BATF Still Abusing Kids

Loyal reader and partymeister Mediageek hips us to the grim unveiling of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives' Kid's Art Contest. If nothing else, the contest shows that the BATF(and sometimes E) hasn't stopped abusing kids since its causative role in the Waco debacle.

Maybe it's just the fact that I recently took in the Dada exhibit currently at the National Gallery, but these offerings by young tykes ages 2-13 discombobulated me far, far more than anything Marcel Duchamp, et al., pulled off.

The art, rendered by ATFers' kids, is supposed to depict what the tykes "thought their parents did at work."

For your viewing pleasure:

Whole thing here.

Watch PBS' Waco: The Inside Story here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I love the sicko take on Waco here. The ATF "abus(ing)" kids? What a stupid sick assertion. Koresh was abusing the kids, you *@#$. Meanwhile, the gun manufacturers full well know that they are over-producing guns and ammo per actual legal demand with the full intent to see those guns and ammo in the hands of street gangs and loonies. Oh - but the ATF is to blame!

    Idiotic.

    JMJ

  • ||

    Obviously, kids aren't particularly grounded in reality. But that "Cheyenne" piece is a total work of fiction.

    The dog hasn't been shot.

  • ||

    "over-producing guns and ammo per actual legal demand"

    So "demand" is to be determined by the government?

    The feds are beyond criticism for their handling of Waco and Ruby Ridge?

    Are you serious?

  • ||

    The kid thinks his parent's job involves burning churches. I don't know what's worse, that, or the fact that the picture was chosen as a winner. The hubris of the folks at ATF must be off the scale.

  • ||

    Mr Mean Guy,

    There have to be regulations on the number of guns produced. They are a hazard. Just as the gov't had to step in when Ludes were over-produced, and no Oxycontin and cough syrupes. This is about the public good, not about the size of some hick's penis.

    I never said "The feds are beyond criticism for their handling of Waco and Ruby Ridge," so don't be disingenuous.

    JMJ

  • ||

    Uh, I think he's supposed to be arresting a church-burner there.

    mediageek, do you read or post at ILX?

  • ||

    Uh, I think he's supposed to be arresting a church-burner there.

    Whoops, heh heh. That makes a little more sense. There go those preconceptions, getting me in trouble again.

  • ||

    The first picture looks like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

  • ||

    I think the pics sum it up quite well.

    1) Who knows why the fuck they even exist!?

    2) Sticking their noses in where they don't belong (I don't see how a church arson has anything to do with alcohol, tobacco or firearms)

    3) Going Navy-SEAL-style after some stupid redneck who lives in the middle of nowhere because he didn't register his rifles with the government.


    Isn't that pretty much a summation of what BATF does?

  • Rich Ard||

    I think the first kid's dad has been stealing acid.

  • ||

    "So "demand" is to be determined by the government?

    The feds are beyond criticism for their handling of Waco and Ruby Ridge?

    Are you serious?"

    Don't worry, Mr. Nice Guy, JMJ is obviously just a troll, albeit a (slightly) clever one. If we just ignore him, he'll probably go away.

  • ||

    Again, God forbid we have a real debate. No, we have to resort to lying: "The feds are beyond criticism for their handling of Waco and Ruby Ridge?" I never said that, so stop lying (it reflects poorly on your character).

    Sometimes the government regulates production, people. That's why Ludes are no longer all over the streets and why none of you have been killed in a car crash because some dude was driving on Ludes. Something tells me that all your libertarian nonsense would go right out the window if someone close to you was killed with a gun over-producesd by the sleazy pond scum known as the gun manufacturers.

    JMJ

  • ||

    JMJ:

    "There have to be regulations on the number of guns produced. They are a hazard."

    So are many kitchen tools. Should the government form the Bureau of Chef's Knives, Large Frying Pans, and Icepicks (BCKLFPI)?

    If "It's hazardous" was the only requirement for the government to regulate something, this would be a much scarier country than it already is. Badnarik put it best in a speech he gave here a couple years ago: a nuclear bomb by all rights should be regulated. Contrary to Michael Moore's implication that nuclear bombs are no different than guns, there is a difference, and that difference lies in "clear and present danger". In other words, there is virtually no safe way to use a nuclear bomb without some collateral damage. Yet, guns can and are safely used every day by thousands upon thousands of people. The fact that guns can be used unsafely or in criminal activities does not mean that they necessarily are.

    Furthermore, JMJ, even if limits are placed on gun manufacturers, the criminals will find ways to get the guns they want. It's not as if guns cause crime, they are only a tool sometimes used by criminals.

  • ||

    Meanwhile, the gun manufacturers full well know that they are over-producing guns and ammo per actual legal demand with the full intent to see those guns and ammo in the hands of street gangs and loonies.

    Evidence, please.

  • ||

    andy:

    It reminds of that Simpsons episode with the giant mascot eyesores that run amok. The only way to kill them is to pay them no mind.

    "Just don't look.. Just don't look." Don't feed the trolls.

    It's kinda hard ignoring the Lard Lad with his killer doughnut.

  • ||

    "Sometimes the government regulates production, people. That's why Ludes are no longer all over the streets and why none of you have been killed in a car crash because some dude was driving on Ludes."

    Yeah, they just got other mind-altering substances instead. I knew people who have been killed by drunk drivers. All this goes to show is that the problem lies not with the enabler, but with deeper personal or societal problems---and that limiting or prohibiting the enabler is never a real solution---unless said "enabler" cannot be used in a safe manner (like a nuke).

    "Something tells me that all your libertarian nonsense would go right out the window if someone close to you was killed with a gun over-producesd by the sleazy pond scum known as the gun manufacturers."

    No, Jersey, it would not, because no matter how much emotion and rage I would have inside of me, nothing could convince me to abandon all logic and somehow come to the foolish conclusion that that person I knew would be alive today if not for the gun manufacturers. If someone wanted to kill or harm that person that I was close to, having less-easy access to firearms probably isn't going to make a huge difference.

  • ||

    Jesus H Christ, Jersey I was just about to compliment you on you brilliant satire at 08:05 AM. Then I read your 08:54 AM and realized you're fucking serious.

    And you had the nerve to call someone, who obviously was being satirical, mentally unbalanced on the immigration thread yesterday.

    You'll have no problem with the BATFE to coming to your house, unannounced, to search for all your illegal guns, will you?

  • ||

    Looks like artist Dixon has been watching South Park.

  • ||

    Something tells me that all your libertarian nonsense would go right out the window if someone close to you was killed with a gun over-producesd [sic] by the sleazy pond scum known as the gun manufacturers.

    Something tells you, huh? What might that "something" be, you condescending fuck? Don't you dare presume to tell us what we think or believe. We'll do our own talking, thank you.

  • ||

    "Something tells me that all your libertarian nonsense would go right out the window if someone close to you was killed with a gun over-producesd by the sleazy pond scum known as the gun manufacturers."

    My cousin was hit by a car. I have yet to call for restriction on the production of automobiles.

  • ||

    You'll have no problem with the BATFE to coming to your house, unannounced, to search for all your illegal guns, will you?

    Of course not, only the guilty would have something to hide.

  • ||

    Looks like artist Dixon has been watching South Park.

    "RESPECT MY AUTHOR-I-TAY!"

  • ||

    Credibility is such a fragile thing.

  • ||

    Are we sure this isn't a really elaborate The Onion joke that got out of hand?

  • ||

    JMJ:

    Evan,

    "Should the government form the Bureau of Chef's Knives, Large Frying Pans, and Icepicks (BCKLFPI)?"

    Ever slice a pot roast with a machine gun? I didn't think so.

    "If "It's hazardous" was the only requirement for the government to regulate something, this would be a much scarier country than it already is."

    Of course, just that it be generally and subjectively "hazardous" is not nearly enough. The gov't would have to a show specific set of rationale. Guns are overproduced and are being used in serious crimes, so much so that our crime rates are similar to those of the worst Third World nations. That's not just hazardous - it's obviously a serious problem that could be mitigated by regulation.

    "...guns can and are safely used every day by thousands upon thousands of people."

    Yes, that's fine. Again, stop being ridiculous. No one says they should all be banned (well, I least I didn't say that...).


    "Furthermore, JMJ, even if limits are placed on gun manufacturers, the criminals will find ways to get the guns they want."

    Fine, let them smuggle them in. Better that than having American companies make guns for criminals.

    Akira,

    ...Meanwhile, the gun manufacturers full well know that they are over-producing guns and ammo per actual legal demand with the full intent to see those guns and ammo in the hands of street gangs and loonies.

    "Evidence, please."

    http://www.csgv.org/docUploads/nystate%5Fordergrant%5Fdefenddismiss%5F81001%2Epdf

    Evan,

    "Yeah, I knew people who have been killed by drunk drivers. All this goes to show is that the problem lies not with the enabler, but with deeper personal or societal problems---and that limiting or prohibiting the enabler is never a real solution---unless said "enabler" cannot be used in a safe manner (like a nuke)."

    Yeah right, that's why DUIs have declined so conspiculously, right? OF COURSE THE PROBLEM LIES WITH THE ENABLER AS MUCH AS ANYONE ELSE!!! Jesus Christ, man, could a fish swim without water? You can't have one without the other.

    Something tells me that all your libertarian nonsense would go right out the window if someone close to you was killed with a gun over-producesd by the sleazy pond scum known as the gun manufacturers.

    "... nothing could convince me to abandon all logic and somehow come to the foolish conclusion that that person I knew would be alive today if not for the gun manufacturers."

    Then you lack vision.

    JMJ

  • ||

    But what if they over-produce the sort of gun that fires when gently bumped? :)

  • ||

    Akira MacKenzie Something tells you, huh? What might that "something" be

    I'm guessing the voices in his head.

  • ||

    Jersey McJones is right. I was killed killed in a car crash because some dude was driving on Ludes and all my libertarian nonsense went right out the window. If my libertarian nonsense had been wearing a seat belt, as state and federal regulations required, it would have survived the collision!

  • ||

    Good to see how libertarian ideologies are more important to you all than the safety of our kids and public.

    JMJ

  • ||

    If Darfur had as many guns as America did there probably wouldn't be a genocide going on over there right now.

  • ||

    Sometimes the government regulates production, people. That's why Ludes are no longer all over the streets and why none of you have been killed in a car crash because some dude was driving on Ludes.

    I think the government should regulate the production of cars so that there are just enough to satisfy the demand by competent, law-abiding drivers. But noooo, the evil and greedy car manufacturers continue to produce cars in excess of the demand by that market, knowing full well that some of them will be used by bank robbers, speeders and drunk drivers.

    Then you lack vision.

    Vision is wonderful, unless yours is cluttered with funny talking animals and swirling colors.

  • slightlybad||

    Not to pile on but. . .

    "OF COURSE THE PROBLEM LIES WITH THE ENABLER AS MUCH AS ANYBODY ELSE"

    Hey dumbass, the reasons that DUI's have declined so precipitously is not because we hold bartenders or liquor store owners accountable for them. It's because enforcement standards have gotten so much tougher. The consequences these days are serious and you end up with mandatory jail time in a lot of states for a 2nd one.

