topics as I’d assumed, but I’ve seen the disemvoweler deployed before, it exists for a reason after all) I am well aware he is usually OVERLY tolerant of opposing opinions. I was not saying PAD does not tolerate debate ever. I was saying he wasn’t tolerating it NOW, in this particular case.
And lest it not be perfectly clear (which it apparently WASN’T), I was, and am, COMPLETELY in favor of him doing so.
No, it’s NOT unreasonable. No, it does NOT bother me. I’m coming back because I SUPPORT it. I think it’s PAD’s blog, and people need to stop insisting that he HAS to listen to their side if he says “I don’t want to hear your side.” I am using the word “intolerance” literally, not connotatively, as in simply “not tolerating something.” Not tolerating the cold, insufferable justification for unfettered gun rights. Not tolerating the continued insistence that his points are wrong and he needs to understand why. I am totally, absolutely cool with that. No, I am not being facetious, sarcastic, or wry. I think shutting down dissent in extreme circumstances (especially when the dissenters REPEATEDLY, ROUTINELY resort to horrific insults and threats) is the absolute right of a person running their own website, just as it is the right of a property owner on their own property, and the reason I keep coming back is to argue in FAVOR of it.
Now, if you don’t see the act of disemvoweling argumentative posts and deleting insulting posts an act of “not tolerating dissent” in the form of those posts, then again, I fear we disagree on the definition of that phrase (though I think it’s mostly just a semantic disagreement). But make no mistake, I am TOTALLY IN SUPPORT of PAD doing so. This is his property. He told people, point blank, to shut up. They have insisted on continuing to argue and fight and complain. And I think PAD is totally in the right to editorially flip them the bird in this manner. My only disappointment to this point is that, since disemvoweling, I cannot read Robert Crim’s response to my earlier poem, so that I could tell him off again.
And to Mr David himself:
If I have overstepped, my apologies. It is, and always has been, one of my pet peeves when people cannot respect a website host’s call for manners or self-control in their posts. Having been a message board moderator myself, and particularly remembering a post many years ago by YOURself (regarding saving Disney’s Adventure Club, and you asking people to be polite and not make South Park jokes, and people repeatedly doing so anyway, despite knowing how personal it all was to you), I get quite upset and abrasive over this scenario. If I misunderstood or misrepresented your position in this topic, I sincerely beg your pardon, it was unintentional. As I said above, whether or not I agree with your position on the subject, I respect you and your space, and I am FULLY in support of your right to request (and STRICTLY enforce if need be) silence on the subject.
– J
I scrolled back up and I quite clearly missed some of the context for interpreting the post to which I was immediately replying.
Oops. Sorry about that.
Even if it costs people their jobs, even if it takes away a lifetime hobby of some people, even if you wind up taking away guns from the 90% who have have never caused any harm with them….just get rid of them. You’re not in the Wild West anymore.
Those whining about Peter’s abrogation of their “free speech” might want to perusethis xkcd comic.
Randall normally includes an additional joke or punchline that will be revealed if you move your mouse cursor over the comic.
There’s a mouseover there, too, but it’s not a joke or punchline, it’s a further thought about free speech. To save the intellectually lazy (pretty much the ones who need to read both the comic and the addendum but won’t), i’ll reprint it here:
:
Mr. David,
My take on guns comes from my time as an Assistant District Attorney in Brooklyn in the early 90’s. Needless to say I agree with you
It was the wild, wild west in NYC during the early 1990’s. When I left the office in 1993, NYC averaged 2200 homicides a year. Kings County Hospital had a gunshot ward. I know, I visited it. Gun advocates claim that if everyone had a gun, the bad guys would hesitate to pull theirs. Well, that didn’t work in Brooklyn. It seemed that all the perps had guns and were constantly pulling them on rivals who also had guns. Sadly, often times the perps would miss their targets and kill some poor grandma crossing the street two blocks away.
