Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
Pro-Choice? Really?
-
Obama Vowed To Get Benghazi Attackers. Really?
-
The Media’s Willful Ignorance about Obama’s Make-Believe Ignorance
-
Proposal For Leftwing Media/Politicians Regarding the Oklahoma Tornadoes
-
Former Obama Press Secretary Wants the Administration to Explain AP Investigation
-
The Department of Justice Obtained the Personal Emails of a White House Correspondent
-
Rachael: Maybe they are waiting on the IG report....
-
Les Hardie: Why believe anything adm. officials say? Why believe White House counsel found o...
-
Caleb: pretty close onto the mark I'd say.salute ....
-
capt lou: When Obama and Holder move their lips--- It is another God Damned LIE coming out...
-
william: Nixon a republican was honorable he resigned other governors and senators resign...
Barack Obama
blogs
CNN
conservative
Democratic
Democratic Party (United States)
Democrats
GOP
mitt romney
MSNBC
news
Newt Gingrich
obama
Paul Ryan
Politics
President
President Obama
Racism
Rand Paul
Republican
Republicans
Rick Santorum
right
Romney
Ron Paul
Sarah Palin
Twitter
United States
United States Senate
white-house
72 Comments
Kill babies, not rapists. Genius.
Do you know how Venn Diagrams work?
Hi Sarah,
Do you know how I know you’ve already lost this debate?
This is so stupid. The majority of the people voting “Anti-women carrying a gun” are almost definitely “Anti-everyone carrying a gun”.
Typical right wing spin.
What’s your point, Becky?
Becky, typical Lib thinking. You missed the point entirely.
Becky,
There is no ‘spin’, let alone ‘right wing spin.’ Even if your (non-scientific) premiss is correct, that “Anti-women carrying a gun” = “Anti-everyone carrying a gun”, it has little-to-no impact on the diagram. Where’s the spin? Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “Pro-choice” = “Anti-gun”. How’s that?
My point being that the people asked in this ‘poll’ or whatever this is, are probably rather anti-gun entirely, and therefore are against women carrying guns yes, but everyone else as well… heaven forbid anyone ‘offends the 2nd amendment’!
Hi Becky,
You’re not very bright.
RB: You certainly have a hard time catching on!
Becky’s right!
Lol, so what does these arbitrarily drawn circles have to do with reality? I too could draw random overlapping circles to fit a preconceived notion, but that doesn’t mean they are based in reality…
No, Izzy. She’s not.
Don’t be so rough on Becky, I’m sure she’s smart enough to point out where the right to abortion is explicitly stated in the 14th Amendment.
Hello Hugo,
I dare you to debunk the graph.
My ‘scientific-premis’?! Well I would love to see the science behind this one.
The graph is stupid because simplifies a much more complex issue, into basically pro-killing babies anti-killing criminals
classic example of a right wing spin, so shoot me… oh wait…
I’m waiting for Sarah to enlighten us on how Venn Diagrams work.
Hi Becky,
Is the graph stupid? Or are you too stupid to understand the point the graph makes?
Answer: B.
No, the graphs stupid.
Wrong again, Becky.
Becky, Jennifer Morbelli is unavailable for comment.
please enlighten me then, on what this holy graph of wisdom means…
It means exactly what it says, Becky.
Nearly all the people who say a woman has the “right to choose” (an abortion) also say a woman shouldn’t be allowed to CHOOSE if she wants to be armed or not.
This isn’t rocket science.
RB: If you’re going to compare “answers” — the questions should be similar –
“Should the COMMUNITY decide whether my daughter should be — (A) permitted to get an abortion?”
(B) permitted to carry a firearm in public?”
It’s certainly NOT rocket science.
If you want to study rocket science, vomit or urinate on yourself…no, wait…wrong Prog advice.
Wow, RB. How sad is it that you had to spell it out like that?
I’m actually a little embarrassed for her.
Hey, Liberals thought EVERYBODY agreed the lil’ lady doesn’t have the necessary judgement to carry a gun.
Even I, as someone who doesn’t expect razor sharp wits from the average lib, am surprised at how far over their heads this humor flew.
