SnowflakesInHell's Comments (52)

“Do you know what a semi-automatic weapon is? If they aren't useful for self-defense than why do the police carry them?”

“We're talking about denying people a constitutional right based on the presence of a name on a secret government list. Considering Ted Kennedy was a name on this list for a while, causing the late Senator problems when he flew, I think this is something both the left and the right ought to be equally appalled by.

It's one thing to deny the right to bear arms to people who have been convicted of crimes, or adjudicated mentally incompetent through due process of law, but the government should not be able to arbitrarily deny people constitutional rights based on a secret list that no one knows how to get on, and no one can get off of.”

“"It's a long march to rewind the 2nd Amendment. But we are marching, bloody step by bloody step."

I think you're marching in the wrong direction, and have been for the past decade. But who am I to correct you?”

“I've never met anyone who enjoyed shooting, or was a competitive shooter, who didn't also fit into the "whacked-out" category you describe. A lot of people get passionate about sports and politics too, but we don't imply those people are mentally ill.”

“He was also a big fan of Star Trek, TNG. So clearly you're ignoring the Roddenberry connection in your tea leaf reading. Warp drive is obviously a right-wing conspiracy.”

“"Owning a gun is a constitutional right."
OK, so how's that well-regulated militia unit you're part of working out for you?

Did you not hear of the big Supreme Court ruling back in 2008 that basically threw that little theory of yours out the window? The right to own a gun is not connected with membership in the militia. That's now the law of the land, whether you want to accept it or not.

If you're going to criticize and mock gun owners, you should have some idea what your'e talking about first. Otherwise you look the fool.”

“Really? Diesel fuel and fertilizer take effort and special knowledge? No more than how to shoot a gun, really. What about gasoline and matches?”

“Parole Officers in Pennsylvania are authorized to carry firearms in performance of their duties if they go through the firearms training, which given Scott Hain's history as a corrections officer, he would have already gone through. Whether he carried on duty or not, he is a law enforcement officer under PA law and the kind of person who very few argue does not have the temperament or training to be armed.”

“Even for law enforcement? Because that's what her husband was.”

“Her husband was a law enforcement officer, Josh. As best I know, even you don't advocate we take guns away from cops and soldiers. He would have had a gun even if you had everything you wanted.”

“No serious Second Amendment activist I have ever known claims a gun is absolute protection against all that is bad and wrong with this world. Yet you claim that is the case, and tar Meleanie Hain with that viewpoint regardless of what you actually do, or do not know, about what she believed. I did not know Meleanie Hain. I was not a fan of her activism. But I would not presume to attribute thoughts to her.

But you’re right about one thing Josh, it would have been an example of the effectiveness of firearms for self-defense had she been able to successfully defend herself against her husband. Because she’d be alive, and her three children would still have a mother. Surely that would not be a tragedy in your world view just because we would get to make a point? Sometimes I wonder.”

“Dennis,

This kind of political phenomena is nothing new in America. The Black Panthers were doing it in the 60s, and other, often less savory groups, were doing it before then even before then. This has been happening since the NRA was just a bunch of former Union Generals trying to teach New York boys how to shoot.

But you know, a lot of us Second Amendment activists agree this isn't the most productive way to express your opposition to government policies. We're just not going to get all bent out of shape about it, because the sight of a gun does not frighten us like cockroaches scattering from the light. One can disapprove of these kinds of clownish publicity stunts and still support the Second Amendment. I've seen more than a few exercises of the First Amendment I don't find particularly tasteful.

But putting up with a diverse and often kooky means of expression is part of living in a free society, Dennis.”

“I think it has more to do with Obama's long history of supporting gun control more than the color of the man's skin. They did the same thing when Clinton was elected, which did not turn out to be unjustified.”

“Full context should be given for the LaPierre quote from C-PAC:

"Our founding fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules. Our founding fathers understood that freedom always rides with a firearm by its side. They understood that if the only guys with the guns are the bad guys, we're screwed! Our founding fathers knew that, and it's no different today. That's why we own guns. We're not giving them up. The constitution says it, we believe it, and that settles it."

You may still disagree with it. It might make you uncomfortable. But it pretty clearly wasn't an incitement to political violence as taking it out of context makes it out to be.”

“I hate to break this to you, but unless you live in one of the six or so states that limit concealed carry, you have people carrying guns around you all the time when you're in a public place. There's nothing anti-life about defending ones own life.”

