Why Is Defying Majority Support for Gun Control 'Cowardice'?


White House

Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who stood next to President Obama yesterday, nodding as he berated the senators who voted against his gun control proposals for their "shameful" failure to agree with him, continues the tantrum in today's New York Times. As gun controllers tend to do, she opens with an emotion-laden non sequitur:

Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.

This nonsensical juxtaposition has zero logical content yet achieves Giffords' goal of portraying her opponents as insincere hacks who elevate their own petty political interests above the lives of children. In case you missed the point, she drives it home:

Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents—who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them….

I am asking every reasonable American to help me tell the truth about the cowardice these senators demonstrated.

In Giffords' view, these senators are two-faced, because you cannot truly sympathize with her unless you vote for the bills she supports. But I am a little confused about the purported motivation for this perceived betrayal. Obama and Giffords both insist the senators who voted against new gun controls did so not out of conviction but out of fear—specifically, fear that they would be defeated the next time they run for re-election. If their constituents "overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks," however, wouldn't voting for the bill mandating those have been the politically expedient thing to do? And why is opposing the will of the majority a mark of "cowardice," as Giffords says, rather than a mark of courage?

Furthermore, why would senators be afraid of "the gun lobby" unless they think it can sway voters against them? Isn't that ultimately the source of the NRA's fearsome power? But if voters are so easily manipulated, why should we be impressed by majority support for expanded background checks or any other gun control measure? I suspect that Giffords credits the majority with wisdom only when the polls are going her way, just as she credits politicians with integrity only when they agree with her.

"Speaking is physically difficult for me," Giffords writes, alluding to the disability caused by the gunshot wound she suffered at the hands of Jared Loughner in Tucson two years ago. "But my feelings are clear: I'm furious." Obama thinks such feelings should carry special weight in the gun control debate, and evidently so does Giffords, although they might change their minds when confronted by a victim of gun violence who does not support their agenda. Assuming that parents of murdered children are not all of one mind regarding the merits of new gun controls (and they're not), how do we decide whose feelings should prevail? Take a vote of the victims?

Enough already. If you have an argument to make, make it. But do not assume that the only possible explanation for your failure to persuade people is their bad faith or lack of compassion.


NEXT: College Enrollment Slides

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Do you think Giffords actually wrote any of that?

    1. I believe the technical term is “waving the bloody congresswoman”

      1. [slow clap]

      2. *standing ovation*

      3. Get it right. She’s “The Hero of Tucson.”

        She also has a near-psychic ability to detect operational television cameras.

    2. Yeah, I’m very curious about that. My uninformed guess is that she hasn’t written any of her speeches or articles on the subject. My money is on her being a meat puppet. I’m not even going to criticize her. Obama and her dickhead husband ought to be ashamed of themselves, though.

      1. Same here.

        1. Ditto. I’ve known people who’ve suffered serious brain injuries and after hearing her directly I have some major doubts, to say the least, about the true origin of the number of written pieces under her name since the shooting.

          1. Her “interviews” are slow-pitch farces. There are no unrehearsed answers or follow-up questions. The people using her are the fucking scum of the Earth.

            Fuck you lady, I didn’t shoot you.

            1. “Fuck you lady, I didn’t shoot you.”

              Along with Gifford’s face, this would make the best T-shirt list of 2013!

            2. Nice work Drake! Now, go back to dismembering all of the cats in your neighborhood!

  2. Gabrielle Giffords can go fuck herself.
    Barrack Obama can go fuck himself.

    That is all.

    1. That is so uncivil.

    2. In the same vein: I hope you get ass-fucked by a double barreled shotgun right before your insides convert some drywall into some expensive modern art.

  3. If we still have the 1968 Gun Control Act, we still have gun control. When the NRA and this bunch of jackesses in DC get serious about that one, people might be able to begin believing them. That is just for openers.

    1. The National Firearms Act

      1. Yes, I figured that one would be last, if ever. But starting there and working forward would be great too.

  4. Gabrielle Giffords reminds me of the South Park episode where she shoots herself in the head. She appears in the next seen with a bandage on here head, the only indication anything happened to her.

    1. You’re talking about the mayor of South Park? The hippie episode, I think. South Park didn’t actually do an episode that had Giffords shooting herself, did they?

      1. No. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen every episode since that happened, and I don’t remember them doing it.

      2. Unfortunately, no. The Wal-Mart episode has a bunch of people shooting themselves in the head, though.

  5. Has anyone actually explained how the defeated bill would have prevented the Giffords shooting or Sandy Hook? Or any shooting at all? Where those guns obtained through a “gun show loophole” or an “online loophole”?

    1. No one can explain that because it wouldn’t have. That’s not the point. They don’t like guns so they’re using these tradgedies to springboard their agenda. General public doesn’t think long and hard about these things. Quite the opposite.

      1. “They don’t like guns”

        This is untrue. They LOVE guns They surround themselves with people that have guns and they command people with guns to do their bidding.

        They do not want anyone else in command of guns.

    2. If she had half a brain she would know better.

      1. +1 NRA Bumper Sticker

    3. Actually on Wednesday, Senator Diane Feinstein admitted in her remarks that the background check amendment wouldn’t have stopped Sandy Hook. But she still favors it.

  6. Liberals point out that our murder rate is many times that of Europe. However, if you only look at White Americans, our murder rate would be the same. It is demographics, not guns, that differentiate Europe and America. That is the true issue here, the smokescreen behind which all of this is argued. But it cannot be argued, because that would be “racist.”

    1. Aww look everyone! The racist is back and he got a new name!

      1. They must have blocked his last one. I don’t get why he bothers coming here. Must have a lot of extra time on his hands.

        1. This is his ~115th iteration. He comes up with a new name, slowly builds up until he unleashes his inner neo-Nazi, gets himself banned, then slinks back with a new handle the next day.

        2. False flag proglodyte who gets us tarred as racist skinhead militia members through his contrived association. I don’t find the racist act at all believable because it is by the numbers and uniformely contrived. Real racist have leanings towards disliking one set of people or another in their tendencies.

      2. It took two minuets for one of them to declare me a “racist.” Tell me, Tman, was what I said inaccurate?

        1. Yes, stupid, because Americans aren’t a color.

          It’s shitstains like you that continue to assist your polar opposites on the left to keep bringing up “WELL HERP DERP IF YOU JUST TOOK THE BLACK PEOPLE OUT OF THE NUMBERS HERP DERP”.

          You are a fucking racist so take your crappy attitude and go piss on someone else’s funeral.

          1. So it is innumerate because “it is racist.” The mind of a liberal.

            1. Yep, that’s me. Tman the Liberal.

              I get that a lot.

              1. So you’re *not* a liberal?

                1. No Peyton, you don’t have to be a liberal to recognize when people are being racist fucks.

                  1. Typical white person.

          2. I’d say that the demography of crime in the US is interesting, especially because the further back you look, the more you see that blacks were much more law-abiding before the explosion of welfare and inner-city graft for blacks.

            1. For the record, I understand the demographic issues in question, and absolutely agree with Sowell that this disparity is largely due to government welfare systems.

              That being said, Captain Stormfront over here has a history of alluding to race as the reason why “we have these problems” which is racist.

              1. Well yeah, he’s a damned idiot.

                I’ve always wondered, though: suppose race *is* the problem. Are racists ever gonna stop bitching about it long enough to tell us what they think we should do about it, or is their solution too, erm, final for that to make its way into the conversation?

                1. Racists will never stop bitching period, mainly because they don’t have any answers other than “GO BACK TO AFRICA” or whatever.

                  What I find fascinating about racism is this. I grew up in Boston for 18 years and saw terrible horrible virulent racist assholes who infected communities and bred their hatred in to their children.

                  Then I moved to the south. Before I moved the liberal elites all gasped when I said I was moving to Nashville -“OH BUT THE REDNECKS AND THE KLAN AND SLAVERY!!!” which is pretty much the standard stereotype of the south.

                  What I discovered after living in Nashville an equal amount to Boston is that both places have their own equal shares of racist assholes, and the only difference is their accents.

                  Yes, the south has a terrible racial history. But ask someone like the Celtic Champion Bill Russell how “progressive” the city of Boston is.

                  Stupid is as stupid does, regardless of location.

                  1. Do you mean, “When I bought a house in an all white Boston suburb, my white, New England neighbors broke into my house and crapped on our bed” Celtic Champion Bill Russell?