DRAWANDSTRIKE:
You’ew close, but not quite on target…
We Liberals think everybody agrees that NO ONE (with exceptions for law enforcement) has the necessary judgement to carry a gun…not just the (as you put it) “lil lady”!
So Liberals who think women should have the right to decide to have an abortion are perfectly fine with stating they don’t have the proper judgement to be armed.
Thanks for clarifying your low opinion of females.
Yeah, DRAWANDSTRIKE…only cops like Chris Dorner have the necessary judgment to carry a gun.
You magically get that necessary judgment when you graduate the academy I guess.
Perhaps we could discuss what other deficiencies you see in females besides their lack of proper judgement in relation to firearms? Or is that the only one you see?
Izzy, you skipped all those reported cases of law enforcement incompetence with guns as well as all those reported cases of free individuals protecting themselves with guns. Gosh. Almost like that Venn diagram up there. Shocking. Not really.
draw&strike –
Again — you only got half the statement — you said…
“…stating they don’t have the proper judgement to be armed….”?
.
I didn’t say that!
.
I said EVERYONE, not (only) women — if that’s too long a word, it means “men and women”>
Goyt it now?
I’ll ruin the fun and explain the joke.
A rapist would be against a women carrying a gun, he would also be for her aborting the child post-rape.
Get trolled libs, I thought you guys were supposed to be so smart!!
“Everyone” except soldiers includes women. Correct?
So the point stands. You believe women have the proper judgement to CHOOSE abortion but DO NOT have the proper judgment to decide to be armed or not.
Is this not correct?
If there is no source for the data used to create this graph, then we must assume that it is fraudulent
drawandstrike
————–
If you continue to insist upon “picking and choosing” among what I say — I’ll re-phrase my statement.
Most (if not all) humans experience “impulses”
Normally, we choose to act (or not to act) upon them. Some humans (men as well as women) have poor impulse control — or, putting it another way, ACT BEFORE AQ CONCIOUS CHOICE IS MADE>
Since there’s no way at present to identify all people with poor impulse control, we’re faced with the choice, as a community, to decide WHO we want to allow to walk among us “ARMED” with a lethal instrument (a firearm).
There is, of course, a “cost” for the increased safety the prohibition provides… our liberty (or “freedom of choice”) is constrained.
It seems reasonable, given our current form of “government” (the rule-set which permits us to live in groups) that the decision to pay the price in restricted “freedom” to attain the increased Safety should be made as a Community.
Personally, I think your attempt to compare an Individual Right (to choose an abortion) to a Communal Right (to possess a firearm) is invalid. I’m making the “apples and oranges” objection.
It isn’t a Venn diagram, or even close. Not intended to be one. It depicts overlap between two opinions. Those who hold one, those who hold the other, and those who hold both. And it’s instructive on how illogical and non-sequitur-esque the proggies are.
Except the right to arm oneself with a firearm IS an individual right, clearly spelled out in the second amendment. I was a member of the U.S. Air Force and did not magically lose my judgment when I got out, nor did I ever lose my right to carry a gun. Izzy, you were shown an argument that did indeed compare apples to apples.
Wait? The right to self-defense is a “Communal Right.”
That may be the single stupidest thing I’ve read today, and I have read all the liberal comments on the #LiberalTips2AvoidRape hashtag, a Matt Yglesias column, and Becky’s comments. So, the competition was quite stiff.
OH, MY, GOD. Becky look. At. THAT Venn Diagram.
So Izzy, you’re basically saying that poor impulse control should be the basis for deciding who gets a gun? I guess that follows the argument that poor impulse control is responsible for many unplanned pregnancies. What else do you think your ‘Community’ should have the right to decide? Life span? Minimum wage? The effect of gravity on fat people?
The only thing invalid here is your attempt at logic.
You support women making a choice to have an abortion or not because they have enough smarts to handle such a choice.
But when it comes to women having a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms all of a sudden your worried about the little lady’s possible ‘impulse control’ problems.
