Gun Rights

D.C. Ban on Handguns Ruled Unconstitutional

|

A federal judge on Saturday ruled that the District of Columbia's ban on carrying firearms outside the home is unconstitutional

Back in 2012 Reason TV spoke with The Washington Time's Emily Miller about the numerous issues surrounding D.C.'s onerous gun laws. 

"Girls, Guns, and The Problem with DC Firearm Laws" was originally released on June 5, 2012. The original text is below.

"Gun ownership goes up, crime goes down…that's how it works," explains Washington Times senior editor and recent gun owner Emily Miller.

After being the victim of a home invasion, Miller was determined to take advantage of the 2008 Supreme Court ruling striking down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban. Miller initially thought the process of purchasing a firearm "would just be a hassle for a couple of weeks," and decided to blog her experiences at washingtontimes.com. After four months, countless headaches, and hundreds of dollars in fees, Miller is now legally able to own her Sig Sauer P229 9mm, so long as she keeps it in her home.

Miller joined Kennedy at Sharp Shooters in Lorton, Virginia, to discuss D.C.'s Byzantine gun laws, the surge in female gun ownership, and how she chose her firearm.

About 3 minutes.

Interview by Kennedy. Camera by Meredith Bragg and Joshua Swain; edited by Bragg.

NEXT: Sheldon Richman on Jane Cobden

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. lol, that would be kinda crazy if that went through. Wow.

    http://www.AnonToolz.tk

  2. First non-AnonBot comment! The Fox News report on this said the plaintiffs asked the Appeals Court twice to force the judge to issue a decision. Any insight on why the delay? Is foot-dragging suspected?

  3. Foot-dragging perhaps. More likely, the court (as written in the decision) wanted to exhaust their efforts to get DC to craft legislation properly addressing the matter. When it ultimately got to the point that the court was exasperated, they came down with the hammer.

    1. I wonder though if the appellate courts will fashion some exception since this is the holiest city in America.

      1. I doubt it. But they can file an appeal immediately and that judge can stay the summary judgement and order Scullin to hear the case in its entirety.

        Not sure what grounds they would have to file the appeal on, but I’m sure they could shop it to one of the judges Obama packed the DC Circuit with to get their desired result.

        Of course, that means it would merely go back to Scullin who could in turn declare the decision valid until the case was heard (by him). The appeals court would have to wait on his decision before staying it so they could hear it. And based on his foot-dragging to issue the summary judgement here, he could essentially outlaw DC’s out of the house handgun ban for quite some time.

        1. I haven’t read any of the law on this but I can’t imagine the torturing of grammar and logic a judge must go through to say that you can possess the gun in your house, but you cannot posses it outside of your house. How would you get the gun to your house from the store?

          I’m guessing they create exceptions for “traveling to” your house from the store or traveling to the gun range from your house. But even then, how do you enforce that without effectively banning guns?

          1. These type of laws are meant to be ambiguous so the powers that be can manipulate behavior and arbitrary,exert force over “civilians”. It’s no different that the ambiguous language in regulations that permit agencies to harass a vocal opponent while ignoring the same violation by a silent neighbor.

            The worst law to a bureaucrat is a clearly-written law…regardless of its target. Because that takes the fun out of fucking with people and exercising arbitrary forms of patronage and prosecution. It’s like when the idiot reporter carried a completely illegal magazine and put it on the air. He wasn’t prosecuted but I guarantee you if Wayne LaPierre did the same to show the idiocy of the law, he would have been in shackles by now.

          2. Not sure about DC, but in MD the law is such that the typical practice is to keep the gun unloaded in a case in the trunk. Basically, there’s a fox-rabbit-cabbage situation where you, the bullets, and the gun can’t be in the same place at the same time. As with most things in the “Free State” there is a lot of discretion here; some cops will bust you for having loaded mags, which is actually perfectly legal.

            1. Where I live open carry is perfectly legal, but if you try it you’ll end up in jail for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, or some other catchall. At that point the cop has a new piece to add to his collection because it will cost more in legal fees than it is worth to get the it back.

  4. But of course when it comes to gun ownership “well, that’s different”.

    If a federal court had ruled that, let’s say jaywalking, was unconstitutional the following day you could jaywalk to your heart’s content until your local legislators crafted a new law against it which followed whatever guidelines had been defined.

    But in this case there is no way you could expect to get away with carrying a firearm outside your home in DC even though the law prohibiting it has been struck down. When it comes to guns “unconstitutional” just means that the law in question has to be re-written but stays in effect.

    What utter bullshit.

    1. Banjos and I are trying to make sense of this. It looks to me like the judge issued a summary judgement that goes into effect immediately. WaPo is trying to parse legal terminology by saying everyone must be notified of the ruling and have a chance to appeal before it can go into effect.

      I guess WaPo doesn’t understand the meaning of “summary”, or else they think,a,person can be held after being found not guilty until the state decides on a path to take IRT appealing the decision.

      That said, I’m not gonna drive into the district today with a gun on my hip. Regardless,of,what the law now says,,I’m sure a DC cop would still put a few holes in me. And I don’t feel like being the reason another overpaid government jackboot gets a free month-long vacation and a medal.

      1. Yeah, I would bet you that they would arrest you and charge you with any number of other things, “disturbing the peace”, “reckless endangerment”, etc. The judge wouldn’t even nod and wink. You would just be ground through the system for being an uppity prole.

        1. They might arrest me if they didn’t manage to kill me. But my money would be on the latter.

          1. I will admit that I have not been to DC in a generation. So I guess open display of a firearm there could be one RCH away from suicide by cop.

            1. This is one of the reasons I’ve sworn off ever living in a large city again. If you hunt like I do, and you’re bringing your shotgun or rifle to your truck, the city slickers eyes gawk at seeing such a terrifying sight as they walk by. The gun issue, in my mind, is mainly about culture — urban versus rural. I choose rural. God bless sloopy and the others who can tolerate living in cities like DC. Maybe they’ll bring a bit of light to their darkness.

              1. Yeah, for professional reasons I live in one of the most restrictive (gun wise) nations on earth – while back in the US I have an arsenal which would bring a tear to Sarah Connor’s eye.

                1. for professional reasons I live in one of the most restrictive (gun wise) nations on earth

                  Well, you remember what happened last time they had guns?

                  1. Guns for the proles in Japan have been regulated since the 1870’s. Military and police still have them.

                    There is an interesting market for grandfathered cap and ball revolvers here. I saw a Colt 3rd model dragoon going for around US$30k. A bit beat up and funky but a functioning revolver. I have no idea if there is even a legal way to get the caps to fire it with.

                    1. Guns for the proles in Japan have been regulated since the 1870’s.

                      My point exactly. 🙂

                    2. Actually it was 1588. See IV B “Sword Hunt” at http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html

              2. Before we got married, I went to see Banjos in Phoenix a couple,of times. Lots of trucks with gun racks and lots of people getting in and out of their cars with guns on their hips. I never saw a single person flinch when they saw someone packing.

              3. By the way, I live in Virginia, where open carry is still perfectly normal except to government buildings and a few other places. So in that respect I’m a lot better off than the people five miles to the east in Maryland or 7 miles to the north in DC.

                1. I wouldn’t open carry in Alexandria, the police will most definitely be called.

      2. The “summary” in summary judgment refers to the stage of the case, not how quickly it goes into effect. The judgment itself actually doesn’t provide the remedy. The remedy they got was an injunction, and they’re debating about when and against whom that applies.

  5. This makes me much happier than the dumb NYT editorial about pot, especially since I live in MD, a “may-issue” state with notoriously arbitrary and unconstitutional standards for CCW issuance geared towards denying people the right to carry at all, concealed or not. Like everything else in this shithole, it’s only the wealthy and connected (re: well-heeled donors to the state DNC or people with ties to the brass w/in the State Police) who can even think about getting a carry permit. Put another way, if you’re one of the very few who would actually stand a chance of getting a carry permit in this state you probably don’t need to bother filling out the application.

    The “standard” for granting the carry permit is proof of “good and substantial” need, a standard which has already been ruled unconstitutional–which in itself may be an ominous cautionary tale for DC residents hoping to march down the street with a Glock on their hip tomorrow. Maryland trundles happily along with gun laws that clearly contradict the Constitution and therefore federal law, essentially using the principle of “nullification”–which has been shot down time and again by the Supreme Court–to deny Marylanders the right to self-defense.

    Plus our weather sucks, taxes are too high, and crabs are overrated. But, I digress.

    1. Well, I can safely cross Maryland off the states to live in list.

      1. I think they’re pretty good about issuance out in the sticks near Cumberland or down in the DelMarVa peninsula, right wwhorton? As long as you’re not,inside the DC-Baltimore metroplex you’d be living in a decent state.

        1. Well, as a knife enthusiast and collector, knife laws are even more important to me. And NH is pretty unbeatable on that point


          As of May 2010, New Hampshire has repealed all of its knife laws, by unanimous vote of both houses of the state legislature.

          Of course, that correlates to the rising, non-existent, epidemic of knife mayhem and murder in the state. I mean I had to stab 15 motherfuckers to death before breakfast this morning.

          1. Jeez, another interest we share. Owning & making blades is the only thing that gets me through living here.

          2. You need to move away from Maple Street.

            1. You need to move away from Maple Street.

              It’s funny, because it’s true.

              1. Not that I live on Maple, but damn there have been a lot of murders in that neck of the woods lately.

                1. Shortly after moving back here, I drove through the area and was impressed with how scary it was.

        2. Honestly, I don’t know. Everybody I know or have talked to about it is sort of in the DC/Baltimore metros, and there ain’t no way you’re getting a carry permit there. You might be right about the shore or out west. Tough to find stats, but the number I keep seeing come up is 47,000 active CCWs (they have to be renewed periodically). I suspect that, in those areas, “cultural norms” are handling that situation more than MD law.

    2. Boy, you were right on everything you said until you brought crabs into it. 🙂

      Why don’t you come to our next meetup, by the way. Well probably do it in a couple of weeks.

      1. Yeah, I’m at risk of losing my Maryland card for this but I’m takin’ brisket or fried catfish over crabs every time, man. I mean, you put J-O Seasoning on those, too, so it gets all Marylandey. 🙂

        Where do y’all meet up? I’d definitely be up for it.

        1. Last time was in Old Town. But I think. Everyone is pretty open to meeting anywhere that’s near a metro station.

          1. That’s funny, I haven’t been to Old Town in years and this is the second time it’s come up this week. Going to a conference there in October.

            Is there like an email list I can get in on or something to that effect?