                    No fucking wonder he describes working himself into a rage before every game (sidenote: it is also possible that that means that Russel had or has major undiagnosed issues, because seriously, hear him talk about his mental process of preparing for a basketball game and tell me he doesn’t sound sort of crazy)

                    1. That’s the one. And this was after he had brought like four titles in a row to Boston.

                      He is a bit crazy, but considering the shit he put up with while in Boston I don’t blame him.

              2. Stormfront is the real reason we have these problems. Commissioning him a Captain is a bit much.

              3. I’ve read that if you correct them for single parenthood, black/white crime stats come very close.

            2. I have never read his trilogy but I have read enough of his columns and heard him interviewed enough to know that you and gorilla tactics accurately represent what Sowell has said and written.

              If I am not mistaken, Sowell and others have pointed out that the black family was more intact than the white family prior to the advent of the welfare state.

              1. You should read it, LM. It’s an amazing trilogy and goes far more in-depth on the issue than his columns (which are good but not as comprehensive as a book for obvious reasons).

                Can’t recommend it enough.

                1. conflict of visions is good to, pretty much the only political philosophy book you need to read

                2. Yes, I should. There’s no doubt that the columns are no substitute for the opus.

                  Instead of spending so much time at or or trading barbs with people, I should do more heavy lifting.

          3. So, what was incorrect about what he said?

            “Racist” is not a truth-value.

            1. This is a recurrent troll who has posted countless explicitly racist comments. He doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt

          4. Tman,

            Just curious here…..You object to Peyton Farquhar’s comment because you believe those who bring race into the conversation are acting as useful idiots to race husselers like Sharpton or because you feel race (or color, as you say) is an artificial construct and not relevant? Even though most Americans do identify as a particular race or ethnicity.

            1. You object to Peyton Farquhar’s comment because you believe those who bring race into the conversation are acting as useful idiots to race husselers like Sharpton

              Yes. It’s Captain (first mate?) Stormfront raison d’etre. He has a history.

              most Americans do identify as a particular race or ethnicity.

              Good for them. If they were born here they are Americans.

              We’ve discussed this before, but Dave Matthews (Born in Africa, raised in America) would be more accurately defined as an “African American” than Shaquille O’Neal (born in America).

              1. Okaaaay. So this guy has a history of beginning with a fairly obvious but not necessarily relevant comment about race and then goes all KKK?

                I get that the obsession with race some folks seem to indulge (of both varieties of left and right) is annoying and a spiral of stupidity, but some can discuss race without using it as a blunt instrument.

                1. “Okaaaay. So this guy has a history of beginning with a fairly obvious but not necessarily relevant comment about race and then goes all KKK?”

                  Yes, exactly. I don’t think anyone has a problem discussing race but he’s just baiting.

            2. 2 racists dicks in one day? Can we be so lucky?!

              1. It’s a racist miracle!

              2. Umm, not sure if this is directed at me, but just in case – I don’t have a dick, so you might want to edit for dick and vagina.

                1. I believe the other one they are referring to is “Acosmist”.

                  1. If the other one they’re talking about is acosmist, then sure. Every time American shows up, Acosmist tries to ridiculously defend him.

                    1. Every time American shows up, Acosmist tries to ridiculously defend him.

                      And says the same exact thing? “Racist is not a truth-value”?

                      Yeah I’ve noticed that too.

                      Let me tell you something Acosmist, if you suffer from the mental illness known as “racism”, then that’s prima facie evidence that you don’t possess the ability to use reason to determine the truth of a proposition.

                  2. K, thanks.

                    1. Lady B,

                      That comment was not directed at you. Cowards use sock puppets to make it seem as though others agree with them, thus the comment.

                    2. I see. I’m new and don’t know the history. Not a problem.

                    3. Welcome Lady B.

                    4. Someone should inform her that there are no female libertarians.

                    5. Maybe that’s because folks here prematurely jump their shit. (Albeit, this time appears to be a misunderstanding due to folks not specifying who they were responding to.)

                    6. Thanks for the welcome. Sorry if I encouraged Mr. KKK.

                      As to there being no female libertarians, what about Ayn Rand, Amity Shlaes, and Kennedy?

                      Possibly there just aren’t any female libertarians on THIS BOARD. You boys play a little rough.

                    7. Lady Bertrum, “you’re why there are no female libertarians” is a joke at the expense of one of the forum regulars who was a bit… oversincere in his attempts to convince the forum regulars that females are repelled by foul language used in the forum.

                      Now whenever someone says something that sounds particularly sexist or un-PC, they get that lobbed at them…

                      Yeah. Anyways, welcome.

                    8. Ahhhh, got it. I used to frequent a forum for women homeschooling with classical curriculum. Now those were some vulgar, vicious bitches.

                    9. As to there being no female libertarians, what about Ayn Rand, Amity Shlaes, and Kennedy?

                      You needed to be introduced to said meme. As I wrote a few days back, you also need to add Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Paterson, and Zora Neale Hurston to that list.

                    10. I’m not particularly well read on topics libertarian. I come by it as a naturally skeptical, pissy contrarian. I’m off to go google those names. Although, I think I ready an essay or two by Neale Hurston in high school. Thanks 😉

                    11. Any time, Mi’Lady.

                    12. Don’t be silly, Irish can tell us exactly how many female libertarians there are. He’s keeping the official census.

                      Consult the book of lady libertarians!

                    13. Consult the book of lady libertarians!

                      By “book”, you mean “centerfold”, yes?

                    14. Ugh, HM, THIS is why there are no female libertarians!

                      Besides, I prefer my centerfolds a little more April 1972 Cosmopolitany

                    15. I really need to start checking the username before clicking on centerfold links.

                      Off to bleach the ol’ eyeballs.

                    16. Dude, he didn’t even link to an image of the whole thing!

                    17. That crop was more than enough. Worse, in fact, because now my imagination is extrapolating the rest of the image.

                    18. I’m more than happy to post the full thing for you. It’s very tastefully done.

                    19. Or you could read the actual link. What did you think they’d be centerfolding in Cosmopolitan?

                    20. Err, beautiful women whom other beautiful women would like to emulate?

                    21. Fuck you HM, I have things I need to get done tonight, and this is going to seriously hamper my ability to accomplish them.

                      I’ll be in my bunk.

                    22. Hey, turnabout is fair play…

                    23. Why in the hell do I click on your links jesse? You would have thought I would have learned by now.

                2. I don’t understand why Bertrum deserved that. I didn’t see anything particularly racist in her posts. ‘Some can discuss race without using it as a blunt instrument’ seems like a pretty valid statement to me.

                  1. She seems new here. Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt that maybe she just stumbled into the conversation without the context of knowing that we have a recurring racist troll easily distinguishable by his style. I can imagine doing what she did in that position.

        2. “”It took two minuets…””


        3. Liberals point out that our murder rate is many times that of Europe.

          A reasonable person of normal intelligence (not you) would have stopped here and pointed out that the Euros don’t calculate murder rates the same way Americans do. BTW, in Russia, which is part of Europe, half of the murders go unsolved.

          Instead, an irrational person of sub-average intelligence (YOU) attempt to slyly blame homicide rates on the “non-Whites.”

          1. No only that but a 1 to 1 comparison ignores the effects of population densities. Murder rates scale up incredibly when urban centers of population break the 200,000 mark. The United States has a disproportionate number of cities which reach that critical mass than does Europe.

      3. Facts are racist?

        1. How about the fact that you sexually molest your daughter, Chris Mallory?

          How about the fact that you make her suffer repeated sexual penetration of her mouth, vagina, and anus, causing several vaginal and anal fistulas, Chris Mallory?

      4. If you think Martin`s story is really great…, 3 weeks ago my dads girlfriend actually earned $6035 just sitting there twenty hours a week at home and they’re roomate’s step-aunt`s neighbour has been doing this for 4 months and errned more than $6035 part time from there computer. the instructions on this page,

    2. Peyton Farquhar, Please provide a link or source to support your claim. I’m not interested in a source like the Aryan Nation. Make sure its legit census or crime data from FBI.

      1. Here is a source for the murder rates. As you can see, blacks have commited a majority, 52.5%, of the murders between 19080 and 2008. Here can be found a list of nations by murder rate.

