Guns

Obama Claims Adam Lanza Used a Machine Gun at Sandy Hook

|

White House

Yesterday I noted that President Obama continues to conflate so-called assault weapons—i.e., semi-automatic guns defined by functionally unimportant, military-style features that offend politicians—with the rifles carried by soldiers, which can fire automatically. In Denver on Wednesday, Obama described the guns he wants to ban as "weapons of war" and inaccurately identified one of the firearms used in last year's massacre at a movie theater in nearby Aurora as an "assault rifle," which is a selective-fire weapon that can fire automatically (continuously) as well as semi-automatically (once per trigger pull). Obama was at it again last night, claiming in a San Francisco speech that the rifle Adam Lanza used to murder 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, last December was "a fully automatic weapon." This was no slip of the tongue; Obama initially called the rifle "a semi-automatic weapon," then immediately "corrected" himself:

I just came from Denver, where the issue of gun violence is something that has haunted families for way too long, and it is possible for us to create common-sense gun safety measures that respect the traditions of gun ownership in this country and hunters and sportsmen, but also make sure that we don't have another 20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon—by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly.

Fully automatic weapons, a.k.a. machine guns, are strictly regulated under federal law, and it will come as news to anyone following this case that one was used at Sandy Hook. Police have identified Lanza's gun as an M4-style carbine made by Bushmaster, specifically the Bushmaster XM15-E2S. Bushmaster explains that designation this way (emphasis added): "XM for Experimental Model, 15 for semi-automatic and E2S is second generation receivers with added reinforcing." Not only is this gun not "a fully automatic weapon"; it did not even qualify as an "assault weapon" under Connecticut law (or under the federal "assault weapon" ban that expired in 2004, which used similar criteria). We know that because police say Lanza's mother purchased it legally in Connecticut. (Bushmaster has a whole line of "state-compliant" rifles.) When the Connecticut General Assembly expanded the state's "assault weapon" ban this week, it added Bushmaster XM15 rifles to its list of guns that are prohibited by name. The new, broader "assault weapon" ban introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and endorsed by the president likewise specifically prohibits the manufacture or sale of Bushmaster XM15 rifles. 

Is it too much to expect the president to know which guns he is trying to ban? Does Obama actually think that machine guns are readily available to civilians, that they are legal in Connecticut, and that Lanza's mother bought one there for her collection? After more than two decades of debate about "assault weapon" bans, does he honestly not understand the difference between those arbitrarily prohibited firearms and machine guns? Or, since the misconception that "assault weapons" fire more rapidly than other semi-automatic firearms seems to be one of the main reasons people think it makes sense to ban them, is Obama deliberately misleading the public? Is it appalling ignorance or calculated deception? The clues suggest the former, but I'm not sure which is worse.

[Thanks to Robert Woolley for the tip.]

NEXT: Economic Recovery Appears To Be Stalling

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.

  1. All liberals know about guns: “Guns are bad, m’kay”

    1. By the way, for anyone visiting Las Vegas, I highly recommend visiting Machine Guns Vegas. For $70 I got to fire 50 rounds from a Thompson submachine gun, and had to restrain myself from spending more on trying other guns. I hadn’t fired a gun other than a .22 rifle as a young teen, and never thought I’d get a chance to fire an automatic weapon. It was a blast.

      1. I’d also like to recommend Machine Gun Safari in Woodstock, NH.

        1. If you think Christopher`s story is astonishing, Earn 10 to 50$/hr working from home with Google! I work two shifts 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening. And whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids I follow this great link Read More

      2. For a measly 50 rounds? 70 dollars? Lord! How much of that was the range and rental fees?

        1. Given the cost of ammo these days that isn’t too bad a price. .556 rounds cost about ?75, or more in bulk and close to $1 a round for a box of 20.

        2. I don’t recall the breakdown. The prices listed on the website are all package deals, which probably come out to less per round, but I was on a budget and just wanted to shoot one. And based on the Machine Gun Safari prices, $70 isn’t a bad price.

      3. Alternatively, you could join the United States Army. I was actually paid to fire more rounds than I could possibly count from: M16A2 rifles, M4 carbines, M60 machine guns, M240B machine guns, M249 light machine guns, M2 Browning machine guns, M203 grenade launchers, Mk19 grenade launchers, Beretta M9 pistols, and, on one occasion, a live M136 AT-4 rocket launcher.

        1. I really regret that I did not join the service. Too scared of Boot from my Dad’s stories, I guess. Now it’s too late, age-wise.

          1. I’m not, the last three wars have essentially been “just shoot the brown people.” It makes Vietnam look like a principled and well thought out excursion.

  2. Is it too much to expect the president to know which guns he is trying to ban? Does Obama actually think that machine guns are readily available to civilians, that they are legal in Connecticut, and that Lanza’s mother bought one there for her collection?

    He’s just desperate because this issue has completely backfired on him, just like the sequester.

    1. this issue has completely backfired on him,

      Tell that to gun owners in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Colorado that are now Class A felons.

      1. I’ve not been following the details of these new laws closely, but how can they jibe with the latest SCOTUS rulings?

          1. I bet some of the thinking is that Heller and McDonald will be overturned once there’s a liberal majority.

            1. That’s some wishful thinking. There’s one thing the SC agrees upon, and that’s deference to prior rulings.

              1. I wouldn’t assume that. We’ve had a conservative-majority court for decades now. They tend to be more respectful of stare decisis than the left-leaning justices.