            1. Just shoot me an email and I’ll be sure to let you know what’s up.

    3. This makes me much happier than the dumb NYT editorial about pot, especially since I live in MD, a “may-issue” state with notoriously arbitrary and unconstitutional standards for CCW issuance geared towards denying people the right to carry at all, concealed or not.

      I wonder if there are any racial disparities with regard to the issuance of CCW permits.

  6. The sad part of this is it took a judge to tell us the law was unconstitutional.

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

    I guess it depends on what the definition of BEAR is.

    Do you suppose the Founders meant we had the right to give birth to arms? Or did they mean we could keep them provided we had a grizzly accompanying us?

    1. The problem is that in Heller Scalia explicitly endorsed the constitutionality of some restrictions on ‘bearing’ (near schools, government buildings, etc) and then said that any ban on bearing in your home or property was per se unconstitutional, so that left quite the continuum open with little guidance for lower courts.

      1. Good point. Scalia had an opportunity to really kick restrictions in the balls with Heller but he didn’t.

        I’d be willing to bet he wrote his decision that way in order to get some milquetoast judge like Roberts to go along with the decision. Standing fast to a strict interpretation probably would have meant he was writing the dissent instead of majority opinion.

        1. The analysis was as bad as the result was good, in many respects. For instance, he just says ‘long standing laws like restrictions on felons and the mentally ill are of course not going to be overturned here’ without actually doing a historical analysis (which would have found that those laws were not really so longstanding).

    2. Sometimes I wish they had skipped the “militia” reasoning and stated that an armed man is a free man so all citizens will be both armed and free.

    3. Oh, come on! Everyone knows that that refers to the militia, which is the National Guard, which is the government! So the 2A gives the government the right to bear arms! Without the 2A the government would be defenseless! How could an unarmed government maintain order! You fucking anarchist!

      1. That’s my favorite aspect of the anti-gun argument. It’s the only realm in which these nuts seem to believe that the government lacks a basic, fundamental power that’s inherent to sovereign states. As if, without the 2nd, the US Army would go get rifles and then immediately be arrested by the ATF. Who would themselves be armed solely with strong language and moral certainty.

        1. I think the argument is that it protects state militia arms rights as opposed to the federal government and its army, protecting the states from the feds.

          1. Yeah. Because state governments need permission to arm themselves. That’s just stupid.

            1. The argument is it restricted the feds from disarming the state militias, it was kind of a teeth for the 10th Amendment.

              Of course if that was the case why did they say ‘right of the people?’

          2. I would find that argument slightly more compelling if said “militias” were not called “National Guards” and considered a part of the US Armed Forces. Not disputing your understanding of the argument here, just the argument itself.

            1. Yes, if ever ‘living constitution’ type thinking should be applied one would think it would start with recognizing that today’s National Guard is not yesterday’s militia.

          3. States do not and never have had rights. States have powers and the founding fathers knew the difference.

        2. As if, without the 2nd, the US Army would go get rifles and then immediately be arrested by the ATF. Who would themselves be armed solely with strong language and moral certainty.

          Nicely put.

    4. I can assume that those responsible for passing an unconstitutional law and those enforcing an unconstitutional law will be swiftly brought to justice? All individuals serving time for an infringement of this law were released last night?

      1. What are you talking about? If anything the judge is guilty of not exercising judicial deference! Judges aren’t supposed to judge the law, they’re supposed to justify it! This judge should hang!

      2. I can assume that those responsible for passing an unconstitutional law and those enforcing an unconstitutional law will be swiftly brought to justice?

        The mechanism for that is the 2nd; thus, that is why it is under such attack.

    5. Wondering…

      Can anyone who was mugged (unable to defend themselves) in DC during the period the law was in place, now sue the DC government for damages?

      1. No. There is a basis for a federal suit against government actors who violate constitutional rights, but the conservatives on the court have made sure that it applies narrowly-only when there is clear precedent in the caselaw about what the official did being unconstitutional.

        1. So they are COMPLETELY immune from any repercussions for intentionally violating people’s rights.

          This too will change, in Libertopia.

          Passing unconstitutional law will be punishable by death for all legislators voting yea. (slow painful death)

    6. In libertopia, all laws will be reviewed by the judiciary for constitutionality as part of the approval process (with the ability to appeal later).

      It’s fucking CRIMINAL what these assholes have been allowed to get away with for so long.

      1. I doubt that would have helped considering the Heller decision was 5-4 and likely turned on the new composition of the Court.

      2. I’d prefer that in libertarian all laws require a 3/4 majority to pass and a 1/4 vote to overturn. And every law has a sunset provision of 2 years…every tax law a sunset provision of 1 year.

        1. I like that sunset provision.

        2. You, my friend, are invited to the next constitutional convention, representing the great state of New Virginia.

          1. You may want to rethink that. Because i also believe that,candidates to federal office must allow a cattle prod to be inserted into their rectums with a buzz switch given to each of their prospective constituents.

            Once elected, the prod stays and a second is inserted into their right ear.

            1. Oh, you’re definitely coming. We need good ideas like this.

              How about hooking one of the prods up to a lie detector?

              1. How about hooking one of the prods up to a lie detector?

                And do the same to any officer of the state to take the stand as a witness or as a prosecutor in a criminal or civil case brought against a “civilian”. And the jolts get more severe and longer each time a lie is uttered.

          2. great state of New Virginia.

            Look, I’m planning to run for governor based on a platform of building two well defended walls, one running north-south just east of Leesburg, and the other running east-west just south of Dale City. The New Army of Northern Virginia will be deployed to protect us from the scourge of carpetbagging bureaucrats steadily leaking from DC.

            1. I’m in.

            2. “he New Army of Northern Virginia will be deployed to protect us from the scourge of carpetbagging bureaucrats steadily leaking from DC.”

              Interestingly, many of the DC residents upset about this decision are invoking the image of the carpetbagging federal judge interfering in DC’s far away affairs…

      3. I would also require all 1099s to be thrown in a lottery hopper that upon selection would require a one year term in the House of Representatives. The states could figure out how their respective senators would be chosen to serve a two year term.

    7. Why can’t you just be content with joining the National Guard and getting your government issued musket with a personalized trigger lock? You God damned tea bagging racist bastard.

      1. I could think of worse arrangements than a Swiss-style, every adult is mustered into the militia and is responsible for keeping their M-16 at home and in good condition, along with the building code mandating a fallback shelter in every home and business.

    8. The logic I’ve seen from banners is something like this:

      -We agree that certain restrictions are appropriate (such as not being allowed to carry guns into a prison)

      -so we agree that the right is not 100% unlimited

      -so any individual restriction is OK

      -so as long as there isn’t a blanket law against bearing arms, any number of restrictions are permissible.

      So of course we end up with a situation in which you may bear arms if they’re of the allowed type, carried in the allowed manner, in the allowed places, and you have a permit (which costs $1000, is only issued to rare individuals selected through a a mysterious, opaque process, and you have to pick up at police headquarters between 2 PM and 3 PM on the third Tuesday of the month)…but because someone, somewhere, gets to carry a gun, there isn’t a blanket prohibition, so: the right still exists!

      It’s kind of funny to compare people’s attitudes on the RKBA to their attitudes on voting…they say that placing ANY restriction or difficulty on registering or voting is completely unacceptable, but for the RKBA it’s exactly the opposite; any number of restrictions are OK as long as someone, somewhere, still gets to do it.

      1. they say that placing ANY restriction or difficulty on registering or voting is completely unacceptable

        If one is a tax-paying citizen, then any restriction or difficulty is unacceptable.

        1. If one is a tax-paying citizen, then any restriction or difficulty is unacceptable.

          I see what you did there, and it was good.

  7. Oh is THAT the cause of the terrified squealing I was hearing from the South? I thought it was my farmer neighbor slaughtering pigs.

  8. The judge in this case was a George H. Bush appointee and interestingly served on the FISA court from 2004-2011.

    1. Actually a Reagan appointee and a George HW Bush reappointed him.

      He’s been a jurist for 32 years and I’ve never heard a peep out of the left as to his “activism”. I would imagine that’s about to change.

      1. Good catch, that’s the second time I’ve made that error here (the other day I noted that Gregory in the 4th Circuit who ruled to defend the ACA subsidies was a Clinton appointee, that was true but he was reappointed by W.).

  9. Honest question: In places where you can legally open carry, must it be unloaded?

    Where I live it is legal to transport a firearm in a vehicle as long as it is unloaded and the ammunition is out of reach. Is it the same way with open carry?

    (yes I’m sure a quick google could answer this, but I’m lazy on a Sunday morning)

    1. “yes I’m sure a quick google could answer this, but I’m lazy on a Sunday morning”

      No need to justify, libertarians are fine with outsourcing.

    2. In NM or AZ you can open carry handgun, rifle, shotgun, or (registered) machine gun loaded. All are legal.

      1. When I am home in NM I generally have two or three loaded handguns, one or two loaded EBR’s, and a loaded shotgun in my vehicle – just because I can (legally).

        1. Last time I left something of value visible in my car, I came back to find shattered glass all over the driver’s seat.

          1. A folding stock FAL fits nicely into an old, battered tennis racket bag which hardly looks worth stealing.

          2. I have two pistols in my truck. One stays with the truck, the other I can grab and put in my pocket if I so desire. I don’t keep them where they can be seen, however.

      2. God I miss AZ. It’s not just the gun laws or lack-thereof that makes the place so great, it’s the gun culture. People don’t shit themselves when they see someone open carrying. Hell, they don’t even so much as stare.

    3. Based on some shit I just saw on the Internet, I think it comes down to what that state defines as “loaded”, which is probably influenced heavily by how friendly the state is to the 2A. It seems like in some open carry states as long as you don’t have a round chambered it’s “unloaded” for legal purposes.

      1. What if it’s a revolver?

      2. Never heard of “loaded magazine with empty chamber” in any western state where OC is legal.

        1. Yeah, like I say, I got that from some quick Googling so I really can’t speak to the context. There was some verbiage regarding the empty chamber deal, but that might have been related to other legal standards, not whether a gun was loaded for carry purposes.

  10. By the way, if any of you haven’t had breakfast and are hungry, the comments from the WaPo article will probably have enough tears to,sustain you for the rest of the day.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..story.html

    1. They are precious. Precious. I try to avoid the Post as much as possible because I just don’t have the patience any more, but I had to swing by to see the garment-rending in those forums. Delicious.

      1. Delicious.

        Yeah, like CHESAPEAKE BAY BLUE CRABS!!!!!