I get that you don’t just refuse to trust women with firearms. You’ve made it clear you don’t trust ANYBODY with them. Well except those who are armed by the State. Those people have fine judgement, according to you.
drawandstrike
————-
Congratulations! You finally got it right! You quoted me –
“…you don’t trust ANYBODY with them…”
I don’t think that 100% of ANY “class” (white, black, young, old, male, female, Liberal, Conservative, native-born, foreign-born, etc) of humans is to be trusted. I can’t tell you exactly HOW MANY of the 100% are “wackos”…but I’ll bet we agree that there are at least “some”. I also doubt that we have a valid test to identify those members of the class who are “not to be trusted”.
As a consequence, it’s up to ALL of us to decide just who gets to walk among us “armed”.
As I said, the “cost” of giving up the freedom to carry weapons must be compared to the benefit of eliminating the threat posed by those who ARE armed but shouldn’t be.
Who do you propose should decide what rule to institute?
Gregory of Yardale
——————–
You posted …”Wait? The right to self-defense is a “Communal Right.”
I TAKE IT YOU DISAGREE…although in the absence of punctuation marks I can’t be certain.
If someone “misuses” a firearm, who suffers? I’m not talking about the guy who decides to end-it-all….he has a perfect right to injure himself, if he so chooses.
I’m concerned about the OTHER people who he might injure…don’t they have a right to “self-protection”?
. In theory, our governance comes “with the consent of the governed”…if the majority of those “governed” decide that the comparison of the costs and benefits of weapons in the Community is convincing enough — shouldn’t they be enabled to agree to ban the weapons?
Maybe you’re unaware of this, but despite the fact you don’t trust anybody with guns except those who have been armed by the State, citizens who are NOT representatives of the state are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd Amendment.
Including women. Who’ judgement you don’t trust.
Maybe you’re the problem with your low view of American citizens? Has thought ever occurred to you before?
Yeah, let’s trust the State with a monopoly on the use of firearms; it worked out *so well* for this continent’s original inhabitants.
“…if the majority of those “governed” decide that the comparison of the costs and benefits of weapons in the Community is convincing enough — shouldn’t they be enabled to agree to ban the weapons?”
So, a majority can also vote to take away my right of free speech if it offends them. A majority can vote to take away my right to practice religion if they don’t agree with my choice. You are essentially arguing that we have no rights, that any right we have can be taken away “for our own good” or “for the good of the community.”
That is essentially the position you have staked out.
CitizenEgg
———-
Read what I said again! Never mind -=- I’ll repost it —
“…Since there’s no way at present to identify all people with poor impulse control, we’re faced with the choice, as a community, to decide WHO we want to allow to walk among us “ARMED” with a lethal instrument (a firearm)….”
Incidentaloly — for all of you with your panties in a twist over the word “COMMUNAL” — SUBSTITUTE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING…
“COMMUNITY, NEIGHBORHOOD, TOWN, CITY, STATE OR NATION”…
feel better now?
We understand perfectly well what you’re saying. Your feeble attempt to claim it’s up to a COMMUNITY to decide who can be armed or not runs smack into the 2nd Amendment, which states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Several states/cities that have tried to ban gun ownership such as Washington DC have had their unconstitutional laws struck down by the courts.
What you are advocating is in fact unconstitutional. Citizens have the right to arms in America. It doesn’t matter how the Government feels about it.
Let me make it expressly clear: American citizens are not ‘allowed to have’ guns by their ‘community’. They have their guns by RIGHT of being citizens whether the Gov’t/community/whatever the f**k you wanna call it likes it or not.
And again, nothing you’ve said in all your posts now in any way contradicts the venn diagram at the top of the page.
You trust women’s judgement when it comes to making a choice whether or not to have an abortion. Then you turn your ass around and tell those same women you DON’T trust their judgement on whether or not to own a gun, so they SHOULDN’T get to make that choice.
Why do you TRUST their judgement in one case, but not the other? Is their JUDGEMENT really the problem here or is it your inconsistency?
Shorter Becky: “If you don’t like abortions, don’t have one! *SMIRK* I don’t like guns, so you can’t have one!”