        1. Culture matters.

          1. Well, that the point, isn’t it? To a large extent inner city race and culture are indistinguishable. Has nothing to do with a particular person’s race – which I do believe is an artificial distinction – but to knee jerk assume that any reference to minority, inner city, gangster culture and its inherent violence is a reflection of racist attitudes is pure horseshit. The question is what produced this culture – two main culprits being the drug war and the entitlement subculture, both of which are the result of attempts at social engineering by government and the primary victims of both are black people.

            1. I feel what you’re saying, but damn it feels good to be gangsta!

              1. “And now, a word from the President!”

                I just realized that would have been way more controversial today than it was when that song came out.

              2. Wow, not a big hip hop fan, but that was brilliant! My only complaint was that part where the babe starts to reveal herself should have been extended a little bit.

        2. read Thomas Sowell’s “Black rednecks and white liberals”

          1. Black rednecks and white liberals is the finest book sitting in my “need to finish” pile. Got distracted by the works of Doherty and Goldberg.

            1. yeah its actually just a collection of essays, but reading sowell is by far the best way to make liberals cry

              1. Black Redneck/White Liberal is good, but not great for that reason. Lots of fine essays, but the culture trilogy and Conflict of Visions are where he really shines, since he isn’t confined to a word limit and clearly took the time to research those topics.

                His book on Marxist economics is also good (but very dry).

                1. Knowledge and Decisions. Apparently adapted from his dissertation. One of the finest books ever written. Engineering/science types will recognize the issues as a variant on control theory.

              2. I’ve seen almost every appearance of Sowell’s on media since 1981 and read most of his columns prior to that book. If it turns out to be a refresher I will still be happy.

          2. Shelby Steele has written some interesting stuff as well.

        3. Your 2nd link doesn’t work.

        4. Yes, as we all know, blacks in America are six times more likely to be murdered than whites. I’ll give you a second to finish masturbating to that particular statistic.

        5. The rate for white Americans is still significantly above most European countries (except for Eastern Europe)

      2. I cannot speak for Europe’s statistics. If they are dealt with like Britain’s, they aren’t measuring people killed, or even people charged, as the U.S. does, but the number of convictions. In Britain, if no one is convicted, there is no homicide.

        Unfortunately, homicide rates in the U.S. are far higher for Blacks than Whites. U.S. National Center for Health Statistics, Deaths: Final Data for 2007, Vol. 58, No.19, May 2010:
        White Men 5.4/100,000
        Black Men 39.7/100,000
        White Women 1.9/100,000
        Black Women 6.2/100,000

        Numbers vary slightly by source, but all agree that the differences are dramatic. I don’t claim the differences are inherent to race per se, but I never looked into it either.

        1. FWIW, T Sowell goes over the demography of crime in the US in his trilogy on culture (particularly Race and Culture). I found his analysis very convincing.

          1. Sowell is awesome

            1. Mostly.

              1. yeah he is a bit of a socon on some issues-gay marriage I think is where I break with him.

          2. the saddest part from his works is how he illustrates that blacks were improving UNTIL the great society, yet liberals will never admit it.

        2. Honest question: How big is the racial gap if one is to account for socioeconomic differences?

          Ie Sure, I’m sure more blacks commit crimes than whites. More blacks also live in poverty.

          I guess one might need to lay a few stats other than poverty on there, but if one did, say, poverty and single parent homes, that I assume would track better with crime than race.

          1. It is still statistically significant even adjusting for socioeconomic and urban/rural.

            It does correlate strongly with single parent, actually.

            1. single motherhood is the real variable, once you correct for that most differences between blacks and whites disappear (crime, academics, poverty etc) it’ll piss off the feminists to mention this so liberals would rather go around saying the word “chicago” is racist

              1. Warren Farrell has dedicated more than a few paragraphs to the reality that children raised by single fathers tend to be less likely to engage in crime and more likely to pursue higher education than those raised by single mothers. This is, naturally, anathema to many of the knee-jerk progressives with whom we are forced to share this mudball.

          2. Honest question: How big is the racial gap if one is to account for socioeconomic differences?

            Honest answer: Based on slightly more than nothing, I suspect that accounts for much (half?) of it.

            I know crossing the Potomac River out of DC adds more than 8 years to an average Black man’s life expectancy. Swimming directly across into Fairfax, VA drops the average person’s chances of being a homicide victim from 24/100k to 4.7/100k (which happens to match VA’s rate). Going the other direction to Maryland changes it to 7.7/100k.

          3. Law enforcement sets street level dealers to go after one another. There would be very little violent crime associated with the drug trade if LO didn’t set these guys up to believe every other one of their associates is a snitch. The ATF and G-boro PD conducted a massive raid here Monday, put ambigious language refferring to informants that read exactly the same way in the arrest reports of each individual no matter what they were caught on them. If they were relying on true undercover info, their haul would have been more substantial than the nickel and dime penny ante bullshit they made their arrest on. The biggest dealer in that part of town was only caught with three grams on him. Now every street dealer is looking for the snitch. There has already been a few shit kickings where people wound up in the hospitals (that is how I know about it). All because LEO wants to play cowboy on the public dime.

            1. Divide and conquer!

        3. White women obviously have an unfair advantage in mortality. Some bigotry must be afoot here. We need federal action to cure society of this injustice.


            1. Richard Pryor is one of the finest screenwriters ever. I hope Mel Brooks retained the lessons learned.

            2. i believe Blazing Saddles was a cultural triumph in mocking racism through failing to even take it seriously. name any movie made since where white people constantly say “nigger” and it isnt about, “oooh! kultur fail! i should feel superior for being so ‘sensitive’ (even though i dont know any black people)”

              i think seeing it as a child completely dispelled any possibility of predjudice for the remainder of my life. and yet i bet liberals hate it for being so ‘insensitive’

              one fave scene (with slim pickens getting some great dialogue)


              1. “We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen!”

    3. Sooo, they don’t have any non-white people in Europe?

      1. Interesting cultural question. Do Europeans breakdown crime statistics by race/ethnicity? I know that they don’t breakdown educational stats in France and Germany.

      2. If you mean non-caucasian they have far less than the US.

    4. Fuck off you racist fuckstain, and please do not reproduce so that I don’t have to deal with another generation of racist fuckstains in the hypothetical classroom I would like to teach in 20 to 30 years. Thanks.

    5. Um, isn’t demographics relevant here? Many perpetrators of gun violence and their victims are blacks, sometimes Latinos. Whites are third, and the rest of the population either don’t own guns in large numbers don’t shoot each other.

      It’s not racist to point that out at all. Gun violence in this country would drop if the black community did something about it. But we know where their loyalties lie.

      1. “Black community” is a fallacy.

        1. “Black communities” isn’t

      2. It’s not racist to point that out at all.

        I love watching people claim that repeatable, verifiable, numerical facts are “racist” or “sexist” or “opinionated.” I especially enjoy when those numbers come from US government sources, and then the statists scream things like, “You shouldn’t listen to the NRA!”

        Of course, I also enjoy when much-used stats fall on their faces, like when the recent study showed the South is not the fattest region in the USA. It turns out that if you actually go around and check people’s heights and weights, Westerners and Mid-westerners (especially women) lie more about their weight, and Northerners (especially men) lie more about their heights!

  7. Voting against the is legislation was also gay.

    1. Just saying that is making me so gay for you, Fist.

  8. Well, whatever her injuries, it seems that the portion of her brain required for leftist doublethink is completely unaffected.

    You know what makes me furious, Gabby? When people have something bad happen to them and determine that everyone else must suffer because of it.

    Fucking take up painting or something.

    1. The Mother of all of that which you describe is MADD.

      1. If I ever meet an actual member of MADD, I am going to have to run the other way so I don’t give in to the urge to spit on them.

        1. If I ever meet an actual member of MADD,

          The jackass woman (her name is escaping me at the moment… Pat Puller? Something like that) who started the old “Satanic” panic over Dungeons and Dragons walked onto my property and tried to get my signature for a petition. I told her I was 30 seconds from surgically implanting my Gamma World set in her colon. She didn’t get it. Dumb as taking a bag of gravel to a quarry.

          1. Wait, you met her face to face and she didn’t leave with a 20 sided die implanted in her face?

            For shame, my friend, for shame.

    2. You have it backward. The part of her brain that told her that guncotrol is totalitarian bullshit was removed. Obama and her husband were born without it.

    3. “when people have something bad happen to them…”

      More so

      When uppity liberals have something bad happen to them they seem to think their outrage is some kind of righteous validation which elevates them beyond the average citizen.