    2. Meh, I’m not getting enough self-doubt or panic.

      They all seem to be huffing and puffing about how this will all be overturned when the Right People get near it, or that DC will do the ‘proper’ thing and ensure that the “law” is bypassed via administrative burden/regulatory-loopholes*

      *noting that one person DID specifically cite this as the ‘next best thing’ to actually winning in court –

      “i.e. “We run the bureaucracies, so impose conditions on permits, purchasing, transportation, etc, and everything else such that any actual exercise of the law becomes too burdensome”

      Another semi-amusing thing is their certainty that people are going to immediately take advantage of the opportunity to whip out guns at the first minor traffic incident.

      They seem to believe that people are so unable to contain their emotions that possession of a firearm is basically guaranteeing that a person is going to shoot the first person who upsets them.

      which as usual, says more about the control-freaks than firearms owners.

      1. There’s also the DC victimhood mentality at play here. At some point, someone will play the “no taxation without representation” card and argue that this is another case where the federal government is a despotic occupying force preventing the good people of Washington, DC from exercising their basic right to self-determination. This person also supports the ACA wholeheartedly and sees absolutely no conflict between these two positions.

        1. As bad as the ACA is, I do find the first to be worst (it was the driving complaint behind Independence).

          1. Taxation is evil, whether or not part of my stolen money goes to pay those who will infringe on my rights is of far lesser concern.

            The mask of representation serves to cloak the true nature of the State.

            1. So you think the motivation for Independence was just bunk?

                1. They were quite explicit about taxation without representation being a major driver and you just essentially said it was ‘of far lesser concern’ than taxation itself under any conditions.

                  1. Is that what I said?

                    1. I stand corrected (though I honestly now can’t make out what your first sentence is saying at all).

                    2. (though I honestly now can’t make out what your first sentence is saying at all).

                      I really can’t help you read simple English. Maybe you could order a Hooked on Phonics course.

                    3. Since it is so clear to you perhaps you could rephrase it?

              1. The motivation for independence didn’t go far enough. The King and the Parliament were a threat to American liberties, true enough (interestingly Parliament was the primary driver of higher taxes in the Americas, not King George), but not the only one. The American position was later interpreted by many to mean that any infringement on natural rights was justified so long as it was done under the auspices of a deliberative, representative body which the aggrieved could vote for.

                1. I agree that that is a representation that has been made, that it is a misrepresentation and a tragic one.

                  That doesn’t mean that taxation without representation is itself, as the Founders claimed, a serious wrong.

    3. Some excerpts:

      There are more than 600,000 residents in DC. But some idiot judge from New York thinks he knows better than our local gov’t how we should be governed. “Conservative” hypocrisy strikes again

      I’m an originalist. You want to open carry a musket, be my guest. The Framers, however, weren’t describing glocks

      Most of DC is federal land and therefore my understanding is that laws regarding possession of a weapon on federal property remains unchanged. As for this ludicrous decision; judgment like this could shut down businesses and create gun free states. These mindless decisions based on premises that the framers of the Constitution looked into the future and foretold the need for citizens to be armed with handguns is unfathomable. Jefferson, Franklin, and others were smarter than that.

      Priceless.

      1. Jefferson, Franklin, and others were smarter than that.

        No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

        & what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

        “As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks.”

        All three are from Jefferson.

        1. Yeah, but by “gun” he meant “musket”, and that makes us safe because we all know muzzle-loading is too complicated for “ethnic” inner-city gangbangers.

          –Progressives unfiltered

        2. You forgot ‘and oh, on those walks I also like to bring the slave I rape occasionally. Now, some more aphorisms about liberty!’

          1. So you think Jefferson being wrong on one issue invalidates his opinions on all others?

            Because last time I checked, there was only ever one Jesus Christ that can stand up to the measure of perfection.

            1. I think I take the aphorisms on the value of freedom and liberty from a man who consciously engaged in human slavery with more than a grain of salt, yes.

              1. So you disagree with all of Jefferson’s writings as they couldn’t possibly be correct because he was a slaveowner?

                You are a fucking idiot.

                1. Shhh, he’s on a roll today.

                2. I am curious Francisco, if I unearth some quotes by Obama extolling free markets and liberty and such will you go around choosing to quote him to demonstrate how fine liberty and markets are?

                  1. When Obama writes extensively in support of the cause of liberty, yes, I will support his works.

              2. Sure, but Virginia was originally responding to how a WaPo commentor thought Jefferson would have reacted to modern weapons, i.e., showing Jefferson would not have proscribed handguns for civilian use.

                1. That’s a good point, conceded.

              3. Coming from a commentator that said he had not,yet found a Reason article he had disagreed with and who calls the LP “intellectually consistent” for the past few presidential cycles, why am I not surprised?

                You showed,promise today, Bo. And you had to go and fuck it all up by trying to be a clever little fuck.

                1. You have misunderstood my claim about the LP’s consistency from the start. It was about their platform, not their choice of Presidential candidates.

                  1. Well seeing as their stated platform changed every time they tacked a different direction, my analysis of your “intellectual consistency” taste meant is spot on.

                    Oh, and you humorously made the claim after decrying people being TEAM adherents regardless of team policies. Which made it all the more,hilarious.

                    Sorry, Bo, but discounting Jefferson’s stand on the 2A because he owned slaves is, in the words of Rachel Jeantel, real retarded, sir.

                    1. Sloopy, can you provide a source for the LP platform changing as you describe?

                      “discounting Jefferson’s stand on the 2A because he owned slaves is”

                      Yep, discounting the words on the 2nd Amendment of a man who was for his entire life a part of a legal system which barred his black slaves from owning or possessing firearms is clearly retarded.

                    2. Sure I can. The 2008 Denver Accord completely changed the LP’s platform and either abolished or completely restated and reformed several of their,positions…or left them,out,altogether. In fact, it cut the platform by almost 80% from the 2004 platform. And in 2012, the platform structure was changed again to revert to more policy statements that were left out in 2008, such as those pertaining to abortion and the death penalty. And while their position toward drug legalization had not informally changed, it was again reintroduced as an actual platform plank in 2012.

                      I was at the convention where it happened and actually voted to reinstitute several policy statements in 2012 that were deliberately taken out of the platform in 2008.

                      Were you there in Vegas, Bo? Are you a voting delegate to,the national convention or have you been a local party chairman in your state party, Bo? Because I was both when the platform underwent it’s second radical change in two cycles.

                    3. Poor Bo. How will he get along in life without the Sacred Texts of the LP to guide him? Oh well, maybe the prophet Rockwell had a new revelation or something.

                    4. Now the self identified non-libertarian who shows up to gripe at the Reason writers is going to join the discussion of how silly it is to find the LP to be a consistent exponent of libertarianism.

                      That’s going to settle that!

                    5. So you’re going to ignore my direct response to you and instead attack TiT?

                      Classy move.

                    6. Now go get your shine box.

                    7. Leaving something off or out of a particular platform that was in a former one is not a contradiction. A contradiction would be taking a contradictory position than a previous one.

                    8. So,abandoning a party platform,plank is not a contradiction from expressly stating it?

                      So if the GOP left out support for Israel from their party platform, the Israel lobby would be fine with it? Or the Dems leaving out support for ACA would be fine?

                      Nope, sorry. You make an official policy statement and then completely omit that from your platform four years later and then reintroduce it under a new party leadership another four years later with drastic changes, then you are not being consistent at all.

                      You knows you conceded that you were wrong a couple of times today. This may be a time where you’ve just grossly misunderstood, or did not,pay attention to, what the LP has done since 2004 and would do yourself a huge favor by admitting so and learning.

                      Instead,,I suppose you’ll continue arguing against reality with people who were actually there as active participants. And in doing so, you will further establish your credentials as the leading asshole of the comments section.

                    9. “So,abandoning a party platform,plank is not a contradiction from expressly stating it?”

                      No. If that were a contradiction, then what would you call stating X one year and then non-X the next? Omitting shows a de-emphasis at most.

              4. I think I take the aphorisms on the value of freedom and liberty from a man who consciously engaged in human slavery with more than a grain of salt, yes.

                Except Bo, the point was that a WaPo commenter used Jefferson as a supposed anti-gun authority. Virginians point was that the WaPo commenter was a fucking moron who clearly didn’t know what Jefferson believed.

                The argument about slavery is therefore even dumber than it would be in other contexts.

                For that matter, here’s Orwell:

                That rifle on the wall of the labourer’s cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.

                So what belief did Orwell have that should invalidate his argument about firearms? Should I disregard his argument because he was a socialist? I hear he didn’t like gay people, so I suppose his statement about guns is invalidated by his homophobia.


      2. jayc1
        8:55 AM PDT
        “And if you try to take our guns, we’ll shoot you. Got it?”
        Actually, if it comes to that, you will submit. You may kill yourselves first, but if we decide to take your guns, you will lose them. Got it? You are not strong enough to resist the law, so you will do what the law says. That goes for the rest of us too, so if the law says you get to have open carry, you do. The law is the law, and you will submit.
        LikeShare

        What a evil little Nazi prick.

        1. God imagine that little shit furiously beating his micropenis to the thought of jackbooted thugs killing people for exercising their rights.

        2. As I have mentioned before, the utter contempt Progressives have for those whom they deem “beneath” their station is astonishing. They actually are so deluded that they can hold two these two contradictory premises in their minds:

          1.) The police and military are composed of community-college educated sub-human yokels from rural Jesusland.

          2.) These community-college educated sub-human yokels from rural Jesusland will unquestionably obey these urban Progressives when they ask them to use threat of deadly force in disarming their sub-human yokel brothers, fathers, uncles, and cousins resident in rural Jesusland.

          Oh what fun we’ll have when they turn their turrets the other way!

          1. Well to be fair, the urban police forces and the jackbooted federal police agents will probably go full bore on a confiscation order. That’s who this WaPo tard is thinking of. The DC police would eagerly obey a confiscation order. So would pretty much every big city police force that I can think of. FBI, ATF, etc would do it as well, once you sprinkled some “counterterrorist” dust on it.

            So then you’ve got about one cop or fed per how many gun owners? 20? 50? 100?

            Good luck with that.

            1. It’s a wet dream. Even urban police forces know they are vastly outnumbered by gun owners who would not be likely to just knuckle under and surrender their weapons. Any department that attempted this would quickly find most of their officers would rather quit than get shot.

        3. Actually, if it comes to that, you will submit. You may kill yourselves first, but if we decide to take your guns, you will lose them. Got it?

          Ladies and gentlemen…I give you…progressivism.