Izzykiddnya
FEBRUARY 19, 2013 AT 6:01 PM
DRAWANDSTRIKE:
You’ew close, but not quite on target…
We Liberals think everybody agrees that NO ONE (with exceptions for law enforcement) has the necessary judgement to carry a gun…not just the (as you put it) “lil lady”
Only Law Enforcement should carry a gun? You mean like Christopher Dorner/
What he is actually saying, Keyboard Jock, is that LIBERALS lack the necessary judgment and impulse control to be trusted with guns, and irrationally deny the existence of millions upon millions of responsible gun owners who demonstrate, daily, the proper judgment and reasonable mind to be trusted with guns.
Guys, the problem with this graph is that there is no SOURCE. Where did they get the numbers to make this graph? They don’t show any numbers or any thing to actually back up the graph. They just threw together to almost completely over lapping circles and made it seem like this represents some fact. People who already think this way (dumb people) will say “yup, gotta be true” because it confirms their already existing opinions. Those who see this for the farce that it is(smart people) will call it out for lack of any sort of source or data to back it up.
I would like wise take this graph and change “pro choice” to “pro life” and “woman shouldn’t carry a gun” to “woman should carry a gun” and say “look! These people support endangering innocent bystanders but not a woman’s right to protect her own life if it’s threatened by a pregnancy!” it would be an equally ignorant and incorrect statement as th ones made in these comments. But, people see these graphs, read the comments, get angry and all logic goes out the window.
Think people, any one who can draw two circles could make his crap. Whoever made it just wants to continue to divide this country further apart than it already is. Don’t be ignorant, dont buy into it.
This is exactly the same thing as saying that right-wing fundies would rather have children being killed than banning weapons. It’s illogical in any sense, and an extremely stupid statement, just as your “Venn diagram” states.
From Wikipedia: “Venn diagrams do not generally contain information on the relative or absolute sizes (cardinality) of sets; i.e. they are schematic diagrams.”
Ha! Your joke sucks.
BetterThanYou’s comment is a hilarious example of liberal arrogance at its finest.
1. She demonstrates that she totally misses the point of the graphic.
2. She smugly lectures the people who do get the diagram as if we’re the dumb ones.
Absolute classic.
Dear Leftist commenters,
When you’re stuck arguing whether the diagram is a “true” Venn Diagram, etc… you already lost.
Thanks.
Izzykiddnya “Personally, I think your attempt to compare an Individual Right (to choose an abortion) to a Communal Right (to possess a firearm) is invalid. I’m making the “apples and oranges” objection.”
——-
Few things: First, if YOU are representative of the “community” that gets to decide if I can protect my family with a firearm, then it reinforces my belief that I should exercise that right. I don’t trust the judgement of the community, especially if the community is a bunch of leftist pacifists who’d rather allow themselves to be victims than be able to defend themselves.
Second, who the hell do you think you are that YOU can have any say whether or how I choose to protect myself? We have a Constitution. That Constitution was written by men much more visionary and smarter than you. Funny how those on the left will defend to the hilt the right to hack up unborn children and throw them out with medical waste (something the founders wouldn’t have even FATHOMED) yet the SECOND founding principle of the nation can be so easily discarded because of your ignorant sensibilities.
Finally, according to FBI data from 2011 (last year available) you were 600x more likely to be killed by a Doctor than by a rifle of ANY kind, including those the left ignorantly calls ‘assault weapons’.
If you CHOOSE not to protect yourself and your family by not possessing a firearm, good for you. I pray that you’ll never be in a position to need one and not have one. Personally, I’d rather have one and not need it.
Maybe if you are ever in the position to need one, some nice conservative lady will come blow the SOB threatening your family away for you.
Gregory, please elaborate on how I miss the point of this diagram? Without data or facts to back it up there is NO POINT. Im sorry if expecting actual FACTS with my political bullshit makes me a “smug liberal”, I guess I’ll just leave you alone while you continue to live in your make believe world where Obama is a socialist muslim who wants your guns( he isn’t and he doesnt)
[...] RB Pundit’s graph says it all: Pro-choice? Really? [...]