“Okay people, here's the deal..... The reason that this was a bad idea was because the people of state "A" don't like to allow black kids and white kids to go to the same schools. They should be allowed to determine that, on their own. The people of state "B" DO like to allow black kids and white kids to go to the same schools. In fact, they make it REALLY easy for anyone who's a minority to do so. WHY should the people of state "A" have to allow, like the people from state "B," white kids and black kids go to school together, when their own laws prohibit such action???

There. Fixed that for you. Different civil right. Same amendment applies to both situations.”

“He's talking about them not being charged, which is the part that reveals exactly how these folks think. It's the gun that's dangerous, not the violent gangbanger in the house. And what's going to happen, when dear little Johnny gang member, finds out that mom had the five-o come over and take his gat? Does Aborn really think he's not going to be able to go get another one on the streets?

You have to get violent people off the streets. Violent people will find ways to get guns and other weapons. This is what the NRA has been saying for decades. That Aborn thinks this is why they've been losing sway with the American public on the issue of gun control.”

“This must have hit a nerve to warrant its own blog post. But don't worry, we know these issues don't get settled by polling numbers. They get settled through smart lobbying, fund raising, electioneering, and large numbers of committed grass roots activists. Wait, I guess that doesn't really help make you feel any better does it?”

“Most Americans have no idea what the current gun laws are. In my experience, when you explain it to your average, non-gun owning person, who is not hysterical about the topic, they think they are adequate.”

“I could be wrong about this, but those number would appear to look better for the gun rights folks than they did in 1994. The problem is, most of those people polled a) have no idea what you're really talking about, including what the current laws actually are, and b) aren't going into the voting booths and voting on your issue.

Gun owners, on the other hand, do vote on that issue, and many of them vote on that issue alone. Consider it a litmus test for politicians. If you don't believe I am responsible enough to have the tools to defend my own life, then that tells me how you view me generally.

So your polls tell you that 21% of the electorate care what the National Rifle Association has to say. Can you name any other constituency in Washington D.C. that can claim to sway 20% of the electorate? Can the Brady Campaign claim to sway 20% of the electorate? Do you have confidence the response of most people would be "Brady Campaign to what now?"”

“The problem is, everything NRA is claiming is true. It should be noted that the Annenberg Center, which runs FactCheck.org, has donated huge sums of money to The Brady Campaign, so I would question their objectivity on the gun issue. At best we're dealing with ignorance of Second Amendment issues on the part of Annenberg Fact Check and the media. At worst this is a barely disguised attempt to win the election for Obama by giving him cover on an issue we know will hurt him. See Dave Kopel's excellent refutation of FactCheck.org's facts:

http://volokh.com/posts/1222201928.shtml”

“You're correct that selective incorporation is an invention of The Court. The entire doctrine would have been unnecessary had The Court not redacted the privileges and immunities clause in the Slaughterhouse Cases. The fourteenth amendment was intended to apply to the states in its original understanding. Selective incorporation was a means to get around those cases without explicitly overturning them.”

“Something Sneaky said in the comments needs to be addressed:

"The point of 'incorporation' is to subvert the sovereignty of the states. I'm not for that. Fifty united states, not fifty counties or districts. The US Constitution, except where it specifically says otherwise, does not apply to the individual states."

That was true prior to the passage of the fourteenth amendment in 1868, which gave Congress and The federal courts a role to play in the protection of fundamental rights against transgressions by state government. There's considerable evidence that suggest a one of the primary motivators behind the fourteenth amendment's passage was to prevent southern states from disarming newly freed blacks, so that they could be properly terrorized.

"Incorporation" is not only good public policy, but it's eminently constitutional. The fourteenth amendment made it so. Disparaging the fourteenth amendment has a long and sorry tradition in this country, and has largely been motivated by those who want to continue to trample on the rights of African American. When I say trample, quite often I mean murder wholesale (see US v. Cruikshank). I'm not saying that's what Sneaky thinks, but it's the gang you're running with when you speak in favor of "states rights". States have no rights, they have powers. Only people have rights, and the federal government has a constitutional role to play in protecting them.”

“Segregation was once the legal policy of Washington D.C. Would you suggest that it was D.C.'s prerogative to do this as well? Or would you agree that when it comes to protecting civil rights, that Congress has a role to play?”

“You should consider starting a blog Kelli. We'll even help you get the Reasoned Discourse going. Don't you think blogging would be more fun than being the token Pro-Brady commenter?”