                1. Exactly. It’s been decades since there was a real activist court in place.

        1. They can jail people and wait on the cases to wind their way through the state and federal systems. At the least, it’ll take a few years for it to get there and in that time, they will have ruined countless lives and gotten the gun companies to mostly comply with their magazine limits and other bullshit requirements.

          Not only that, but they’ll have their database of gun owners to harass extrajudicially going forward. Mission Accomplished.

      2. Well that’s what you get for living in Connecticut, Maryland, New York, or allowing Californians into Colorado.

        1. We try to keep them out, but they come anyway, driving up home prices and saying things like -“Man, California is just too expensive to live in and the taxes are insane!! But, you guys need to have the government pay for…..”
          It’s like they can’t see any connection between government spending and tax rates. In other words – when Californians move to Colorado, it lowers the average IQ of both states

          1. Yup… they move here and continue the same voting pattern expecting a different outcome.

            Forehead – Desk, repeat.

        2. I am convinced that there is some group out there orchestrating all this bullshit data to people. Here in CO, a stupid legislator told a rape victim she doesn’t deserve a gun to defend herself because some association had produced stats showing she is hundreds of times more likely to get killed by her own weapon than use it to defend herself…no one can find that study, but it is being repeated. Now obama with this “Fully Auto” crap. How are these lies getting to these people, and past their bullshit sensors?

          1. Potential rape victims in Colorado were advised to vomit or urinate on themselves or to tell their attacker they had VD to avoid being a victim.

      3. Those laws will be heavily litigated in the courts and I imagine a lot of them do run afoul of SCOTUS precedent.

        Furthermore, I honestly think that this issue will haunt the Democrats in 2014 because all the NRA, GOA, and GOP has to do is just point to those states as examples of what Democrats want to do to gun owners.

        1. Look at the long game. If they turn these people into felons, they can’t vote. Problem solved.

      4. Has the NRA filed suit in those states? If not, why?

        1. I imagine they’d have to wait for the laws to take effect and someone to be penalized for violating them before filing suit.

          1. Which is the rub. Who here wants to go to prison for about a decade while the case winds its way through the courts? Anyone?

          2. Is that the case for constitutional issues as well? I mean, aren’t your constitutional rights infringed upon the second it is signed into law?

            1. I’m pretty sure that you have to have prove the law has done you harm in order to challenge it.

                1. Facial challenge…

                  That wasn’t what I thought it was going to be. 🙁

                  1. I don’t really recall ever seeing that kind challenged.

          3. Some were effective immediately, others not to June and beyond.

    2. Do we even know what guns Lanza used? Did we ever get a Coroner’s report?

      1. Official report says Bushmaster and Glock, the latter used upon himself.

  3. Can the makers of Bushmaster sue Obama for libel? Grossly and intentionally mischaracterizing their product in this way would be actionable in a just world.

    1. I think at the very least they should file suit and see what happens. I’d love for someone to have the balls to call him out on this bullshit, and that would be a pretty stark middle finger.

      1. He said it in San Francisco, so if that’s where the claim has to be made, they’re fucked. If they can make it in their headquarters of Madison, NC they may have a chance of getting it heard.

        At the least, they could maybe get a formal apology and use it as a cudgel every time Obama makes a bogus gun-grabbing statement.

        I would contribute to that legal fund.

        1. I would have hoped since they’re based in another state and he libeled them in CA that they could sue in Federal Court (not that that buys them much). But I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know much about libel laws.

          Really they’re probably fucked no matter what. If they were to file suit, the next day they’d be the subject of an IRS audit, an OSHA audit of all their facilities, and EPA audit, and anything else the Dear Leader can thing of to harass them into submission.

          1. You’re probably right. Just look at Gibson Guitars and multiply the intensity by about 1000x.

          2. Whether they sued in federal or state court is pretty much irrelevant to the libel law that would apply (with some legal technicalities that I won’t get into). Federal courts apply state libel laws when they take cases under so-called ‘diversity jurisdiction.’ There’s no separate federal libel law.

            1. Thanks for clearing that up. I had no idea how it worked in an interjurisdictional case.

            2. Why libel and not slander?

          3. Dude you can’t sue the POTUS for shit. Short of impeachment he’s immune from prosecution of anything, criminal or civil, until he’s out of office.

            1. How does the Paula Jones suit of Bill Clinton work with what you just wrote? How was he forced to be subpoenaed, if he’s immune from suit while he’s in office?

        2. “..sloopyinca| 4.5.13 @ 1:29PM |#
          He said it in San Francisco, so if that’s where the claim has to be made, they’re fucked.”

          I think he can use the beghazi defense = “it was the best intelligence I had at the time”

          1. I thought the Benghazi defense was:”At this point, what difference does it make.”

            1. That was Hilinator.

              Obamarama used the ‘best intelligence at the time’ line when asked to explain why he’d been characterizing a carefully-orchestrated attack by heavily armed militants as a ‘spontaneous protest by enraged civilians’.

              Because spontaneous protests by civilians often include sighted-in mortars and incendiary grenades.