No source or statistics are needed to support the diagram; the comments section proves the theorem.
One more set should have been layered onto the others in the diagram, with similar overlap: Inability to Reason. Or is that just too obviously the point?
Sure, liberals are “pro-choice”, promoting women’s freedom (or certain women’s certain freedoms), except when it comes to schools, light bulbs, whether to have health insurance, soda, salt content, trans fat content, formula vs. breast milk, plastic vs. paper, helmet use, energy, opposing viewpoints, and how to protect oneself effectively. We are not smart enough to make THOSE choices; we might hurt ourselves or others.
Thank you, liberals, for making me laugh until I cried today.
“Second, who the hell do you think you are that YOU can have any say whether or how I choose to protect myself? We have a Constitution. That Constitution was written by men much more visionary and smarter than you. Funny how those on the left will defend to the hilt the right to hack up unborn children and throw them out with medical waste (something the founders wouldn’t have even FATHOMED) yet the SECOND founding principle of the nation can be so easily discarded because of your ignorant sensibilities.”
The Constitution is a living, breathing document. The 2d Amendment was written for a much different time. This is not the 1700′s and no one requires a gun for any reason, except for a lot of old dead white guys. Because times have changed, we can, through legislation, courts or executive order, ban guns. The 2d’s time has come and gone, and a we progress, the constitution must change.
The same can be said for the right to terminate a pregnancy.In the 1700′s. women had no rights and were essentially property of their husbands. But we have progressed, and so again the constitution can, must and did change This right is modern, progressive and supported by science regarding fetal viability. The right matches the rights of women today, and, again, not those created by men so wise and wonderful that they owned slaves and treated women as property.
Introducing a little non-PC sexism here, but so what? Science has clearly confirmed that female brains are “wired differently”, generally speaking.
Q: When was the last mass murder perpetrated by a woman?
With that in mind, I, as a father of 5–including 2 daughters–would sooner trust my daughters’ judgment vis-a-vis concealed carry, than my sons–and I’ve taught them all how to handle firearms safely. I would also sooner trust American women at large to carry weapons at their CHOOSING. So here’s an “outside the box” thought–if all you “community” types are so afraid of the crazies with impulse control issues, how about if we modify the 2nd Amendment to apply only to WOMEN? :O WHAT A HORRIBLE THOUGHT!!
Planecrash, obviously your liberal progressive professors never taught you that the 2nd Amendement is part of the Bill of Rights and cannot be changed or repealed. Also, please explain how the fact that the Founders where white and are now deceased invalidates their genius and vision. Please enlighten us on which revolutionaries of other races where better.
Planecrashlaw,
The Founding fathers did not “create” the rights enumerated by the Constitution. They were believers in Natural law, which states that everyone has pre-existing rights that cannot be taken away by the government. The whole purpose of the Consitution and the 2nd Amendment is to defend our pre-existing rights against a unjust or tyrannical government. Just look at how many governments have turned upon their own people in the last hundred years and you see this is still a problem in our world today. Now if you want to be a subject and not a citizen there are many countries that are great, but perhaps the United States just isn’t right for you. Maybe you could try just about any country in Europe, however you may want to keep in mind the fact that nearly all of European countries are collapsing under the weight of their own socialist democracies.
Your fallacious arguments are literally burning my eyes right out of their sockets. Explain how defense against a tyrannical government is not reason enough to have a gun. Or even just individual self-defense? The police are not responsible for our individual protection, and this has been established in numerous court cases. Now if you don’t feel competent enough to own or carry a gun, and would rather vomit and urinate all over yourself like small mammal that’s your choice. However, just because you have an irrational fear of guns (considering 99% of gun owners are law-abiding and would never use their guns unlawfully), you do not have the right to tell me how and if I can defend myself.
You are right in that the Founders created a Constitution that can change, but until you and all our friends can start a movement that would amend the Constitution to rewrite the second amendment; until a time comes that the People abandon the freedoms for which our forefathers fought in favor of a nanny state that promises security and prosperity but provides none, no legislation or EO can do anything to remove the right of the people to bear arms, or any Constitutional right for that matter.