        4. Monarchists and Loyalists are still with us today.

      3. Here’s the *most liked* comment: “Lovely. So much for that whole ‘well-regulated militia’ thing. Now the second amendment reads something like ‘the rights of paranoid, trigger-happy gun nuts who want to have semiautomatic weapons into restaurants and bars, shall not be infringed.’ We need to put down the guns, people. Period.”
        Yeah, well except the politicians with a capitol police detail, they can keep their armed security. Also city cops, because SPESHULIZED TRAININGZ. But unless everyone else can produce for me their militia card… Put. Them. Down.

        Brace yourselves, crew! We’re approaching peak derp.

      4. I’m an originalist. You want to open carry a musket, be my guest. The Framers, however, weren’t describing glocks.

        I mean…I just…I don’t even…
        *sighs*
        What they were describing was ARMS: weapons intended for fighting. And this is not restricted by technological advances.

        1. I’m an originalist (sic). You want to publish a pamphlet, be my guest. The Framers, however, weren’t describing Washington Post blogs.

    4. The butt hurt is just epic.

    5. I like this one for “cultural elitism” cred =

      “Up by the Big Lake
      10:30 AM EST [Edited]
      Come on up to the Chequamegon National Forest and drive the roads to view the lovely garbage dumps left behind by gun owners filled with empty beverage cans, shell casings and cardboard. Or marvel at the shot up road signs and cabins. If you’re lucky, you might get to see the remains of slaughtered wildlife like a majestic blue heron, various hawks, turkeys, deer and other out of season or non game animals. Then there is the excitement of holiday weekends in the campground where some drunk discharges his gun recklessly and shouts that it’s a constitutional right to shoot in the woods. My favorite is my old shooting club that is now estimated to contain over two hundred tons of spent lead, basically turning it into a toxic waste site that you, the United States taxpayer, will eventually have to either dig out and sift or clay cap. Responsible gun owners? Not in my neck of the woods.”

      translation = ‘These people are savages!’

      Nothing he says is in any way affected by the law. all of these things would still be the case even if they had much stricter regulation of firearms. The thing he hates? BOORS. CULTURAL INFERIORS. WHY ARE THEY NOT BIRDWATCHING AND DRINKING CHARDONNAY??

      1. That having been said, there is nothing inherently wrong with either birding or chardonnay.

      2. I don’t get cultural elitism from that, but a condemnation of irresponsible outdoorsmen ruining the rest of our reputations.

        1. Obviously.

          Which is why he posted it in a thread about an overturned gun ban

          1. I would have to see the comments before it for the context to get what he was getting at. Perhaps someone said something about responsible gun owners or culture or something that inspired his comment. There are irresponsible outdoorsmen out there giving the rest of us bad names you know.

            1. you seemed able to snap-judge just a second ago. Dont sell yourself short, bo.

              1. If you want to call a snap judgement one based solely on what was written don’t let me stop you.

                1. Have some cheese

            2. What about the irresponsible lawyers? Any of them?

              1. I doubt you want to explore that example (lawyers are a highly regulated bunch).

                1. Oh, but I do want to explore generalizing an entire population based upon the actions of a excruciatingly small minority.

                  The VAST majority of sportsmen are VERY respectful of the environment and the rights of others.

                  1. And you base that claim on?

                    1. My point is that I bet you’re going to say on your personal experience, which is of course what he’s basing his claim on.

                    2. He’s basing his claim that his old hunt club has been found to have 200 tons of lead on it on his,personal experience? Because that’s a pretty specific number he came up with.

                      Maybe he has some pretty big scales, right Bo?

                    3. Maybe he (mis)heard the number from locals, a local news story? There’s a lot of ways he could give that number without being a liar.

                    4. I wouldn’t call a person I don’t know a liar about a claim, that seems exaggerated on its face, based on his alleged personal experience that I’m not familiar with, but YMMV.

                    5. Maybe he (mis)heard the number from locals, a local news story? There’s a lot of ways he could give that number without being a liar.

                      You’re right,,I,suppose. He could either be retarded, could have MPD or could be into copypasta.

                      But he made a comment as to what would happen as a result, so he has most likely read something about it knowing how it would have to be recovered, making it most likely that he is a liar.

                      Why do you defend indefensible statements like this guy made when taken in context of the rest of his comment? Why do you give someone making a political screed the benefit of the doubt when he uses obviously false data points as his only concrete (and not anecdotal) evidence to support his position.

                      Do,they not teach basic logic or deduction at that fancy law school there,in South Carolina? What, do you go to Clemson or,something?

                    6. “Why do you defend indefensible statements like this guy made when taken in context of the rest of his comment? ”

                      Far from defending I posted data suggesting his claim was exaggerated. But I don’t call every exaggerator I come across a ‘liar.’ Fascinatingly, some below think THAT makes me a jerk. That’s like Bizarro land.

                      The rest of his claims are about irresponsible hunters. I myself have known some, so I certainly cannot rule out that he has. I made sure to say that while I’v known some I’ve known more responsible ones, but I can’t speak to what he’s known.

                      And I don’t see a political screed in that excerpt. He doesn’t take a position on the DC gun law that I can see, just denounces irresponsible hunters.

                    7. Here’s the thing that those of us unimpaired by a legal education are seeing which you are not, Bo: context.

                      Gilmore quoted the statement because of what he and any reasonable person would see as its obvious cultural chauvinism, in the context of criticism of the DC ruling. DC is of course not a national park, and the reasons for a person wanting to carry in DC probably have far less to do with chavving up our pristine national treasures, and more to do with this. It was an attempt to describe gun owners in DC as lesser to non-gun owners, on account of some supposed connection to these supposed litterers.

                      You, of course, detect no cultural signifiers and proceed to make an irrelevant point about whether or not gun owners in rural areas are “responsible” about littering without evidence, despite the fact that DC is urban and that the issue has fuck-all to do with the ruling or a generalized “responsibility” on the part of gun owners.

                      Shockingly, most people do not look kindly upon dissembling on behalf of someone who degrades their natural rights.

                    8. It’s funny that Gilmore himself didn’t seem to make the connections you know proclaim as obvious (see the birding and chardonnay comment), and that while you invoke context you don’t know what comment he was responding to in making that comment.

                    9. The comment Gilmore excerpted wasn’t responding to a comment, you fucking moron. He was replying to the original WP article — I know this because, unlike you, I actually looked up the original comment before wasting my time replying to you. As for the cultural chauvinism, it is even more strongly demonstrated in a comment that he makes later:

                      Up by the Big Lake
                      7:40 AM MST
                      In the Northwest I was struck by how diligently they protected their forests. Then again, the main visitors are from places like Seattle and Portland, a decidedly more environmentally sensitive crowd. Go visit Kentucky’s Daniel Boone National Forest and see how trashed it is. It has become a giant meth lab thanks to the local yocals.

                      So yes, it’s exactly what Gilmore said it was. You are exceedingly stupid and arrogant, but no so much that I can’t expect you to look up the original comment if you’re going to defend it.

                    10. I’ll concede there is more apparent cultural chauvinism in that than in the excerpt we’ve been discussing.

                    11. The difference is I am correct and he is lying, attempting to disparage an entire group based upon the actions of a few.

                      And you supported his claim because you are doing your damndest to try and pick an argument.

                      Not going to play.

                    12. “The difference is I am correct and he is lying, attempting to disparage an entire group based upon the actions of a few.”

                      This is Francisco in a nutshell: his experience is X, so anyone who claims a different one, even one that lives many miles away, is clearly wrong or lying.

                      Any one who thinks that’s not the tightest logic or argument is just trying to pick an argument.

                    13. Who are you talking to?

                    14. Fuck off asshole. I refuse to satiate your sexual desire to argue.

                    15. He started to refer to you in the 3rd person in that last comment. It’s almost like he thinks there is a audience cheering him on. Almost.

                    16. “He started to refer to you in the 3rd person in that last comment.”

                      The irony, it is delicious.

                    17. And you base that claim on?

                      The fact that the national forest everywhere would be destroyed if hunters actually acted the way he describes.

                      If B is only true if A is true, and cursory inspection shows us that B is not true, then A is not true.

                    18. There are reports of considerable (in the tens of tons) lead contamination at shooting ranges.

                      Many hunt clubs have areas where they shoot akin to a shooting range.

                      And as to shooting animals out of season and littering, I’ve personally seen groups of hunters do that and am sure I can dig up examples of it.

                      So is it possible that in his experience he has run across this? Of course.

                    19. But his numbers are utter bullshit. Just like every other fucking number the gun grabbers trot out.

                    20. His number of 200 seems plainly exaggerated since the most notable ones I can find are around 60 tons. But for that he needs to be denounced so vehmently, and any suggesting that he may have anything other than the worst motives has to be attacked strongly too?

                    21. He lied. He didn’t exaggerate, he lied.

                    22. I’m just curious, how do you know he lied, and about what?

                    23. Because sloopy did the math and showed his numbers are fucking ludicrous.

                    24. And saying 200 tons when there have been cases of 60 tons reported is so ludicrous as to make it a lie rather than simply wrong or exaggerated?

                    25. Yep. Go read sloop’s post above. He uses math to demonstrate just how crazy that figure of 200 tons is.

                    26. Let’s say he had given 60 tons instead. I am betting that someone could have broken down similar math to reveal that as seemingly nuts, yet we have a better confirmed example of that.

                      And there is the possibility, you know, that he just misheard that figure and reported it. People do that all the time here. Does that make then liars?

                    27. And there is the possibility, you know, that he just misheard that figure and reported it. People do that all the time here. Does that make then liars?

                      Yes,,it,does,when theynaremusing that to,try and restrict the rights,of,others.

                      I make a point,to,know the numbers I pass off as fact and will bear the slings and arrows of those who prove my numbers are likely wrong by an order of magnitude.

                    28. Responsible gun owners? Not in my neck of the woods.

                      Because you are a lawyer, I will walk you through how this is a lie (or, if you prefer, a “mischaracterization”). The statement above claims that there are either no responsible gun owners in his neck of the woods, or very few (depending on how you want to parse the statement: as exaggeration or otherwise). This is a claim which is meant to imply that the same exists across the nation in an urbanized region, and which is also connected to a gun owner’s overall responsibility regarding safety and good judgement. It is based on what you charitably call an exaggeration by more than 2 times of the statistic you link to, and which can of course not even prove that “gun owners” as a class are irresponsible. It is a lie because it is meant to convey a false and unjustified impression of gun owners’ general irresponsibility which has nothing to do with the data presented, and because the data presented is not accurate to begin with.

                      That one was a freebie. I expect you to do better on your own next time.

                    29. “This is a claim which is meant to imply that the same exists across the nation in an urbanized region, and which is also connected to a gun owner’s overall responsibility regarding safety and good judgement.”