    I'm all about tough sentences for people who commit crimes with guns, but I don't see why the stupid, criminal or psychotic behavior of others can be used to justify infringements on my rights.

  • ||

    Jersey

    "Ever slice a pot roast with a machine gun? I didn't think so."



    I have killed the critter to slice the pot roast from with a gun.

  • ||

    Everyone does realize the reason the 2nd amendment exists is to give the citizens of the US the tools to perform the responsibilty of regulating the government, I hope.

    Giving up that responsibility is unAmerican.

  • ||

    How would regulating gun production infringe on your rights? They already produce more than the legal market can absorb!

    JMJ

  • ||

    Yes Dan - I seem to recall somethiong about a "well regulated" militia...

    JMJ-

  • ||

    "Ever slice a pot roast with a machine gun? I didn't think so."

    I know this is just trollitude, but I can't help it.

    Is the implication that the use of a knife to slice a pot roast is legitimate while the use of a firearm to shoot someone threatening my life isn't?

    Is the implication that machine gun production for the private market isn't already restricted?

    The overproduction argument hasn't held much ground once it gets in front of judges, Spitzer's political grandstanding notwithstanding.

  • ||

    Jason,

    That's because the courts are 2/3rds GOP. Guns make them feel them good.

    The argument I was making about the pot roast stemmed from an argument someone made to me comparing guns to kitchen implements. I didn't start that nor was implying anything other than that guns are not kitchen implements.

    JMJ

  • ||

    JMJ

    "well regulated"

    By whom ???

    The founders obviously found the citizens of the land to be the ultimate authority.

    Voting.... Jury nullification.... etc etc

    Surely you aren't pretending the current mammoth we have as a govt. truly represents the peoples interests.

  • ||

    "Vision is wonderful, unless yours is cluttered with funny talking animals and swirling colors."

    It depends on how "clean" it is, Stevo :)

  • ||

    The government (the indstitution of the people with the power to regulate) must regulate (monitor and enact/enforce rules) the militia (the armed citizenry of the nation).

    What the *$ is so difficult for you loonies to grasp about that?

    JMJ

  • ||

    A large number of the libertarians here aren't ideologues at all. Reason and many of its readers are more in the utilitarian camp, from what I've read hereabouts. If I can be forgiven for presuming to speak for others, I'd say we generally believe that a more libertarian society is better for virtually everyone, not just for a few. One of the reasons we cite the Founding Fathers and their philosophies so much is that we buy into the idea of giving people the means to maximize their own happiness. No government or group is going to do that for them. Certainly not as effectively, and often not at all. History has shown that again and again and again.

    How much government is needed is debatable and probably always will be. But to ignore the abuses of government power through history, to turn your back on the tremendous successes of the liberal experiment, to throw the baby out with the bathwater--well, that's truly sad. Even our more liberal (in the modern sense) longtime commenters--joe comes to mind--often disagree with the standard libertarian positions out of what could be viewed as a kind of libertarian mindset. That is, they don't like unchecked power in any person's hands. While we may not agree with their solutions to such problems, I don't think many people here think that a free market would be perfect or that oppression couldn't just as easily come from groups outside of government. Living with freedom isn't easy, but it beats the heck out of trying to win it in the first place. Giving it over to the government in bits and pieces strikes me as foolish, at best.

  • ||

    I seem to recall somethiong about a "well regulated" militia...

    As an ex-English teacher, I have this theory that people wouldn't be so clueless about the Second Amendment if students were still required to learn how to diagram sentences. Consider:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Translation: Since we're going to need a standing army to keep the state secure, we won't take away people's right to own guns. The Founders distrusted the idea of a standing army but understood the necessity of having one. And a standing army who possessed ALL the guns could easily stage a military coup to take over the country. Thus, the people are allowed to have guns to keep the army--the armed branch of the government--from running roughshod over the rights of the people.

    Meanwhile, giving the government the authority to regulate production of the thing that's supposed to keep the government in check is a recipe for disaster.

  • ||

    Everyone should quit feeding the troll and reflect on how profoundly disturbing the winning picture by the 12 year old is. The first thought that comes to my mind is right-wing paramilitaries creeping up on the house of some peasant organizer. As another poster noted, the only flaw is that the dog should be paws up with X's over its eyes.
    A twelve year old is old enough to form a pretty good conception of what Daddy tells him goes on at work, and apparently this is it. The fact that they chose it as the winner is very revealing of the departmental mindset. And yet they wonder why people refer to them as jackbooted thugs.

  • ||

    Good to see how libertarian ideologies are more important to you all than the safety of our kids and public.

    JMJ


    Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and I'll be glad to mail you a hankie - a nice pink one to go with your politics.

  • ||

    Jennifer,

    I'm quite skilled in English, myself.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    "Translation: Since we're going to need a standing army to keep the state secure, we won't take away people's right to own guns."

    Where in this sentence do you see that? The MILITIA is the armed citizenry of the republic, right? So what is being regulated here? It doesn't say "A well regulated Army, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

    JMJ

  • ||

    "Vision is wonderful, unless yours is cluttered with funny talking animals and swirling colors."

    I would imagine that this is your brain on GWB. Great post Stevo, I almost blew Coca Cola (tm) out of my nose on that one.

  • ||

    Where in this sentence do you see that? The MILITIA is the armed citizenry of the republic, right? So what is being regulated here? It doesn't say "A well regulated Army, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

    Yes, and the beauty of the English language is that it doesn't change at all, right? The word "militia" in 1789 meant the exact same thing as it does in 2006. The Founders were not talking about an army, but a bunch of paranoid white guys in Montana and Idaho.

  • ||

    Jersey McJones

    We're at your house right now to search for any of the illegal weapons that gunmakers have overproduced that you might have in your possession.

    Then we're on our way to your grandma's house. I'm sure she won't mind the damage to her front door from the battering ram. It's FOR THE CHILDREN, don't you know?

  • ||

    Batty, good luck with that. Grandma's been dead for years.

    Jennifer, the militia, at that time, (I was a history major, myself) was the armed freemen citizenry of the republic. Period.

    JMJ

  • ||

    My views on firearms have gone through various stages over the years. The one thing that has been constant is a belief that the 2nd amendment should be, well, amended. Replace it with something that, in modern English, leaves far less room for ambiguity. Whether you think that the "shall not be infringed" part is most important, or the "well-regulated militia" part is most important, it would be nice if it were amended to sort that out.

    Yeah, I know, it will never happen. I knew that even back when I felt differently than I do today. I'm just saying.

  • ||

    Jersey:

    "The argument I was making about the pot roast stemmed from an argument someone made to me comparing guns to kitchen implements. I didn't start that nor was implying anything other than that guns are not kitchen implements."

    In proposing the analogy of kitchen tools, my point (obviously lost on you) was that guns can also be used for things other than violent crime, therefore, regulating the production end of things is unjust and foolish.

    "How would regulating gun production infringe on your rights? They already produce more than the legal market can absorb!"

    Regulating gun production infringes upon the rights of the gun manufacturers and all of their employees who make a living producing these legal products.

    Furthermore, if you were to artifically restrict supply, then prices for legal gun owners will rise (simple economics!). The black market will still flourish---probably moreso---but the higher prices for legal owners will mean that the fraction of new guns that are legally owned will drop. After all, if a criminal wants a gun, he can get one pretty easily, but folks who are paying for them for protection or hunting are only able/willing to pay so much for them. So, the more you restrict production, the lower the percentage of owners will be legal purchasers. Criminals will always get their guns.

    "Good to see how libertarian ideologies are more important to you all than the safety of our kids and public."

    It's for the children! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN! And the PUBLIC! Please. It's not that we don't care about children or public safety---it's that your solution is unjust and will not solve the problem. It will simply make things more difficult for the legal owners---and it will shift profits from American gun companies to smugglers on the street. Yipee.

    But, hey, whenever someone pulls out the "won't someone please think of the children" card, you know they're nearing desperation.

    "Fine, let them smuggle them in. Better that than having American companies make guns for criminals."

    So, you don't care if they get smuggled in? But what about the children? What about the public? Fine?

    I'm confused. One minute, it's all about the end results, its all about safety, it's all about how things pan out. Then, the next minute, you don't care about the result, you care about WHO plays a part in said result.

    Which is it?

    "Yeah right, that's why DUIs have declined so conspiculously, right? OF COURSE THE PROBLEM LIES WITH THE ENABLER AS MUCH AS ANYONE ELSE!!!"

    DUI's have declined for many reasons. One is the fact that drunk driving has become socially taboo. Another is that the government has all but wiped its ass with the bill of rights when it comes to prosecuting "drunk" drivers (the discussion about whether this is just is for another day). But you show me the alcohol company whose production has been limited by the government to the quantity that can be legally consumed, and where this limit has had an effect on drunk driving, and I'll bow down before you. Of course, you can't because it hasn't happened.

    Really. Just imagine if the government tried to restrict the quantity of alcohol that is manufactured, with the goal being lowering the amount of drunkenness. Do you think it would work? Of course not.

  • ||

    Incidentally: I intensely dislike and distrust the current administration, but since I favor gun rights there's no hypocrisy there, at least. But I find it odd that, the more a person thinks the government should be in charge of all the guns, the more likely that person is to have no faith whatsoever in the current government.

    "Bush and Cheney are turning our country into a fascist dictatorship! Nonetheless, said dictatorship should be allowed to decide who gets a weapon and who doesn't."

  • ||

    Trollum delenda est.

  • ||

    "I didn't start that nor was implying anything other than that guns are not kitchen implements."

    Not true. The context of your statement specifies that the axis along which these implements are dissimilar is regulability based on use. Slicing a pot roast is legitimate use that exempts such implements from significant regulation while shooting an assailant isn't.

    Concerning the judges, you couldn't get that argument to fly even in New York. The very link you used to demonstrate the case for overproduction was nothing more than Spitzer grandstanding and the NYSC rejecting his argument.

  • ||

    I'm confused- why do the so-called "liberal leftists" hate our President? He's their guy; the man of their dreams. He's the guy that makes LBJ look like Herbert Hoover's stingy uncle.

    The foundation of the nanny state is that you-the-people are too helpless, stupid and pathetic to get through the day without the beneficent aid and assistance of the all-knowing matriarchic elite.

    George W Peron has conceived the ultimate manifestation of the nanny state; he has vowed to protect each and every American from the boogeyman. How could you not love that? Even the Wall Street Journal, judging by the unending series of simpering, slobbery smooches it plasters on the Presidential Scrotum via its editorial page, loves and reveres this maternalist dream.

    I could be wrong, but I have always believed that the concept of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" holds, ensconced in its embrace, the right to be left alone. Perhaps you mean well, but stop "helping" me. As my grandfather was wont to say: "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."

  • ||

    Slicing a pot roast is legitimate use that exempts such implements from significant regulation while shooting an assailant isn't.

    As the classic short 100-pound weakling, let me say that I'd rather eat a pot roast without a knife than defend myself from a home intruder without a gun.