      Your opinion has no more value than ours Gabby, put a sock in it. Sorry you got shot.

  9. I would have thought voting against something popular because you’re standing up for your principles was brave, not cowardly.

    1. Of course, such as when they give amnesty to illegals even though the majority of people want immigration reduced they are “brave.” But when they want the same thing as the “American” “people” they sure know how to trumpet it.

      1. When the Team Blue tards say that 90% of Americans (courtesy of nonsense poll by Bloomie’s Mayors against guns) Peyton is outraged. When the “will of the majority” says “dey turk our jerbs” he’s splooging his cousin-mother’s computer screen.

        1. What was the actual question, because I can’t believe 90% of Americans agree on *anything*. Either the question was absurd, or they pulled the number out of their collective asses.

      2. Honestly, I don’t give a shit that the majority of Americans want anything one way or another. Americans, like most people, are by and large stupid.

        Well, perhaps not stupid. Intellectually uncurious is perhaps the better term. They have the ability to better themselves, but most stopped giving a shit sometime around high school/college.

        1. Nah, it’s the public school system. It is designed to turn out sheep, and that’s what it does very well indeed.

      3. The majority of American people support amnesty, even if they support reducing future immigration

    2. It normally is, hence they resort to lying their asses off about the big bad NRA buying votes.

      In fact the NRA simply has the email addresses of millions of gun owners and knows how to mobilize them against gun control. You’d think that would be a good example of representative democracy in action.

      1. If the NRA was half as powerful as they are currently claiming, we’d have constitutional carry nation-wide. they just can’t accept that their defeat wasn’t a conspiracy.

    3. I would have thought voting against something popular because you’re standing up for your principles was brave, not cowardly.

      That’s next month’s unpopular legislation Obama is going to push.

  10. FBI releases images of 2 suspects who are free to buy firearms thanks to the NRA and the Senate.

    1. And pressure cookers too. Thanks to Barak Obama. He should have outlawed all kitchen appliances the day of the bombing. ‘Cause freedom is so scary when you’re a pussy.

    2. Anybody not convicted of a crime is free to buy firearms and still would have been under the proposed bills. Try harder, moron.

      1. Oh shit, that wasn’t a joke? I thought he was just kidding.

    3. I don’t think Ayers and Dohrn are free to buy firearms du to the efforts of the NRA. More likely due to the bungling of the FBI.

    4. How do you know they are free to buy firearms? Do you know if they are American citizens who have never been convicted of a felony?

      If you have specific information, the FBI would really like to speak with you.

    5. Until you prove these men are guilty in a court of law why would their rights to carry arms be restricted?

      1. Actually, I believe if you’re even under indictment for a felony you’re forbidden from purchasing a firearm.

  11. 42 of the 45 Senators who voted ‘no’ to gun control yesterday have been paid by gun lobbyists

    1. Right, and none of this Senators have any gun-owning constituents that might be opposed to gun control legislation.

      Of course they’re paranoid, it’s not like there are real world examples of draconian gun legislation being passed in Democratic states like Illinois, New York, and Connecticut.

    2. The remaining three should have asked for a better deal.

      How many who voted ‘yea’ were bought off by the Gestapo?

    3. Where do liberals get their campaign money? Liberal organizations? OMYGOD its such a conspiracy!!!! I am one of the millions of members of the NRA. You can start blaming me now. I take the blame, because this is exactly what I want to happen.

    4. I’m glad. I send my money to the NRA with the expectation that they spend it on politicians, and not conferences and advertising.

      Don’t like it, start your own group with as many members and their cash.

      Here’s some seed money, jerky…

      *wads up dollar and throws it on the ground*

      1. Those of us not in the business of selling guns seem to be unable to muster the insane mendacity it requires to stoke paranoia and fear among idiots to get our will accomplished. Our problem, I guess. Maybe if we were motivated by cold cash instead of the well-being of human beings we could manage it.

        1. So pro-gunners are simultaneously motivated by “paranoia and fear” and “cold cash”.

          Um… what?

          1. Gun vendors, the ones who fund the NRA, are motivated by cash. Millions of stupid rednecks who threaten politicians’ jobs are motivated by diaper-wetting fear the former interests deliberately motivate.

            1. Good to see that socialist propaganda hasn’t evolved beyond “the proles are too stupid to see their chains”.

            2. You keep insisting opposition to further gun regulation is driven by fear and paranoia…can you explain how NOT wanting to reduce guns in an era of dropping crime and murder rates is the sign of paranoia, while claiming that statistical outlier events are the perfect reason to cede fundamental rights is somehow the opposite?

              1. Tony, as is often the case, is projecting. The diaper-wetters who are afraid of guns couldn’t get their law passed with lots of money and fear-mongering, so the obvious explanation for this failure is that the other side must have been motivated by money and fear.

          2. This is kind of like how Schumer and others claim those sinister RepubliKKKans who care about nothing but money and profit are willing to scuttle their own businesses and livelihoods just to make Obama look bad.

        2. What’s your will, oh teary-eyed one?

          And please try to speak up as it’s hard to hear you over your sobs.

        3. muster the insane mendacity it requires to stoke paranoia and fear among idiots to get our will accomplished.

          Said after months of propping up dead children and a half-dead Congressman in an effort to whip up a panic about vanishingly rare mass shootings. Reminds me of the good ole post-9/11 days.

          1. Reminds me of the good ole post-9/11 days.

            Blocking the freedoms of law-abiding Americans in order to present a false sense of safety and security? Naw, nothing Bushian about that.

            I mentioned this on Twitter yesterday.

          2. Real dead children are real.

            The coming fascist takeover of inbred America is not real.

            1. 73.9 million (roughly) live children are real too. What’s your point?

        4. Go fuck yourself shit-sack.

        5. Those of us not in the business of selling guns seem to be unable to muster the insane mendacity it requires to stoke paranoia and fear among idiots to get our will accomplished

          Say that again, after reading Obama’s and “Gifford’s” comments, carefully.

          1. He does not view it as stroking paranoia and fear of idiots. He views it as alerting the reasonable and enlightened to the dangers of the Bible-thumping clingers in flyover country.

        6. Those of us not in the business of selling guns seem to be unable to muster the insane mendacity it requires to stoke paranoia and fear among idiots to get our will accomplished.

          No you don’t, because you keep claiming background checks would have stopped Adam Lanza despite the fact that they wouldn’t have.

          1. So you’re for much stricter laws? Or are dead children the price of freedom?

            Let me cheer and throw flower petals when you respond “yes.”

            1. Dead children are the price of existing in the universe.

              The large majority of gun deaths in America are the price of a War on Drugs.

              Mass killings in America have been almost unanimously the price of gun-free zones.

              Child murderer.

            2. “So you’re for much stricter laws? Or are dead children the price of freedom?”

              I agree. We should have stricter abortion regulations to prevent the murder of children (in the 3rd trimester). Or maybe we should just enforce the ones we have – for the children.

            3. Stop pretending you give a shit about children except as political props in your stupid marxist fantasies.

            4. False dilemmas aren’t arguments.

            5. No, dead children are the price of “gun free zones” and your need to feel warm and fuzzy in spite of the actual consequences of your agenda.

        7. Bloomberg alone spent more money during this latest legislative push than the NRA did. The idea that the NRA’s money is what sways politicians is fucking stupid. It’s the fact that they will get their asses kicked in the next election because their pissed off constituents don’t like gun control that keeps them in line.

        8. Hahahaha. Oh Tony. You’re deeply and unremittingly terrified of EVUL RIGHT WING RETHUGLICANS yet you always claim that pro-gun people are paranoid.

          Paranoid nutcase, heal thyself.

        9. It’s hilarious that Tony accuses the pro-gun rights side of being paranoid

        10. Those of us not in the business of selling guns seem to be unable to muster the insane mendacity it requires to stoke paranoia and fear among idiots to get our will accomplished.

          LOL at this brazen lie. Progs have been trying to stoke fear that people can’t step outside their doors without being shot for several months now, and the media’s played right along with it.

          You’re just mad because your side lost this round. That’s really all it boils down to.

        11. Is that some sort of joke? Gun control is all about motivating people by telling people they should be afraid of guns and all the crazies with guns. What are anti-gun control people afraid of, other than losing their guns?

          PS I don’t own guns but agree with the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. Frankly, guns do scare me . . . but I’s still rather be on the giving end.