                      What are these assumptions based on?

                    30. The fact that he’s responding to the fucking WP article, which would imply some logical connection between what he is saying, and what the article is saying. Since the article is talking about a change which can only impact urbanized gun owners whose primary impetus for owning a gun in high-crime DC is to ward off criminals, the comment is obviously a) a non-sequitur b) meant to imply that gun owners in DC are similarly “irresponsible” to the supposedly irresponsible gun owners of his anecdota.

                      You’re not that bright, but you seem to understand how the context of a dialogue works about half of the time. Try to engage that part of your brain. Think deep.

                    31. I am glad you are such a close reader so I can be confident that you noted that my comments about the excerpt were qualified by being based on the excerpt alone without knowing what it was replying to (it’s not evident it’s replying to the article since commenters often respond to other commenters).

                    32. Wait, what? Guys, help! What is Bo talking about!? I see a comment directly above his that has my nom de blog on it, but how can I possibly know that he is replying to me? Is there some way of knowing that when he says “you” are a close reader, he’s talking about me instead of, say, Barney Frank or Amelia Earhart? Perhaps he’s having a Socratic dialogue with himself. When he refers to “my comments”, does he mean the comments above my own with his name on them in this thread, or some other comments in some unspecified place and time? There is really no way of knowing, so I sure can’t be arsed to look for context clues like a normal human being.

                      Any assistance on this matter would be appreciated.

                    33. You really have become deranged in your need to attack me.

                      Since people in comments section often respond to other commenters there is no basis to assume from a given excerpt that they are responding to the article itself, and I said I was basing what I was saying on the excerpt itself and it would be contingent on further context.

                    34. you seemed able to snap-judge just a second ago. Dont sell yourself short, bo.

                    35. If you want to call a snap judgement one based solely on what was written don’t let me stop you.

                    36. And you know what, I think I may have actually conceded too much to you.

                      “Since the article is talking about a change which can only impact urbanized gun owners whose primary impetus for owning a gun in high-crime DC is to ward off criminals, the comment is obviously a) a non-sequitur b) meant to imply that gun owners in DC are similarly “irresponsible” to the supposedly irresponsible gun owners of his anecdota.”

                      This is certainly not obvious. He quotes ‘Responsible gun owners?’ and adds ‘not in my neck of the woods’ and then goes on a rant about how he finds those owners to be irresponsible. It’s entirely possible that he is seizing upon that quote to go on a rant based on something in his personal experience that upsets him, and nothing more. Goodness knows people seizing upon a phrase in our articles here and going off on personal rants based on anecdotes is common enough.

                    37. Modish tollens FTW!

                    38. *how it would sound if Sean Connery said it*

        2. Well, he made a lot of claims in that screed. I wonder if he can provide supporting documentation to,any of them.

          I say that because I’ve been to pro-gun events and the places are left spotless by the attendees. And I’ve been to” anti-gun events and the places look like war zones afterward.

          Pro-gun folks, especially the outdoorsmen, are by and large much more conscious of environmental conservation than leftist enviros.

          1. I think its wrong to paint either with a broad brush, but I can’t speak to his personal experience. For the most part the outdoorsmen I know are quite responsible regarding litter and other people’s property, but I have known some that are not, and it is them that give us a bad name.

      3. Yeah, that was a good one. So, someone from fucking Wisconsin is pissed off about littering, and therefore guns should be banned. Of course, right? That’s just common sense regulation.

      4. 200 tons x 2000 lbs per ton equals 400,000 lbs of lead. At 100 grains of lead per bullet and 7000 grains per pound, there would be 70 bullets per pound.

        This guy just claimed that there are 2,100,000 bullets left contaminating his,old hunt club.

        Lol, sure thing pal.

        1. It certainly seems exaggerated, as this spokesperson about the problem says of its national extent “‘The grounds of some of the nation’s 8,000 public and private recreational shooting ranges are contaminated with hundreds of tons of lead from bullets’ said Rick Lowden, a metallurgist with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), a facility managed by the Department of Energy (DOE), in their Metals and Ceramics Division.”

          http://www.naturalnews.com/022…..z38gbQtVMn

          And another instance of noteworthy lead deposits found at a shooting range gives “Over 30 years of use, the clay berm that catches bullets fired at the range has taken in an estimated 60 tons of lead”

          http://smokymountainnews.com/n…..ting-range

          1. He claimed that a hunt club, which typically gets a lot less lead expended at it than a range, has the equivalent of 100 years worth of lead that a range in a suburban/metropolitan area has.

            He wants to make claims like that, he needs to substantiate them. He won’t because they’re meant to move a narrative forward, not prove a valid point.

            He’s a liar. And need to be exposed as one so his idiotic views are marginalized.

            1. Lots of hunt clubs have areas near where they shoot like a range.

              I wouldn’t call a person I don’t know a liar about a claim, that seems exaggerated on its face, based on his alleged personal experience that I’m not familiar with, but YMMV.

              1. I wouldn’t call a person I don’t know a liar about a claim, that seems exaggerated on its face, based on his alleged personal experience that I’m not familiar with, but YMMV.

                There’s not a difference in exaggeration and an outright lie intended to sway public opinion on an issue,or,to paint ones enemies in an extremely negative,light in order,to,influence,policy?

                Well, I am the kind of person that will call a liar a liar and will expose them as the charlatan they are. Because I believe in vigorously exposing scurrilous speech that is being used to curtail my God-given (or natural) right to defend myself.

                1. There is often a difference between an exaggeration and a lie, and what follows from you after that is assuming your conclusion.

                  1. Yeah, well what follows from you after is a bunch of sophistry and mealy-mouthed bullshit.

                    The guy lied. He surrounded the lie with disparaging anecdotes meant to paint gun proponents as bad people. Yet you defend his lie as a possible misunderstanding…especially when it is the only data point he uses in support of those anecdotes.

                    I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that your inability to deduce intent is going to make things tough for you if/when you pass the bar.

                    1. We’re just going in circles: you don’t know whether his anecdotes are true or not, and his ‘lie’ seems to be most obviously an exaggeration. You may seem to find that sound basis to strongly denounce him, and further strong basis to strongly denounce anyone who won’t agree with you on that, but that’s not me, and this sorry internet culture actually thinks that makes me a jerk. That’s the opposite of most normal human interaction and frankly represents a pathetic ‘in group,’ ‘tribal’ way of thinking: ‘these are my running buddies and this guy won’t join them in denouncing this stranger so he’s the real jerk.’

                    2. You may seem to find that sound basis to strongly denounce him, and further strong basis to strongly denounce anyone who won’t agree with you on that, but that’s not me, and this sorry internet culture actually thinks that makes me a jerk.

                      I’m denouncing him because he is sandwiching an outright lie in between anecdotes and he wants to use that as a tool to take my rights away. And you are a jerk, or a dickhead or an asshole or a douchebag, because you either are too fucking stupid to see that or you’re too unprincipled to point at it and say “don’t believe this lying fuck that is trying to destroy my right to self-defense”.

                      At some point you either are right or you’re wrong. I hope you grasp that concept someday.

                    3. Maybe I just try not to take the step of saying someone is a liar without more obvious proof of it?

                      You and others here can find that trait to be indicative of being a ‘jerk,’ but I am confident that in the actual world it’s seen in the opposite way.

                    4. We are the actual world, mister college student. And when you get out here, you’ll find out that braggarts, bullshitters and liars are all treated with contempt and distrust.

                      Trust me when I say that you have a lot of growing up to do before you tell us what the real world is like. I hope that you do,some day and that you will look back fondly on the days when you argued like a dipshit against people who value honesty and principle like the people on here tend to. And I hope you learn that dishonesty, exaggeration and morally ambiguous arguments are the lot of cowards and power-grabbers.

                    5. I seriously doubt you would ever call a stranger a liar to his face with the casualness you do here.

                    6. Obviously you’ve never lied to me face to face.

                      I’ve had to do so on several occasions, and more than once under oath. I have no problem with stating the truth or exposing an outright lie, whether behind the anonymity of the internet or in a face-to-face confrontation.

                      Why would I have a problem calling someone a liar to their face? Why would anybody, for,that matter. Do you have a problem with calling a liar a liar to their face? If,so, I think that says as much about you as my ability to do so says about me.

                    7. You’ve never met Sloopy, huh?

    6. And the Self-Awareness Award Goes To….

      FergusonFoont
      10:06 AM EST
      I have never carried a gun in my life. I have lived in D.C. most of that life, and in Los Angeles and Miami as well.

      I have never needed a gun for self-protection or for any other reason.

      Gun advocates are cowards. They think, incorrectly, that they need to hide behind a gun to protect themselves from all the bogeymen in the world, bogeymen who live only in their imaginations. And in carrying a gun, they endanger everyone else wherever they go.

      And this judge Scullin, a biased Reagan appointee in the Northern District of New York, seeks to extend the reach of his cowardly ignorance down to destroy hundreds, maybe thousands, of lives here in D.C. with his advocacy of violent force as a settler of arguments.

      If I had a gun I think I’d use it to shoot the windows of NRA HQ from my car on I-66.

      capmbillie
      10:07 AM EST
      Well spoken.

      1. “…seeks to extend the reach of his cowardly ignorance down to destroy hundreds, maybe thousands, of lives here in D.C. with his advocacy of violent force as a settler of arguments.” Huh. Sounds like he’s never heard of the NE/SE quadrants.

      2. They think, incorrectly, that they need to hide behind a gun to protect themselves from all the bogeymen in the world, bogeymen who live only in their imaginations

        I carry a gun to protect myself against bad people, not imaginary monsters. What in the world is this tard babbling about?

        1. Yeah, but he’s saying you’re a coward for doing so. If someone tries to mug you, just give them everything and beg for mercy.

          1. Their love of “shelter in place” solutions expose their faith in their own ability to defend themselves and/or own a weapon for,protection.

            They’re not only cowards, they don’t trust their own impulse control or reasoning ability. And that’s what I find to be the scariest thing about comments like this.

      3. God, I can’t wait for the crime rate in DC to plummet, and these idiots to credit law enforcement.

  11. First the pot, now the guns….

    … Soon comes the liberation of whores! Libertopia awaits.

    As our first new National holiday we will have to declare July 4-through-27th as “Liberation Bender”, combined with Open Hunting season on all endangered species, and ‘Orphan-Slave-Inoculation-Awareness’ month.

    1. What about armed pot smoking Mexican sodomy-practicing prostitutes?

      1. Do you have something against Mexicans, Bo? Do share.

        1. Don’t get the reference?

          1. Do share

            1. Ask John.

    2. Your forgot Mexicans and butt sex. You can’t have libertopia without those things.

  12. “Gun ownership goes up, crime goes down…that’s how it works,”

    But think of how many people in DC whose livelihood depends on standing on the corpses of dead children!!! Where will they stand now??