  • ||

    Er, make that, DUI deaths have declined. DUI arrests have fluctuated depending on the level of enforcement and the definitions of the laws.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    At the time the constitution was written, 'regulated' did not have it's current meaning of 'overseen by the government' yet. 'Regulated', as applied to a military unit, meant one that sufficiently skilled as to be useful in combat.

    The original meaning of the second ammendment would be better reflected as 'A well trained Militia...'

  • ||

    "A well-fed working class being necessary to the survival of a nation, the right of the people to eat hamburgers shall not be infringed."

    Quiz:

    1) Does this sentence imply that there is no difference between "people" and "working class"?

    2) Does this sentence imply that only the working class has the right to eat hamburgers?

    3) Does this sentence imply that a well fed working class is the only reason to posit a right to burgers?

  • ||

    Jersey:

    Jennifer,

    "In proposing the analogy of kitchen tools, my point (obviously lost on you) was that guns can also be used for things other than violent crime, therefore, regulating the production end of things is unjust and foolish."

    We regulate things on the production end all the time, Jennifer. Where have you been?

    "Regulating gun production infringes upon the rights of the gun manufacturers and all of their employees who make a living producing these legal products."

    If they are "legal" products then why are there so many "illegal" guns out there? The gun manufacturers know full well that the guns are flooding the black markets. Fuck them. Let them find another way to make a living. There is no "right to make arms."

    "Furthermore, if you were to artifically restrict supply, then prices for legal gun owners will rise (simple economics!)."

    Simple minded economics, yes. They make more guns than can be absorbed buy the legitimate market. Period. So your argument here is simple, yes. Too simple.

    "The black market will still flourish---probably moreso---"

    Why? Why the hell "moreso?"

    "So, you don't care if they get smuggled in? But what about the children? What about the public? Fine?"

    The point I was making is that I'd rather make them smuggle them in than have the scum of the gun makers make them here. (Obviously lost on you)

    Evan,

    "Really. Just imagine if the government tried to restrict the quantity of alcohol that is manufactured, with the goal being lowering the amount of drunkenness. Do you think it would work? Of course not."

    They do. Where have you been?

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Note this original sense still survives in the practice of referring to improvised military units as 'irregular'.

  • ||

    Jennifer, "In proposing the analogy of kitchen tools, my point (obviously lost on you) was that guns can also be used for things other than violent crime, therefore, regulating the production end of things is unjust and foolish." We regulate things on the production end all the time, Jennifer. Where have you been?

    You're addressing this to the wrong person, Jersey.

    But I am curious--considering your distrust of the current administration (not that I blame you there), WHY do you think the world would be a better place if the government decided who does and does not get to have weapons?

    It's like I said before--the more a person wants the government to regulate weapons, the more that person probably distrusts the current government.

  • ||

    Jason,

    The right to bear arms is not infringed by being well regulation. All rights have limitations. The regulations are the limitations and expectations imposed by the state. We have the right to free speech but can not threaten grandmothers with battery. We have the right to commerce but not to sell rat poisoning as baby food. Why are you all so hung up on gun regulation?

    JMJ

  • ||

    Alright guys, fess up, one of you is masquerading as "JMJ" in a effort to paint lefties as incoherent loonies.

    Makes me miss joe. Though joe isn't as condescending as he once was (to the Reason staff particularly), and had some of the Worst. Analogies. Evah. , was a little knee-jerk defensive of Clintons - he did bring something to the debate, a occasionally got a few good one-liners in.

  • ||

    We have the right to free speech but can not threaten grandmothers with battery. We have the right to commerce but not to sell rat poisoning as baby food.

    Yes, as we have the right to own guns but don't have the right to shoot innocent people. The law already covers that.

  • ||

    STOP FEEDING THE McJONES, PEOPLE!

    Either he is extremely disingenuous or he is incredibly dense. In either case, it does no one any good to keep responding to him.

    (Side note, if he is for real, would anybody disagree that he is the most hardcore, reflexive statist we've ever had post on here?) Juanita doesn't count. ;)

  • ||

    Jennifer, I never made such a ridiculous assertion. All I said was that the manufacturers are over-producing with the intent to market illegally. That's it. I said they should be regulated to reduce the volume of production. We do this in countless sectors. Why not here?

    JMJ

  • ||

    Point taken, Andy. To get back to the original topic: when Mediageek first posted these pictures on Grylliade I actually thought the winning pictures were sly pieces of anti-ATF propaganda. The fact that the ATF would take them as a compliment scares the hell out of me.

  • ||

    "We regulate things on the production end all the time, Jennifer. Where have you been?"

    A) I said that, not Jen.

    B) Show me an instance where production quantity has been limited to some arbitrary "legal usage" amount, and where said limits have positively influenced society (not, as I have pointed out, simply shifted the burden or pushed legal users around). I have yet to see such an instance.

    "If they are "legal" products then why are there so many "illegal" guns out there?"

    Because of the definitions that the government has put in place. When I gun leaves a manufacturing plant, it is not illegal. It has everything to do with how people obtain said guns that speaks to their legality.

    "The gun manufacturers know full well that the guns are flooding the black markets. Fuck them. Let them find another way to make a living. There is no "right to make arms."

    Hehe. I always love it when people see "rights" as "positive rights". In other words, you don't have the RIGHT to piss, unless the government gives you permission! In a constitutional republic, show me where the government has the permission to stop manufacturers from making legal products?

    "Simple minded economics, yes. They make more guns than can be absorbed buy the legitimate market. Period. So your argument here is simple, yes. Too simple."

    Not simple minded at all. Just common sense: market oversaturation does not cause crime. Criminals are going to commit crimes, whether gun manufacturers are making lots of guns or just a few guns. I have yet to see any evidence that your scheme would work. Do you have real historical examples, wherein a legal product has been quantity-regulated at the production end, and where this has had a negative effect on the criminal activities where these products have been used, while not simply pushing the burden to another market or another product? I'm waiting.

    "The point I was making is that I'd rather make them smuggle them in than have the scum of the gun makers make them here. (Obviously lost on you)"

    What's the difference in the end? Really. What difference does it make to you?

    "Really. Just imagine if the government tried to restrict the quantity of alcohol that is manufactured, with the goal being lowering the amount of drunkenness. Do you think it would work? Of course not."

    They do. Where have you been?"

    Yeah, that's right, I forgot. Wait, no, no, that's not right. Please, explain. Show me where alcohol production quantities have been limited by the government, and these limits have had a positive effect on "illegal" drinking, without simply pushing the criminals into another market/product, or simply shifting the profits to bootleggers? I have yet to see this example.

  • ||

    All I said was that the manufacturers are over-producing with the intent to market illegally

    Have you any evidence at all for this?

  • ||

    I am Jersey McJones. Feel free to Google the name. I've written extensively and consistently, I might add. I believe firmly that the Right's fixation on the issue of gun control is a symptom of their insecurity and shame and fear and racism. They are easily lead with such bullshit issues (God, gays, and guns) and endlessly and hyperbolically rationalize and shout about the need for unregulated arming of the people because they live in a fantasy world. I believe they are all morons.

    JMJ

  • ||

    I believe firmly that the Right's fixation on the issue of gun control is a symptom of their insecurity and shame and fear and racism.

    I'm a left-winger. What do you suppose is behind my fixation on gun rights?

  • ||

    Jennifer, anyone who reads knows that the vast majority of illegal guns are manufactured here. It's as simple as that.

    JMJ

  • ||

    andy is right. Debate is one thing, dealing with illogic and unthinking dogma is another.

    Jennifer, how about another gratuitous reference to showers, blankets, or general nudity to recapture the thread? ;)

  • ||

    Jersey, your tirade against the right is fine, but what does that have to do with others? For instance, I have no fixation with god or gays. In fact, I don't have a fixation with guns----I just find your authoritarian solution to this problem to be both misguided and unjust.

    You can't pass that off with some catchall diatribe against the GOP.

  • ||

    Evan, I don't know how old you are, but in America we still have dry counties, and states that regulate sales and production and even some that do the selling themselves (in the Carolinas liquor must be sold in mini bottles at bars), etc.

    JMJ

  • ||

    "the manufacturers are over-producing with the < b>intent to market illegally..."

    "...anyone who reads knows that the vast majority of illegal guns are manufactured here. It's as simple as that."

    That's a logical fallacy. Plain and simple. Take an introductory Language & Logic course. You'll see. It's called a "fallacy". The conclusion does not logically follow from the proposition.

  • ||

    Jennifer, how about another gratuitous reference to showers, blankets, or general nudity to recapture the thread? ;)

    The "shower" reference was not gratuitous at all, PL; I was trying to open you guys' eyes to the lies the Shampoo-Industrial complex has been telling you about the relative sexiness of women taking showers.

  • ||

    Jennifer, how about another gratuitous reference to showers, blankets, or general nudity to recapture the thread? ;)

    The "shower" reference was not gratuitous at all, PL; I was trying to open you guys' eyes to the lies the Shampoo-Industrial complex has been telling you about the relative sexiness of women taking showers.

  • ||

    Jennifer, how about another gratuitous reference to showers, blankets, or general nudity to recapture the thread? ;)

    The "shower" reference was not gratuitous at all, PL; I was trying to open you guys' eyes to the lies the Shampoo-Industrial complex has been telling you about the relative sexiness of women taking showers.

    There are none so blind as those who will not see. Especially if they have shampoo in their eyes.

  • ||

    "Evan, I don't know how old you are, but in America we still have dry counties, and states that regulate sales and production and even some that do the selling themselves (in the Carolinas liquor must be sold in mini bottles at bars), etc."

    A) I've been to these dry counties. Everyone just goes to the next county over to get their booze.

    B) I live in VA, where we have the Alcoholic Beverage Control---they own a monopoly on distilled spirits sales. You can only get it from them, at their stores, or delivered to your restaurant. None of this has stopped people from getting trashed. I can walk into an ABC store and buy a case of bourbon, no questions asked, and drink it all myself. And then get behind the wheel of a car. The ABC has not prevented anything.

    C) Again: I have asked you for evidence that said regulation exists, and that said regulation works how you claim it will work. So far, all you have shown me is that said regulation exists. You have yet to show me that said regulation works like you said it will. I'm still waiting.

  • ||

    The reason so many are fixated on guns is because they realize that is the last line defense we have from tyranny.

    The 2nd amendment as it stands now really won't stop the govt from any abuse. Imagine holding off even a piddly Bradley fighting vehicle with your hunting rifle.

    Until the milita that is formed from the citizens equals the militia the govt can form in equipment alone we have a tyranny waiting to happen. The forefathers had foresight but no one could imagine the ingenious methods humans would devise to kill other humans.

    Bush has shown what a leader can get away with should he have motive.

  • ||

    The reason so many are fixated on guns is because they realize that is the last line defense we have from tyranny.

    The 2nd amendment as it stands now really won't stop the govt from any abuse. Imagine holding off even a piddly Bradley fighting vehicle with your hunting rifle.