  4. He is lying on purpose in an attempt to stoke support for his gun “control” legislation.

    As time and cooler heads are prevailing the libtrad fascists are seeing their golden opportunity, one they’ve all been secretly and gleefully waiting for, to enact significant restrictions on the Second Amendment slip away, bit by bit, and it is driving them nuts.

  5. All citizen ownership of guns is bad, but it is politically impossible to ban and confiscate all of them at once. Gotta do it in baby steps.

    1. There will be no baby steps when they come to try and take mine. There might be some crawling, though.

      1. Don’t even give them that dignity.

        1. A man crawling away from a house with a couple of extra holes in him isn’t dignified.

          1. Depends on how many of them you took out first.

          2. You think they’ll be sending single officers for this task?

            No. They’ll be using tactical teams, and killing everyone in the house if they encounter any resistance. The message will be clear: give up the guns our your entire family dies.

            1. Which is why it’s so important to have free market weapons. That way you can shuffle and bob your head when you give massah your registered guns.

              Then give him the rest one bullet at a time, at the times and places of your choosing.

              At the very least every one of us should own an AR and a service handgun with absolutely no paper connection to you.

              1. Don’t forget the important of caches. If you can, bury them away from your property, but in a safe place that will go unmolested.

                1. Yep. I bet if you looked at the credit card bills for a lot of these millions of new AR purchases, you’d see a lot of same day purchases at Lowes or Home Depot for PVC pipe and lots of dessicant.

                2. Jesus, doesn’t everybody do this already? I just assumed it was commonplace.

            2. Well if tactical teams are going to be used plan on finishing the confiscation action around the time the sun burns out. When they don’t screw them up they are as tightly and carefully choreographed as Kabuki theater.

            3. Not gonna happen. The occasional Ruby Ridge or Waco can be explained away. You start blowing away a few nice suburban families and shit will get ugly (if they can even find people willing to be on the teams). A lot of people own guns. A war on your own population is not easy to pull off.

              1. It will happen. Eventually (and call me paranoid, but I think they’ll get one by any means necessary) there will be a horrendous mass casualty event they can pin on guns. They thought Sandy Hook was that event. But it wasn’t.

                Once that happens, the law gets passed. They’ll threaten to revoke FFLs if the stock of 4473s aren’t handed over. Then they’ll send letters, then send fines, then summons. They won’t use the tactical team until all the sheep have the mindset that “Look it’s the law. The government was reasonable. They sent letters, they tried to do this nicely, but these gun nuts just won’t follow the law. It’s the law, you have to follow it. So yeah now they have to use the SWAT teams. If these gun nuts would just turn their guns in, they wouldn’t need to use the SWAT teams.”

                Waco proved it to me: our government can burn children to death for the alleged crimes of their parents, and the fucking sheep in this country think it is good and right and just.

                Don’t you think for a second it can’t happen here.

                1. Once that happens, the law gets passed. They’ll threaten to revoke FFLs if the stock of 4473s aren’t handed over. Then they’ll send letters, then send fines, then summons. They won’t use the tactical team until all the sheep have the mindset that “Look it’s the law. The government was reasonable. They sent letters, they tried to do this nicely, but these gun nuts just won’t follow the law. It’s the law, you have to follow it. So yeah now they have to use the SWAT teams. If these gun nuts would just turn their guns in, they wouldn’t need to use the SWAT teams.”

                  That’s eerily like what they do to tax protesters. Hmmm……

  6. Is it appalling ignorance or calculated deception? The clues suggest the former

    Disagree. I think he knows full well what he’s doing, and it’s very much a deliberate appeal to people’s emotions. He knows that most people, especially his voter base and gun-grabbers in general don’t bother actually checking into the facts and accept everything he says as the gospel truth. He also knows that they don’t know the difference between “semi-automatic” and “fully-automatic” and “machine gun”. So he’s deliberately using language to provoke and emotional reaction in those people.

    1. If that’s true, then I think he made a miscalculation of epic proportions. One thing I’ve noticed since the Newtown massacre is that public debate seemed to focus more on how various firearms are classified than I can recall ever hearing in my lifetime. Even my super-lefty friends acknowledged this and some have even expressed interest in learning even more about firearms and proper handling thereof. If there are any Obama supporters that aren’t shaking their heads at his statement right now, I would suspect they comprise the minority.

  7. “is Obama deliberately misleading the public? Is it appalling ignorance or calculated deception?”

    Yes.

    1. Does the pope shit in the woods?

      1. I think the new one does …

  8. You know, the gun grabbers are so moronic about what they think they are trying to ban, a smarter play to get rid of them might be to re-write the current FFL Class 3 laws and submit it as a new bill. I mean literally re-copy the existing laws and say it’s a new bill that “will limit automatic weapons to those who have a Federal license.” For lulz, they could even be loosened in some regards. Then, once it’s passed, they could feel all bi-partisan-y and good intention-y, and the rest of us could chuckle in our sleeves at how stupid they are.

    1. This is a good point. Use their stupidity against them.

    2. Also, completely ban grenade launchers, poison-tip ammo, and limit the size of bayonets to 14″, and decree that magazines must be loaded 1 bullet at a time.