The gun advocates claim that the government will take away our freedoms unless we are armed. This is false logic. I am an attorney and have done my fair share of administrative law and am involved in Democratic politics in Nassau County. I can assure you that it is not guns which take away freedom and it is not guns which preserve it. Freedom is taken by the pen of legislators and regulators. Freedom is preserved by voting, petitioning and going to court to fight the government.
And no, the Army is not going to swoop in and establish a military dictatorship to be stopped only by some plucky teenagers with guns. I spent 28 years in the military and quite frankly, our military is the most apolitical organization in the world. Our generals would never order such lunacy and our servicemembers would never follow such orders.
Sorry for being long winded, but like you, I am passionate on this subject.
Gary Port
Lieutenant Colonel,
United States Army Reserve, Retired
Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your service.
PAD
Mr. David:
It was my pleasure and privilege to serve. Since my mandatory retirement (28 years and out) in January, I miss it like hëll. My oldest son, however, will continue the tradition. He reports for his officer’s basic course in October. He’s going Explosive Ordinance Disposal. Dad’s not too happy.
Perhaps that’s why I am more involved in this round of presidential follies. Beyond our mutual concern about gun control, I am deeply concerned about some inexperienced politician who doesn’t understand the nature, use and timing of military force becoming president.
I met Martin O’Malley a couple times in July and was impressed. He’s about 5% in Iowa right now. We had a great conversation after I expressed my concerns.
I was more impressed later to learn not only did he remember me, but selected me to work on his policy committee for military and veterans issues. That showed me that he is sincere about doing right by our military. He wants to listen, and wants advice from people who have the actual experience.
If you are looking for a presidential candidate, might I suggest you look at Governor O’Malley?
Gary Port
This sure looks like the only expert opinion I’ve seen in this whole discussion.
You are right, colonel, that no one is going to stop the U.S. Army from the top of his stairs with a .38.
It also is true that resort to arms is the LAST line of defense of liberty, not the first, and that voting, court challenges, &c., not only are more common responses but also more efficient.
But, let me ask you a question: Why in the world should I (or anyone else) pay any attention to pompous legislators or overzealous regulators?
Or, to put it in the words of the protesters of the Seventies: What if they gave a war and nobody came?
The answer is that people need to fear the DA precisely because he has at his service a police force prepared to back him up with pistols.
The “pro-gun” logic is NOT false.
America is different from places like England, where democracy is viewed as a gift from the king. Democracy in America rests on its armed population, and the legitimacy of democracy rests on our mutual recognition that it makes more sense to throw balls of paper at each other than balls of lead. It’s precisely because the overwhelming majority DON’T want to resort to arms that the word of the DA must be respected.
And, even that respect still has to be earned, every day.
Mr. Crim:
I respectfully disagree. I have been a lawyer and soldier for 28 years. I have been a prosecutor and I have litigated against the government. The government is a big dumb beast regardless of which party is in power. Regulators pass regulations often with little understanding about the ramifications of their actions.
I once deposed an employee from the New York State Department of Health who drafted a regulation which had a severe and detrimental impact on a medical technology field of business. I asked him the purpose of the regulation, and he explained his understanding. Then I had him read the regulation. He turned ashen white and said, “Oh my God, that’s not what it says.”
Ultimately, we won and the regulations were re-written.
The Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, ended segregation as legal. Yes, we still have a ways to go, but we have progressed markedly since Plessey v. Ferguson, which legalized segregation.
Currently there is has been controversy over the NSA’s data collection program. This became a political, legal and even a business issue. While the current solution is less than perfect, the rights of the people are being defended. No one is marching on the NSA with rifles.
In these instance we did not need an armed insurrection to protect and vindicate rights. In each, we used the legal and political process.
Our country has come a long way, socially and politically since the revolutionary and civil wars.
Guns do not maintain political order or protect individual rights. Our society with its political and legal systems do. As long as We the People accept political and legal action, freedom will be maintained. However, if we believe that guns secure our rights, then we have lost our way.