    Until the milita that is formed from the citizens equals the militia the govt can form in equipment alone we have a tyranny waiting to happen. The forefathers had foresight but no one could imagine the ingenious methods humans would devise to kill other humans.

    Bush has shown what a leader can get away with should he have motive.

  • ||

    Evan and Jennifer, you're right. I do not think you libertarians are all with the Right on this, per se. But you're arguments are similar.

    JMJ

  • ||

    This server is SUCH a useless piece of crap.

  • ||

    It is too late for me, my daughter. You don't know the power of the Dark Side of the Shower.

  • ||

    Jonesy McJerse:

    It doesn't matter how similar they are.

    Your attempt to dismiss the argument through association with discredited parties who hold similar beliefs on this particular issue is deplorable. You call into question their motives, then imply that, since our argument is the same, our motives are as well. Deplorable.

  • ||

    Evan and Jennifer, you're right. I do not think you libertarians are all with the Right on this, per se. But you're arguments are similar.

    If I pointed out that the Nazis instituted a strict gun-control program shortly after coming into power, and then pointed out that their motivation was to disarm the populace before turning the country into a totalitarian hellhole, and THEN implied that your motivation must be the same as theirs, would you be offended by this?

    I don't see why you should--it's no different from your insistence that the only people who are pro-gun rights are motivated by "insecurity and shame and fear and racism."

    But no, let me guess: in your world, ALL pro-gun people share the impure motivations of pro-gun worse-case scenarios, but all anti-gun people must be judged as individuals, right?

  • ||

    JMJ,

    We have regulations on the sale of alchohol that vary by state and county but the government does not tell Jack Daniels how many bottles of bourbon it can legally produce.

    All guns are produced legally in the U.S. It's their use by criminals that is illegal.

  • ||

    Here is a link to the ATF art contest, which appears to be for real. In fairness though, most of the pictures aren't quite as disturbing as the three posted on Hit and Run. However, the contest itself is still disturbing, for a lot of reasons.

    http://www.atf.treas.gov/kids/kids_art_main.htm

  • ||

    Either he is extremely disingenuous or he is incredibly dense.

    I think that if he rotated rapidly about his axis, and you flew past him in a close parabolic orbit, you would travel back in time.

  • ||

    To expand Lurker Kurt's point, the mini bottle example just regulates packaging, not production.

  • ||

    Dan,

    "The reason so many are fixated on guns is because they realize that is the last line defense we have from tyranny."

    Oh please. The last line we have is our own damned selves. We have to educate ourselves and use the power of the plebicite to cxhange things for the better. The last time guns were used to "battle tyranny" it was the pigs of the confederacy shooting people for the right to live like Elizabethan assholes.

    JMJ

  • ||

    Of course the state dictating the size of packaging is regulating production!

    As for Jennifer's point, it's not that because you share the argument that you are in their camp, it's that you are using the same argument. I was just pointing that out. ;)

    JMJ

  • ||

    Of course the state dictating the size of packaging is regulating production!

    Packaging and production are not the same thing.

    We have to educate ourselves and use the power of the plebicite to cxhange things for the better. The last time guns were used to "battle tyranny" it was the pigs of the confederacy shooting people for the right to live like Elizabethan assholes.

    Yes, there's no way any American government would ever slide down the slope to tyranny, but if they did they'd change their minds once the votes were counted.

    Also, Elizabethans didn't own slaves. But the South DID have strict gun-control laws--blacks weren't allowed to own any. Probably because Southern state governments between 1865 and the 1950s cared so much about protecting poor little black children from all those big scary guns, right?

  • ||

    And remember, guys: although Southern segregationist governments refused to let black people own guns, it's the people that want to expand gun-ownership rights who are racist. I know this is true because JMJ told me so.

  • ||

    Jason,

    The right to bear arms is not infringed by being well regulation. All rights have limitations. The regulations are the limitations and expectations imposed by the state. We have the right to free speech but can not threaten grandmothers with battery. We have the right to commerce but not to sell rat poisoning as baby food. Why are you all so hung up on gun regulation?

    JMJ

    Comment by: Jersey McJones at March 28, 2006 11:25 AM

    Because all those examples revolve around violence/coercion against a target and that is exaclty when you have crossed the line and violated someone else's rights.

    Gun manufacturers make so many guns so that even the Joe Bob's from Bukie, LA, who lives off of Ramen and Dak Ham can afford personal home protection because the cops won't get to his house until 2 hours after. Also, there already is a HUGE blakmarket in guns that is very profitable because there's only a limited supply of stolen/unregistered guns. Gun regulations would exacerbate this markey by limiting the original supply of guns, and would in turn mainly hurt law-abiding Jane Hill's who live alone in the bad part of town and now can't afford reliable protection. PCP can make people do alot of crzy things...

  • ||


    Oh please. The last line we have is our own damned selves. We have to educate ourselves and use the power of the plebicite to cxhange things for the better. The last time guns were used to "battle tyranny" it was the pigs of the confederacy shooting people for the right to live like Elizabethan assholes.




    Those people in Iraq who were tyrannized by Saddam likely would argue guns are being used to fight tyranny.

    Educating them would do nothing but make them realize they needed to build some guns and fight their way to freedom. Freedom is paid for in blood. ALways has been and always will be simply due to the fact freedom is finite.

    Your freedoms start where mine end.

    While I do not agree with the reasons for invading Iraq nor our continued presence, the use of guns damn well did remove tyranny.

  • ||

    Jenn:

    Not to give a statist swine like JMJ his due, but the British did practice slavery during the rule of Elizebeth I. Granted, they were Irish Catholics or captured Native Americans, but they were slaves nevertheless.

    However, your point about the Jim Crow laws about blacks owning firearms was spot on.

    Beseems that JMJ as watched "Bowling For Columbine" one too many times and bought the line about the NRA being founded by the KKK.

  • ||

    Jennifer,

    Did you get a gun after the Hurricane Katrina debacle in New Orleans?

    I remember a female poster here said she was going to get one after the NO authorities confiscated firearms.

  • ||

    Dan, those same guns are shooting at us now. If we had gone into Iraq and disarmed the populace, we'd be in a far safer position there now.

    Jennifer, many (on the Right), I believe, are nuts about guns because they are convinced that they must protect themselves from minorities. That's what I meant by that. I should have been clearer.

    JMJ

  • ||

    I remember a female poster here said she was going to get one after the NO authorities confiscated firearms.

    That was me. But getting a gun where I live is a huge pain in the ass, because the government is run by people like JMJ who believe that any man who might want to rape me needs to be protected from any lack of enthusiasm on my part.

  • ||

    Holy cow! It's like I started a party and then forgot to show up!

    "mediageek, do you read or post at ILX?"

    No, I don't even know what that is.

    Also, I will note that trying to draw a parallel between being racist and pro-gun is nothing more than being exceedingly ignorant to the history of gun control.

    The first gun control laws instituted in this nation were deliberately designed to keep the underclass from being armed. In New York, gun control laws were taylored to keep the Irish from acquiring firearms, and in the south, the Jim Crow laws explicitly forbade blacks from carrying or owning arms.

    In fact, in a couple of states, some of these laws are still on the books. (Missouri is the first example that jumps to mind.)

  • ||

    Wrong Jersey.

    Religious ideology is creating Ali Baba and his dynamite belt.

    They have realized drama and fear can motivate change.

    You have plenty of fear and are attempting to create change.

    Lets hope you don't infect others with your lack of education about human nature.

    Guns don't kill people but fear of guns can cause people to die.

  • ||

    Jennifer, many (on the Right), I believe, are nuts about guns because they are convinced that they must protect themselves from minorities.

    Or you could turn it around and say many on the left are nuts about gun-control because they need to be protected from minorities, some of whom have guns.

  • ||

    Jennifer, the reason why people like Jersey want the government to regulate everything even when they despise the current administration is because they're even more afraid of their neighbors than they are of the government. Most Americans distrust government power to some extent, but on balance many distrust (insert corporate villan, Hollywood, gun manufacturer, restaurant chain, drug company, campaign contributor, etc., here) even more. In that sense government is simply the lesser of two evils. What really sets libertarians apart from republicans and democrats is that we tend to distrust the government more than anything else. So forgive Jersey for his spasmodic hatred of gun manufacturers. The truth is he's more afraid of you.

  • ||

    Akira,

    "Not to give a statist swine like JMJ his due, but the British did practice slavery during the rule of Elizebeth I."

    Statist swine! I love it! Yes, that's true (the slavery part - not the statist one...).

    "Beseems that JMJ as watched "Bowling For Columbine" one too many times and bought the line about the NRA being founded by the KKK."

    No, that's not what I meant. See just above.

    You goofuses are under the impression that we, like you, are slaves to ideology and ideologues. Most liberals, like myself, are not democrats, not lead by anyone, even Moore, though I am a huge fan. (I knew about the origins of the NRA years ago. Though it's not coming at race from the same angle anymore, there are certainly implications that people need guns to protect themselves in urban areas from minorities, hwich is racist and stupid - in that in urban areas you are far more likely to get shot from your own gun than to defend yourself with it.)

    JMJ

  • ||

    So, anyway, the fact is that women just look good in the shower.

  • ||

    Jennifer, many (on the Right), I believe, are nuts about guns because they are convinced that they must protect themselves from minorities. That's what I meant by that. I should have been clearer.

    What evidence do you have that "the Right" wants to own guns to protect themselves from "minorities." As much as I dislike conservatism on principle, I don't paint each and every one of them as closeted Klansman.

    I'm a gun owner; four rifles, five pistols, and two shotguns. I don't appreciate the inference that I am somehow a paranoid racist who longs to hunt blacks, Latinos, and gays for sport. In fact, you've just insulted my character as well as my intelligence along with every gun owner in America.

  • ||

    "Dan, those same guns are shooting at us now. If we had gone into Iraq and disarmed the populace, we'd be in a far safer position there now."

    Um, no.

    There are only a couple of domestic manufacturers of Kalashnikov-style rifles in the United States, and trust me, your average illiterate, IED-toting religious nutbar in the Middle East doesn't have the scratch to buy one. Besides, why buy an overpriced, US produced rifle incapable of full auto fire for $700 when you can pick up one that came from a former Soviet nation for less than $20, and it's got the magic "go boom real fast" switch?

    The insurgents use weapons coming primarily out of former Soviet satellite nations.

    Jersey, you should just stop posting, becuase it's patently obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

  • ||

    Jennifer, many (on the Right), I believe, are nuts about guns because they are convinced that they must protect themselves from minorities. That's what I meant by that. I should have been clearer.

    What evidence do you have that "the Right" wants to own guns to protect themselves from "minorities." As much as I dislike conservatism on principle, I don't paint each and every one of them as closeted Klansman.

    I'm a gun owner; four rifles, five pistols, and two shotguns. I don't appreciate the inference that I am somehow a paranoid racist who longs to hunt blacks, Latinos, and gays for sport. In fact, you've just insulted my character as well as my intelligence along with every gun owner in America.

  • ||

    So, anyway, the fact is that women just look good in the shower.