    5. Good. I hope they stay bought.

      1. They better stay bought. Because that well-regulated militia that Washington struts around with is on notice. The people retain their right to keep and bear arms.

    6. The shorter version of this article:

      Sure the NRA is donating marginal sums to these Senators (a whooping $2,000 on average), but what is really beyond the pale is that the NRA is spending money on…negative ads on politicians in favor of gun control!

      The NRA should take a page from our Campaigner-in-Chief/God-Emperor Barry and do nothing but say positive things about everyone.

    7. Good!

      Seriously, I do not give a shit about money in politics. I really don’t.

      See, unlike you, Guy, you ignorant fuck stain, I took political science. Political Science has actually looked at the issue of whether spending money in an election “buys” it. And, what they have found, from studying hundreds of elections, is that once you hit name recognition, every dollar spent has less and less of an effect.

      To wit, you could revive Adolf Hitler, hand him 100 billion dollars, and run him for President, and he would still lose.

      Resorting to bitching about money is the ultimate sore loser tactic in politics.

      1. I agree. And I think most recent studies of $ in US politics is that money is a THRESHOLD for victory, but not determinative. In other words, for a particular race, you will need $X to be competitive. But after that threshold, the relative values

        Also, I can’t get past the fact that everyone who criticizes $ in politics is either implicitly (1) admitting they are an idiot and can’t think for themselves but will vote for whomever has the most commercials on TV, or (2) the are too smart to be swayed by $, but every other voter is an idiot described in item (1).

        So, either the person is an idiot, or they’re telling me I’m an idiot. Either way, I’m not inclined to listen.

    1. Gee, wonder who wanted to ban that?

    2. Guy, the State, in its all-knowingness, banned the Kinder Egg because it was unsafe. For The Children. Just like guns supposedly are.

      So, why do you trust the State again?

      1. Didn’t they walk back the Kinder Egg thing a few weeks ago?

        1. IIRC Kinder Egg modified the version of the product for the USA so it can be sold here.
          Then again, I don’t trust my memory either.

    3. Does the big gun you know nothing about scare you? Better stay in your house with the doors locked pussy.

    4. Yes, because the same people who support the 2nd Am are the same people who decided to prohibit me from bringing a fucking Kinder Egg back to my kid from Germany.


  12. We get it Guy, you are a moron.

    1. Man, did someone close down Stormfront and Wonkette at the same time?

      1. You’re a funny guy, Tman. I like you. That’s why I’m going to kill you last.

        1. You’re a funny guy, Tman. I like you. That’s why I’m going to kill you last.


          That’s one of those movies that if I am flipping channels, I will watch.

        2. Before you kill us all, you should explain your *not technically comment earlier. I’ve been on tenterhooks all day waiting for you to go on.

          1. I was quite disappointed clicking through that link. I was expecting Epi to repeat his claim to being a technical virgin.

            1. Really? What was his justification for claiming to be a technical virgin? He’s only been sodomized by skanks wearing strap ons, but there’s never been any PIV sex?

              I’ve never committed incest*
              * technically

              just screams “there hangs a tale.”

          2. Me explaining it would destroy your mind, jesse. So I’ll explain. I traveled to a parallel universe and had sex with myself. It was far less interesting than you would expect. I had hoped for a lot more out of it.

            1. Ah, but did this universe’s you top yourself or bottom for yourself? Or were you democratic about it and there was lots of flip-fucking?

              Also, appropriate xkcd

              1. Let’s just say there was lots of power bottoming going on.

              2. Also, appropriate xkcd

                Whenever anyone posts an XKCD link I waste an hour. And people I see afterward think I’m nuts.

                Right, no change.

                1. I find XKCD infinitely re-readable, and some of them still make me laugh.

            2. I assume that Lazarus Long was in the corner of the room, masturbating furiously.

      2. Speaking of the term “wonk”, is there anyone who refers to themselves as such who isn’t a despicable human being? Rather like “bioethicist” in regards to self-selection, it would seem.

        1. It’s Ezra Klein’s self-description, so your point seems valid.

  13. Not that Majorirty v Minority should ever be considered a valid argument, but we really need to stop playing into the Obama administration’s game.

    At no point in time did the gun prohibtionists represent or have the backing of the “majority” of Americans. They did what Leftists always do; they reached a solipsistic conclusion that, because their motives are benevolent and sacrosanct, they speak for everybody and know what’s best. They repeated this lie until they convinced themselves of it, with a couple of meaningless, bullshit polls thrown in for fluff.

    At no point in time did they represent the “majority”, and every time we fail to call them on this bullshit is another moment they get to trumpet their fucktarded “LOBBYISTS DID IT!” narrative.

    1. While I’m a it, I would be remiss if I failed to take a moment to point out the sheer hypocrisy ofhign like the Dems whining about the minority holding back the majority, when their entire flimsy perception of being the majority stems from a recent poll that interviews something like 1,700 people.

      Also, the whole “we need to make fundamental, sweeping changes to the US Constitution and our entire politicla process to appease the fewer than 30,000 residents of Newtown” thing.

    2. We really need to bust their balls on their delusions of overwhelming popular support being on their side. It is not, and it never has been — never has more than a small minority of the country wanted the left-wing vision for the country.

      Lots of people want free shit for themselves, that much is true. But very few people who want free stuff buy into the rest of the agenda — and this includes gun rights.

      1. This is totally false if you look at any meaningful poll. Vast majorities want the existing welfare state. Vast majorities at least support the background check thing. Even majorities of the most shrill antigovernment teabagging morons want their Medicare. Which is why Republicans can campaign on vague antigovernment bullshit simultaneous with campaigning against Medicare cuts. Whatever the complexities of the will of the American people, it’s certain very few of them really want what you guys are selling.

        1. “Meaningful Poll” = “Poll that was carefully arranged to reach Tony’s bullshit pre-conceptions”

          1. I only trust polls conducted in a verifiably scientific way. You only trust polls that agree with you, as you’ve just admitted.

            1. Please cite the verified, scientific polls which agree with the claims that you made vis a vis the welfare state and

              Keep in mind that most of the people posting here (including myself) have technical majors and have taken graduate-level courses in mathematics, statistics, or both.

              1. “Please cite the verified, scientific polls which agree with the claims that you made vis a vis the welfare state”

                $50 says it’s written in crayon.

            2. “I only trust polls conducted in a verifiably scientific way.”

              Your notion of “verifiably scientific” is laughable at best.

              “You only trust polls that agree with you, as you’ve just admitted.”

              I don’t trust polls, period.
              I’d ask you to show me where this “admission” is, but it’s pretty damn clear your response was little more than, “I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I?!”.

            3. Tony| 4.18.13 @ 7:26PM |#
              “I only trust polls conducted in a verifiably scientific way.”

              Of course you do, shithead.
              A poll asking ‘Do you want kids not to be shot?’ is conducted in a “verifiably scientific way”, and you, shithead, support that!

        2. Vast majorities want the existing welfare state.

          Wrong. Roughly the only supporters of the welfare state as it currently exists are some of its beneficiaries and the small portion of Americans who are lockstep leftists. Welfare reform efforts are supported by large majorities.

          Vast majorities at least support the background check thing.

          Yeah, that’s why Democrats in swing states run for cover and go for a photo op every time the NRA scores a vote.

          Even majorities of the most shrill antigovernment teabagging morons want their Medicare.

          See shit, free.

          I never said that Americans are lockstep libertarians. Most libertarians are not so deluded as to believe that, and majoritarianism is not integral to the philosophy the way it is for you fine folk.

        3. Look at any meaningful pole and you’ll find tony licking his shit off it.

          1. But only if it’s been scientifically verified.

            1. Scientists standing around, looking at a log sticking out of the ground. “Yep, it’s a pole alright!” “Yeah.” “Sure is!”

    3. But mayor 32 oz said 74% of NRA members support universal background gun registration.

      1. Given that cities are so much more violent shouldn’t we have “City Control?”

        1. I agree, what city needs more than 7,000 residents?

    4. Also, the cloture vote on whether or not states should be forced to reciprocate concealed carry permits was 57-43 FOR. You see any gun grabbers claiming the majority should be respected there?