    1. Unfortunately they’ll still have corpses to,stand on.

      Let’s not,delude ourselves that re-establishing the right to open carry is a bromide to violence. Bad things will still happen to innocent people because there are still crazy assholes out there.

      Rather we need to,appreciate the ruling and stay vigilant so those people standing on the corpses never get the wedge again to restrict my rights based on the actions of a sick, deluded asshole I’ve never even seen.

      1. Maybe if I’m feeling ballsy/drunk enough from our next meetup, I can attempt carrying into DC via the metro. But first, let me finish my will. I have to decide who’s getting PS4.

  13. Thought =

    I was listening to a podcast the other day where a military guy mentioned that a number of his peers had been ‘catfished‘ by people pretending to be in their unit, and when these people were outed, they turned out to be 4 different middle-aged women from the midwest and canada.

    All were pretty much stay-at-home/non-working, and spent their days endlessly engaging in Internet Daytime Drama by managing a dozen personas, either gaining traction/credibility with one group of people, or duking it out with some others.

    When they were investigated further (there had been a case that may have involved fraud/financial loss) they also found that most of these people had no particular motivating incentive for their actions. Some used their games to occasionally get ‘freebies’ (one *showed up* at a unit event…) but by and large it seemed motivated by boredom.

    My theory is that the majority of internet noise is generated by a fairly small population of similarly profiled griefers.

    *noting that 90% of the comments @ that WaPo article were really like 4-5 people. Its like a full-time job for them.

    I also think the ‘homebound women’ thing is a more significant factor than people realize. Maybe because i find the idea funny = but the Secret Army of Middle Aged Female Internet Trolls may in fact be *real*

    1. Er, Gilmore, how many posts a day (and especially night) posts do you make just here on Hit and Run alone?

        1. I often wonder if the lack of self awareness in your rambling posts is meant as some kind of self-deprecating ironic thing. Is that it?

        2. Shh, Bo’s on a roll today..

          1. Sorry, but Gilmore posting about people who post all day on discussion boards is the best thing I’ve seen since when Gilmore posted about how nasty internet posters are becoming.

        3. I had my browser window open from 2 hours ago, and I was about to compliment Bo for acting like a normal human being. And then I hit refresh.

          Something is broken inside of Bo.

          1. I’m curious Playa, what indicates brokenness? My unwillingness to take an excerpted quote from someone I don’t know and whose personal experience I don’t know and call them a liar? My unwillingness to denounce the same guy because Francisco’s experience is counter to his? I think in most normal social settings people that jump to call people they don’t know liars is taken as a sign of ‘broken ness,’ but maybe we run in different circles.

            Or is it that I think a slave owning Founder is the worst person to quote on the value of freedom? Or that I find it ironic when Gilmore, who posts a lot here and likes to curse people out, posting long rants about people who post a lot or who post nastily?

            Or is it another case of: Bo has disagreed with me or my friends and I don’t like that!

            1. Where are you on the autistic spectrum? Seriously.

              1. Can’t answer?

                I am Bo’s sense of overwhelming surprise.

            2. “…maybe we run in different circles” probably that.

              1. It’s true, I don’t coordinate my social get togethers on libertarian magazines’ discussion board. I guess that can be chalked up to my social awkwardness.

                1. Aww, was that some thinly veiled bitterness that you just let slip about not being invited to a meet up? Do you take your ginger ale neat or on the rocks?

                  1. Yes, most college students living in Charleston, SC get really bitter when men who set up meetings on libertarian internet discussion boards don’t invite them to meet ups. I mean, we’re really socially lonely and bored with no fun here!

                    1. Yes, most college students living in Charleston, SC get really bitter when men who set up meetings on libertarian internet discussion boards don’t invite them to meet ups. I mean, we’re really socially lonely and bored with no fun here!

                      But you said you don’t like to paint with a broad brush. So painting yourself with the broad brush of normal, well-adjusted college student is unfair to normal, well-adjusted college students everywhere, not just in Charleston. So you should walk that statement back in the name of consistency.

                    2. You’re confused, I’m talking about and from my personal experience.

                    3. You’re confused, I’m talking about and from my personal experience.

                      Shock there. “Maladjusted basement-dweller thinks himself popular. Film at 11.”

                    4. Whereas you know you’re popular, because all your friends on the libertarian discussion board agree with you!

                    5. No, I know I’m popular because I have 37 friends on Facebook.

                2. It’s true, I don’t coordinate my social get togethers on libertarian magazines’ discussion board. I guess that can be chalked up to my social awkwardness.

                  Oh fuck, how,had,I,missed,this,for,20 minutes?

                  Um,,we,plan events,together because WE ALL TEND TO LIKE EACH OTHERS’ COMPANY, not just because we all share similar political beliefs.

                  And I tend to plan my social get together a in a forum that others attending the get-together will use. Some of my friends use phones, some use FB, some use email and some use the comments section of a blog.

                  Sorry that we actually have a kinship with each other. And sometimes that spills over to writers here that some,of,us maintain social relationships with (or would like to in the case of Chris and a certain DC writer he wants to stalk).

                  And I’m very sorry that you have all but ostracized yourself from that community by being a fucking douche.

                  1. Just kidding, Chris.

                    1. DONT TALK ABOUT, uhh, you know..

                  2. You know sloopy, my general feeling is ‘to each his own,’ but if people who broker their ‘meet ups’ via this format want to call out me (a college student living in one of the party capitals of the nation) for being socially awkward because I disagree with them, well, I am going to call stone throwing in glass houses there.

                    1. Party capitals of the nation? Are you commuting to Columbia or something?

                    2. Columbia?

                      Now I know you don’t know what you are talking about.

                    3. Wait, you’re trying to tell me that Charleston is more of a college party town than Columbia?

                      Ok, all other arguments aside,how the fuck can you even make this comment with a straight face? Columbia and Clemson are the premier party schools in the state. Hell, I’d even say Coastal is more of a party school than CofC.

                      You’re arguing merely to argue now.

                    4. “Columbia and Clemson are the premier party schools in the state. Hell, I’d even say Coastal is more of a party school than CofC.”

                      Coastal is up there, sure, but Columbia and Clemson?

                      It is to laugh.

                    5. Yes, Bo. It is to laugh.

                      http://colleges.niche.com/rank…..ools/south carolina/

                      USC is tips by a long shot and Clemsonmis right on the heels of CofC.

                      It’s like you thought I didn’t know anything about South Carolina even though we had a beach house there for a decade when I was in my 20s and my parents didn’t retire to there almost a decade ago.

                    6. Please, those rankings are known to be biased towards big schools. No one here would rank USC over Coastal or us.

                    7. Rankings I don’t like are irrelevant.
                      -shorter Bo

                    8. You know sloopy, my general feeling is ‘to each his own,’ but if people who broker their ‘meet ups’ via this format want to call out me (a college student living in one of the party capitals of the nation) for being socially awkward because I disagree with them, well, I am going to call stone throwing in glass houses there.

                      Wait,,do,you,think,these are,our only social,circles? Do you think once I left SoCal that I just haaaaaad to get with the DC Reasonoids or else I’d socially atrophy because I moved away from Playa, Jesse and EDG, not to mention the rest of the people who met up from time to time? Wow,,you surely misjudged me.

                      Your inability to understand the social dynamics of adults is,only surpassed by your inability to deduct intent,from a specious and intentionally misleading statistic.

                    9. Please, you might be living in one of the “party capitals of nation,” (Citation needed) but we all know you’re the one who loiters around the beer pong table critiquing everyone’s shot and giving them shitty advice on their re-racks. Which is why no one wants to be your partner.

                    10. Well, since you fellows know so much with just gut feelings projected out generally I guess your assumption must be solid here too, right?

                    11. He himself has said it.

                      And his internet buddies agree, so that’s like, double true.

                      At least by the standards here I guess.

                    12. How many times have you trolled before? I’m gonna say 4 or 5.

            3. “Bo Cara Esq.|7.27.14 @ 12:56PM|#

              I’m curious Playa, what indicates brokenness?

          2. Funny. I had the same thought and just hit refresh to see if the other shoe had dropped yet.

            But it’s not him.

            It’s everybody else.

            1. He was doing really well earlier. (sort of, I have low expectations for him). I guess he just can’t help himself.

              1. Run through the translation filler: he was not saying anything that would upset a conservative or disagreed with me.

              2. Yeah, he’ll be fine for a few posts – sometimes several – and then it’s as if he realizes he hasn’t been a prick and has to change that.

                1. Yep. Broken.

                2. Yep. Simply can’t help himself. He has a compulsion to argue and he doesn’t care about what.

                3. Again, where is it I am ‘being a pr*ck?’ I’m supposed to go ‘oh, yeah, slave owning Jefferson on the 2nd Amendment and freedom, nothing wrong with that!’ or ‘oh yea, the guy says this is his experience with irresponsible outdoorsman but he’s obviously just a liar because one figure he gave seems exaggerated.’

                  It’s fascinating to see the ‘internet community, must get along’ thing going on on what is, after all, a political discussion website. Surely you fellows have non-virtual friends you hang out with, actual girls you can kiss, etc., that you don’t need this frankly sad dynamic here of all places, right?

                  1. …where is it I am ‘being a pr*ck?

                    Well, right about here, for one:

                    Surely you fellows have non-virtual friends you hang out with, actual girls you can kiss, etc., that you don’t need this frankly sad dynamic here of all places, right?

                    Yup, we do. Know what else we do? We disagree with each other a lot. However, we usually try to do so without being pricks. It’s sad that you view us (usually) treating each other with a modicum of respect as a “sad dynamic,” but then, you’re a prick.

                    1. “However, we usually try to do so without being pricks. It’s sad that you view us (usually) treating each other with a modicum of respect as a “sad dynamic,” but then, you’re a prick.”

                      You are a fascinating bunch, I will give you that.

                      Not going along with your internet buddies in calling someone a liar is what is *really* is jerk behavior.

                      Cursing and insulting people you disagree with (sloopy, Gilmore, etc., do chronically), no problem, but disagreeing too much, that does not show modicum or respect.

                      etc.

                      I mean, show me an instance of me not respecting someone on this board (and don’t include ones where that person has started by cursing or insulting me). Show me.

                    2. Cursing and insulting people you disagree with (sloopy, Gilmore, etc., do chronically), no problem, but disagreeing too much, that does not show modicum or respect.