Gary Port: “Gun advocates claim that if everyone had a gun, the bad guys would hesitate to pull theirs. Well, that didn’t work in Brooklyn. It seemed that all the perps had guns and were constantly pulling them on rivals who also had guns”
Luigi Novi: Gary, thank you for your service, your dedication to your job, and your continued dedication to this issue.
But if you don’t mind my pointing this out, “everyone” and “all the perps” are not the same thing. It cannot be argued that the former idea is false because the latter was observed. The reasoning behind the former idea (and I’m not arguing for or against its validity here) is that if everyone had guns, that the perps would be too afraid to pull theirs out, for fear of being taken out by bystanders, before that grandma across the street has a chance to get shot, possibly because that grandma was the bystander who pulled hers out.
Mr. Novi:
Part of the problem with this debate is a phenomenon social scientists have found: a person assumes that other people have the same attitudes and perceptions as he does. Thus, you, quite reasonably, assume that if you know that someone has a gun then you will not choose that person as a victim.
However, in my experience, as the son of a mob lawyer, a prosecutor and private sector attorney, criminals do not engage in such of a cost benefit analysis. Most criminals do not think past the immediate emotional need: “I want money, you have it; I will take it”; “You disrespected me; I will make you pay.” Such are, to my experience, the more common thought process of the criminal class. Or as my late father, who was a prosecutor and later a criminal defense attorney once told me, “I never met a murderer who considered the possibility of the death penalty before killing someone.”
Or to give another example. One night when I was the on-call ADA in Brooklyn, I picked up a homicide where, coincidentally, the victim was a cousin of a dear friend of mine. The shooter was a 15 year old who was committing a robbery. The kicker was that a uniformed police officer was standing less than 5 feet away. A reasonable person could not conceive attempting a robbery with a police officer standing right there, let alone killing the victim. But, as we used to joke, if he wasn’t an idiot his first name would not be “the defendant.”
All this underscores my opinion that an armed populace will not necessarily deter an idiot or maniac with a gun.
So, this is how it seems to me:
1) PAD has some very strong feelings about a controversial issue.
2) PAD applies his verbal skills to express those strong feelings.
3) PAD leaves the article open for people to comment upon.
4)PAD then announces that anyone who disagrees with him will have their comment essentially obliterated.
This is the sort of action one normally sees from those who are insecure about their beliefs and/or abilities, and wanting a bit of an echo chamber to reinforce his self-worth. And that’s not the sort of thing we’ve come to expect from PAD.
Peter’s feeling emotional and this blog is a legitimate place to express his depth and intensity of feeling regarding this subject. It’s his view; it’s his blog; he cannot stomach disagreement on his views towards firearms. His opinion is precisely the same as mine. Peter feels too strongly about this issue to tolerate disagreement on his blog.
Perfectly legitimate, in which case I think Peter should have A) disabled comments B) set comments to be held in moderation and/or C) asked anyone who had anything to say to E-mail it in and he’d reproduce the responses he cared to share in a subsequent post.
Just want to add, Peter — if you mutilate my post, it won’t change anything for me. I love you (admittedly, as a concept being that you’re a writer I’ve only talked to in person once and only know you through your writings and online journal) and I love your work (well — most of it. Haven’t liked some of your novelizations, but love most of your comics and novels). I would never tell you not to feel what you feel; I only suggest that as a somewhat public figure, there are ways to express yourself and your wish that contradictory sentiments not be posted to your blog without having to do what you’re doing in these comments.
Peter,
in the UK we keep thinking ‘Please, our American friends, stop killing each other’.
Japan, I think, brought in Gun Control and Murder decreased incrementally
Ordinary citizens can’t get guns, no. The laws are strict there. Criminals have no such problems.
Could not for the life of me figure out why people keep posting even after it’s obvious they will lose the vowels but now I see that they turn up in my emails unaltered. So I guess for them that makes it worth doing, their opinions get out there and they get to claim they have gotten under PAD’s skin.