  • ||

    GAH! Reason! Fix your gorram server!

  • ||

    "(I knew about the origins of the NRA years ago."

    Ah, so you're aware of the fact that the NRA was started shortly after the Civil War by two Union officers.

    That after his turn as President of the United States that Ulysses S. Grant served as president of the NRA.

    And also that the NRA actively worked to help arm African Americans who were being harassed and assaulted by the Klan.

  • ||

    Server. . .must. . .pay. . . .

  • ||

    Jennifer, many (on the Right), I believe, are nuts about guns because they are convinced that they must protect themselves from minorities

    JMJ,

    As a proud, right wing, gun nut, let me state for the record that I am armed to protect myself from CRIMINALS of all races and creeds. I don't discriminate.

  • ||

    Oh, and I'll also just note right here that I don't see the NRA getting up on the bully pulpit calling for gun control in the inner cities.

    No, the people I see doing that are people like Diane Feinstein and traditionally left-wing groups like the NAACP.

    Hate to say it, Jersey, but your support of gun control is rooted in racial bigotry that persists to this day. I have never seen the NRA or GOA come out against minorities of any sort bearing arms for self-protection.

    To say nothing of groups like The 2nd Amendment Sisters, Pink Pistols, and JPFO.

    Jersey, just stop posting, because you don't know what you're talking about.

  • ||

    Oh, and I'll also just note right here that I don't see the NRA getting up on the bully pulpit calling for gun control in the inner cities.

    No, the people I see doing that are people like Diane Feinstein and traditionally left-wing groups like the NAACP.

    Hate to say it, Jersey, but your support of gun control is rooted in racial bigotry that persists to this day. I have never seen the NRA or GOA come out against minorities of any sort bearing arms for self-protection.

    To say nothing of groups like The 2nd Amendment Sisters, Pink Pistols, and JPFO.

    Jersey, just stop posting, because you don't know what you're talking about.

  • ||

    Ah, the ol' bait n' switch with a little hyperbole for seasoning...

    Mad Scientist,

    "...the reason why people like Jersey want the government to regulate everything even when they despise the current administration is because they're even more afraid of their neighbors than they are of the government."

    Okay, genius, then why is it that I don't want the wiretap plan, the Patriot Act, the giant military, half the criminal code, etc? I do not want the government to "regulate everything." You're just being simplistic.

    "So forgive Jersey for his spasmodic hatred of gun manufacturers. The truth is he's more afraid of you."

    What "truth?" All you have is the idiotic opinion that somehow our government, our constitution are failures, and the private sector's greed is a trustworthy source of fair play. I think you're goofy.

    JMJ

  • ||

    Oh, and I'll also just note right here that I don't see the NRA getting up on the bully pulpit calling for gun control in the inner cities.

    No, the people I see doing that are people like Diane Feinstein and traditionally left-wing groups like the NAACP.

    Hate to say it, Jersey, but your support of gun control is rooted in racial bigotry that persists to this day. I have never seen the NRA or GOA come out against minorities of any sort bearing arms for self-protection.

    To say nothing of groups like The 2nd Amendment Sisters, Pink Pistols, and JPFO.

    Jersey, just stop posting, because you don't know what you're talking about.

  • ||

    And also that the NRA actively worked to help arm African Americans who were being harassed and assaulted by the Klan.

    Typical racist gun-nut bastards, all of them.

    the fact is that women just look good in the shower

    Wrong. The other night I got some shampoo in my eye, which turned so red I could have dressed as a Borg for Halloween.

  • ||

    I find people who wish to control things via laws tend to fear whatever it is they are wanting to control.

    I fear the current govt we have since there is absolutely nothing I or any other citizen can do to control it.

    The fact anyone can be arrested and jailed for an uncertain length of time at anytime means we have a tyranny.

    I find a gun to be something of a pacifier to that fear, in that, I know if someone does decide to take me away for no good reason it is likely I can cause at least one or two deaths, making the price a bit more than a casual desire of some political position.

  • ||

    I find people who wish to control things via laws tend to fear whatever it is they are wanting to control.

    I fear the current govt we have since there is absolutely nothing I or any other citizen can do to control it.

    The fact anyone can be arrested and jailed for an uncertain length of time at anytime means we have a tyranny.

    I find a gun to be something of a pacifier to that fear, in that, I know if someone does decide to take me away for no good reason it is likely I can cause at least one or two deaths, making the price a bit more than a casual desire of some political position.

  • ||

    "What "truth?" All you have is the idiotic opinion that somehow our government, our constitution are failures, and the private sector's greed is a trustworthy source of fair play. I think you're goofy."

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Well-regulated. As in "properly equipped and trained"

    militia. In the time of the constitution, that would mean every able bodied male. In our more egalitarian times, seems to me it ought to mean anyone who shows an interest.

    Right of the people. That would be you and me.

    I agree with the assertion that Jersey is the one full of fear. I, quite honestly, don't give a flip if my neighbors want to own a belt-fed heavy machinegun. Jersey, it would appear, isn't capable of trusting his fellow citizens.

  • ||

    Eyes? Naked women have eyes? Thank you, Jennifer, I feel that whole new worlds have been opened up for me.

    Huh. Eyes.

    P.S. Pssst. Jennifer, I don't think this is working. Troll power is greater than sex power? Here? I'm in shock. What would the RPG say?

    P.P.S. Between Jeri Ryan and Alice Krige, I'd say the Borg women are pretty friggin' fine. Bad example.

  • ||

    "What "truth?" All you have is the idiotic opinion that somehow our government, our constitution are failures, and the private sector's greed is a trustworthy source of fair play. I think you're goofy."

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Well-regulated. As in "properly equipped and trained"

    militia. In the time of the constitution, that would mean every able bodied male. In our more egalitarian times, seems to me it ought to mean anyone who shows an interest.

    Right of the people. That would be you and me.

    I agree with the assertion that Jersey is the one full of fear. I, quite honestly, don't give a flip if my neighbors want to own a belt-fed heavy machinegun. Jersey, it would appear, isn't capable of trusting his fellow citizens.

  • ||

    Lurker, thanks for proving my point. In the fantasy land of your mind you are Charles Bronson defending yourself from the criminal hordes, right?

    lol

    Oh yeah - and MORE sleazy baiting and switching! Three times on this one from Mediageek:

    BnS#1 "Oh, and I'll also just note right here that I don't see the NRA getting up on the bully pulpit calling for gun control in the inner cities."

    Yes, genius. Rather, they are telling people to arm themselves AGAINST the inner city!

    BnS#2 "Hate to say it, Jersey, but your support of gun control is rooted in racial bigotry that persists to this day."

    Oh yeah, that must be it! ROFLMAO!!!! And what the hell is that supposed to mean?

    BnS#3 "Jersey, just stop posting, because you don't know what you're talking about."

    Right kid. I'll blow your uneducated ass out of the water any day, kid. ;)

    JMJ

  • ||

    "If we had gone into Iraq and disarmed the populace, we'd be in a far safer position there now."

    Hmmm...

    I thought we went into Iraq to disarm the GOVERNMENT.

    But at least that turned out pretty well

  • ||

    "Yes, genius. Rather, they are telling people to arm themselves AGAINST the inner city!"

    Really?
    Prove it.

    "Oh yeah, that must be it! ROFLMAO!!!! And what the hell is that supposed to mean?"

    Since you can't seem to wrap your head around what I've posted already, I'll make it very simple:
    You're on the side of the Klan and the Confederate States of America. You're on the side of every gay basher, the side of anti-semite mullet Nazi, and the side of every criminal who wishes to rape a woman. Jersey, you support victim disarmament, just like all the people I've listed.

    "Right kid. I'll blow your uneducated ass out of the water any day, kid. ;)"

    You definately blow, that's for sure.
    If you want me to unpimp your posts, say "what."

  • ||

    "Yes, genius. Rather, they are telling people to arm themselves AGAINST the inner city!"

    Really?
    Prove it.

    "Oh yeah, that must be it! ROFLMAO!!!! And what the hell is that supposed to mean?"

    Since you can't seem to wrap your head around what I've posted already, I'll make it very simple:
    You're on the side of the Klan and the Confederate States of America. You're on the side of every gay basher, the side of anti-semite mullet Nazi, and the side of every criminal who wishes to rape a woman. Jersey, you support victim disarmament, just like all the people I've listed.

    "Right kid. I'll blow your uneducated ass out of the water any day, kid. ;)"

    You definately blow, that's for sure.
    If you want me to unpimp your posts, say "what."

  • ||

    "Yes, genius. Rather, they are telling people to arm themselves AGAINST the inner city!"

    Really?
    Prove it.

    "Oh yeah, that must be it! ROFLMAO!!!! And what the hell is that supposed to mean?"

    Since you can't seem to wrap your head around what I've posted already, I'll make it very simple:
    You're on the side of the Klan and the Confederate States of America. You're on the side of every gay basher, the side of anti-semite mullet Nazi, and the side of every criminal who wishes to rape a woman. Jersey, you support victim disarmament, just like all the people I've listed.

    "Right kid. I'll blow your uneducated ass out of the water any day, kid. ;)"

    You definately blow, that's for sure.
    If you want me to unpimp your posts, say "what."

  • ||

    Rather, they are telling people to arm themselves AGAINST the inner city!

    When has the NRA ever said that? Where is it on their website? For all your accusations of racism, you're the only one here who keeps making implications about those scary inner-city people.

  • ||

    "Rather, they are telling people to arm themselves AGAINST the inner city!

    Quotes, please.

    ""Hate to say it, Jersey, but your support of gun control is rooted in racial bigotry that persists to this day."

    Oh yeah, that must be it! ROFLMAO!!!! And what the hell is that supposed to mean?

    He explained it. It's rooted in the old attempts to keep the racial underclasses from obtaining a way of fighting back. Why don't you read on before you reply?

  • ||

    It cracks me up how Jersey claims to not be arguing for gun prohibition, but then he turns around and asserts that we should have gone into Iraq and disarmed the populace.

    BTW, Reason, did you happen to source out the Comment Server to the Army Corps of Engineers? They're doing a bang-up job!

  • ||

    As for the racism of the NRA--their website says they're currently trying to get the government to return the weapons confiscated in New Orleans after Katrina.

    Why in the world would a bunch of racists try to convince the government to give black people their guns back?

  • ||

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Well-regulated. As in "properly equipped and trained"

    Ah, we have a Founding Father Mind Reader here!

    "militia. In the time of the constitution, that would mean every able bodied male. In our more egalitarian times, seems to me it ought to mean anyone who shows an interest."

    Wait a minute - that's what I said!

    "Right of the people. That would be you and me." No one is infringing - just regulating. Like every other right. Right?

    "I agree with the assertion that Jersey is the one full of fear."

    Okay, what exactly do I fear? You're the loonies who fear everything and have to arm yourselves, not me. Why are you playing the bait n switch. Didn't your folks teach you to play fair, or are you just so Hannitized you don't know sleaze from a logic?