                      I wish I could be a fly on the wall the first time you make a big mistake and get called into the bosses office. And I wish I had a vial to catch your tears because I bet they’re more delicious than those of a Santorum child.

                    3. We disagree with each other a lot. However, we usually try to do so without being pricks.

                      …wait, we do? None of us are inquisitorial twats like Bo, but we’re pretty much defined by our asshole ways.

                      Not that we can’t take it as well as dish it.

                    4. “None of us are inquisitorial twats like Bo”

                      There is certainly no doubt that your animosity is based on what you see as the impertinence of someone questioning your vast knowledge of everything (which I guess you got on the Andrew Johnson election campaign).

                    5. My intellect is middling in most subjects and my knowledge limited in most areas. Most people can claim the same about themselves — something that gives them the humility not to encharge themselves with meting out a supposed standard of philosophical purity. Requiring others to disassociate from the unwashed, and being incredulous that people are not interested in following your special variant of libertarian vanguardism (with you at the head, natch) is extremely presumptuous, and it speaks to the quality of the people here that they resent you for it.

                      I will say this, though: the Bourbons have nothing on your ability to learn nothing and to forget nothing. I will make every effort not to make the same mistake wrt misstating how Andrew Johnson became President; I fully expect that, like the proverbial fool, you will return to your own vomit in short order.

          3. Something is broken inside of Bo.

            I seriously believe he has a disorder.

            I think he has mommy issues. Think Robin Arryn from GoT. Bo was probably breastfed until 10 or so. Only child…

            1. Francisco d’Anconia|7.27.14 @ 1:05PM|#

              I seriously believe he has a disorder.

              It was identified long ago

    2. From the 2010 movie Catfish

      Huh. I’d have thought that term came from Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

    3. The Mary Stack Effect, if you will.

  14. I’m guessing, like the eradication of buffer zones for protesting, this doesn’t apply to government facilities even though we pay for them. Why does the 2nd Amendment right to the personal application of armed vigilante law enforcement not extend to inside the Capitol or Supreme Court? Gus only increase safety, so claims an editor at the Washington Times, so shouldn’t they be allowed everywhere?

    1. I like the cut of your jib!

    2. Why, yes! Yes they should.

    3. Tony, you need to know your audience: most of us think it is only rank hypocrisy on the part of lawmakers that these places exemptions are left intact.

      1. It isn’t hypocrisy, it’s fear.

      2. I know full well that the idea that random ununiformed civilians should be able to carry firearms into the Capitol (and bars and daycare centers) is not considered batshit insane in these parts.

        Because more killing machines increases safety! Random Washington Times hack says so with no evidence.

        1. “Because more killing machines increases safety!” Yes, yes they do. 2 for 2 so far.

          1. Actually, sorry, the evidence says the opposite.

            You having a gun increases the chance you will be shot. The claim by random Washington Times woman is a flat lie, not supported by any evidence, not to say common sense.

            1. Bullshit study is bullshit.

              Not even two thousand people examined? Useless.

              1. Where’s your study?

                1. John Lott wrote a whole book. Read it.

                2. Because that article links to 6.

                  1. Every single one of those studies is bullshit. Wet streets do not cause rain, and correlation does not equal causation. That whole bullshit article is based on the belief that guns cause crime, which is ludicrous.

                    Guns are not magic. They aren’t Anduril or Excalibur and they’re not the One Ring either. They’re inanimate fucking objects.

                    1. I await your link to a single study that shows that more guns decrease death and injury. I linked to 6 that show the opposite.

                    2. No you didn’t.

                    3. “That study is bullshit” is not an argument. It’s a concession.

                    4. Tony, I’ve forgotten more about this issue then you’ll ever know.

                    5. All dispassionate and objective facts I’m sure.

                    6. Nah I don’t forget many facts once I read them. You avoid inconvenient facts by not ever reading anything you disagree with.

                      Ever read Lott’s book?

                    7. I do? Am I not here at Reason on a ridiculously frequent basis?

            2. Who cares?

              Even if private ownership of guns caused murder rates to skyrocket, I still have the right to keep and bear arms.

              Your blathering is pointless.

            3. Funny, but I’ve got a whole city that says it does. *Several* cities actually.

              Arizona has always allowed open carry and in mid-2010 removed the permit requirement for concealed carry (if you’re 21+).

              Crime stat trends show a *decrease* in violent crime starting *before* 2010 and continuing through to the end of 2014.

              The conclusions you can draw from that are

              1. People in Phoenix are exceptionally non-violent.

              2. All the people who wanted to carry concealed already were (criminals and law abiding) – in violation of existing law or everyone who wanted to carry concealed actually got a permit, no criminals carry concealed. No increase in guns on the street.

              3. More law-abiding people started to carry and that doesn’t affect the violent crime stats.

        2. random ununiformed civilians

          You know, there’s a word for a state where only those in a government uniform can be armed.

            1. Safe?

              Long as you’re not a Jew.

              1. We would have got the Jews if it weren’t for that pesky 2nd Amendment!

            2. That explains the safety of Venezuela and Brazil thanks to their majestic gun bans.

              And Mexico. I hear Mexico is incredibly safe.

              1. Also, don’t try to pull that horseshit argument moronic leftists invariably pull in this instance: That Brazil, Venezuela, and Mexico are evidence of nothing because they’re poor.

                If the poverty of Brazil means their gun laws aren’t at fault for the violence, then surely the poverty of inner city Chicago can similarly renders arguments about gun laws moot.

                1. That’s a question of the efficacy of gun laws. The people still have guns, right? Shouldn’t that increase everyone’s safety?

                  1. I have an idea, Tony.

                    If you seriously believe that more guns = more violence, then I am willing to found a gun control group with you. If succesful, the group should be able to remove about 500,000 hand guns and assault rifles off the streets. In fact, every municipality that adopts the law I have in mind will be able to get about 40% of the guns being carried in public places out of circulation within a few hours of implementing it.

                    Are you interested?

                    This is a serious offer.

                    1. You’re offering to disarm police officers aren’t you?

                  2. It does – its all relative.

                    Having guns doesn’t mean that you’ve now got a US level of safety, it just means that you aren’t quite as at risk as you were before.

                    After all, who’s safer in a war zone, the guy with the gun or the guy without?

                2. Hey, Tony. Did you know that Russia, with its murder rate 3 times as high as ours, also has very restrictive gun laws?

                  Man! It sure is amazing how safe every single country with restrictive gun laws is!

                  1. Again, my only claim is that more guns means more gun deaths. Russia has fewer guns but more murder, true. That is not sufficient to contradict the evidence I pointed you guys to about guns increasing the likelihood of gun deaths. The only real takeaway from Russia is that they probably shouldn’t ease their gun restrictions any time soon. Not with all the vodka.

                    1. Again, my only claim is that more guns means more gun deaths.

                      So your only claim is a tautology. No shit, more guns means more people will be killed with guns. Not a single person has ever disputed this.

                      But before guns, the world was run by large men with swords, and whoever had more of them got to make the rules. The gun is freedom, the gun is representative government, the gun is what makes modern civilization possible.

                      The gun is power in the hands of everyone who can point and squeeze. It’s a wonderful thing.

                    2. The similarities between progressive policies and the bundle of policies that maintained feudalism is no accident.

                      Both movements want to create a rule by an aristocracy. In the middle ages, the aristocracy was a hereditary one; the progressive aristocracy would be nominally one united by common ideology rather than on common DNA.

                      In the end, though, one gets not aristocracy but oligarchy, because people rarely wield power altruistically and often wield it for their own benefit.

                    3. No shit, more guns means more people will be killed with guns. Not a single person has ever disputed this.

                      Really? Not the Washington Times person quoted in this article, who said that guns make things safer? Not the NRA who says the same?

                    4. Really? Not the Washington Times person quoted in this article, who said that guns make things safer? Not the NRA who says the same?

                      It’s adorable that you think the two things are mutually exclusive. Think harder little buddy, see if you can spot your mistake.

                    5. To put it in terms you might understand – the gun climate is not especially sensitive to gun concentration doubling.

                    6. The only real takeaway from Russia is that they probably shouldn’t ease their gun restrictions any time soon. Not with all the vodka.

                      So what you’re really saying is that alcohol is more dangerous than firearms, and therefore should have more restrictions on its purchase than firearms. thanks for finally admitting which is a greater threat to public safety.

              2. Its funny – there is, literally, only one legal gun store in all of Mexico. Only one place in the whole country where you are authorized to purchase a firearm.

                In addition, no firearms used by the Mexican military are legal for civilians, even ammunition calibers used by MM weapons are illegal for sale.

                Yet the fuckers are able to get firearms by the truckload.

                And I’m not just talking about the narcos. *Civilians* have taken over whole police stations at gunpoint to fight corruption.

                Oh, and that whole – your AR-15 isn’t going to do much against the state’s arsenal anyway – these people were doing this with single shot rifles and shotguns in some cases.

        3. Clearly we need more “gun free zone” signs. Those fucking things have fairy dust sprinkled on them making it so no firearm can infiltrate the building.

          1. Unchecked proliferation of arms in the civilian population will only serve to increase intrusive security checks in public spaces (and rightly so). Careful what you mindlessly wish for.

            1. So in Tony’s world I have to choose between my right of defense and my right of privacy. Statist logic is disturbing.

            2. Unchecked proliferation of arms in the civilian population will only serve to increase intrusive security checks in public spaces (and rightly so).

              You seem to believe that this unchecked proliferation exists.

              I knew your shitlibbery broke your emotional well-being and ability to do basic math, I didn’t realize it broke your simple ability to practice basic observation.

        4. Tony, the vast majority, something like 99%, of people who own firearms will never harm anyone with them intentionally or accidentally.

          1. So we just have to ask if the nearly nonexistent benefits of massive rates of gun ownership are worth the tens of thousands of deaths they cause.

            No, no, we can’t ask that question. We aren’t allowed to be practical when it comes to killing machines in this country.

            1. Yes, Tony, my ex-mother-in-law scaring off her would-be rapist with her hand-gun was a “non-existent” benefit.

            2. So we just have to ask if the nearly nonexistent benefits of massive rates of swimming pool ownership are worth the tens of thousands of deaths they cause.

              So we just have to ask if the nearly nonexistent benefits of massive rates of alcohol consumption are worth the tens of thousands of deaths they cause.

              So we just have to ask if the nearly nonexistent benefits of massive rates of knife ownership are worth the tens of thousands of deaths they cause.

              So we just have to ask if the nearly nonexistent benefits of massive rates of junk food consumption are worth the tens of thousands of deaths they cause.