Not sure that’s a great use of one’s time though
It ain’t “censorship” sonny – “censorship” is what the government is not allowed to do except in extraordinary circumstances.
What is is is Peter exercising his own right to not publish stupid, annoying and combative junk on HIS blog.
Maybe you failed to notice my previous post. Okay, this is now directly to your account.
You need to look at this comic, and you need to read this further comment by the author:
As a Brit, the attitude of, “if you dont like freedom, go away and leave us to our mass-murders” always strikes em as…erm…lunacy.
We had a school shooting of 4 and 5 year olds in Dunblane, Scotland in 1995 (US Open tennis champion, Andy Murray hid under a desk).
We banned guns. We didn’t start arming toddlers or teachers.
We also have freedom and democracy over here. It’s possible to have it without mass shootings.
Well, Gareth, you see… Americans, at least the conservative ones, are terrified of other Americans. White Americans are especially terrified of anyone who might have larger amounts of melanin in their skin than they do. Americans live in a state of constant fear that at any moment there will be a bloodthirsty horde of their fellow Americans, in their minds stereotypically hued darker than they are, bursting through their doors or windows in the middle of the night to kill them or running them down on every street corner to rape and murder them. American women, at least the conservative ones, are so terrified of “thugs” that they’ve formed groups that promote the AK-47 as a “personal” self-defense weapon despite the fact that, you know, they don’t exactly fit in one’s purse or bag or conceal very well under a jacket or blazer.
Then of course there are the American conservatives who are positive that they’ll be the last line of defense against the planned takeover of America by Obama next year. If you’ve missed the news on some of the mental midgets, just Google “Jade Helm” for laugh. See, these weekend warriors with their shooting range toys have these delusions of grandeur wrapped in their demented fantasies that when the evil, stealth Muslim Obama brings his ISIS brothers over to the US to join with the fascist US military (But they love the troops!) Just ask them! They’ll tell you!) conquer us and usurp the 2016 elections, they will be the only line of defense standing there to prevent it.
Granted, in a real firefight most of them would šhìŧ their pants and run crying from the battlefield while those that stood their ground holding their collector edition NRA Ted Nugent hunting rifle would be turned into a pulpy red pile of goo by some guy piloting a drone from 300 miles away, but it’s their fantasy life. Or they have their daydreams of being that guy who runs into the next theater shooting incident and take the “bad guy with a gun” out with that single head-shot that they’ve practiced to perfection every other weekend on the range while shooting a a static target that’s not shooting back. In reality, the idiots will end up shooting and killing four, five, or ten innocents in all the confusion (while likely šhìŧŧìņg their pants when rounds come flying down at them) before they ever come close to hitting the bad guy, but that’s their view of themselves.
Americans, at least the conservative ones, also live in absolute terror that the only thing preventing them from being beaten senseless, raped, and murdered every day is that everyone they pass on the street can’t tell if they’re armed or not. See, it’s they’re worldview that everyone else on the sidewalk or in the mall with them wants to hurt them, rob them, rape them, and or kill them. The only reason no one does any of this is because they’re afraid that they might be armed with a concealed handgun and thus “deterred” from committing these heinous criminal acts upon them. In order to prop up their manhood (or womanhood) a bit, they need to feel that heavy lump of metal on their hip or at least create the illusion in the minds of others that they’re actually feeling that heavy lump of metal on their hip at that time.
As long as you have that large of a segment of the population that paranoid and that terrified of their fellow citizens, the fear will keep them from giving even an inch on even the most simple, basic, and small common sense measures. As long as you have a group of people so cowardly when it comes to interacting with their fellow citizens, you can’t expect reason or sanity.