    5. … [G]overnmental propaganda suggests that public opinion demand this or that decision; it provokes the will of the people, who spontaneously would say nothing. But, once evoked, formed, and crystallized on a point, that will becomes the people’s will; and whereas the government really acts on its own, it gives the impression of obeying public opinion?after first having built the public opinion. The point is to make the masses demand of the government what the government has already decided to do. If it follows this procedure, the government can no longer be called authoritarian, because the will of the people demands what is being done. …

      – Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes

  14. Wowzers: Browns owner Jimmy Haslam’s company engaged in fraud for ‘many years’, FBI says

    1. Browns fans have known that for all the years he’s been passing the Browns off as an NFL team.

  15. Senators say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets.

    Blood on your hands, Obama and Giffords… blood on your hands.

    You have taken away the only means of defense by creating Gun Free Zones around our children… MY children.

    Yes, I can imagine the fear that people, both adult and children feel when someone calmly walks through a Gun Free zone, executing people, and you have literally been left by law, with no reasonable means to stop the massacre or defend your loved ones.

    Anyone who supports gun control is a homicidal maniac who deserves no respect.

    Shame on you, Giffords. Shame on you, Obama.

    1. Yup, imagine being Suzanna Hupp or Nicole Goeser and having a gun but can’t defend your loved ones because the law has determined that oyu can’t carry some places.

    2. Sociopathic Orwellian bullshit.

      If more guns meant more safety, we’d be the safest country on earth.

      1. “Sociopathic Orwellian bullshit.”

        This was quite helpful. You should be sure to include this informative disclaimer before every stupid fucking thing you say from here on out.

      2. So if you saw someone shooting kids, you would only call the police on the condition that the responding officers be unarmed?

        1. The police should always be better armed than violent criminals (I understand the opposite approach is how you guys prefer things). I’d like for it to be like to good old days in England, when the police didn’t need to carry guns.

          Guns are machines that shoot high-speed metal projectiles meant to tear human flesh. They are not magical. They are just things. We regulate dangerous things in civilized societies.

          1. In other words, guns can improve safety.

            1. I’d settle for mandatory gun safety training before anyone can buy a gun. For now.

              Otherwise the data clearly show that the presence of guns increases the likelihood of people dying in circumstances in which they otherwise wouldn’t.

              1. And what would “gun safety training” consist of? Don’t point your gun at yourself or at others unless you actually intend to shoot them? Accidental gunshot deaths represent an utterly miniscule percentage of accidental death in this country, so what would this training accomplish accept to make you feel like we’re “doing something”. But I guess it’s the old routine “If it saves just one life.” I believe, absolutely, that you and people like you would choose to ban gun ownership even if it could be demonstrated indisputably that it would cause more death and injury to do so. You don’t really care about the actual consequences of your agenda. You care about how morally self satisfied your agenda makes you feel. This applies not merely to guns, but across the board with respect to the overall “progressive” agenda.

          2. “The police should always be better armed than violent criminals (I understand the opposite approach is how you guys prefer things).”

            Yeah, and look at how great that’s worked thus far.

            If only you were as half as competent at keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals as you were law-abiding citizens.

          3. This needs to be challenged.

            Regulations on the manufacturing of guns are regulations on “dangerous things” — such regulation is debatable, but it is not the same as a background check.

            Background checks and national registries are a regulation of *people* — and that’s a very dangerous road to travel down, even if you ignore the pragmatics of the regulation in question.

          4. Guns are dangerous things?

            Not as dangerous as a low-information liberal with the ability to vote.

          5. The police should always be better armed than violent criminals


            I’d like for it to be like to good old days in England, when the police didn’t need to carry guns.

            Gee, Tony, that’s awfully CONSERVATIVE of you. Next thing you know, you’ll be telling us how you pine for the days when Coolies would carry your bags off the train and women knew their place.

          6. “good old days in England”… you mean, when England had a fairly strong hunting and sporting culture and gun laws were still quite liberal? Those “good old days”?

            1. “good old days in England”… you mean, when England had a fairly strong hunting and sporting culture and gun laws were still quite liberal? Those “good old days”?

              This. Who does Tony think was buying all the Colt Vest Pockets and Baby Brownings?

            2. Or the good old, old days when policing was largely a private, fee-based system?

          7. Tony| 4.18.13 @ 7:29PM |#
            …”We regulate dangerous things in civilized societies.”

            In which case, shithead, please do not post anything until it’s been cleared.

          8. Tony| 4.18.13 @ 7:29PM |#
            “The police should always be better armed than violent criminals…”

            Shithead, ANSWER THE QUESTION, shithead!

      3. Mr. Healthcare Rationing calls me Orwellian.


    3. Excellent, Paul. A perfect reversal.

    4. If the surrounding communities are made gun free zones as well then it stands to (progtard) reason that killers would not be able to get to the schools which are gun free zones protected by being inside larger gun free zones.

  16. The Guardian has a sad.

    Given the inertia on even the most modest legislative response to the mass murder of schoolchildren, those still credulous enough to believe that our governance is representative of popular will are either Barnum-sized suckers, or worse, tacit participants in tragedies soon to come. …

    Never mind that the higher house of our bicameral farce is one in which 40% of the American population choses 60% of the representation; that millions of New Yorker or Texans, say, are represented and served to the same degree as thousands of Montanans. …Don’t worry that mess. Just focus on the fucking money.

    Our elections ? and therefore our governance ? have been purchased. Instead of publicly funded elections…we have given our democratic birthright over to capital itself. A gun manufacturer’s opinion can be thousands of times louder than the voice of any grieving Connecticut parent.

    Measured against profit and political security, dead children mean nothing. Common sense is easily dispatched. …Only cash still has meaning to those who claim to represent us.

    1. “dead children mean nothing”

      The NRA isn’t the one using them as cheap props

    2. I don’t think anyone has told this guy that House seats are apportioned by population, and that it’s less likely to pass any gun control measures.

      And that piece is written like a hastily thrown together comment on an article. I actually thought that was from the comment section.

      1. Well I did cut it down to fit the best parts in my char limit. But yeah, it’s not great.

        1. And it’s David Simon!!

          What the hell?

          And do not delve into the comments, it’s bad…

          1. The comments were terrible.

          2. Whenever I come across Simon’s nonfiction I’m totally amazed that he managed to make 5 seasons of The Wire without personal “eye-roll moments” for me.

            1. Simon’s entertainment work is almost painfully neutral. What was good about The Wire was that it was a “cop” show that didn’t glorify the cops. I personally thought it should have portrayed them worse. And Generation Kill had absolutely nothing to say about the war. That sounds good, but it made the series seem…empty. There was nothing to talk about after an episode.

              Omar comin’.

              1. I think the most significant theme in Generation Kill was how inability/unwillingness to understand incentives results in rewarding failure and incompetence, which is true of The Wire, as well.

                Honestly I don’t really mind the reasons behind the war itself taking a bit of a back-burner, because there’s so much stuff produced in the mid-2000s with antiwar themes that are so painfully dated now due to antiwar posturing no longer being hip and fashionable with Obama in office.

    3. “You call this a bicameral legislature?!?”

    4. Seriously, in addition to the mandatory econ classes, poli sci needs to be mandatory just to beat it into people’s heads that it is pretty much impossible to buy an election via advertising

  17. every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.

    Hey Gabby

    How about the teacher stacks the kids in a closet, tells them she loves them and then pulls her weapon so the NEXT thing those kids hear is the sound of someone saving their lives?

    You cowardly ignorant cunt.

    1. Cowering in a closet is what our political elites want us to be reduced to.

      Giffords: Cowering in the closet was by YOUR DESIGN, little Miss Gun Free Zone.

    2. She was for guns before she was against them.

  18. It is so shameful that politics got in the way of enacting legislation.


  19. The question before talking about race is whether or not you think the ethnicity is CAUSAL rather than just a statistical disparity. Yes it is true, statistically blacks commit more gun crimes than whites. BUT…that is because they are the inheritors of a violent white southern culture that died out in the south, but was frozen in amber so to speak because of the welfare state, in northern ghettos. If you look at the stats further you will find that its not Caribbean or African blacks committing the gun crimes but rather a specific sub-set of blacks who preserved that southern culture when they migrated into northern ghettos. Read Thomas Sowell’s “Black rednecks and white liberals”

    1. oops…this was meant to be a reply to the racial issue above, gunna seem out of place here sorry!

    2. Black communities have also been ravaged by the War on Drugs, wealth-destroying Federal Reserve policy, and the regulatory leviathan’s enormous barriers to entry in virtually every market.