              So we just have to ask if the nearly nonexistent benefits of massive rates of blunt force object ownership are worth the tens of thousands of deaths they cause.

              So we just have to ask if the nearly nonexistent benefits of massive rates of latter ownership are worth the tens of thousands of deaths they cause.

              So we just have to ask if the nearly nonexistent benefits of massive rates of stair ownership are worth the tens of thousands of deaths they cause.

              So we just have to ask if the nearly nonexistent benefits of massive rates of tobacco consumption are worth the tens of thousands of deaths they cause…..

              1. All worthy questions. But I’m not told by swimmers or drunks that they have a constitutional right not to have the questions asked.

                1. Tony, quick question. How many people have been murdered in America in the last 250 years?

                  How many people died in the Holocaust?

                  I ask because you seem to slavishly adore the state and worship it in all its manifestations, so it must really irk you that a government which outlawed gun ownership murdered more people in 6 years than have been killed by private gun owners in America since the nation was founded.

                2. But I’m not told by swimmers or drunks that they have a constitutional right not to have the questions asked.

                  Try to outlaw swimming pools and you might find out. We don’t need to wonder about alcohol. The reaction of people during prohibition answered that one.

                3. But I’m not told by swimmers or drunks that they have a constitutional right not to have the questions asked.

                  Probably because these things aren’t mentioned in the Bill of Rights–and the one time it happened with the latter, it allowed crime cartels to entrench themselves in the national economy for decades.

                4. You notice how, with Tony, it isn’t just “consumers of alcoholic beverages,” it’s “drunks.” Because for him, abuse of something is its most typical use.

            3. Practical? Nope. My 2nd amendment right trumps all those corpses you’re standing on so you can strip me of said right. Don’t like it? Repeal it.

            4. You can ask the question as much as you wish.

              Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

              You just don’t get to do anything about it until you’ve convinced 2/3 of the congress and 3/4 of the states.

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

            5. Tony, unlike when guns are used to kill people in homicide or accident, when guns are used to protect people successfully there tends to be no record of it. There’s some scholarship suggesting though that the latter dwarfs the former.

              But my overall point was would you like to take the logic of restricting rights that 1% of the people who exercise it misuse to other places? I doubt it.

              1. No there isn’t. There is anecdote and wishful thinking propagated by an organization whose sole purpose is to stoke gun sales.

                The evidence accords with common sense. If you own a gun you are more likely to get shot. The presence of guns increases gun violence.

                I want to respect Francisco for saying “I don’t give a fuck. Let the world burn so long as I get my meaningless freedom.” Want to, but can’t quite get there.

                1. “The presence of guns increases gun violence.”

                  How do you square this with the fact that most high per-capita firearms ownership states have lower gun-violence/crime per capita?

                  maybe i missed that?

                2. Cry me a river pussy. I realize how upset you must be that you don’t get to control me.

                3. If you own a gun you are more likely to get shot. The presence of guns increases gun violence.

                  If you are a habitual criminal you are more likely to get shot, and subsequently included in bullshit studies to promote gun control by including habitual criminals with non-criminal gun owners.

                4. I love that you keep conflating “gun deaths” with “gun violence”.

            6. We have asked that, we are constantly asking that. So far the answer always comes back as ‘yes’.

              Just like with cars.

              Oh, and why is it that when the answer is something you don’t like we need to keep *asking the question*, but when its something you *do* like, democracy has spoken, discussion over?

            7. “nearly nonexistent benefits” = “benefits not recognized by Tony”

              Thus, the pleasure I get from improving my skill at the range is a “nearly nonexistent benefit,” because Tony doesn’t like to fire guns at a range.

    4. Couldn’t agree more. One step at a time.

  15. http://www.timesdispatch.com/n…..cb85a.html

    Standing there, Burke remembered shaking in court the first time she’d been near Haynesworth and was struck by how much things had changed. Instead of wanting to run, “I was admiring him for what he has done and what he stands for, the human being that he has become.

    Look, I’m trying to be understanding and all, but bitch he didn’t become a good human being, he always was one. He was innocent the whole time. You ruined his life.

    The two remaining convictions were for crimes similar to those committed by Davis in 1984. Haynesworth passed lie-detector tests, and the commonwealth’s attorneys in Richmond and Henrico backed his exoneration efforts, as did then-Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.
    With the help of Cuccinelli, the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, the Innocence Project in New York, and the Washington law firm Hogan Lovells, the Virginia Court of Appeals cleared Haynesworth of his remaining convictions in December 2011.
    By then, Cuccinelli had hired Haynesworth to work in the mailroom at the Attorney General’s Office, where he still works and now oversees operations.

    Good thing that crazy SoCon nutjob Cuccinelli didn’t win election.

    1. Look, her misidentification wasn’t unique. 6 different victims identified him as the dude that attacked them. And 100% of the three DNA kits that existed from that series of attacks pointed to a guy who looked very much like him.

      She made a mistake that lots of people make. She is tearing herself with remorse. He has forgiven her. She did what she could to make things right.

      Maybe we should be charitable and not pick apart her statements looking for an excuse to get all holier-than-thou on her.

      Misidentification is inherent to humans in general. We all could, through bad luck, find ourselves in a situation where we are trying to ID someone who violently attacked us. We all could screw it up too.

      My attitude is “there but for the grace of God go I”, and I suggest that you adopt that attitude too.

    2. That entire piece seems to be about the ’emotional state’ of the accuser.

      The narrative is all about the state of her psyche. The title emphasizes the point =

      “Acts of empathy, forgiveness help mistaken accuser find peace

      The ‘peace-status’ of the mistakenly-accused is of a distinctly lesser concern.

      Even the guy’s exoneration is cause for potential sleeplessness =

      “Earlier this month, receiving an award from the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, Thompson recounted learning about her misidentification in 1995. “Once again, my life would become a train wreck,” she said.

      “I couldn’t imagine how much he must hate me (and) want revenge,” Thompson said. “This would continue for the next two years until I finally realized I was truly dying inside and I need help.”

      Awww?

      The money shot appears to be when the falsely-accused (whom is basically a emotionless cypher for the purposes of the narrative) explains that,

      “… he just responded, ‘It’s not your fault. It was the system that failed us both.'”

      Which only makes me think of Repo Man….

      Despite this happy conclusion to the story, the journalist at no point actually seems interested in investigating anything about “the system” so much as sharing the ‘feelings’…

  16. TTFN.

    Need to go introduce my puppy to gunfire.

    1. Hope he/she’s OK with it! Have fun!

    2. Well, that was anticlimactic. She didn’t bat an eye.

    3. You’re gonna let her off her leash near a couple of cops?

      1. That would get us both killed.

        Shot 6 rounds with the shotgun starting at a couple hundred yards away and got progressively closer, while the wife played with her with a bumper covered in pheasant feathers. I don’t even think she noticed the shot.

  17. Oh, look. Another Botarded thread spent arguing….minutia.

    tl;dr

    Happy Brickyard 400!! Plenty of good seats available. NASCAR is…boring.

    Back to the race!

    PS EPIC camping this weekend on Lake Michigan! It was specfuckingtacularly beautiful yesterday. Got our feet and one of the dogs wet, had burritos cooked in a pan over the fire, Manatee Jam Band entertained everyone. Good weather – good times!

    1. Burritos in Michigan? What, are they made from moose?

  18. Unfortunately, the ink was not dry on the Palmer decision before one of its plaintiffs was quoted in a Fox News article calling for the District of Columbia to enact a concealed carry law.

    Keep in mind that as of yesterday, no permit is required by anyone to carry a handgun openly or concealed in the district and given that the court order enjoined DC Code section 22-4504(a) without qualifying its order to exclude long guns, one can presumably carry rifles and shotguns in public as well.

    Eliminate the handgun registration requirement and you have “Constitutional Carry.”

    The same thing happened after the 7th Circuit decision out of Illinois. When Judge Posner’s injunction finally went into effect it was legal to carry loaded firearms openly or concealed without a permit. But the ink was no sooner dry on that decision before the NRA and SAF werelobbying for a permit requirement which banned the carrying of long guns and banned the Open Carry of handguns. Constitutional carry was in effect in Illinois for just a few hours as the amended law was passed and went into effect later that same day.

    Friends don’t let friends belong to the SAF or NRA.

    I’ve been trying for years without much success to persuade the mainstream press to report on the fact that the NRA and SAF are the two largest organizations in the country promoting gun control.

    1. “I’ve been trying for years without much success to persuade the mainstream press to report on the fact that the NRA and SAF are the two largest organizations in the country promoting gun control.”

      Have you tried ‘Salon.com’? They’d be thrilled to learn.

  19. I’m just surprised that the Federal court upheld the legality of living in Washington DC. Anyone who would do so is obviously engaged in self-destructive behavior.

    1. Too much derp to rebut, but I like this:

      He’s crowing about pouring billions into pubsec education despite the fact that California’s already lavishly-funded teachers’ unions currently produce some of the worst results in the nation.

  20. Is Tony still around? Yesterday he asked us to think of other groups that, like libertarians, are overwhelming composed of white males, and to consider what we have in common. Here are some (I have to break it up because of the link limits):

    Libertarians: 68% male, 85% white (Source)

    Math departments: 74% male, about 74% white (Source)

    1. Engineering graduates: 82% male, 66% white (Source)

      US Physicians: 75% males, 75% white (Source)

    2. Golfers: 78% males, can’t find stats on white, but guessing its high given other demographic trends (Source)

      Disc golfers: 93% males, can’t find stats on whitem but c’mon, 93% men?! The rape culture must be horrible. (Source)

    3. The American Astronomical Society: 73% male, 84% white (Source)

    4. Nobel Prize in Physics winners?

      1. 99% men, roughly 95% white (based on a visual check of pictures; Source)

    5. I can only conclude that libertarians are overwhelming comprised of geniuses capable of functioning as engineers, mathematicians, and astronomers, whilst simultaneously practicing medicine and cultivating a frightening obsession for all things golf related. It must have something to do with getting it in the hole…

      1. getting it in the hole…

        Um…

    6. Police officers: about 88% males, 75% white (Source)

      Congress: 78% male, 83% white (Source)

    7. Congressional democrats (HoR): 75% male, 67% white (Source)

      Note that is for the 112th Congress

    8. Rhode Island: Obviously close to 50% women, but 81% white. By Tony’s logic, CT must be full of racist libertarians. Oh wait…63% voted Democrat in the last presidential election… (Source)

    9. Atheists: 67% male, can’t find data on ethnicity (Source)

  21. It seems that a gun ownership permit is now a carry permit in DC. I see no reason to stay such an order.

  22. See massive derp here.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..23951.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.