And while others- primarily the ones who feel themselves as do the people I’ve described above -might object to this characterization, saying I’m being insulting or snide about them, I’m basically just quoting the own arguments that they themselves put forward each and every time these discussions happen. These are their very own arguments that they themselves speak aloud, have spokesmen like Wayne “Delusional Nutbagger” LaPierre advocate for on their behalf, and/or share in meme after meme on Facebook and other social media. The simple fact is, when you’re dealing with that many people who are as scared of their own shadow as these people make themselves out to be day after day, discussion after discussion… Well, frightened and terrified people don’t make particularly intelligent or rational decisions under the best of circumstances, but they especially don’t do so when you’re talking about touching their security blanket (even when only in the most minor of ways.)
Man, nothin’ like a man-sized helping of libel against one’s sociopolitical opposition to really get the day going, amirite? Better’n a good cuppa coffee, that’s for sure!
:rolleyes:
Libel Eric Tank? I’m citing their own arguments against even basic, common sense measures.
We can’t restrict magazine size. Why? Because that would jeopardize their safety to only have eight to ten rounds in the mag plus one in the chamber rather than fourteen in the mag and one in the chamber when the insane shooter comes storming into their afternoon viewing of Batman v Superman.
YOu can’t limit the style of firearm the general public an have, because how in the world can they defend their home and shoot the intruder who wants to murder them if they don’t own the most powerful rifle they can get that’s loaded with hollow point, Teflon coated, armor piercing, explosive tipped rounds?
How can hey feel secure walking down the street if they can’t have half a gun store on their person?
And, hey, how can they defend themselves against the evil, corrupt, dictatorial American government when it send armed, jackbooted thug troops (Who they dearly love! They Swear!) to take their freedom and liberty away from them?
Or Hitler. They’re big an comparing any proposed regulation to the start of Hitler’s rule of Germany. Because, you know, there’s no difference between a group of politicians suggesting that maybe 50 round mags for assault rifles shouldn’t be on the open market and the Nazi Party.
Can’t help it if their most popular arguments against even the most basic regulations make them look like delusional, frightened children afraid of their own shadows. let alone human interaction in the public square.
Yes, Jerry, libel – which you so ably wallowed in yet again for us all. Along with any number of logical fallacies and demonstrations that either do not know the truth about what you choose to speak on, or you simply do not CARE about the truth.
Par for the course, naturally.
Nope, not the least bit of libel being done here, Eric. Simply repeating the very talking points and arguments put forward by the people who attempt to stop every single move to do anything, no matter how small or slight, to regulate guns.
Again, it’s no one’s fault but theirs that their arguments come off as the paranoid rantings of delusional children. But that’s how they do in fact come across over and over and over again.
Wanna know something, Eric? I’m a gun owner. I have a number of them, and not just work related. I hunt, I target shoot, and I have a few that are handed down family weapons with some sentimental value such as my father’s old duty weapon. I have no reason to agree 100% with Peter on this issue, but I understand his frustration and anger.
You can’t do anything with gun regulation these days, no matter how small or sane, without being labeled as anti-gun. I hold the position that there are some guns that people, regular, everyday, common people should be able to own, but that there are a number of things we should be doing to help reduce incidents the likes of which we see regularly in this country or to at least make it harder for the spur of the moment loony to grab a gun and kill the most amount of people they can. Background checks need to be beefed up, some loopholes need closing, anyone owning a gun needs to be required to pass a state regulated gun safety course akin to the hunter safety courses required to obtain a hunting license or a driver’s ed course, magazines can and should be limited in the number of rounds they hold, there are some rounds that do not need to be sold on the private market, and and there are some weapons that are not needed as home defense if only for the fact that some idiot shooting ten rounds at a home intruder with a high powered rifle is sending at least eight of them through their walls and into the streets or occupied homes.
According to some, including those who claim that they don’t subscribe to the NRA’s talking points, that makes me anti-gun.
And the ones that want to argue against any of those things, let alone all of them? They start spewing garbage about defending themselves from attackers, home invasions, women stopping rapists, protecting liberty against a tyrannical government and its jack-booted thugs, and yadda yadda yadda.