Josef Kozlov:
Natural rights was a fine concept in the God based dark ages. And the constitution was a great idea at the time, and still has many useful tools which can help limit what government can do. But I much prefer the social contact theory as the basis for modern society.
The people alive during the 1700′s were alive during an actual war against what they considered to be an invading army which was arguably unjustly ruling over the population of white old men who didn’t like paying taxes, and the method of dealing with that was an army and a civilian militia. They thought they needed guns then and I suppose they had a reason.
Fast forward to 2013, shall we. No invading army. No militia. No need the private ownership of firearms on those accounts.
I get that you are frightened of our government. But I think that you are being unreasonable and a bit paranoid, and that your tinfoil hat might be causing you to bitterly cling to a 1700′s mindset, I’m afraid. So not only in the government not tyrannical (unless you consider the beginnings of universal health case-a hallmark of all other industrial nations to be tyranny, which that, and that ineligible black radical atheist Muslim in the White House, is my bet for what is bugging you, but I digress), but there isn’t one thing you and your little gun can do about it. So modern society judges that your need for guns does not outweighs the harm caused by armed civilians. We one, you lost.
The rest of your ideas about self defense are equally outdated. If you live in constant fear of crime, might I suggest you upgrade your neighborhood to a place where you feel safer? You know, that personal responsibility thing you all love to preach to others? I don’t need a gun because I choose to work hard enough where I can live in a crime free part of downtown Chicago.
So maybe we can’t ban your guns. But we can tax and legislate you out of ownership, and I’ll start there. Then we go after the bad guys, but we have to start somewhere, and you will just have to do. And if you resist, maybe those fictitious FEMA camps are not such a bad idea…
On your remaining points, yes, I would move to Paris in a heartbeat, but I will do do because I want to, not because you tell me to. I’d rather stay and help fundamentally transform this country away from what I do not like into something more progressive and in line with the quality of life in the EU. I will try to have the best of both worlds here, if you don’t mind, but if you do, again; we won, you lost.
Planecrashlaw,
You are certainly a piece of work. I don’t know where you get that the dark ages were “God based,” but in reality, the dark ages began with the collapse of the Roman empire following the sacking of Rome by the pagan barbarians, which completely destroyed society. If it had not been for the “God based” system of monasticism, much of the knowledge gained by the Romans would have been lost. And the concept of Natural rights was not even developed in the dark ages. It came about from the Enightenment era, which was definitely not “God based.” The social contract theory originated in that time as well. The reason we don’t have a social contract system is because society will gladly sacrifice their liberty for a false sense of security.
Just for the record I do not have a tin foil hat and Barack Obama is a legitimate president, who, by all accounts is a Christian. (I also find it ironic that you accuse me of racism saying I believe Obama is an “ineligible black radical atheist Muslim,” but turn right around and talking about old white guys being afraid and paranoia) Now if it makes you feel better to imagine me and everyone else you troll to be fictitious, paranoid nutjobs, go right ahead, but realize that when everyone you talk to is actually just an average person, it makes you look crazy.
As I mentioned in my previous post, there have been numerous governments that have turned on their own people in the last hundred years. Just look at Germany, Russia, Japan, China, Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, Italy, and Spain to name a few. All of those countries have had governments that unjustly ruled over their people.The only thing protecting us is our Constitution. Take that away, and what is there to stop politicians from being elected through their promise of free stuff and hand-outs to “useful idiots,” who would like to “fundamentally transform” America into statism, where only the government has power?
I’ve got a few questions for you. If “modern society” is the controlling force and they can take away your right to own a gun, can they also take away your right to free speech? Protest? Your due process? The ability to choose what foods you can eat, cars you can drive, and lightbulbs you can use?
It seems as though you think gun ownership is something reserved only for the rich. Do you think it’s fair for someone who is poor and has no possible way of leaving a crime ridden city to move for a safer neighborhood to not have access to a gun for self defense, because of your government taxes? But hey I guess if they get shot in a robbery they always have their universal healthcare.