    JMJ

  • ||

    Evan, it's actually a "sneaker net". What looks like an automated server is in fact a part-time intern who takes our postings down by hand, types them on a typewriter with his/her nose (libertarian initiation rituals are complicated and best left undescribed here), runs the message to a Kinko's down the street (which posts the message), and returns to handle the next message.

  • ||

    Sorry about this being OT, but with all the acrimony criss crossing this thread, I think we can use some positive posts.

    Jennifer,

    What kind of gun did you choose and what factors went into your purchase choice?

    Mrs. Lurker Kurt is about your size and my weapons are a little too much for her small frame.

  • ||

    Okay, what exactly do I fear?

    Apparently, you fear the thought of your fellow citizens having guns.

  • ||

    Jersey,

    You'll be pleased to know that I bought some more guns today. From the goobermint, no less!

  • ||

    Lurker Kurt,

    I haven't got one yet, but I'm thinking of getting a shotgun rather than a handgun because in my state, you don't need official government permission to get a shotgun but you DO need it for a handgun.

    That's nice--the government won't allow my hundred-pound self to protect myself on the street, but at least I'm allowed to protect myself so long as I never leave my house.

    But Jersey would say I'm paranoid for thinking that a woman in a not-great neighborhood whose boyfriend frequently works nights might feel the need for protection. Women only ever become crime victims in bad Lifetime channel movies--it never happens in real life.

  • ||

    Lurker, thanks for proving my point. In the fantasy land of your mind you are Charles Bronson defending yourself from the criminal hordes, right?

    JMJ, I grant you that it unlikely that I will be the victim of a crime, but I would rather have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it.

    And as a matter of fact, I did need it a couple of months ago. Mrs. Lurker and I came home one night and there was some evidence that someone had entered the house. I quickly retrieved my legally purchased firearm proceeded to search the house. Fortunatly, no bad guys where in the house.

    Mrs. Lurker, up to that moment a gun hating liberal, became suddenly pro-gun ownership at that moment.

  • ||

    "Okay, what exactly do I fear? You're the loonies who fear everything and have to arm yourselves, not me."

    You fear someone having a gun that's not registered with the gubmint. You fear guns in general, because you think that if there are too many of them, increases in crime will result.

    On the other hand, saying that owning a gun for self-protection is motivated by "fear" is similar to saying that wearing your seatbelt is motivated by fear.

    Many of the things we do are motivated by fear. There's nothing wrong with that---fear is a perfectly healthy emotion. It's whether that fear is rational or not.

  • ||

    "...types them on a typewriter with his/her nose...."

    Hey- that must be how Kristol does it. I always wondered how he could type with that straitjacket on.

  • ||

    Jennifer,

    What's with all the defensiveness and hyperbole? What's so terrible about some necessary and limited regulatiions? Heck, I'd own a gun (if I lived out in the styx with all the crazies)!

    JMJ

  • ||

    "You goofuses are under the impression that we, like you, are slaves to ideology and ideologues. Most liberals, like myself, are not democrats, not lead by anyone, even Moore, though I am a huge fan."

    Yes, yes, that's right, Jonesy. All us libertarian sheep are slaves to ideology, while all those liberals out there are free thinkers of the highest degree.

    Now THAT is some funny shit, brotha!

    By the way, Jonesy: from what I've read, you're not a liberal, you're a populist. And FYI, having political principles does not make you a slave to ideology...

    ...though, one might say that eschewing principles in favor of "the children" may make you somewhat of a slave to populism.

    And Michael Moore (much as I appreciate his willingness to call the administration on their evil war) is a disingenuous hack. His best argument against Charlton Heston was to leave some photographs of some girl who got shot on his doorstep, in an attempt to cause the emotional populism of a tragedy to overcome reason and principle. Ah, yes, I can see what YOU are a "big fan", Jonesy...because Moore is also a populist. Emotional arguments (what about the children!) carry more weight than principled, reasoned ones.

  • ||

    What's so terrible about some necessary and limited regulatiions?

    Define "necessary" in this context. Define "limited" in this context.

    And why do you say it's hyperbole? You're the one who keeps tossing about the word "fear" as though it's an insult. Yes--I want a gun because I fear that there are some people who, shall we say, do not have my best interests at heart. That makes me "Charles Bronson fighting off the mad hordes," huh?

  • ||

    "What's so terrible about some necessary and limited regulatiions?"

    We're up to 140 comments, Jonesy. The reason your solution is "so terrible" has been stated many a time. And whether they are necessary is still up for debate, so don't throw that one in there as if it's been decided already.

    Gun-related crime in this country is a problem---but you have yet to show me one, JUST ONE, example where the production quantity of a legal product has been limited by law, and as a result, the crime associated with those limitations has dropped (and not simply been shifted to another product/market/region). I've asked for this example multiple times. And all you've been able to demonstrate is the first part: that these regulations do exist, sort of. What you have NOT demonstrated was the causation, the result.

    I'm tired of asking.

    So, that's why your solution is "so terrible". Because it's foolish, unjust, and it won't work. It punishes the wrong folks (legal gun owners) while doing virtually nothing to stop black market firearms trade. What part of this don't you get?

  • ||

    Considering DC's strict gun-control laws, I wonder why the city still has a high crime rate? It's almost like criminals don't respect anti-gun laws or something.

  • ||

    Folks, can we take a moment and give whoever posts as JMJ a hand? He (or she) is doing a bang-up job of making every right-winger, moderate, or other feel damned good about not being a leftist - and of making sane liberals and leftists glad they're not that left-wing.

  • ||

    I wondered what the following esteemed art critic would have to say about the situation:

    http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=irule2

  • ||

    Jennifer: but if the folks who make those guns were limited in how many guns they could make, then those criminals in DC wouldn't have any more guns, and they'd have no choice but to go out and become gainfully-employed, law-abiding citizens.

  • ||

    Eric S.:

    Fuckin Maddox. When's his book due out??? I can't wait!

  • ||

    By the way, Jonesy: from what I've read, you're not a liberal, you're a populist.

    I think the schtick is more "vaguely-defined leftist who gets his ideas from Angry Youth Magazines", but there's a populist element there, reasonably enough.

  • ||

    Better be good. Maddox hasn't posted in like 10,000 days or something.

  • ||

    Pro Liberace:

    FnA! Though, the 'How to Spot a Pedophile' quiz was right entertaining...

  • ||

    I am pleased that JMJ's playing up fondness for jack-booted thugs, though, after he brought that attitude up during the last Venezuela thread (you remember, Chavez has been great for civil liberties giving way to the best they can hope for is a good king, and kings smash all opposition). I really appreciate well-thought-out, long-term characterization.

  • ||

    Jennifer,

    Okay, what exactly do I fear?

    "Apparently, you fear the thought of your fellow citizens having guns."

    No, I fear people buying guns legally and them selling them illegally and then telling the police that the gun "was stolen" 8 months after the fact and a child is dead in the crossfire from a gang shooting in my town. That's what I fear.

    Mark,

    "You'll be pleased to know that I bought some more guns today. From the goobermint, no less!"

    Hey, where'd you get "goobermint" from?

    Jennifer,

    If you live in a bad inner city neighborhood (mine's pretty rough too) PLEASE do NOT by a gun. It would be a huge mistake. Just get yourself some Paralyzer or something. Much safer and you can keep it right on your keys. ALL studies show that carrying or keeping a gun in an urban area is a VERY VERY bad idea. It will most likely get used on you, not for you. Please, don't be stupid.

    Lurker,

    "And as a matter of fact, I did need it a couple of months ago. Mrs. Lurker and I came home one night and there was some evidence that someone had entered the house. I quickly retrieved my legally purchased firearm proceeded to search the house. Fortunatly, no bad guys where in the house."

    Imagine if they were in the house AND they had the gun?

    JMJ

  • ||

    Evan,

    Agreed. Though I must point out that I am not, in fact, pro Liberace. Or any other pianist for that matter.

    Maddox appeals to the id, that's for sure. When I discovered his site, I read the whole danged thing in one sitting, all the while being appalled and amused simultaneously.

  • ||

    What's so terrible about some necessary and limited regulatiions?

    The reason I am glad the NRA fights tooth and nail against 'limited' regulations is that they only seem to go one way.

    For example, in Illinois, retired police officers (dont' even think about it if you are a regular citizen) cannot conceal carry a pistol even though they have had decades of experience with firearms.

    Let me turn the tables on you JMJ, do you favor 'reasonable' and 'limited' regulations on abortion? Say for instance regulations on late term and partial birth abortions? Parental (or Judicial) notification?? 24 hour waiting periods???

  • ||

    Heh... On the JREF forum, whenever we get some Bible-beater or new age wacko who acts like JMJ, we usually start posting pictures of kittens or our favorite recipes.

  • ||

    To summarize JMJ's posts:

    People who support gun rights are mostly motivated by racism, shame, insecurity and fear. (Corollary: fear is a stupid emotion to ever have.)

    People who want to own guns all imagine themselves to be Charles Bronson single-handedly fighting off barbarian hordes.

    Although alcohol and drug prohibition were and are spectacular failures, gun prohibition won't be. (The fact that cities with strict gun-control laws also tend to have high crime rates is a fluke.)

    The NRA hates and fears inner-city residents.

    If the government ever descends into tyranny, all we have to do is show our displeasure in the voting booth and everything will be fine. Why this never occurred to idiots like Jefferson and Washington is a mystery.

    Packaging and production are exactly the same thing, so making laws about one is no different from making laws about the other.

    Governments that pass gun-control laws are motivated by a desire to keep their people safe, which is why the Jim Crow South kept guns out of the hands of black people but allowed whites to have them--because the old South loved black people but hoped all the white folks would die in gun accidents.

  • ||

    To summarize JMJ's posts:

    People who support gun rights are mostly motivated by racism, shame, insecurity and fear. (Corollary: fear is a stupid emotion to ever have.)

    People who want to own guns all imagine themselves to be Charles Bronson single-handedly fighting off barbarian hordes.

    Although alcohol and drug prohibition were and are spectacular failures, gun prohibition won't be. (The fact that cities with strict gun-control laws also tend to have high crime rates is a fluke.)

    The NRA hates and fears inner-city residents.

    If the government ever descends into tyranny, all we have to do is show our displeasure in the voting booth and everything will be fine. Why this never occurred to idiots like Jefferson and Washington is a mystery.

    Packaging and production are exactly the same thing, so making laws about one is no different from making laws about the other.

    Governments that pass gun-control laws are motivated by a desire to keep their people safe, which is why the Jim Crow South kept guns out of the hands of black people but allowed whites to have them--because the old South loved black people but hoped all the white folks would die in gun accidents.

  • ||

    What's so terrible about some necessary and limited regulatiions?

    The reason I am glad the NRA fights tooth and nail against 'limited' regulations is that they only seem to go one way.

    For example, in Illinois, retired police officers (dont' even think about it if you are a regular citizen) cannot conceal carry a pistol even though they have had decades of experience with firearms.