      1. This is so crazy it just might work!

      2. Ban the use of flaming-razorblade-chainsaw-attachments to the ends of motorcycle-mounted miniguns

        Which have been a real problem lately

    3. They’re not stupid. They know exactly what they are doing. They are creating a new class of criminals while also doing absolutely nothing to prevent future incidents from occurring. This serves two purposes. One is that those who oppose the laws are likely breaking them. That means political foes can be jailed. The other is that when the next incident occurs, it will be declared that the current ban wasn’t broad enough. The goal is to put those who disagree with them in jail while taking steps towards totally repealing the 2A.

      1. I am so, so tired of them. It’s truly the time to raise the Black Flag and slit some throats.

      2. I think it’s marginally less venal than that. They feel a need to “be seen doing something” by the people who voted for them. The content of what they’re doing is irrelevant.

        1. I feel this way a lot also. They need to justify their parasitical existence, so they can continue to steal from those who are productive in society. So, yes, they feel a great need to ‘do something’. And it’s nearly always something bad that will result in unintended consequences, that they need to do something about, that will cause further…. well, I think that sums it up.

        2. “BakedPenguin| 4.5.13 @ 1:38PM |#
          I think it’s marginally less venal than that. They feel a need to “be seen doing something” by the people who voted for them. The content of what they’re doing is irrelevant.”

          I think this is correct

          They have already lost on the AWB because of western Dem Senators refusing to vote on it. It has become clear they want to jawbone the topic rather than actually do anything substantive which may result in voter backlash.

          They’ll end up passing something fairly useless and stupid, which is the typical M.O.

      3. Some of them are stupid, some aren’t. But I doubt that many, if any have sarcasmic’s plan in mind. I’m not saying it is impossible. That sort of scenario is exactly why it is important to fight any new restrictions.

        If there is any plan of confiscation, I’d guess that it relies on people becoming giant pussies and rolling over after some future incident, like how they did it in Australia and the UK.

    4. Put up a petition and see how many morons you can get to sign it.

    5. I’ve been saying this for a while. We need somebody to out-Brady them. Grab their flag and start a bill which would require federal registration of all machineguns overriding all current gun laws – federal and local.

      This would require anybody with a machinegun – or who wanted to convert a regular firearm into a machinegun – to submit paperwork (not wait for approval to be compelte) and pay a $100 tax to be able to own it.

      Full registration for evil machineguns regardless of what the NRA wants!

  9. Is it too much to expect the president to know which guns he is trying to ban?

    If it’s a gun, he wants to ban it. Except for the few that he wants to have them.

    ‘It’s good to be the king.’

  10. The lies. They come come so easy to the one.

  11. Calculated deception, for sure. How many of the 92% of people that suport background checks (in some recent poll) know that were that law in affect prior to Adam Lanza’s attack in Sandy Hook it wouldn’t have stopped him? I venture the answer is: none.

    He, and the other supporters of expanded gun control, lie, obfuscate, conflate, and misrepresent as part of their tactics to gather support for their preferred policy. The lies get all the coverage in the news while the voices in opposition are reported only as gun nuts.

    1. “lie, obfuscate, conflate, and misrepresent”

      SOP for the left. It works because the media is complicit.

      1. It works because a century of government schools have achieved their purpose: the production of compliant sheep.

        1. I agree but tge media helps. Just heard are local news report. Obama to cut medicare and social security IN ORDER TO APPEASE REPUBLICANS. It can’t possibly be that he’s cutting them because they can’t be sustained. It those greedy republicans. He has to do this even though he doesn’t want to. That’s their story and they’re sticking to it.

          1. Cancel your cable and homeschool your kids (in lieu of or in addition to government skrool).

            The vast majority of everything on TV is intellectual poison.

            As for school – government schools have a long history of being tools of oppression, they were never more than indoctrination centers. The English used them to wipe out the Welsh and Scottish languages and tried with the Irish. The Americans and Canadians both used mandatory schooling to obliterate native american cultures.

        2. Witness last week, when groupthink had everyone change their Facebook profile photos to show solidarity for marriage equality, and almost all of them were oblivious to the signing of the “Save Monsanto Act.”

          1. The profile pic thing pissed me off. Your solidarity is so relevant to SCOTUS decisions.

            1. All that groupthink, and no one thought to coin the word “pinqual” and register the domain name, so I did. It’s now my new electronic dance band.

      2. And the mass of voters are low-information. Their political knowledge is thin and on the surface.

      3. The media isn’t complicit I’m sure they have damn good reason for not lambasting the White House for restricting Congress’ access to the Benghazi survivors for six months.

  12. I go back and forth – is he an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about, or is he deliberately lying? I think the answer is yes.

    1. I concur.

  13. I’ve not been following the details of these new laws closely, but how can they jibe with the latest SCOTUS rulings?

    They did not rule out reasonable regulation. What could be more reasonable than banning guns with no legitimate purpose aside from murdering precious little children and noble law enforcement professionals?

  14. I own both a Bushmaster XM15-E2 and a Bushmaster XM15-E2S. The “S” makes a big difference.

    1. What’s the diff?

      1. It’s Black and scary instead of Grey and scary.

  15. “Is it too much to expect the president to know which guns he is trying to ban?”

    He doesn’t care what the truth is. He just wants to ban as many guns as possible. He thinks he can do that by manipulating what people believe, and he’s probably right. If he can successfully manipulate what people believe, he can get them to do most anything.