You would really like to move to France? Their unemployment has been rising for a year and a half, and it is only a matter of time before their government collapses as Greece a did. So much for “quality of life.” That quality of life is unsustainable, it doesn’t work there and it won’t work here.
planecrashlaw:
My we are smug and self-satisfied. I hope that you remain safe and crime never invades your happy life. (Though in Chicago the chances of that are slim and getting slimmer.)
As for “we won, you lost”, you are wrong. We all lost, only you are too self-deceived to realize it. I believe you are a prefect illustration of the famous quote “…the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
Do you not see where the “progressive… quality of life in the EU” is going. I guess not, so I’ll enlighten you: down the toilet. There are laws that even you progressives can change — as Margaret Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
As for the right to bear arms, study the history of tyrants and despot. The first step after seizing power is to confiscate firearms. If you think that can’t happen in our wonderful modern era, you are again deceived.
Go ahead and try to tax my guns. I live in a southern state with a republican legislature and governor. Won’t happen in my lifetime. And, I too work hard and have plenty of money. I think I’ll buy another gun…
Finally your logic regarding gun confiscation is flawed. Why would you take the means of self-defense from law-abiding citizens and THEN go after the bad guys? You must be an attorney! (Apologies to all conservative attorneys who may read this.)
Enjoy your little political win in 2012. I figure you guys will have things so screwed by 2014 that the Senate will go conservative. Then your little party will be over. If it doesn’t then you can enjoy your American Europe right before it crashes and burns. We conservatives will be there to rebuild the country into something that works again.
I’ll not check back here to read your further ramblings, so don’t bother to respond.
Yes, I am a piece of work. A 51 year old white male lawyer and Air Force veteran who has been married for 30 years and am quite happy, non paranoid and prosperous. I am not a “taker, probably pay more in a year in taxes than most people make, and do so freely because I understand that paying taxes is the price we pay for living in a civilized society. I just happen to be progressive by way of education and disposition.
And I don’t know you, but sound awfully similar to many of the tinfiol Blaze, Malkin, Hot Air and RedState posters with their Obama Derangement Syndrome at full throttle. So if you see Obama as both christian and legitimate, take a bow. But understand that you stand pretty much alone if you both believe that and still spout the same anti-government paranoia that I am hearing. You do sound very angry and unhappy, and that is too bad. I like the 21st century, and you seem to have preferred an earlier time. Must be the “progress” of progressive and the “conserve” of conservative in action.
Sorry if I used the Dark Ages reference without more thought. It was more of a God comment, as thinking that an imaginary sky friend can grant you anything, let alone the right to shoot people who you politically disagree with with an automatic weapon, seems a bit ‘unenlightened” and more suitable for Dark Ages superstition and not 21st century thinking.
Finally, to answer your questions, I guess that I do not have a problem with society, via government, deeming that some aspect of rights granted by the founders needs to be modified as society progresses. The 1st does not state that “Congress shall make no law..” regarding speech or assembly, except for restricting porn or designating the time or place of assembly so as to protect public safety, is OK. It says “shall not” in absolutes, but the reality is that we look to educated Judges and the government to modify the constitution as we evolve to match what society deems best for everyone. So the lightbulbs, cars etc. that you want as an individual may have to yield for the greater common good.
And if we eventually ban guns, and some people die unarmed, it is because society deemed that a certain number of deaths from crime is acceptable as a trade off for avoiding the more unfortunate things which happen with armed civilians. Sure it sucks to be a victim of crime, but no more so than it sucks to be a victim of auto accidents. And there, society has deemed that the social utility of having autos outweighs the risk of X number of deaths in car crashes. The same with air travel, alcohol etc.
Sorry we can’t agree on much. But I have enjoyed the conversation.
BZZT. The rights weren’t granted by the founders. They’re called natural rights. You are born with them whether you believe in God or not.
Try again.
Hey libtards, Protip: It’s the BILL OF RIGHTS, not the BILL OF NEEDS. You need abortion, we need our defense. Don’t like it? Give up abortion or shut up.