    Let me turn the tables on you JMJ, do you favor 'reasonable' and 'limited' regulations on abortion? Say for instance regulations on late term and partial birth abortions? Parental (or Judicial) notification?? 24 hour waiting periods???

  • ||

    aren't jmj and f. lemur the same troll? i thought i saw jmj post with the flemur email addy some time ago.

  • ||

    aren't jmj and f. lemur the same troll? i thought i saw jmj post with the flemur email addy some time ago.

    I doubt it--F. Le Mur would push for gun-control to prevent all those evil feminists from shooting men's balls off for sport.

  • Jadagul||

    Sadly, Mr. McJones seems to be correct in stating that he is a real person.

  • ||

    "If you live in a bad inner city neighborhood (mine's pretty rough too) PLEASE do NOT by a gun. It would be a huge mistake. Just get yourself some Paralyzer or something. Much safer and you can keep it right on your keys. ALL studies show that carrying or keeping a gun in an urban area is a VERY VERY bad idea. It will most likely get used on you, not for you. Please, don't be stupid."

    Is it just me, or is there a dash of misogyny in there?

  • ||

    Is it just me, or is there a dash of misogyny in there?

    I'm sure pepper spray is just as good as a gun, so long as I don't mind getting within ten feet of my would-be attacker before I fight him off. And I'm not downwind of him.

    Of course, since I'm too stupid to shoot an intruder without shooting off my own foot instead, there's a damned good chance I might end up spraying the pepper in my own eyes instead of my attacker's.

  • ||

    And no, Jersey, the statistics don't prove that a defensive firearm is more likely to be used against you.

    Quite the opposite.

  • ||

    Lurker,

    What's so terrible about some necessary and limited regulatiions?

    "The reason I am glad the NRA fights tooth and nail against 'limited' regulations is that they only seem to go one way."

    What way do you want regulations to go? Oh, let me guess, out the door?

    "Let me turn the tables on you JMJ, do you favor 'reasonable' and 'limited' regulations on abortion? Say for instance regulations on late term and partial birth abortions? Parental (or Judicial) notification?? 24 hour waiting periods???"

    I think that elective abortion should be limited to about 12-15 weeks tops. There really isn't an excuse for not taking action prior to then. As for notification or laws restricting medical procedures (there is no such a thing as "partial birth abortion"), no. Such laws are designed to oppress and further rape little girls. I detest those laws and every libertarian should agree with that.

    Jennifer,

    "Although alcohol and drug prohibition were and are spectacular failures, gun prohibition won't be. (The fact that cities with strict gun-control laws also tend to have high crime rates is a fluke.)"

    No one is talking in this just plain stupid hyperbole that you are employing. No one has suggested blanket prohibition of guns.

    "If the government ever descends into tyranny, all we have to do is show our displeasure in the voting booth and everything will be fine. Why this never occurred to idiots like Jefferson and Washington is a mystery."

    Anyone who thinks that a bunch of armed American rabble could overthrow an American tyranny is a moron. Besides, it's the same rabble that would put a tyranny in Washington in the first place, so the whole argument is just goofy.

    JMJ

  • ||

    The who is more bigoted argument is absurd, guys. I will say that when JMJ postulates that support for a right to arm is fundamentally racist, he opens himself up to the 'racist roots of gun control' line automatically. Neither is especially useful as a way to determine what current regulations should be on the books.

    If you need a story, JMJ, one other than the version in your head where I'm wearing a white sheet on weekends, I will offer you my purely emotional reaction to gun control. Think of it as my version of the bullet riddled bodies of innocents you see when you close your eyes. After all, whatever numbers we want to look at, there are far, far more victims of violent criminals than there are either crossfire victims or accidental deaths involving firearms.

    My wife comes in at about 115. She is strong for her size but small. She gets confronted by a gentleman of any arbitrary race or creed who indecent and aggressive. As the issue is forced, a physical confrontation ensues. Gun control comes into the picture in the form of a uniformed officer that FIRST holds my wife in place to make sure she doesn't struggle inappropriately.

    That is what I see. I don't care if you call it ownership restriction, supply restriction, driving up the price, or whathaveyou. Any policy that in any way limits my wife's ability to arm herself against this eventuality, whether my wife makes $1k per year or $1mil per year and whether she is black or white, must be viewed as having the cost of turning the police into accomplices in some percentage of cases.

    So, whatever your "reasonable" restriction happens to be, it had better be good enough to outweigh that kind of price from where I'm sitting.

  • ||

    Jadagul - performance art doesn't have strict venue limitations. Open your mind! :D

  • ||

    "Anyone who thinks that a bunch of armed American rabble could overthrow an American tyranny is a moron."

    The Irish might have an interesting perspective here.

  • ||

    Mediageek, that's a lie.

    JMJ

  • ||

    They should do a study on the testosterone vs. estrogen levels in a typical heterosexual modern liberal male.

    My guess is that former would be pretty low as the latter is high.

    Any deviance from this would be a male who is toeing the line merely to get laid.

  • ||

    No one is talking in this just plain stupid hyperbole that you are employing. No one has suggested blanket prohibition of guns.

    No--you're just suggesting the government limit the number of guns produced. But here's a question I forgot to ask--if gunmakers are forbidden to make enough guns for all who wish to buy them, who decides who gets the guns that ARE available? Or will the standard laws of supply and demand apply here, so that guns become so rare and expensive that only the wealthy can afford to buy them for self-defense?

  • Jadagul||

    Eric- :)

    But at least, he's been around for several months, so he obviously wasn't created for this forum specifically. I'm pretty sure he's genuine. Hard as that can be to believe.

  • ||

    Jason, welcome to the 21st century.

    JMJ

  • ||

    They should do a study on the testosterone vs. estrogen levels in a typical heterosexual modern liberal male.

    My guess is that former would be pretty low as the latter is high.

    Any deviance from this would be a male who is toeing the line merely to get laid.

    Comment by: Mr. Nice Guy at March 28, 2006 03:26 PM

    This is exactly what I'm talking about, folks. Look at the kind of rabble that advocate this shit. What a sleazy little internet punk...

    JMJ

  • ||

    Jersey, let's see some statistics backing up your claim that most defensive gun owners only hurt themselves. Preferably from a non-biased source, rather than a website like GunsKillOurPreciousInnocentBabies.org.

  • ||

    Jad,

    It disrupts his craft when I go into it, but in short, I don't think it's specific to this forum, either. :)

  • ||

    JMJ:

    I don't understand. It is a feature of the 21st century that you have to get the cops to hold my wife down, and anything else is primitive?

  • ||

    "No one is talking in this just plain stupid hyperbole that you are employing. No one has suggested blanket prohibition of guns."

    Then what are you suggesting? Every time I've ever seen someone claim that they support "necessary" or "limited" gun control, they generally turn out to be prohibitionists. So you'll excuse me if I find your use of vague words to be no panacea.

    "Anyone who thinks that a bunch of armed American rabble could overthrow an American tyranny is a moron."

    *shrugs* Think whatever you want. That's still not a valid reason to prohibit or curb the legal use of firearms.

    "The who is more bigoted argument is absurd, guys."

    Yeah, well, he's the one who made the accusations in the first place. If he can dish it out, he ought to be able to take it.

  • ||

    "Anyone who thinks that a bunch of armed American rabble could overthrow an American tyranny is a moron."

    Not as moronic as anyone who thinks an American tyranny would change its mind if the voters said "Hey, I oppose this."

    Remember: if the government ever goes all Stalin on us, the way to change things is to educate ourselves and use the power of the plebicite [sic] to cxhange [sic] things for the better.

  • ||

    "Mediageek, that's a lie."

    Prove it.

    You're still not blowing me out of the water.

  • ||

    Look at the kind of rabble that advocate this shit.

    Guess what? I checked this thread over, and it was who started in with the ad hominems. You'll get a response on the level you choose.

    Heck, I'd own a gun (if I lived out in the styx with all the crazies)!

    Live in a bad neighborhood, do you, Jersey? Is it "bad" because there are lots of black people there?

    And yet, it's good to you, because it's urban and you probably don't have to fear running into a (gasp) Republican voter there.

    I can't believe you can come around here and accuse other people of bigotry. Actually, you're making me laugh.

  • ||

    Jason,

    "...there are far, far more victims of violent criminals than there are either crossfire victims or accidental deaths involving firearms."

    Yes, and most of them are someone you know. Someone with a grudge. Someone for whom a waiting period could cool a head and prevent a killing. ;)

    "Any policy that in any way limits my wife's ability to arm herself against this eventuality, whether my wife makes $1k per year or $1mil per year and whether she is black or white, must be viewed as having the cost of turning the police into accomplices in some percentage of cases."

    I advocate no such policy nor have I. You guys just went screwball when I suggested regulating production. The manufacturers are already far out-producing the legal demand. Get your wife some mace and relax.

    Jennifer,

    "No--you're just suggesting the government limit the number of guns produced. But here's a question I forgot to ask--if gunmakers are forbidden to make enough guns for all who wish to buy them, who decides who gets the guns that ARE available? Or will the standard laws of supply and demand apply here, so that guns become so rare and expensive that only the wealthy can afford to buy them for self-defense?"

    See above.

    Jadagul,

    "But at least, he's been around for several months, so he obviously wasn't created for this forum specifically. I'm pretty sure he's genuine. Hard as that can be to believe."

    I have been all over the blogosphere and forums for years. Nice to meet you.

    JMJ

  • ||

    Folks, give the guy a chance to catch up. There's plenty of loony where that came from, but he has to write it.

    *gets popcorn*

  • ||

    Jennifer,

    If you live in a bad inner city neighborhood (mine's pretty rough too) PLEASE do NOT by a gun. It would be a huge mistake. Just get yourself some Paralyzer or something. Much safer and you can keep it right on your keys. ALL studies show that carrying or keeping a gun in an urban area is a VERY VERY bad idea. It will most likely get used on you, not for you. Please, don't be stupid.

    Jersey, why do you hate and fear women? Why do you want to maximize Jennifer's chances of being hurt? Your advice is not only very wrong, but very dangerous.

    If you are accosted by a criminal on the street, if you resist with a gun, you are statistically less likely to be harmed than if you either resisted by any other means, or didn't resist at all.

    On the other hand, if you resist by means other than a gun, you are more likely to be harmed, statistically, than if you didn't resist at all.

    In other words, statistically, you are least likely to be harmed if you resist with a gun, and most likely to be harmed if you resist using means other than a gun. If you don't resist at all, your risk of being harmed is midway between.

    In other words, your advice is Jennifer is that which would maximize her risk of being injured or worse. Shame on you. Not for your malice, which I don't think is the case, but for your loud 'n' proud ignorance of the facts.

    (My proximate source: I read it in Self Control, Not Gun Control by J. Neil Schulman. I forget the study that Schulman cited -- it might have been the FBI's Crime Victims Survey, but I'd have to check. I'll post a link if I have time. You're welcome to Google the matter yourself also.)

  • ||

    *snerks*

    Worth the wait, didn't I tell you?

    Jason, how long have you been hanging out with "most violent criminals"? What perspectives do you have to share from this association? :D

  • ||

    What way do you want regulations to go?

