Sharp as a Marble - It's almost too much to fisk

<< Good luck | Home | Quote of the Day - Roberta X edition >>

Anti-Rights Idiocy

I left a comment, but it was hard to keep my cool. The amount of nanny-state PSH in this article just got my temperature rising.

Help me out here (for God's sake, she's quoting HEMENWAY) but be polite.

posted @ 3/19/2008 8:38:21 PM

Comments

the pistolero says:

on 3/19/2008 9:27:05 PM

Robb, my friend, I would have said something, but you said it better than I could. What the hell is WRONG with people?

Gregory Morris says:

on 3/20/2008 7:19:41 AM

Looks like she hasn't found any supporters yet... just us knuckle-dragging gun-lobby-controlled thugs.

Breda says:

on 3/20/2008 12:09:16 PM

Is it okay if I just comment with:"I second Robb" ?

You're very good at this sort of thing. Thank you.

BobG says:

on 3/20/2008 5:23:26 PM

I have noticed that whenever anti-gun people post something like that and gun owners refute them, the anti-gun people immediately do two things.

1. Insist that everyone is being rude (after all, we disagreed with them)
2. Completely ignore all facts and sources that they are given to disprove their assertions. Only their sources are to be considered.

It reminds me of trying to have a discussion with a ten year old.

Robb Allen says:

on 3/20/2008 5:30:28 PM

Nah, ten year olds eventually grow up and realize their parents were right.

Linoge says:

on 3/21/2008 3:03:09 AM

Oh good grief, now she has pulled out the "gun show loophole" and the belief that "assault weapons" are somehow more powerful, higher-capacity, and faster shooters than any other semi-automatic firearm.

This woman gives the concept of "arguing from ignorance" a whole new meaning...

Linoge says:

on 3/21/2008 6:38:47 AM

Correction to my last:

The comments are gone. All of them. *poof*

No explanation, no rationalization, just gone.

Now, my connection may be at fault for this - it sucks, to put it simply - and if someone can corroborate, I would appreciate it. But, it looks to me we have a full-throttle case of Reasoned Discourse here.

Breda says:

on 3/21/2008 11:14:38 AM

Comments are still there.

But I've been thinking...aside from the effects of sanitation and vaccinations, and epidemics of diseases like like bird flu and the black plague, is there really such a thing as "public health"? Especially in regards to firearms? I just am not getting the connection.

Linoge says:

on 3/21/2008 5:23:49 PM

Wow. Ok. Strike my last. However, I swear unto whatever God you so desire that when I wrote that last one, all of the comments were gone-gone... How strange. Apologies for the confusion/misinformation.

DirtCrashr says:

on 3/21/2008 7:30:25 PM

Nice work!! The follow-on comments are particularly good too! :-)

straightarrow says:

on 3/23/2008 1:39:52 AM

I was polite. However, I don't think it will be perceived that way because I translated it to a real threat to public safety and health and used her logic. It comes out ridiculous to the nth degree, but hey, I used her parameters, and this what you get:

March 23, 2008 at 1:17 am

straightarrow

The one thing I have noticed here is that the anti-gunners or gun control advocates favor emotional hyperbole over provable fact and pre-emptive punishment before any crime is committed.

I am going to now offer a more relevant analog than the others that have been offered.

More people have died from AIDS worldwide in the last 30 years than have been killed in all of history through use of all arms, and certainly, by many orders magnitude, more than have been killed by firearms. (remember, only 30 years)

Ergo, why are not these people who express such concern about public safety not screaming for genital control and regulation? Should not every possible organ useful in the numerous sex acts be registered? Should we not require background checks, health screens, and morality reviews before anyone is allowed to use their genitals for recreation or procreation? Should not every ogan useful in any of the numerous sex acts be registered and licensed? Should not their use be by permit only?

Remember, these organs have proven to be far more deadly than all the arms in history and they did it in only 30 to 35 years. We can and have accurately calculated the costs in human life and societal decay due the horrible effect AIDS has had on the world. One of this world’s entire continent’s population is at dire risk of extinction due to this horrible disease. It strikes young, old, and even children who have never even matured enough to use their genitals in concert with another person. Nobody has ever defended his family with a penis or vagina, so we can safely say there are no DGU’s (Defensive Genital Uses) to offset the costs of genitals, very unlike the argument about arms.

I am not asking for a complete ban on genitals, only “reasonable restrictions”. A national database which registers all genitals, full background checks before issuance of any GOP (Genital Ownership Permit), Genital Use Permit, where every instance of desire to use a genital in any manner must be approved by a governing board and a permit issued upon completion of examination by assigns or appointees of the state for each permitted use. Of course, there could be only one gential use per month, no high capacity genitals would be allowed (thank God, I am safe on that one), And all scary Evil Black Genitals would be banned from further distribution to the citizen.(sarcasm, in case you didn’t recognize it)

If the argument were really about public safety this would take a much higher priority than the gun issue. Ergo, I can only assume the argument is not really about safety, public or otherwise.

Even though my analogy is in exact accord with the claimed logic and principles advanced by gun control advocates, I cannot see them ever agreeing to such an egregious assault on the personages of citizens, even while they call for what is an identical assault on other citizens who actually have a defensible argument for their DGU’s (in this case, Defensive Gun Uses)

To tell the truth, I’m not for it either. But this is exactly the same dynamic they are trying to set up, just so long as they get to choose whom is abused of their rights. Seems just a tad hypocritical to me if they really want to cloak themselves in the robe of “public safety”.