      1. yeah no doubt that doesnt help, the sad part (mentionned above) is that they were improving until the great society and flatlined since-well not total stasis but their rate of improvement fell dramatically

    3. I think there are some legitimate racial questions within the gun control debate…

      It seems that the people who care about their gun rights the most are disproportionately white people who don’t live in inner cities.

      …while the people who suffer from gun related violent crime the most are disproportionately black people who do live in inner cities.

      I find that criticism of gun rights academically compelling to a certain extent–that the people who are most vocal about their gun rights are the people who are least likely to suffer from gun violence–but then, except for the academic exercise, I don’t find the utilitarian arguments for our rights especially compelling otherwise–and that’s speaking generally.

      If gun rights are a net good for society, that’s just icing on the cake for me. I prefer a society where I have the freedom to own a gun regardless of whether that freedom is a net benefit to society. I am not here for society’s benefit!

      I feel the same way about our other rights, too. I don’t know that pornography, Dianetics, or political advertising are a net benefit to society either–but even if they aren’t, I prefer a society where pornographers, Scientologists, and politicians are entitled to free speech anyway.

      A society where people are only free to do things that are in the majority’s best interest is not a free society–and I prefer a free society to the alternative. …even if infringing on people’s freedom DID bring about better results.

      1. It seems that the people who care about their gun rights the most are disproportionately white people who don’t live in inner cities.

        That’s become less and less true as time has gone on. Comparing poll results over time suggests that the demographic in favor of maintaining or expanding current gun rights is becoming more urbanized, more Hispanic, and more gender balanced. Outside of black leadership initiatives, blacks have never had a strong interest in gun control.

        And as far as gun control goes, the greatest core of support for such legislation is… dis-proportionally white, upper class people who don’t live in inner cities.

        1. I’ll buy that. And if that’s true, as a means to defend our rights, someone should publicize that.

          I think a lot of people wouldn’t care about restricting other people’s gun rights if it wasn’t considered a redneck issue. A lot of people want to ban anything they think rednecks care about.

          I hate to pander to people’s prejudices like that, though, so I still insist that the popularity of our rights should only matter to people like Tony anyway.

      2. That was well said Ken.

      3. If you have no social responsibility, then society has no responsibility to you. That includes the precious property rights and gun rights society affords you, you fucking moocher.

        Your personal ability to acquire a gun is not the issue. If the world only contained you, you’d have every liberty in the world, until you died ignorant and insane at the age of 23.

        The overall social policy with respect to guns, say the laissez-faire one you want, has social consequences, i.e., horrifying levels of gun violence and death. Your personal liberty is tied to the social outcomes because your personal liberty applies to everyone else. You buy that extremist gun policy with the outcomes it causes, and that’s just the way it is. You are advocating for what happens when people are free to own guns to the extent you think they should.

        1. If you have no social responsibility, then society has no responsibility to you. That includes the precious property rights and gun rights society affords you, you fucking moocher.

          Of course, your argument makes zero sense since it is equivalent to saying “if you aren’t willing to be a slave for me you don’t deserve to be treated like a free man.” The assumption that you have the right to treat others like slaves is at best as unsupportable as the assumption that I have the right not to be treated like a slave. At worst it makes you morally/philosophically indistinguishable from all the others in history who thought slavery was right.

        2. Your personal ability to acquire a gun is not the issue. If the world only contained you, you’d have every liberty in the world, until you died ignorant and insane at the age of 23.

          If this paragraph actually made sense or had a coherent point, I would reply to it.

          The overall social policy with respect to guns, say the laissez-faire one you want, has social consequences, i.e., horrifying levels of gun violence and death.

          Well first of all, it isn’t true that more gun freedom would necessarily lead to more violence and death. But even if we generously assume so, saying that that violence is a consequence of gun freedom is as silly and irrelevant as saying mass obesity and death are consequences of Americans having the freedom to eat what they want. It’s not the freedom that is bad, it’s the choice to eat unhealthy food that leads to bad consequences. I could just as easily argue that technology leads to guns which leads to more violence/death. Are you now convinced that technology is evil? Then why did you think such an idiotic form of argument would work on us?

        3. Your personal liberty is tied to the social outcomes because your personal liberty applies to everyone else. You buy that extremist gun policy with the outcomes it causes, and that’s just the way it is.

          You mean social outcomes like crime declining for 20 years (including gun crimes) while our counterparts across the pond with your favored gun policies cower in their homes praying that the robber yobs don’t beat them to death with their bare hands?


      As a descendant of the people Benny Franklin called white savages, I can’t take offense to what Sowell says. Southern culture has traditionally lacked emphasis on education and innovation, and it’s only been in the past few years that things have improved substantially (or perhaps the rest of the country has declined to the point that the relatively business-friendly South is attracting industry and efforts that would’ve gone to more developed cities in the past–see Nashville). Back to Sowell, who hits the hammer on the nail with typically clear-eyed reasoning:

      “This is not about ‘blaming the victim.’ Nobody can be blamed for the culture he was born into. But neither should he be kept mired in that culture, in the name of ‘identity’ or with the pretense that all cultures are equal.”

      It’s self-evident that the values that we give our kids matter; a culture that teaches its children that a good life is spent watching football and sitting in church is going to produce fewer capable adults and a less economically & intellectually vibrant culture than one that emphasizes personal work ethic and tiger-mom education. That we have to do the race-and-equality dance around this issue every fucking time ethnic inequality comes up indicates just how toxic the rhetorical environment has become when we try to have a conversation about ethnicity, social identity, and economic success.

      1. Eh, you can be plenty smart watching football and sitting in Church, as long as you do that on Sunday and spend other days of the week studying classics and history and physics and shit.

        1. I mean making those the centerpiece of your life rather than education and desirable skills that add real, lasting value to your life, your family’s life, and the community indirectly. When your community cranks out little more than unskilled laborers as a consequence of its habits and where individuals direct their time, they can’t legitimately cry bigotry when they end up poorer than those who understand where economic success originates.

  20. “If their constituents “overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks,” however, wouldn’t voting for the bill mandating those have been the politically expedient thing to do?”

    Isn’t it also possible that the lobbying groups provide so much funding that these politicians won’t have enough to run a campaign?

  21. The cowardice lies with Obama and Giffords for not being able to admit there is no complete solution. It is only when America admits to the limits of democracy that it will be able to attend to personal freedom.…..n-control/

  22. “But do not assume that the only possible explanation for your failure to persuade people is their bad faith or lack of compassion.”

    Reps have done their fair share of casting aspersions on Dems, especially during the Terror-boner years of the Bush administrations, but I detect a bit more unironic, lack of self-awareness when Democrats constantly argue that Republicans are acting in bad faith.

    Hell, it’s not like people aren’t aware that this is the Democrats’ only viable strategy. Team America skewered the narrative of the compassionate liberal vs. the villainous conservative. Or maybe fewer people have seen Team American than I had originally thought?

    1. By the way, my favorite quote from Team America was marionette Alec Baldwin’s line:

      “By following the rules of the Film Actor’s Guild, the world can become a better place; that handles dangerous people with talk, and reasoning; that, is the fag way. One day you’ll all look at the world us actors created and say, “wow, good going, fag. You really made the world a better place, didntcha, fag?”

      1. Marionette Tim Robbins is my favorite:

        Let me explain to you how this works: you see, the corporations finance Team America, and then Team America goes out… and the corporations sit there in their… in their corporation buildings, and… and, and see, they’re all corporation-y… and they make money.

        1. MATT DAMON!

          1. It’s a great film that everyone should see.

  23. I’m listening to Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) “educate” a bunch of high schoolers on the political process. This mostly consists of lamenting the insufficient arm-twisting during the gun vote. Oh, and saying “90%” a lot.

    1. “(D-NJ)”

      Uh, doesn’t that mean he’s in jail or in the courthouse under trial?

  24. Soooo… When Obama wants wants Congress to pass new taxes on cigarettes, will he trot out some dude with asbestosis?

    1. Hey, he’s got an entire closet full of bloody shirts to wave!

    2. We’ve got that photo of Obama suckin’ on a cancer stick with that I-Can-Count-to-Potato look in his eye, too.…..moking.jpg

      A picture’s worth a thousand words.

      1. It’s like havin’ a photo of Bloomberg workin’ on a Big Gulp.

  25. Sounds like a pretty solid plan to me dude, Lets roll with it.

  26. There are people of good conscience with good INTENT on both side of this debate as with almost all issues.

    “…while the people who suffer from gun related violent crime the most are disproportionately black people who do live in inner cities.”