    Forgive me for not being clear. What I meant to say is that each year, proposed anti-gun legislation seems to place more and more restrictions on law abiding gun owners, not on harsher penalties for those who use guns illegally.

    Where would I like them to go? Concealed carry for retired cops at a bare minimum (remember, I am in Illinois, not sure what the law is in other states). Also, concealed carry for private citizens with the proper training. That is my personal wish list.

    In Illinois, you must have a Firearm Owners ID (FOID) to purchase a weapon or ammo. To get a FOID card, you must fill out a form and send it to the State Police for a criminal background check. Although NRA absolutists don't like it I have no problem with this kind of regulation.

    BTW, if partial birth abortions don't exist, why does the pro-choice crowd get so upset when someone mentions banning the procedure?

  • ||

    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.

  • ||

    " advocate no such policy nor have I. You guys just went screwball when I suggested regulating production."

    Again, you've given no details into your supposedly "necessary" or "limited" regulations.

    Sorry, but until you lay out exactly what sort of regulations should be instituted, I will continue to assume you're a disingenuous prohibitionist.

  • ||

    Stevo,

    "Jersey, why do you hate and fear women? Why do you want to maximize Jennifer's chances of being hurt? Your advice is not only very wrong, but very dangerous."

    Don't be stupid. All stats back me up. I'm a liberal. I love women AND respect them.

    Gotta run, folks

    JMJ

  • ||

    JMJ,

    Do you believe that a woman should be required to obtain a license or permit from a government agency before obtaining an abortion? Do you support a five day waiting period before an abortion could be performed? How about a law that restricts legal abortions to only active military and police and maybe retired police officers depending on the jurisdiction. These are all just reasonable common sense regulations and in no way an endorsement of complete prohibition.

  • ||

    "All stats back me up?" All???

    What was my quote about "cocksure"? I forget. I know it's around here somewhere.

  • ||

    Don't be stupid. All stats back me up.

    But of course you never bothered providing any such stats for our benefit.

  • ||

    "...and in the East Gallery, we currently have at exhibition a painting titled, 'Mind of the Nannystatist' by Jack, age 2."

    model unknown

  • ||

    Gotta run, folks

    Encore, encore!

    (I may be particularly fond of his work, but I think that's the best thread of his yet. And ending on another repeated, unsourced blanket-assertion of correctness is wonderfully thematic. Really, this guy's stuff is something to watch.)

  • ||

    "Don't be stupid. All stats back me up. I'm a liberal. I love women AND respect them."

    Translation:

    "I'm too lazy to actually even Google this stuff, so I'm just going to make an asinine statement with no wit, let alone a source list or any sort of citation."

    "Gotta run, folks"

    Translation: "I've been so thoroughly owned by all of you that I'm running away, but I refuse to admit defeat."

    Sorry JMJ, but you've had your ass kicked, cut off, tossed in a marinade for several hours, thrown onto the grill, basted, and smoked to a tender, suculent tastiness, before having it handed back to you on an engraved silver platter.

    Cheers,
    mg

  • ||

    JMJ:

    No one but you seems to think there is demonstrable overproduction based on demand. Even Spitzer gave up on negligent production.

    Don't get me wrong, I like Spitzer in general. He was way wrong on this one and gave up after appeal.

  • ||

    Gotta run, folks.

    Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, fucktard.

  • Jadagul||

    Jersey-wish I could say the same.

    Giving in to temptation for a bit, I think the point is that if you artificially cap gun production to 'legal demand,' whatever that means, you're still not ensuring the guns will only go to those who legally demand them. Some of the guns will be acquired by criminals, and then there won't be enough guns to go to the people that you just admitted have legitimate claims to buy them. Most likely the poorest of said people, because they can't afford to pay the increased price that results from the restricted supply.

    And as a side note, I love the implication of "I'm a liberal. I love women AND respect them."

  • ||

    Sorry JMJ, but you've had your ass kicked, cut off, tossed in a marinade for several hours, thrown onto the grill, basted, and smoked to a tender, suculent tastiness, before having it handed back to you on an engraved silver platter.

    The ironic thing is that he's probably going to boast to all his liberal buddy on how he schooled all those "gun-toting hicks" on H&R.

    In politics, victory is a subjective thing.

  • ||

    "No, I fear people buying guns legally and them selling them illegally and then telling the police that the gun "was stolen" 8 months after the fact and a child is dead in the crossfire from a gang shooting in my town. That's what I fear."

    Well, chief, unless you outlaw guns entirely all over the world, and melt all the existing ones down a la The Simpsons, that's still gonna happen. No pennyante production quantity limits are going to solve (or even make a dent in) your fearful scenario.

    "Imagine if they were in the house AND they had the gun?"

    Well, then, Mr. Lurker would be better of if he could shoot back, instead of ending up helpless at the wrong end of a gun.

  • ||

    Yes, and most of them are someone you know. Someone with a grudge. Someone for whom a waiting period could cool a head and prevent a killing. ;)

    .............................

    Gun restrictions mean nothing to a murderer.
    For quick kills, why not use a kitchen knife to the carotid or a claw hammer to the base of the skull? You can always wait until they fall asleep...
    Or if you are in the cold-blooded revenge buisness, how about an ammonium nitrate and powedered aluminium car-bomb, or how about small dash of aresnic added to your morning coffee every morning....

    Look, if we give "the rabble" the right to elect whatever schmuck to The White House, who has control of The Bomb and could blow up the world, why not limit people's right to vote since it is clearly a threat to world peace...

  • ||

    Heck, I'd own a gun (if I lived out in the styx with all the crazies)!

    Ummm.... excuse me, but where are you getting the notion that it's rural America that has a problem with gangs of murderous armed thugs? Take it from someone who lives in "the styx" and works in Milwaukee's inner city. It's far safer out in the coutry than it is downtown.

    Otherwise, you've watched Deliverance one too many times.

  • ||

    Edit: ...that it's rural America that has...

  • ||

    "Imagine if they were in the house AND they had the gun?"

    Well, then, Mr. Lurker would be better of if he could shoot back, instead of ending up helpless at the wrong end of a gun


    Great response Evan. I wish I had thought of that. :-/

    I guess I am just a stupid redneck. :-(

  • ||

    "In politics, victory is a subjective thing."

    Only on the intardweb.

  • ||

    Do you suppose that Jersey McJones is not aware of the already extremely severe penalties for selling firearms to felons or those who intend to commit crimes with them?

    There does seem to be a large number of liberals who earnestly believe that there are absolutely no controls on the production and sale of firearms, when in fact it is one of the most highly regulated markets in the country.

  • ||

    It's far safer out in the coutry than it is downtown.

    And that fact is what kills the argument that guns cause crime.

    I grew up in downstate Illinois where gun ownership was very common. Not 1005 but probably every 2 out 3 households contain at least one.

    Very little crime downstate. Especially not gun crimes.

  • ||

    Well, now that Jonesy has twaddled off with his tail between his legs, I don't think that we have much more material to pick apart (kinda like all the comedians hoping GWB would get re-elected...hehehe...too easy!)

  • ||

    Honestly, I would find it hysterical if the BATFE kids' drawing contest got used as fodder for a FARK.com photoshop contest.

  • ||

    Edit: not 100% ...

  • ||

    "There does seem to be a large number of liberals who earnestly believe that there are absolutely no controls on the production and sale of firearms, when in fact it is one of the most highly regulated markets in the country."

    Indeed. I am continually amazed that people can make such accusations that fly in the face of reason.

    For instance, his bit about the insurgents using mostly US-made guns is beyond laughable.

  • ||

    Apparently no one has read Jersey's thoughts on "Libertarian Utopia." It would make a good Friday Fun Link.

    On the bright side, at least he doesn't sign off every comment with "Hehehey!"

  • ||

    On the bright side, at least he doesn't sign off every comment with "Hehehey!"

    What's wrong with "hehehey"?

  • ||

    What's wrong with "hehehey"?

    Plagiarism. I prefer my idiots to come up with their own material.

  • Captain Holly||

    You'll be pleased to know that I bought some more guns today. From the goobermint, no less!

    Not wanting to turn this into a gun geek thread, but was that a CMP Garand?

  • ||

    For Mr. Jersey McJones ... For Mr. Jersey McJones ... when you come back later to check out what people said after you left ...

    And for all truth-seekers...

    I don't know if this is the specific study I was thinking of (it doesn't correspond to my memory exactly), but the lovely Second Amendment Sisters were nice enough to post these statistics from a study by Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck. Dr. Kleck is a recipient of the prestigious of the Michael J. Hindelang Award of the American Society of Criminology.

    Kleck's findings from 1979-1985 national data:

    Percentage of robbery/assault victims suffering an injury:

    - When resisting with a gun: 12.1% to 17.4%

    - When not resisting at all and totally submissive: 24.7% ro 27.3%

    - When "resisting" by screaming: 40.1% to 48.9%

    - When trying to reason with or verbally threaten the attacker: 24.7% to 30.7%

    - When "resisting passively or trying to evade": 25.5% to 34.9%

    - When resisting with a knife: 29.5% to 40.3%

    - When resisting with some other kind of weapon: 22% to 25.1%

    - When resisting bare-handed: 50.8% to 52.1%

    What's the safest course of action you recommend again, Jers? Check your stats.

    Another interesting statistic: "97% of the women who resist a rapist with a firearm do so successfully, meaning that they are not raped and are not otherwise injured."

    Linky-poo:

    http://www.2asisters.net/tx/resources_references.htm

    Don't be stupid. All stats back me up. I'm a liberal. I love women AND respect them.

    1. I'm not, but you might be.

    2. No they don't.

    3. Yes you are, beyond all reason.

    4. Apparently not enough to avoid giving women your ideologically driven, fact-free advice that will maximize their chances of being injured, raped or killed.

    See ya!

  • ||

    MR. JERSEY McJONES! ... MR. JERSEY McJONES!!!

    (I just wanted to make double-sure you saw the stats in my post above.)

  • ||

    Oops, silly me, I forgot to post this concluding statement from the same site as above -- more stats for you, Jersey-me-lad:

    Quote: Data from subsequent years have yielded confirming results. "A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon." U.S. Dep't of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns and Crime 2 (1994); U.S. Dep't of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Selected Findings from National Statistical Series: Firearms and Crimes of Violence 8 (1994).

  • ||

    I saw a study once--I can't seem to find a link--about cases in which a man shot his wife with a hand gun. ...turns out that in some five out of seven cases, the female didn't know when to quit.

  • lunchstealer||

    Oh - but the ATF is to blame! - said by JMJ with sarcasm in response to criticism of the ATF. One assumes that this indicates he is opposed to our criticism of the ATF.

    I never said "The feds are beyond criticism for their handling of Waco and Ruby Ridge," so don't be disingenuous. - said by JMJ. But he clearly implied that our criticism was wrong. He feels comfortable being disingenuous.

    JMJ also had to call Mr. Nice Guy "Mr. Mean Guy".

    So name calling and self contradiction all within five posts.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement