It Was a Big Week for Big Talk on Guns

But will it solve anything?


Even though Americans are way more scared of government than guns, it was a big week for talking about the latter. On Monday the White House released a factsheet on new executive actions to reduce gun violence.  Obama followed up Tuesday with an emotional (but not psychopathic) press conference, and wrapped up the week with a town hall moderated by Anderson Cooper on Thursday.

The problem with it all, as Jacob Sullum noted earlier, is that none of the executive actions Obama mentioned would have prevented the kind of mass shootings that have gripped headlines in recent years.

Brian Doherty's feature story, You Know Less Than You Think About Guns, in Reason's February 2016 issue surveys the current state of social science about gun prevalence, gun deaths, defensive use of guns, and whether gun laws make us safer or not.

More on guns from Reason TV


NEXT: Sean Penn's Interview with El Chapo Helped Lead to Drug Lord's Capture

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

  1. The problem with it all, as Jacob Sullum noted earlier, is that none of the executive actions Obama mentioned would have prevented the kind of mass shootings that have gripped headlines in recent years.

    No, the problem is that you (and Jacob) are assuming the other side is arguing in good faith. They are not and arguing on the basis of whether or not gun control would have prevent such shootings is conceding the premise to them. Stop giving ground to these childlike animists!

    Brian Doherty’s feature story, You Know Less Than You Think About Guns, in Reason’s February 2016 issue surveys the current state of social science about gun prevalence, gun deaths, defensive use of guns, and whether gun laws make us safer or not.

    And it doesn’t matter if such laws make us safer or not. We retain the right to be able to defend ourselves. That exercising such right also makes us collectively safer is a nice bonus (and expected outcome) but even if it didn’t, I still have the right to defend myself and others, up to using lethal force if necessary, against any would be wrongdoer, either a private party or one acting under the color of law.

    1. “…assuming the other side is arguing in good faith. They are not…”

      They never are.

      I made the mistake of entering into debate with a limey on this issue last week. His ‘arguments’ were nothing more than a repetition of Obumble’s talking points. He ignored each refutation and moved on to the next one. I finally quit when he made the astounding claim that no politicians want to take our guns away, not a single one. That was all I could stand of the smarmy fucker.

      “And it doesn’t matter if such laws make us safer or not. We retain the right to be able to defend ourselves.”

      Back in the day if you pointed this out to them they would usually shut up because most of them respected rights other than 2A ones. Now, not so much. They have no problem stomping on any and all rights and don’t hesitate to trot out the ol’ “no right is absolute! There are restrictions on 1A rights!” Uh, no, there are not. What they call exceptions to the 1A are actions, not speech. Fraud, slander, and incitement to violence cross the line from speech to action. I bring this up as evidence that they will never, ever quit. At some point in the future I fully expect them to drop the pretenses and just call for confiscation because fuck you.

      1. At some point in the future I fully expect them to drop the pretenses and just call for confiscation because fuck you.

        Well sure.

        My fear is that they’ve become quite good at hiding their ultimate aims and have learned from the success of the gun rights movement over the last twenty years: phrase it as gun safety or something appealing to the indifferent, go for small incremental wins at the local level (unlike moron-in-chief’s look at me ego trip), take those and rail against the the next “loophole” in the next round. Some gun groups trumpet getting a family exception to “universal” background checks, for example. Those are merely the next loophole, just like private sales in the vicinity of a gun show was the “gun show loophole”.

        1. “…gun groups trumpet getting a family exception…”

          This worries me because it is partially ceding the point to them. Given their nature we can never cede anything to them, ever. Not one inch. It seems 2A supporters should have learned from this fight also and have that figured out.

          1. I agree that tack is dangerous. It reminds me of gun owners who talk about a right to hunting. If it gets framed as a debate between public safety and a sport, gun owners will lose.

            1. Which is exactly why the left frames it as respecting the rights of hunters and sports shooters rather than saying they respect the rights of women who want a way to deter gang rape.

              1. Interestingly, I see that less now. I remember the constant refrain of “no one’s taking your hunting rifle” quite a bit in the past. The appropriate response was something like, “No, they’ll call it a long-range sniper rifle first, then ban it.”

                They seem to have evolved (using the term rather loosely) to straight-up appeals to emotion and ad hominem attacks.

                1. Now that I think about it you may be right. I do hear the phrase “hunters and sports shooters” less often now although I still hear it. That is a bit puzzling because it seems like there is a strong incentive to frame this as a choice between children’s lives and adult hobbies and to hammer that home.

                  1. I suspect, like many children, they have short attention spans.

              2. They’ve more or less abandoned the whole “hunting” argument. They’ve moved on to “guns don’t keep homes and individual safer”.

      2. The progressive leadership know that none of their “common-sense” rules, restrictions, and laws will do anything to curb “mass-shootings” (the new talisman and a malleable definition) and that over time, as it becomes received dogma to the public at large that “mass-shootings”, as rare as they are, still happen (ARE YOU NEXT?!?!), they will take the next step which will be to require the surrender/confiscation of the ever popular scary black assault weapon. Once that particular dike has been breached it will become progressively easier to expand that surrender/confiscation net until their ultimate goal has been reached and the general public has been disarmed.

        This is a long game and the progressive camp has no problem at all accepting the necessary sacrifices and making political hay while standing athwart a pile of exsanguinating bodies, faces agleam with crocodile tears.

        1. You are right about the assault weapons and here is how it works.

          The fact is that “assault weapon” murders are less common than lightning strikes. You get those banned because they are scary which sets the precedent. The next time there is a spike in murders you call for banning handguns.

          The rationale is
          “Well we already banned assault weapons and the real problem is handguns. If we could ban those why can’t we ban the guns that are the real problem?”

          You would probably start seeing graphics in the NY Times showing 50 times as many murders with handguns.

          1. It’s the Goldilocks approach. This one’s too big, that one’s too small. Then, after something “extreme” is banned, they keep narrowing the range of what is considered acceptable.

      3. This. Block Yomomma and his Obama mommas don’t give a rat’s behind about dangerous Muslim terrorists and urban gang-bangers. They absolutely love those guys.

        They despise law-abiding, taxpaying, normal Americans, particularly of the Caucasian persuasion, and that’s who they want to disarm, so that we’ll be helpless sitting ducks for them and their scummy little Brownshirts.

    2. Challenging the gun grabbers on the facts isn’t the only thing Sullum or Doherty do. I don’t see why they should have to hit every single argument in every single piece.

      If there are two more principled members of Reason’s staff, I’m sure I don’t know who they are. Of everyone on Reason staff, they’re the two least likely to win any awards for utilitarianism.

      It’s just that there was a lot of misinformation put out there by the President this week–and it needed to be debunked. But there’s no reason to forget everything else both Sullum and Doherty have written before this week. And there’s no reason to think either one of them have changed their principled stances one bit.

      1. You underestimate the misanthropy of the Hit and Run commentariat.

        1. I’m guessing it’s misplaced anger.

          I was seriously pissed off about what the President did and said this week, but there’s little we can do about the executive orders of a lame duck President.

          Feeling powerless against this shit sucks, but let’s not go after the messengers. Sullum and Doherty are the good guys!

          1. Agreed. Any televised speech by El Jefe should be preceded by a trigger warning. Just not with the word “trigger,” because scary guns.

            1. Government funded safe spaces for all!

            2. + 1 misspelled transcription

  2. The point is to change the narrative for the 2016 election, I think. That’s why Hillary and Obama are both talking about guns. An issue where both sides already have their minds made up and are passionate about it is just the thing to distract from a discussion of her string of felonies.

    1. Changing the narrative to a losing issue where the more you talk, the more votes you lose seems like a bad idea, tactically. I think this is more about trying to justify a unilateral executive power grab to implement forms of gun control where actually voting on it would fail.

      1. I’ve come round to the view that the proggies are so isolated from reality that they actually think gun control is a winning issue. Look at all the safe spaces on campuses, rape culture, and other figments of proggie imagination — the way they routinely delete all opposing comments and shout down even discussion of the existence of opposing viewpoints.

        Proggies take all the hullabaloo as a sign they are right. They have shut out all nasty ideas and lost touch with what anybody else cares about.

        1. My GF is a leftist, and for her gun control is a moral issue, and this winning or not is besides the point. Her “right” to not be “intimidated” by someone open carrying trumps people’s actual right to keep and bear arms, and so she’ll vote for politicians who’ll pander to that perceived right.

          Sort of like how we were talking about the new governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, who had called for a constitutional convention to get more state’s rights, and she interpreted remarks that he wanted to make the interstate commerce clause about only commerce that crosses state lines as, “he wants to reinstitute slavery”.

          So I asked if he had said the word slavery anywhere, and she said no, but we know he meant it, and I said how, and she said because he is an evil radical and so we must interpret everything he says as being the most evil policy imaginable, regardless of his actual words.

          So then I changed the subject to something not related to politics.

          1. She had better be smokin’ hot.

          2. Some chicks can be won over by letting them handle the SIG P238 in the rainbow finish. It’s gorgeous.


            If she gets angry, tell her that you care about her and you want her to be safe–but you understand if she thinks protecting her is something men are supposed to do.

            1. That last paragraph is gold.

            2. It isnt just pretty, it is very nice to shoot. My wife is 5′ tall, 100 lbs and can put 8 shots in a paper plate at 25 yards with mine (I got the blue/brushed in 9mm)

              Ken, that last line is just too good not to use.

              1. The prettiness sells it though. They hold it. They see hoe beautiful it is. They desire beautiful things. It fits in her purse. Her sister doesn’t have one and neither do her frenemies.

                “Do you have any idea how amazing you would look practicing with this gun?”


            3. If she gets angry, tell her that you care about her and you want her to be safe–but you understand if she thinks protecting her is something men are supposed to do.

              That statement is great.

            4. SIG P238 in the rainbow finish

              I love that pistol! just a bit too small for my hands. dammit.

            5. My wife loves her P238, but isn’t impressed at a rainbow version (she went for a desert finish).

          3. You need to change GFs if the only way to have a relationship is for you to capitulate .

            1. In my experience, among some liberal women, being a libertarian makes you the right kind of a bad boy.

              1. I mean they know that Republicans are evil, but a guy with the right views on weed, Mexicans, and ass sex, and can party harder than them crosses their wires. Like they know they’re supposed to hate us, but not sure why.

                1. Mexicans, guns, and butt sex are so 2015.

                  I read right here that abortion, guns, and boobies are what’s in for this year.

                  1. Spoken like someone who hasn’t smoked some weed and tried to convince a Mexican to have some ass sex recently.

                    1. I can’t help it if I’m trendy.

                    2. To be fair, the butt sex prevents the abortion discussions.

          4. Dude, you need an exit strategy now.

            Here’s a suggestion: leave a rose on her mantle, with a note saying, “Why should I spend forever with someone who’s clearly retarded, when I could find someone almost just like you, but who isn’t retarded?”

            Then, disappear.

            1. I’m pretty sure I saw that in a Hallmark card just the other day.

          5. “she interpreted remarks that he wanted to make the interstate commerce clause about only commerce that crosses state lines as, “he wants to reinstitute slavery”.”

            Maybe you should explain to her what the word “cynical” really means

      2. Hillary is trying to get out the votes from Obama voters, and thinks this might work for her. The War on Women narrative doesn’t really work for her because of Bill, but maybe gun control can work for her.

        Nobody bothered to tell her that UAW halls tend to go empty during hunting season, because none of her advisers hang out around with Auto-workers and Teamsters beyond setting up photo ops.

        At this point it seems like Hillary is getting campaign advice from Emporer Palpatine(R). “Let the hatred consume you, alienate more working class white men.”

        1. OTOH, she got to see in the last two elections, a guy getting the endorsement of the United Mine Workers—a group largely if not mostly filled with coal miners—at the same time he was campaigning on all of the climate change actions he was going to spearhead.

          So maybe she figures the third time’ll be the charm for blue collar Democrats stupid enough to vote against their self-interest.

          I mean, coal miners! Voting for someone who wants to shut down coal-fired power plants.

    2. “The point is to change the narrative for the 2016 election, I think. That’s why Hillary and Obama are both talking about guns.”

      They’re stretching the Overton Window to make gun control more acceptable on the “less freedom” side of the window.

      1. That would imply that they’re actually changing the conversation though. The gun banners position isn’t anything particularly new or differrent from what we’ve heard over the past 20 to 40 years.

        1. Presidents and serious contenders for the Presidency have been loathe to discuss gun control since before Clinton.

          It used to be something that would drive swing voters to the right.

          1. While they didn’t openly campaign on it, the issue was still there. Bill Clinton campaigned as a new kind of Democrat, unlike those pussies Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis. He was a law and order kind of guy, not a gun grabber, but he still signed the assault rifle ban that outlawed some guns. So even if they weren’t actively campaigning to take away your guns, they were still planning to take away your guns.

            After all, I haven’t heard Cruz or Rubio giving any major speeches about abortion, but I’d be willing to bet that they’re against it, and their positions probably isn’t that different from Santorum or Huckabee. The main difference is that that those guys ran with abortion as a major issue and lost. So in order to win politicians politicians keep some of their politics on the down low.

            1. Cruz considers it an issue at the state level.

              1. You do realize that making abortion a state level issue would require overturning Roe v. Wade?

                Again. It’s not that far off from what other Republicans are calling for, he’s just saying it in a way that’s not completely obvious.

                1. I’m telling you, you’re playing with fire here.

                  If Eddie shows up, we’ll get 500 self-replying posts about abortion.

                  It’s like talking about deep dish pizza or She Who Will Not Be Named. It just isn’t done.

                  1. Sorry, I didn’t mean to say Bloody Mary three times, but it’s hard to think of any other issues with such a strong D/R divide that’s been so consistent over several decades.

          2. I doubt much has really changed. If Clinton starts talking gun control after she actually gets the nomination, i will concede that something has changed. The fact that the Dems are doing it now in the primaries is less significant because its just a base-rallying thing.

  3. How long till we start seeing some armslist sellers get hauled in?

    1. That’s the great thing about all these executive orders. You never quite know you’re engaged in the business of selling firearms until the ATF appears to “clear some things up.”

      1. You know who else just wanted to clear some things up?…

            1. Screw it, Google the damn song yourself. It’s Blue Oyster Cult

        1. Katy Perry and Proactiv?

        2. Little Richar….oh “clear” some things up. Nevermind.

        3. Mary Poppins?

        4. L.Ron Hubbard?

          1. Winner.

        5. Clearasil ?

  4. Leftists want equality so bad they assume it is the base nature of humans. Anyone who wants something different, especially something better, is, by definition, mentally ill. That is why the population needs paternalism.

    What galls me is that an anarchy of contracts could easily supply all the paternalism they want while allowing everybody else the freedom to be individuals and innovate far beyond today’s crippled, stifled, suffocated society can provide, with government sucking up 1/3 of GDP in addition to all the red tape. But that mustn’t be allowed, because individualism is a mental illness, doncha know.

    1. I think your first paragraph accurately summarized the #resistCapitalism morons.

      1. It’s why they want safe spaces, why they shout down opposing views, everything — they believe all other views are literally insane, and there’s no point listening to insane people.

    2. “If you have a business, you didn’t build that. Other people made that happen.”

      If there is a more puke-worthy statement by a president I don’t know about it. That is pure, naked collectivism.

      1. It’ll be more puke-worthy when President-elect Clinton, on being prompted by Roberts to swear the oath of office, asks him WDATPDIM?

        1. The media will shuffle its feet uncomfortably when she disappears for five minutes behind the curtain following each sentence.

          But let’s be serious: that’s not going to happen for a thousand reasons. Trump could be worse than Hillary, but he’s energetic and fun in a way that no “politician” has been before, at least none that I no of.

          Hillary doesn’t have enough energy or excitement to keep a cable access show on the air.

          1. *know

    3. “…an anarchy of contracts could easily supply all the paternalism they want while allowing everybody else the freedom to be individuals and innovate far beyond today’s crippled, stifled, suffocated society can provide, with government sucking up 1/3 of GDP in addition to all the red tape.”

      It boils down to this, perhaps: the Left wants to play God and create a society in its own image. The classic Right (or, at least, libertarians) want to let society evolve into something better.

      What will put the deer-in-the-headlights look onto a Leftist’s face is telling them that they are ALREADY free-ish (at least in the usa) to do what they want. Create a commune if you want! Eat organic, non gmo veggies if you want! Drive a Prius, don’t shop at Wal-Mart, don’t own a gun, don’t take LSD, don’t listen to the Koch brothers, if you want! NO ONE IS FORCING YOU TO. JUST LEAVE ME ALONE AND I’LL LEAVE YOU ALONE.

      1. But they are not completely free to do the one thing they really want which is to tell you what to do. Given a choice they would much rather be able to tell you that you aren’t allowed to consume trans-fats than ensure they have access to organic raw milk.

        Unfortunately this is true of the population in general. The progressives are just the platonic form of authoritarianism.

    4. I wouldn’t use the word “equality”, since it generally has positive connotations. “Similarity” or “sameness” might be better.

        1. I always learn something new here. Thanks!

          (Not sarcasm)

        2. Something to keep in mind is that for every aphorism, there is an equally valid aphorism that says the opposite. So for example, “The nail that sticks out gets hammered down,” is equal but opposite of, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

          1. You need to make a new word! Something that means an opposite-aphorism. Like “phorism”, but something that doesn’t mutilate Latin.

            1. Dude, cut me some slack, I have a hard enough time with English.

              Plus, you know that Latin was written down, like hundreds of years ago by a bunch of slave owning white guys.

              1. Isn’t the Constitution written in Latin? I mean, what’s a “Congrefs”?

          2. Yes, we know the early bird gets the worm but the early worm gets eaten.

          3. Neils Bohr: ” The opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”

          4. Those two sayings have more in common than you give them credit for. Hammering down an uppity nail is pretty much the same as silencing a squeaky wheel. Whether the grease is wanted or not, and whether the nail wants to be corrected, is another matter.

        3. I worked with some Brits for a few years. One of them had emigrated to the US because he was disgusted with his friends sneering at him for going to night school.

          I find it increasingly hard to watch any contemporary British movie or TV show. Everything seems so cramped and constrained, and not just the funky old buildings with low ceilings and doors which require stooping to enter. I mean the class constraints, the nobility titles and speech, everything about British society seems like it is designed solely to keep people in their place. Even slapstick comedies reinforce the constraints, and it grates on me.

    5. Leftists want equality…


      They want fairness.

      1. fairness as they define it though.

        They consider it fair to

        1. fair that they make the rules for everyone else.

  5. Sort of like what the Ds did with Obamacare — ram it through, lose a lot of seats, but now it is there in perpetuity unless the Rs can control the presidency, both chambers of congress, and either get 60 seats in the Senate or decide, fuck it, we’re gonna find some procedural loophole to cut off filibustering just like was done after the Ds went from 60 to 59 in the Senate but had * something * passed they could ram through unaltered.

  6. But Obama cried! Didn’t you see? He CRIED! He cares for all of us, even those crazy gun owners whom he will have to kill to take their weapons.

    Why can we not just be worthy of his grace?

    1. I, for one, firmly believe he was sincere. Sincere I tell you. Look, here he is after another shooting:

      1. I am pretty sure he cries each time a drone strike wipes out a noncombatant, too.

      2. It reminds me of a clip of President Clinton, laughing and joking on his way to a funeral, until he saw the camera, and you could just watch the expression turn to one of sincere sadness. I think this skill is practiced in front of a mirror.

        1. Broadcast News

          Not the best movie, but a memorable scene of the reporter self-inducing tears.

    2. Tears. Yeah, that was special.

    3. “I love this president.”

      1. +1 Leg Tingle

    4. Watch his press conference after the San Bernardino shootings. He was mildly annoyed that people were asking him about a terrorist attack on US soil. But when asked about those evil Republicans, then he got visibly angry.

  7. I will give the anti-gunners a lot of credit for their skill at maneuvering around any argument, though:

    Bullshit polls conducted by biased outfits.
    Continually citing long-discredited studies.
    Holding invitation-only “town hall” meetings.
    Dodging uncomfortable questions about efficacy.
    Pretending the 2A doesn’t mean what it says.
    Painting anyone opposed as insane/homicidal.

    All of this with the clear assumption that these homicidal, insane gun owners are fundamentally law-abiding and would follow a law requiring surrender/confiscation.

    The frequent references to male genitalia though, are curious.

    1. All of this with the clear assumption that these homicidal, insane gun owners are fundamentally law-abiding and would follow a law requiring surrender/confiscation.

      I think the assumption is that would be even better if gun owners didn’t. First, they would be criminals. Second, it would be just another thing to stick on if they get caught up in the judicial system for whatever reason. No reason to go house-to-house (at least in the short term). Just make it impossible to exercise your rights and eventually people (or their kids or grandkids who would never have the opportunity to legally use firearms) will get rid of those useless tools.

      1. Hence the attempt at laws taxing/banning ammunition. As a bonus, we get treated to arguments like, “well, the second amendment doesn’t guarantee a right to bullets!”

        Can you imagine the increase in productivity and human progress if they just took all of this energy and put it toward actually building something?

        1. If all of the energy directed towards tyranny and thuggery were directed at productivity and human progress we would have terraformed mars, beaten death, conquered poverty, etc etc thousands of years ago.

          Also, I would have my damned flying car.

          1. They were a fad on my home world, but ultimately overrated.

            1. Probably hard to manipulate the controls with claws.

          2. What’s your commute like? Personally, I usually see at least one accident per day during rush hour. If flying cars were an actual thing, we could expect to see 9/11 twice a day in every large city. Once at 9:11 AM, and again at 9:11 PM.

        2. “we get treated to arguments like, “well, the second amendment doesn’t guarantee a right to bullets!””

          I get that a lot and usually reply with something like. Freedom of the press doesn’t guarantee a right to ink or the right to compensate your employees or the right to a web server to host your content. Therefore we can have freedom of the press we will just ban ink, paper, compensated journalists, and apache servers.

          It’s all good right?

          Following the same line of argument I think in the future I may suggest abortions must remain legal but we just ban all facilities and tools to perform them and make them legal in back alleys with coat hangers only.

          1. I think that has been Team Red’s modus operandi on abortion for some time now.

            Well, there goes ?that? thread.

            Why don’t I just bring up circumcision and deep-dish pizza while I’m at it?

            1. It is a very obvious retort. The left attacks any laws that somehow interfere with access to abortion as inherently unconstitutional. It makes sense to point out that laws that interfere with other rights are also a problem.

              I would just do it because it would send them into a rage and I would enjoy that.

              1. I wasn’t disagreeing with you. I was just expressing my fear/loathing of what bringing the “a” word into this thread will do.

                1. I think in context it will be OK. Pretty sure Rick Santorum isn’t a poster here.

    1. Ah, I thought I smelled something.

    2. /WHACK !!!

    3. I am totally sold on the Tony handle being a sock puppet. Whoever is running that handle slipped up a time or two and outted themselves.

      It is pretty likely this handle is too.

      Why can’t we ever get an actual lefty to show up here and make a serious attempt at debate? Is this place that loathsome and intimidating?

      I suppose we should be flattered that they are scared of us.

      1. I’m not a lefty, you dumb cracker.

        I’m an independent who despises both conservative assholes and idiot progs like Bernie Sanders.

        1. You are not a lefty, you just have spent years on here sucking Obama’s cock and defending him and will be doing the same for Hillary over the next year.

          God you are funny.

        2. That prediction of Jeb Bush winning the nomination isn’t looking too good these days, Weigs. I’m pretty sure that nobody has ever polled as low as three or four percent in January and done it. So I hope you bet all of your meager life savings on that.

          1. You know he would just make all that money back again. Haven’t you heard, he’s an investment Super Genius!

        3. Obama’s cock won’t suck itself, PB.

      2. I think you’re giving them too much credit.

        The only reason people would cling this hard to a group that persistently rejects them is a deep seated need to be accepted and a perverse delight in being rejected.

        Tulpa is the same way. Never ascribe to conspiracy what can be just as easily explained as pitiful cries for attention from lonely people with empty lives.

        Why do Tulpa and Shrike keep coming back? Why was Mary Quite Contrary cataloging our comments?

        Because they’re sick is my guess. Psychologically healthy people don’t act that way.

        1. They come here for the purpose of screwing up the threads and mucking up the debate. They can’t stop us from talking but would like to. So they troll and constantly deflect and screw up the debate to make it harder for a contrary message to get out.

          If you ever notice none of the lefty trolls ever comment on non partisan issues like cops killing dogs or movies or such. They only show up when the issue reflects poorly on the Democrats and they always show up to disrupt the debate and to make false analogies and “but they did it too” types of arguments.

          1. Where is Dunphy on your map?

            1. Dunphy isn’t left wing. I have no idea what is actual politics are. He is just a cop who has rose colored glasses about his profession and thinks all Libertarians are cop hating hippies. He doesn’t really troll as show up and defend cops no matter what. And in fairness he will occasionally admit a cop is wrong.

              1. And he hasn’t been here for, what, two years?

                1. I thought i saw him more recently, like a month or so ago.

                  1. I think that was an impostor, but I’m not certain if it’s a parody.

        2. They’re contrarians. Some people, when faced with people whose worldviews are 180 degrees opposite their own, retreat into enclaves of relative safety. That’s why most of us are here rather than knocking around reddit or mojo. We view those places as cesspools and would rather not drain our finite life force hearing people rant about privilege or whatever other meme of cultural marxism they’ve repackaged this week. We understand that leftist thought is a meme in the same way any other religion or cultural package is, and there’s no talking people out of it. So we just come here to bitch and, perhaps, to entertain each other.

          But some people are energized by disagreement. Any kind of disagreement, crazy, pedantic, pathetic, or otherwise. They live for it. Rothbard & Rand were both that way, as are many other libertarians who seem to spend every waking hour scrapping and arguing and offending one another in as varied a way as they can. And while that’s maladaptive in any profession that entails trade, in political philosophy and economics it’s how you distinguish yourself to all the other pathologically angry people who spend their lives debating things they have no hope of changing.


  8. OT ob guns but juicy read none the less.

    Looks like Sidney was sending classified signials info to Hilliary rather than vice versa.…..s-nuclear/

    Maybe came from NSA maybe not . Israel ?

    1. I don’t know. Let’s hear what PBP has to say about this first.

      1. Yeah Butt Plug you’re lurking here.

        What do you have to say about this ?

        1. he will say what he always says “BOOOOOSH!!”

  9. Speaking of bad faith, according to the Wall Street Journal

    Obama and his advisers decided to maintain silence in the early days of the 2009 uprising. The Central Intelligence Agency was ordered away from any covert work to support the Green Movement either inside Iran or overseas, said current and former U.S. officials involved in the discussions.

    “If you were working on the nuclear deal, you were saying, ‘Don’t do too much,’ ” said Michael McFaul, who served as a senior National Security Council official at the White House before becoming ambassador to Russia in 2012.

    After a week of demonstrations, Iran’s security forces went on to kill as many as 150 people and jail thousands of others over the following months, according to opposition and human rights groups. Mr. Khamenei accused the U.S. of instigating the uprising. Iran denied killing protesters.

    So Obama reached out to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and volunteered to serve as Al Quada’s Air Force in Libya, but he refused to help the Green Revolution in Iran.

    He is either the dumbest human being in the known universe or really is the Muslim Manchurian candidate the conspiracy theorists think he is. In the end, it really doesn’t matter because his actions would be the same in either case.

    1. He is a manchurian candidate alright, but not muslim. He is just the new left’s candidate.

      I had always wondered how a constitutional scholar could appear to know nothing at all about the actual constitution and its history, then I heard John Lott interviewed. He taught at the same school with Obumbles and claims that Barry was given his do-nothing position by Leftist academics ( specifically mentioned was Sunstien) for the sole purpose of furnishing him with credentials so that he could run for office.

      Manchurian candidate is exactly what he is. He was indoctrinated from birth and ushered to the top by people that think that Brave New World was an instruction manual.

      1. It makes sense to me.

    2. My anti-gun, pro-Obama Iranian friends are the people that piss me off the most right now. I’m like “you know how Khamenei was able to stop the protesting so fast is because your fellow countrymen were unarmed right? And you know that if push came to shove Obama would fuck up Iran the same way he has everything else over there, right?”

      Usually get crickets.

  10. Was there a debate yesterday?

    1. And what’s all this talk about gun laws? They have laws about that?

      1. Was that the topic? Just who could outdo the president on EO gun law?

      2. They’re can’t be any gun laws. My copy of the BOR says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” So how can there be any gun laws?

        1. The Bill of Rights clearly went too far.

          They should have stopped with “Congress shall make no law.”

          1. What was Congress to do, with all that no infringements thing

  11. Scott Greenfield, himself not a fan of guns, wrote one of the best articles about the dishonesty of the pro-gun-control side I’ve yet seen:

    As letters poured in following the president’s television appearance, one thing became clear: those who support the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms don’t trust the government, the president. The government’s history of lying about its motives and ends makes it impossible to believe.

    Attributing good will to oneself, and thus bad will to anyone who opposes you, is a recipe for increasing mistrust. Appealing to “common sense” is pandering, seeking to avoid responsibility for reason and facts, and instead seeking the comfort of feelings of paranoia and fear. Our president is a smart man. He knows that he’s playing believers for fools.

    President Obama’s bizarre reference to his having taught constitutional law, followed by his misstatement of Oliver Wendell Holmes’ abandoned analogy of “yelling fire in a crowed theater” from United States v. Schenck, creates an insurmountable conflict. Either he knows constitutional law, in which case he deliberately sought to make the public stupider, or he doesn’t and was lying about his qualifications.

    1. President Obama’s latest effort may cause the choir to cheer, but it may also cause the “crazies” to attack. As for law-abiding, sane, caring gun owners (yes, they exist, even if you never met one at your lean-in group), there can be no discussion. It’s not because they are of ill will, as the president accused, but because you are so filled with the self-righteousness of your fear and moral certainty that your only interest is to use your tears to beat them into submission.

      For those who feel very strongly about the need for gun control, and can’t grasp why everyone else doesn’t feel exactly the same, your passion might be better put to use calling out the government’s lies than calling your adversaries names. But the morally self-righteous crowd struggles to see how anything can be their fault, and so the lies will continue and guns will be gripped ever more tightly. No one will be saved.

      1. Gun control, like every other important issue to the left, has become all about virtue signaling. Facts, reason and good faith argument and compromise are not the point. The point is to virtue signal and show other leftists how virtuous you are and how stupid and evil the other side is.

      2. They have good intentions. If you disagree with them then you must have bad intentions. It is the only explanation.

  12. In the dead-tree version this morning, pay-walled on the web:

    “Can tech really disrupt gun violence?”
    “With a gridlocked Congress unlikely to advance any sort of firearm control measures, President Obama is again touting technology as a bipartisan way to make guns less deadly.…..748327.php

    Written by a lefty twit, whining that no investor seems interested in blowing a wad of cash to support Obo’s fetish. And then we get a quote about how making your gun operable from your finger print ‘isn’t taking your gun!’, as if that sort of ID requirement would never be used for anything else?
    Is that ‘argument’ stupidity or cupidity?

    1. Written by a lefty twit, whining that no investor seems interested in blowing a wad of cash to support Obo’s fetish.

      Well, yeah. Greedy businessmen who are only interested in immoral profits are too stupid to see an opportunity to make a profit, so government needs to step in and do the investing.

    2. Why would anyone ever want that technology? It is just something to break and disable your weapon at exactly the wrong moment and for what benefit? That your kid won’t shoot themselves? You can prevent that by having a gun safe or just having a kid who isn’t stupid. What are the chances of that actually happening? When you consider the number of times it does in relation to the number of guns in this country, about as often as someone gets eaten by a grizzly bear.

      And it would also no doubt be incredibly expensive technology. No one who would actually own a gun would think that technology is a good idea.

      1. Do you still have that bear-repellent rock I lent you?

        1. Works just as well as that Tiger repellent that guy sold me. They have never failed me yet.

          1. I know! That thing would be a steal at twice the price!

          2. Would you like to buy a shark repellent rock.? I happened to find a few in my drive way.

            1. I don’t know…

              Have you ever been attacked by a shark?

              1. Never ,been to the Outer banks ,Gulf and South Carolina and never had a attack.Even protected my labs.You just need to carry them in your jock.

              2. Little known fact: The Rocky Mountains s are composed of 90% shark repellent rocks. In fact, there has never been a single reported shark attack in Colorado.

                1. The Ohio River is also shark free.Geese are a growing problem I;m trying to solve.Mean bastards they are.

                  1. Sounds like you need a goose-repellent rock. Also known in some circles as a “shotgun”

      2. The only good gun,is a loaded gun ,in the hands of a person willing to use it to defend themselves ,hunt and practice for when it’s needed .

      3. My biggest questions about biometric scanners on guns: how would they stop people from simply removing the device? How would they stop people from tinkering with the circuits so that the gun is always in the “on” position and thus able to be fired by anyone who picks it up?

        1. Some others:

          Will the batteries fail? Yes.

          Will a complex circuit survive harsh treatment? No.

          Will it work reliably when your finger is cut, bloody, dirty, or not correctly-placed on the sensor? No.

          If you are down, can your spouse, companion, or squad-mate use your weapon to save your ass? No.

          The group at highest risk of their weapon being turned against its members is the police. Are they embracing this technology? No.

  13. But will it solve anything?


    1. Many have argued that any question asked in an article headline always has the answer “no”.

      1. I’m struggling to think of a question raised in a headline could be answered with an emphatic yes. They’re always designed to raise interest without giving any useful info.

        “Are Mexicans sneaking across the border to rape white women in their sleep?” No.
        “Will marijuana turn you into a goddamn sexual Tyranosaurus?” No.
        “Is Apple working on the first generation of sexbots?” No.

        1. “Are Mexicans sneaking across the border to put in long, hard days picking fruit?” doesn’t have the same punch.

        2. Ah, Predator. When movies were real and Ventura was an actor.

    2. Solving a problem is not what government this government is for.Creating one,then spending money and pasiing laws to be enforced by men with guns is. See war on drugs and Eric Garner.

      1. Look, the War on Drugs is only 1-2 Tom Friedman Units away from being won.

        And the Eric Garner thing was because of all that racism in the NYPD.

        The War on Guns will be completely different.

        1. So selling ‘loosie” .22 rounds would be a death sentence?

          1. OBVIOUSLY.

            *rolls eyes*

            1. “Tom Friedman Units” I am stealing this one. But what exactly do they measure?

              1. One Tom Friedman = Ten Courics.

              2. It’s six months. Tom Friedman would always write that we just have six more months before Iraq would turn around.

                1. Wikipedia has it listed as “Friedman Unit”

              3. I thought they measured the RPM of circular logic.

  14. Why do folks like to rip on Palin butt plugg? While I will disagree some stuff or most he says, though he seems alright for the most part and there are some stuff I agree with. He even is funny at times and not really a leftist.

    He for sure isn’t condescending and I am smarter than you like tony. I can’t stand those types.

    1. I’ve never seen one thing he wrote I agree with.

      i haven’t seen everthing he hass written but the pattern of what i have tennds to rule that possibility out.

      You’re new here right

      1. The problem isn’t that he’s always wrong, it’s that he doesn’t argue in good faith.

      2. I agree with him that GWB was a bad president.

        However, I don’t understand how that’s apparently “all you need to know” about every possible subject, all the time.

        It’s not like GWB doesn’t have a lot of company.

    2. He’s leftist all the way down to the soles of his hand-stitched, locally sourced faux-wool socks.

    3. Ahem.



      “I’m the most libertarian poster here, having scored 92% on he Libertarian Purity Test.”

      Yet, somehow, he seems to agree with absolutely everything Obama does.

    4. “Why do folks like to rip on Palin butt plugg?’

      He has the personality of a coke-head. Shallower than a puddle on a pool-table.

      Maybe he has some assorted libertarian-leaning ideas, but only ones that very-slightly-color his unthinking very-Team-Blue partisanship, which seems to be based entirely on what “its not” rather than anything particularly good about it.

      (i think he lives in GA, and Team Blue “is not” redneck, therefore good)

      He routinely tries to suggest the ACA was a whopping success, because something something rednecks hate it. He assets its “market based” because…. uh, apparently he read that somewhere. Mandates are markets!, right?

      He also hissed “Fake Scandal” about Benghazi from the very first day it occurred, all the while putting his fingers in his ears and refusing to accept that there was anything factually incorrect or suspect about the initial claims made. He’s one of those people who easily leaps from “There’s nothing there there!” to “But everyone lies!” when caught in blatant partisan deceptions.

      He’s not just a shill, he’s a thoughtless shill. Which is frankly somewhat exculpatory. He’s so shallow, he doesn’t bother to ever think about or learn why he’s wrong, he just instictively clings to it. Unlike Tony, who pretends to have actually thought things through, and tries to defend his Team Blue partisanship with actual arguments.

      I don’t think he’s that bad. He’s almost cute in his knee-jerk posturing.

      1. It’s a bit sad, like watching a puppy with an injured leg try to get up again and again.

      2. Not to mention that he seems to think that pointing out George W. Bush’s mistakes is somehow a rebuke of the whole idea of free markets and maximum personal liberty. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a single member on this comment section speak favorably of Bush’s presidency as a whole, but Palin’s Buttplug shrieks about “BOOOOSH” at every opportunity.

    5. Why do folks like to rip on Palin butt plugg?…..nt_5819897

      You were saying?

  15. lol, like criminals care about bans or silly laws.

    1. I like the way this JoWoDat889 guy thinks! I’ll have to visit his website!

  16. It’s so cute that Reason thinks Obama wants to “solve” gun crimes as opposed to chipping at the 2nd Amendment.


    1. As a life-long Vikings fan all I have to say is

  18. My first job out of High School was at St Paul and over the next 5 years Iearned so very much. Seeing the hospital torn down tears a small piece of my heart out. The Daughters of Charity and the doctors and staff of St Paul Hospital will always be with me.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.