    That’s why we invaded Iraq. That’s why we used taxpayer money to bail out investment banks on Wall Street. If guns are banned, manipulating what people believe in the short term will be the reason why.

  16. appalling ignorance or calculated deception?

    We’re dealing with an organization which has Stephanie Cutter as its front man; I’ll choose “calculated deception”.

    1. I would like to catch her while she is thinking of kittens playing with a ball or puppies wrestling. I bet she is pretty when she isn’t in smug asshole mode. Of course, its purely speculative, she comes across as a moral ogre the few times I have seen her on television.

  17. THe thing is, the Second Amendment was supposed to prevent Congress from passing laws regulating fully automatic weapons too. The whole point was to allow any American the right to possess weapons of war, as a check on potential government tyranny and to help with national defense.

    1. Don’t you know?

      Obama assured us that we are just whack-a-loons for thinking the government would ever turn tyranical and try to abridge our rights.

      1. As one guy put it:

        My only concern is that people who are in no other way trained for revolution or fighting the government think that owning a rifle is a good first step. Most don’t run for office, volunteer for candidates or even work for lobbyists but ask them why they want that rifle and you get a variation on “I want to be as well armed as the police / military”.

        It’s almost as if they don’t realize they are part of the country. As if the whole “of, by and for the people” has left them abandoned. This is the finest country on earth, in my humble opinion, and yet we have a rather large group of extremely well armed people who are afraid we are just a few quick decisions away from becoming some sort of Stalinist dictatorship and they are acting on those fears.

        Self defense, I understand. Preparing for some wacky revolution? That’s madness.

        And another:

        It’s not even just madness. It is literally an existential threat to my rights under the Constitution.

        http://www.slate.com/articles/….._stop.html

        It is impossible to free fools from the chains they revere.

        1. This is the finest country on earth, in my humble opinion

          Because his dude is president. In 4 years he will be screaming nazi fascist imperialism. These people can only handle 1 temporal tense so they have to pick the most important to them and ditch the other 2.

        2. people who are afraid we are just a few quick decisions away from becoming some sort of Stalinist dictatorship

          Anyone who doesn’t believe that is a damn fool.

          1. Apparently democracy has never been used to install an authoritarian government. It’s like pixie dust, doncha know?

        3. It is impossible to free fools from the chains they revere.

          You mean like libertarians who revere the chains that the rich and the corporations use to hold you down?

          /Tony

          1. Tony is dead if you learn to ignore him. Its only through the comments of others that I become aware of his existence.

        4. “My only concern is that people who are in no other way trained for revolution or fighting the government think that owning a rifle is a good first step.”

          Progressive statist dicksuckers apparently think even ‘revolutionaries’ need official accredation and licensing. Then we’d need a Federal Department of Revolutionary Management to ensure they’re taxed properly….

  18. OT: You know those coral reefs that were permanently and irreparably damaged by AGW?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci…..alone.html

    They’ve healed themselves.

    1. As a big nature guy/outdoorsman, one of the things that pisses me off the most about the green idiots is their whole “Earth is fragile nonsense”. The Earth will be here billions of years after humanity is gone.

      1. The premise is that human activity must be destroying the planet, and the conclusion is that human activity must be destroying the planet.

        Can’t argue with circular logic.

      2. This. You don’t even have to look very hard for evidence of this. Frogs can survive winter by basically freezing themselves, this plant I left outside all winter (and my wife thought was dead) has started sprouting more green stuff, any abandoned piece of land will likely have lots of stuff growing on it etc.

      3. I really hope this isn’t true. Instead I hope that eventually, billions of years from now when the Sun starts to die out, people will figure out a way to move Earth to orbit a younger star.

        Those people won’t look or act anything like us, but I hope they eventually exist.

    2. Unpossable! Only big, no… huge, no… GIGANTIENORMOUS government can heal things!

      1. I remember in college, so professor asserting that rainforest couldn’t “regenerate” across extended cut borders, such as roads. Even as a prog-tard at the time, I wondered how they ever managed to coalesce in the first place.

        1. And yet, somehow major civilizations have disappeared back into rainforests in many places around the world.

    3. “The team found that being left alone to breed on its own was key.”

      This is the most disturbing part to the “SAVE THE PLANET”-chanters

      They insist we have to DO SOMETHING.

      If government doesn’t intervene, they are skeptical.

      Those coral were probably motivated by greedy bankers and something to do with the profit motive and exploitation.

  19. Has the NRA filed suit in those states? If not, why?

    They’re waiting for permission from the National Association of Chiefs of Police.

    1. Eh, the NRA and cops have a complicated relationship. There are a lot of big 2A guys on police forces. They are often just as big Drug Warriors and “Dem Messicans should go back to Messico!”, but they’re good on guns.

      The success of the NRA is due to the fact that they’re a single issue group. They don’t care about gays or immigration or anything else. They care about your stance on guns. If you will go with them on guns, they don’t care about anything else.

  20. I’ll admit it: if Lanza went crazy a month earlier, I would have been more sympathetic to the Romney boosters. This shit is so tiresome.

  21. http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/20…..ayanbadejo

    My guess

    Tom Brady
    Wes Welker
    Peyton Manning
    Clay Matthews

    1. Ben Roethlisberger is fat enough to count for at least two.

      1. He probably bumps manning from the list. He only gropes coeds because he is compensating for something.

        1. He only rapes them in bathrooms because it reminds him of gloryholes.

      2. He fits right in with the rest of the Lake Oconee crowd.

    2. 3 out of 4 are married to women – so that would be news.

      1. Beards happen. George Michel was married. Elton John was married.

        1. I know a good number of gay people, men and women. About a third of them came out after they were married and had a couple of kids.

          1. I think the list was just wishful thinking on John’s part.

            1. The list was just a list of players I generally can’t stand.

              1. Can’t stand because they’re dreamy?

                1. LOL. That is right Drake.

    3. In other words, everyone prepare themselves for the most insane day of the NFL offseason in human history. A day to make the sports world explode, basically.

      I can’t believe people actually care that much about who banging who.

      1. 95% of normal people don’t care at all. This is a media obsession.

        1. Totally. No one would care. Ice skaters have been queer as hell for decades and no one cared. The world doesn’t care about Johnny Weir being gay, why the hell will they care about Tom Brady being gay?

      2. I’ve just assumed that the NFL is all gay for years now.

    4. There are up to four players being talked to right now and they’re trying to be organized so they can come out on the same day together. It would make a major splash and take the pressure off one guy

      *snicker*

  22. This is why the older I get the more I can’t stand most of the human race. Jim Gerhety of National Review sends out a daily email. I subscribe and it is usually pretty good. Today he talked about the issue of marijuana legalization.

    There’s a reason the stoner or pothead is a stock character in some teen comedies, college movies and television shows, and so on. It seems that everyone, or almost everyone, encounters some white guy with dreadlocks who is, if not addicted, unhealthily focused on smoking weed and stumbling around in a happy, mellow, relaxed daze, seeking out snack products, and not very capable of doing much else in life ? holding down a real job, attending classes, etc. And I can’t help but suspect that if pot were legal, we would have more of those guys, not less.

    Sure, some folks can enjoy marijuana with no consequence, and then sometimes you get Ricky Williams, the one-time NCAA career rushing leader and Heisman Trophy winner who failed a bunch of drug tests through his NFL playing days, and who then decided to retire, in his prime playing days, after failing his third drug test. He spent a year out of football, and then came back . . . this time going an entire year before failing another drug test. Yes, Williams had personality disorders and other personal issues going on, but he’s a fantastic example of enormous talent and potential wasted because of an inability to resist the allure of a chemical bliss.

    1. So, under legalization, how many folks who currently don’t use marijuana would do so, and how many would develop life problems as a result of that? I’ll try to bring some humility to this debate and admit I don’t know, and any figures will be disputed. Having said that, “According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, about nine percent of people who use marijuana become dependent on it. The number increases to about 1 in 6 among those who start using it at a young age, and to 25 percent to 50 percent among daily users.”

      I want as little chemical dependence as possible in society, and that’s a concern that is entirely separate from the issue of whether the current sentences for marijuana possession are too harsh.

      This, ladies and gentleman, is all the drug warriors have left.

      1. Yeah I used to like NR. Then as I become more and more libertarian I realized that they were, in the main, statist pricks.

        I still read Steyn, and Derbyshire even though they fired him. Sometimes Jonah Goldberg.

        But most of them are the quintessential New England “Republican”.

        1. Goldberg is still really good. Steyn isn’t bad. Gerherty is good as long as he is not talking about drugs. And Jay Nordlinger is really good.

          The worst is Kathryn Jean Lopez. She drives me up a wall. But I find myself reading it less and less, especially since they ran Derbyshire off.

          1. Oh my god Lopez….she is like the mirror image of a Jezbel writer.

        2. I quit Derb after the article that got him fired. Quit a good blogger who defended him, too. It was just beyond the pale. I’m not one to shy away from that discussion, but he went too far.

          1. I don’t agree with him on everything, but he’s quite smart, very dry, and I really like his pessimism. His book We Are Doomed is full of excellent reasons why we’re all fucked.

            1. I was a fan of his work – that’s what made the whole affair so damn hard.

          2. Yikes. That scared of science?!

      2. WTF is the point of all of that? Does he want to go back to prohibition of alcohol also?

        I want as little chemical dependence as possible in society

        I want as little existence of busy body assholes like him, in society.

        1. I think the point is that he just thinks pot and stoners are icky and therefore wants fewer of them, even if that means throwing them in jail.

          1. I gathered that he just wants fewer white stoners.

        2. EXTERNALITIES!

        3. I want as little chemical dependence as possible in society

          Better ban coffee too.

      3. I don’t smoke pot, but I do enjoy several drinks a week. Using Gerhety’s logic, I’m the town drunk.

        I probably wake up in a jail cell a couple of days a week like Otis Campbell in the Andy Griffith Show.

      4. I want

        Oh bully for him.

        I imagine he’d be less enthused when other people try to legislatively demand their wants.

      5. “This, ladies and gentleman, is all the drug warriors have left”

        “Only Dopes Smoke Dope”

        Whereas drunks are charming and congenial

      6. I’m going to also guess that Ricky Williams isn’t the only NFL player that has smoked weed with some frequency, he’s just the only one that actually tried to kinda/sorta take a stand for it.

    2. Does he fail to realize that the only harm Ricky Williams suffered was because of weed being illegal?

      1. Apparently so. And he also doesn’t seem to understand that throwing Ricky Williams in jail probably hurts him more than the pot.

        1. “We had to ruin his life in order to save it.”

      2. He fails to realize this “wasted” life is an actual human being and I believe it’s up to that human to decide whether their life or precious gifts had been “wasted”.

        According to this logic, we need to ban drugs to make sure Ricky Williams plays football as we all know he should.

        Otherwise, it would be a “waste”.

    3. an inability to resist the allure of a chemical bliss

      Puritans frown on bliss.

    4. I read that too. I couldn’t get past the fact that i’m supposed to care about Williams’ failed career.

      1. Why was his career a failure? He made millions of dollars and walked away on his feet. I take issue with the idea that Williams owes the world anything beyond paying his bills. Williams would rather have a good career and enjoy himself than have a great career and not. More power to him.

        1. I just meant that I did’t see why Gergatry would point to Williams as a case study

          1. I see. But Gergaty is so stupid, he doesn’t even get that right. Williams wasn’t a failure. He had a long successful NFL career.

    5. everyone, encounters some white guy with dreadlocks who is, if not addicted, unhealthily focused on smoking weed and stumbling around in a happy, mellow, relaxed daze, seeking out snack products, and not very capable of doing much else in life

      And for each person like that you meet in life, there are probably 10 people with good jobs, normal grooming habits and interesting things to say who smoke regularly.

      1. The intern who brings him his fucking coffee in the morning (or wait…do writers at magazines still have an actual office? Or is it all online?) probably smokes weed. But he also is at Yale or Harvard or Columbia so it’s all copacetic.

  23. OT: Off duty cop intervenes when homeless lady attacks female TSA agent.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..rport.html

    Don’t know about anyone else, but I would have at least waited until the homeless lady drew some TSA blood or broke some TSA bones before thinking about breaking them up.

    1. I wouldn’t lift a finger to defend an on-duty TSA agent. Well, maybe to applaud.

      1. How does one applaud with one finger? I keed!

  24. Well he just needs to say these things to counter the hysterical and unreasonable rhetoric of the rethuglican gun-nuts / derplord

  25. http://www.wsoctv.com/ap/ap/cr…..cre/nXDHS/

    How about instead of worrying about guns, we maybe do something when someone’s psychologists says that person is batshit insane and going to start killing people? Just a thought.

    1. Yeah. Let’s jail people for what their shrink says they might do. That will never be abused.

      1. I think telling your shrink you have homicidal thoughts and then going a step further and threatening him is a pretty good standard. The threat itself is a crime and should have been enough to lock him up.

        1. Great idea! Then people who need help will be so eager to seek it out knowing that if they slip up they’ll be locked up, or at least have their right to keep and bear arms taken away! I think you might be on to something!

          1. Don’t threaten people. It is the threat. If I walk around saying I am going to kill you, I really can’t blame anyone for taking that threat seriously.

            I am not talking about if he was acting weird. I am talking about when the guy says “I would like to kill a bunch of people and I plan to start with you”, which is what this guy said.

            1. Thing is, people say that kind of shit all the time with no intention to act upon it. This guy was an extreme outlier.

              Your goal may not be to get people who need help to fear seeking it out, but that would be the result.

              1. Sure people say that shit but not all of them have the history this guy did. And again, I don’t see where people taking your threats seriously is violating your rights.

                1. Minority Report was fiction.

                  1. So sarcasmic, if go around telling everyone I plan to kill you, no one has any right to take me at my word and do something? It is your job to die so that I have the right to threaten people in peace?

                    1. Way to move the goalposts. First you want to lock up anyone whose shrink says is insane. Then anyone threatens their shrink. Then anyone who threatens anyone. Shall I call you Tulpa?

                    2. First you want to lock up anyone whose shrink says is insane.

                      I never said that at all. I said that it was the threats that made the difference. And threatening your shrink is just as bad as threatening anyone else.

                    3. You’ve got to find law enforcement that actually gives a shit, and then prove that the threat is credible.

                      So in effect it’s a useless law.

    2. “Because if you just take away mentally ill people’s guns and put their names on the NICS list they won’t be able to legally buy a gun and shoot anyone, and that’s all that counts. Only ‘gun-deaths’ are really bad.”

      See how that works?

      1. So we should never take any action no matter how violent someone is or how many threats they issue. Since when does your 1st Amendment rights to free speech include a right to threaten to kill me?

        1. When you start jailing people for what they might do, it never ends well.

          1. But credible threats of violence have always been a crime.

            1. Even so, most cops will just call you a pussy and ask you what you did to deserve it.

              1. THIS is your defense of LEO misbehavior?

        2. The proposals I’m talking about simply take guns away, leaving the person running around loose.

          If a violently mentally ill person has a gun, it isn’t the gun that needs locking up.

    3. Dude, the reason pschologists maintain confidentiality is because if they didn’t, they’d be constantly sued for “failing” to foresee some crazy person’s craziness… in a ‘disclosure’ environment, they’d just want to jail them all by default rather than risk being wrong.

      I say this as the brother of a schizophrenic. Its rough. The only person he’ll ever hurt is himself though.

  26. “”…20 children in a classroom gunned down by a semiautomatic weapon?by a fully automatic weapon in that case, sadly….”