It’s not libel to point out that the main arguments of most of the gun nuts out there makes them look like delusional nutbaggers, it’s speaking the truth. If you don’t like the way the truth sounds, maybe you should take it up with them.
Let me see, Jerry – i seem to have heard at some point in the past what you do for a living.
Could you, perhaps, refresh our memory?
Male prostitute in a Manila brothel. Why?
You TOO, Jerry? Ðámņ, I thought I was the only one.
I know it’s not meant to be funny, but I just giggle & shake my head every time I see a huge post with all the vowels gone.
To me, I agree with Peter. I also agree with him not being willing to discuss any topic he doesn’t want to discuss and doing what he can/feels he has to to get that point across.
Wishing you well, Peter
Hmmm previous post was replying to a much earlier post but wound up here for some reason.
Meanwhile … “….just get rid of them.” A laudable sentiment, yes, but impractical. One would have to be a Q to magically make them all disappear along with the knowledge to make more to replace them. As long as you have people who want the things and are willing to pay, smugglers will have a field day.
This isn’t to say one should give up and hand them out in Crackerjack boxes. It does mean that a problem which has been building for generations won’t be solved overnight and little short of rewiring society’s neurons to collectively decide ‘enough’ will have the desired long term effect. Given the (hopelessly?) polarized state of that society, good luck with that. More’s the pity.
If you want to collect guns then they should not be able to fire. If you want to shoot a gun then keep the weapons that are live at a shooting range. There is no earthly reason anyone needs an automatic weapon outside of law enforcement and the military. You don’t need it to hunt, you don’t need it for protection and if you come at me with the one little old lady in the middle of nowhere who fended off a gang of bikers intent on kill her with an AK-47 I will point to the pile of dead children killed by idiots with guns.
We have a right to free speech but it is curtailed by the responsibility not to abuse it and to cause others harm. In fact nearly ALL of our rights come with a disclaimer that they have limits because someone, somewhere pushed it to the limit at some point.
And if you want to argue about losing your rights versus your safety but didn’t picket the White House when they passed the Homeland Security Act then shut up. The list of rights that got curtailed because 2,977 people were killed one Tuesday then surely the 2nd Amendment can be changed because of the 11,41p that were killed last year alone.
But those with guns will continue to scream that their rights are being taken away while they support taking them away from Gay Americans or from people who came to this country and now are legal citizens. So yeah, I’m with you Peter. It needs to stop now and I am tired of hearing excuses why it can’t.
What about this idea?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/31/us-should-mandate-gun-insurance?CMP=share_btn_fb
I love it.
PAD
The article is written from at least a few false presumptions, which make what it describes (again) impossible to achieve.
1 – Yet another author seems to believe that firearms are self-actuating, animate creatures with wills of their own. “We should absolutely require gun owners to pay against the indemnity they might incur when THEIR GUN DOES WHAT IS IS STATISTICALLY MOST LIKELY TO DO {emphasis added} – kills or injures them, or someone else.”
2 – In the event of a deliberate misuse of a firearm to commit a criminal act – which is already illegal, of course – no insurance company in the WORLD would pay out. Because no insurance company in the world will write a policy to cover deliberate criminal acts. That would be a massive money-loser for any agency stupid enough to do it.
3 – The people you actually would need to be worried about being shot by, the actual bad guys? They’re ALREADY breaking multiple existing laws. Virtually all of them are breaking multiple laws the instant they so much as touch a firearm or a single round of ammunition. Why would you imagine they’d go out and buy these insurance policies that no one will write or cover?
4 – Inadvertent discharges resulting in injury or death are already covered under both existing law and existing insurance policies.
So, your great hope to use the eeeeeeeee-vil insurance industry to “rein in” the eeeeeeeee-vil NRA (and, presumably, the other 75 million or so firearms owners who aren’t part of the NRA)? It won’t work. It *CANNOT* work. Because of how insurance itself works.