    The disparity is actually quite staggering. I have posted the BJS stats before, but the chance of the “average white guy” who is not engaged in certain professions (cop, convenience store clerk in a bad neighborhood, etc.) is very very very small. It is MUCH higher for black males and they also tend to disproportionately live in jurisdictions that are not “shall issue” for concealed carry.

    I do not think the vast majority of anti-gunners are racist, but it’s an undeniable fact if you study the history of gun control, that gun control in the US has its roots in racism (like the war on drugs for that matter) – fear of an armed black man. Those iconic pictures of the Black Panthers – armed and not taking shit from anybody are the kind of thing that strikes fear in the hearts of racists.

    1. Denying people the means to defend themselves is an awful thing. It is awesome that our freedom to carry has massively expanded over the last few decades (coincidentally our violent crime rate has dropped massively -something the anti-gunners tend to gloss over), but there will always be these kneejerk legislative “we have to do SOMETHING” pushes after individual tragedies a la Sandy Hook.

      Kids are still much safer IN school than in the home or going to/from school but incidents like this have resonance. They are horrid.

      Common sense needs to rule and common sense is that what we are doing is WORKING – we have expanded gun rights and we are seeing a drop in violent crime. If it aint broke, don’t fix it

  27. Check out the video Mark Kelly made.

    Giffords just parrots anything he says, and says “OK.”

    He could say, “Today we’re going to pull the heads off a litter of kittens,” and she would just say, “OK. Kittens.”

    No way did she write that op-ed.

    1. Looks like Kelly won’t be picking up that AR-15 after all… the gun store all but accuses him of lying on the 4473 about being the true purchaser.

      It’s also cute that he claimed he was just purchasing it to show “how easy” it was to get an “assault weapon”, when the store actually made him wait 20 days to pick it up to prevent straw purchases.

  28. Libertarians probably suppose they get a pass on cowardice because they are not the mind numbing hypocrites Republicans are when they speak on this issue. Republicans advocate moving heaven and earth to combat terrorism, a thing that has killed 0.3 percent of the people in the US that gun violence has in the past 30 years. Clearly they have a concern for public safety. Just not when it comes to guns. The only explanation is cowardice–fear of the gun lobby.

    1. Libertarians probably suppose they get a pass on cowardice

      Why the fuck would I be worried about “getting a pass” from you?



      Seriously guy, I appreciate the fact that you aren’t anywhere near as bad as the other sock puppets who come around but your rely on straw men to make your point.

      I really think you are terrified that you agree less with progressives the more you hang out around here.


      1. I’ve become only more of a socialist since hanging out here.

        You guys do not explain yourselves well. It’s not entirely your fault, since you believe in silly contradictory bullshit.

  29. “The only explanation is cowardice–fear of the gun lobby.”

    You are so freaking unfailingly stupid. You really cannot think there could be any other reason? Really? You are that stupid?

    How about – they are not willing to take the huge risk of losing their jobs to attempt (since it was probable this bill would not make it through the house anyway) to enact another line of ineffective, feel-good legislation.

    And, no, just because it is ineffective does not mean we should do it anyway. Dumbshit.

    1. So which more effective policies do you think they should enact?

  30. That woman is messed up in the head.

  31. Recent polls show that only 4% of the public believe that ‘gun control’ is a national issue.

    Cho, Loughner, Harris, Lanza.

    Instead of mending our broken mental health care system and fixing the holes in the much-vaunted NICS background check; let’s pass new laws that will not even begin to address the main issues.

    The other day, another nutcase ran amok with a small knife, injuring 14. Are we going to be like Great Britain, and start calling for the abolition of pocket knives? DUI drivers continue to kill and maim on a daily basis. How about a background check before you can buy a car? Airplanes were used to kill over 3,000. Let’s ban airplanes. 6 children DIE each year by drowning in plastic buckets. IF IT WILL SAVE JUST ONE LIFE!, we MUST ban plastic buckets!

    If you don’t like the 2nd Amendment, then work to abolish it. Don’t nibble around the edges a bit at a time while bleating how much you believe in it.

  32. For those who think they are REASONable people, i would have preferred Giffords preface her depiction of these literally anti-American representatives as, first, “stupid”, and then as “cowards”, because, actually, it is REASONable to correlate cowardice with stupidity, for cowards in the face of danger that will grow if they do not address said danger are stupid, like this sappy writer and the editors, apparently, who signed off on his drivel, which reveals “Reason” the Magazine is to logic what “Pravda” the journal was to truth.

  33. it is total cowardice to avoid your repsonsibility if there is a price to be paid. in the case of yesterdays vote, that rpice was loss of prestige and threats from political opponents. i was disappointed yesterday to be a republican.

    i am a republican and a gun owner. hiding behind semantics and the lucky break that the guns of newtown werent bought on line or at a gunshow does nothing to change the fact that the NRA has parrotted for years the old mantra that “guns dont kill people, people kill people”. i agree, btw.

    but if its the law of the land that we use background checks to keep mentally ill and criminals from buying guns at a gun store, then wheres the logic in opposing that in online and gunshow purchases? the NRA – and all of us- should be out front in taking ACTION that keeps gun ownership in the hands of responsible citizens, not making excuses to victims families. include the background checks to all nonfamily sales or remove them from all sales…the inconsistency destroys our arguments and, ironically will result in an outraged public eventually forcing much mreo restrictions upon us.

  34. I had been waiting patiently for the 90% of the public that theoretically supports background checks to make their presence known other than by just appearing in polls.

    I’m still waiting.

    It’s been a couple of days now since the vote and I’m not hearing stories of capitol switchboards melting down due to the traffic from outraged constituents to their legislators. Nor have I seen or heard any comments, protests, or demands that Senators be thrown out of office because of their vote except from the members of the media who have built their careers around the support of a liberal agenda.

    In fact, I’ve heard more screams from the public when their favorite TV show got cancelled.

    In short, I’m starting to believe that the 90% was just a generalized opposition to criminals or the mentally challenged buying guns. That’s a lot different from supporting a bill that no one’s even seen.

    Further, due to there being no relationship between it and the mass killings, it would seem that a vote in favor of the background check bill was not to be a response to the event so much as an act of penance which must be performed in order for gun-control groups to agree to partially cleanse us of our collective sin of gun ownership.

    While we are hearing a chorus of shrieks and squeaks from aggrieved gun controllers, especially Ms. Giffords, that this was not performed to their satisfaction, I think the air went out of their cause months ago.

    If anything we’ve spent far too much time on it.

  35. To answer the question raised by the title of the article, we should consider John F. Kennedy’s book “Profiles in Courage”. The senators studied in that book all were willing to risk their chance at re-election to do the right thing, to take a principled moral stand for the good of the country. What we see in the gun control debate is a number of senators who are so afraid of the power of the NRA to target them for defeat and of not being re-elected, that they choose to to the wrong thing, to avoid taking a principled stand for the good of the country. The personal interests of these senators has prevailed over the good of the country. They have asked not what they can do for their country, but what their country can do for them.

  36. If you think Carrie`s story is unbelievable,, 5 weeks ago my cousins boyfriend easily made $6762 putting in a thirteen hour week from there apartment and the’re co-worker’s mother-in-law`s neighbour done this for 7-months and actually earned over $6762 part time from a laptop. apply the guidelines at this site
    (Go to site and open “Home” for details)

  37. my neighbor’s step-mother makes $87/hour on the laptop. She has been out of work for six months but last month her check was $14640 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more on this site

  38. Wow. the vile spewed here so far against Giffords has been eye opening. I mean, sure, disagree with her views and even whether you think she is honest, ethical, or whatever. But the pure hatred many of you show is scary. Well, actually not scary…rather just demonstrative of the character of the people on your side of the argument.

    Now, on the merits of Mr. Sullum’s argument – I think he has made a good one. If the Senators who voted against the background checks believed in their position then I don’t know why their voting against majority opinion would be “cowardice.” In their minds they may be brave for standing up against majority opinion. And recent polls show a few of them may lose their seats because of their vote. But they can say they made a purposeful stand for what they believe in. I say their belief is irrational and bizarre in the face of overwhelming evidence (and happy to illustrate if prompted by the intellectuals on this site). But I agree they aren’t cowards for voting the way they did.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.