    His thoughts… = “NOT LYING HARD ENOUGH!! HARDER!!”

  27. some folks can enjoy marijuana with no consequence, and then sometimes you get Ricky Williams, the one-time NCAA career rushing leader and Heisman Trophy winner who failed a bunch of drug tests through his NFL playing days

    How odd. Nothing about an increased tendency to fumble, or poor coordination/balance, inability to remember the play or run it properly; just “He failed a piss test.”

    Fuck you, pal.

    1. It’s sad how predictable this shit is.

      1. WITHOUT DRUGS HE WOULD HAVE WON TWO HEISMANS!!!!!

        1. WIthout John Fucking Mackovic, maybe.

    2. http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/…..y-williams

      Rickey Williams retired with over 10,000 career yards and 66 TDs. If he is a failure, every running back not named Barry Sanders and Jim Brown is also a failure.

      1. Seriously, he might not be a hall of famer but he had a more productive career than most. He’s like 27th on the all time yds list.

        1. Exactly. Anyone who runs for 10,000 yards is not a failure.

          1. He certainly isn’t a failure as a football player.

            Definitely a financial failure. Probably a failure as a father to at least some of his children – were the various mothers all looking for him when he was going bankrupt?

    3. Ricky Williams actually has borderline personality disorder and social anxiety, so his taking of marijuana was a form of therapy to help him cope.

      Of course it would have been better for him to pop a bunch of state-approved drugs, even if they would have adversely affected his diet and ability to play.

  28. Is it too much to expect the president to know which guns he is trying to ban?

    This president? Absolutely? Is it too much to expect someone at one of his speeches to call him out for being an idiot? Apparently.

    1. The only people who attend one of his speeches at this point are loyal bootlickers and sycophants (and I’m including the media who cover his speeches, of course). They’re either stupid enough to believe his shit, or they know he’s lying but don’t care because they agree with his goals.

      1. They’re either stupid enough to believe his shit, or they know he’s lying but don’t care because they agree with his goals.

        Exactly. I think of liberal progressives as generally falling into one of two camps. I call them ‘the manipulated’ and ‘the manipulators.’ The former are the useful idiots who judge ideas based upon the source rather than the content, while the latter are the sources who know this and take advantage of it by telling lies that they know will be believed.

  29. Because,

    Fuck YOU!

    1. Is that why?

      1. That’s why.

  30. Are we seriously going to have to go through four more years of this fucking anti gun media blitz? Because I am getting seriously tired of it now.

  31. When the Connecticut General Assembly expanded the state’s “assault weapon” ban this week, it added Bushmaster XM15 rifles to its list of guns that are prohibited by name. The new, broader “assault weapon” ban introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and endorsed by the president likewise specifically prohibits the manufacture or sale of Bushmaster XM15 rifles.

    Thus we’ll rapidly see a Bushmaster… oh… “ZM15” or “XM17” or, well, any other name.

    What baffles me is how stupid they have to be to think this will work after seeing how the 1994 ban had exactly the same effect.

    It’s like banning the “Toyota Camry” and being surprised when next year it’s replaced by the “Toyota Camrie”.

  32. Is it too much to expect the president to know which guns he is trying to ban?

    Being that Obama is the fucking Commander in Chief, the head of all of our military forces, no, it isn’t too goddamn much to ask that he know the difference between a semi-auto, an assault rifle, and a machine gun. I don’t hold the power to control the largest and most capable military force the world has ever seen, and I know the fucking difference.

    1. It’s a trick question; he’s trying to ban all of them.

  33. Nothing like machinegun fire in the morning!

    http://www.GoPrivacy.tk

  34. The mistake people keep making is thinking the second amendment is to protect gun ownership for hunting and peaceful purposes. Quite the contrary, it’s there to protect citizens from tyrannical governments that seek to restrict our rights….ahem.

    1. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free individual, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”?

      Well, no. The second amendment is concerned about preserving an oxymoron called a “free state” and with making sure that the free state’s enemies lack means, e.g. a militia, to stop its depredations. Now, the term “militia” had already been defined in the first two articles of the great Constitution as a tool of the central government. And one of the stated purposes of the tool is to maintain submission to the central government throughout the territory claimed by it. Further, the Constitution leaves no room to doubt that Congress and president are expected to use the militia to crush rebellion if other means fail.

      So the 2nd amendment informs the alert reader that the subjects of the federalists’ empire won’t be deprived the services of a tool meant to keep them subdued and obedient. But the usual gunhugging blowhards never let irony get in the way when talking about respecting the 2nd amendment for the sake of warding off tyrannical government.

      Ahem, indeed.

  35. It bugs me that, legally, automatic weapons are “machine guns.” A machine gun, in my mind, has nothing other than its military definition. Calling a Mac-11 a “machine gun” is silly; even the term “submachine gun” is a holdover from WW1 era weapons, where submachine guns were literally smaller crew served weapons firing pistol ammunition.

  36. It’s called lying. Don’t be so gentle with the guy or he’ll think he can drone whack you.

  37. The version I heard was that Lanza left the rifle in the car and did all of the killing at the school with handguns.

  38. “Is it too much to expect the president to know which guns he is trying to ban?”
    Of course. It’s too much to expect any politician to know anything about the laws he passes.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.