And it’s nowhere near a new idea, for that matter. Which is why we know it can’t work – because we’ve already had to SHOW why it can’t work.
I have long thought that some kind of insurance for gun users would be a good idea.
One key thing is that the insurance companies would have a risk estimate model and so if they thought someone was more likely to cause damage with a gun, then that person’s rate would be higher than some other people.
If only …
But a few years ago the police here in Ontario estimated that at least one third of car owners did not have insurance, in spite of this being required by law. If one third of car owners got away with it, I think rather more gun owners could as well. Oh, it would get some of the law-abiding sorts to rethink but, and every bit helps, I know, I’m not seeing it do more than make a minor dent.
Assemblywoman Schimel just alerted me to this- Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s first deputy counsel was shot Monday morning. He was walking past an argument when he was shot in the head as an innocent bystander. This is the type of violence which will not be ended by everyone “packing a piece.”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/opinions/omalley-guns-nra/index.html
Dear Mr. Roth:
This is one of many reasons I am working on Governor O’Malley’s campaign. I am proud to be one of his advisers on Veteran Issues. Thanks for posting, we need to get his visibility up.
Gary Port
Has anyone yet noticed that Peter’s position on gun “control” and Kim Davis’ position on refusing licenses for SSM seem to have a lot in common?
Maybe Peter should get an award after all: The Rosa Parks medal!
I hope it is not considered overly provocative to point out that the people who are for greater regulation of guns, whether it be small steps or outright bans, might need to engage in some introspection. It might give one the warm and fuzzies to disparage the other side as small pëņìšëd minority hating banjo strumming southern sheep shaggers, but while one gets the giggles from the name calling…they seem to be winning.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/immigration-guns-poll-cnn-orc-full-results/index.html
When asked, “In your view, do existing laws make it too easy for people to buy guns, too difficult, or are they about right?”, 49 percent of respondents said “about right.” Forty-one percent of respondents said current law made it “too easy” for people to buy guns and 10 percent said they made it “too difficult.” Only 1 percent of respondents had no opinion.
The poll has asked the question for the last 25 years. This is the first time that less than 56 percent of respondents have said guns are “too easy” to buy.
I dunno, maybe the insults haven’t been insulting enough.
Bill, what people forget is that guns become a problem primarily in urban areas where they are used for robberies.
No one so far has mentioned that farmers use guns all the time — to control varmints, put meat on the table, and (VERY occasionally) defend their land when the sheriff is miles away.
Whether one recognizes the right to own firearms in the Second Amendment or the Ninth, there is ZERO chance of EVER repealing either provision because that takes 37 states, and more likely 37 states would vote it down.
Peter’s proposal simply is not realistic.
I survived a school shooting.
My school shooting was an extremely rare lucky one that the only thing that got shot was the cafetina ceiling.
A guy I knew who had failed the 8th grade twice and was going to get expelled for a year for chasing his girlfriend through the same cafetina, now at the time (I don’t know if it’s still true now of days) a kid that failed to advance to the next grade 3 times in row would be sent to a special needs school or something.
Now I grew up in the 90s watching all kinds of action movies but even after 25 years I can still hear the gun shot and smell the gun smoke. I have never been so frighten in my life I was closet to the door and across the hall was a pay phone in the school store. My first thought was to wait till his back was turned and get to that phone and dial 911 and if anything else get the operator and hang up and get the police. The only thing was a thin wall where the phone was and would that be enough to shield me should he see me. Thankfully the store was near the school office and a teacher who having lunch found me and I was so frighten that I couldn’t say anything. Another kid ran by and explained things and she got us into a small office and called 911.
When the police got there they were able talk the kid out of blowing his head off. I remember waiting under table in that small office wondering if this was going to be the last day of life.
I got lucky. Sometimes I think events like the Newtown massacre and wonder why I was spared and those kids weren’t.
So yeah not a fan of guns.
And Peter David if you want to use this story in a comic you have my permission.