Living in a cave for the last three years

With the good guys marching down the field like this it is understandable that Brady Center Senior Attorney Daniel Vice (what a wonderful name for a gun banner, it ranks right up there with anti-gun researcher professor Bogus ) would have been living in a cave for the last three years. But surely even from the deepest, darkest, rat infested hole that Mr. Vice could have found he would have heard about the McDonald case before he spoke to the local radio station:

Vice says more than 350 lawsuits have been filed after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v Heller in 2008 that the Second Amendment allows an individual to possess a gun in his or her home for self-defense.

Vice says none of the previous suits has been successful because courts don’t want guns going to dangerous people.

Of course it could be that it was not through ignorance but willful misrepresentation that particular bit of untruth was uttered. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time people with the Brady’s lied about something.


9 thoughts on “Living in a cave for the last three years

  1. Joe, I’m afraid you’re having trouble determining truth from falsity again. It’s your mind-reading skills, the ones you use to continually understand the intentions of others, that are at fault, which I suppose could be called a “lie.” Using your own “definition” of “lie,” whenever you wrongly claim to know the intentions of others, you are “lying.”

    Ironic, isn’t it?

  2. Wow. Just wow.

    Let me spell this out for you, Mike, since you obviously missed the subtext.

    Vice’s interview took place recently (the article does not give a specific date, but it mentions a currently-ongoing lawsuit).

    D.C. vs. Heller was settled 26JUN08.

    McDonald vs. Chicago was filed with the Supreme Court in late 2009 or early 2010, depending on which route you choose – after DC vs. Heller.

    McDonald vs. Chicago was “successful”, in that it struck down an unconstitutional, then-existing “gun control” law.

    Even without looking for additional cases settled at lower levels, McDonald vs. Chicago alone demonstrates that Vice was factually wrong. Now, as Joe says, Vice could have been living in a cave for the past three years, and could have thus made an honest mistake. Or he could have lied. Those are your only options.

    I would ask which you think would be more likely, but we both know the question would be futile.

  3. Let me spell this out for you, Linoge. Your contentiousness has made you practically blind and dumb.

    Here’s the lie according to Joe:

    Vice says none of the previous suits has been successful because courts don’t want guns going to dangerous people.

    He didn’t specify if the so-called lie was the “none” or the “because.” I took it to mean the “because.”

    The point is you guys are just in love with the word. You use it too loosely. Anyone who disagrees with your narrow-minded views is a “liar.”

  4. @MikeB302000, The “because” interpretation makes no sense because the statement “none of the previous” is false. It’s like saying “The Brady Campaign has 100 million members because they are homophobic racists.” The “because” clause is irrelevant because the claim of “100 million members” is a complete fabrication known to almost anyone living in the real world. No defense or discussion of the outrageous claim of them being “homophobic racists” is required. The person saying such a thing is obviously either a liar or living in an alternate reality.

  5. Here’s the lie according to Joe:

    *falls over laughing*

    Goddamn. In the very same thread that you speciously castigate Joe for daring to use “mind-reading skills”, you do that very thing, and then it turns out you were wrong.

    You cannot pay for irony that hilarious!

    The point, which you continue to heartily, militantly, and maliciously miss, is that Vice lied. There have been “successful” lawsuits since D.C. vs. Heller. Period. But you go on defending liars and prevaricators – it is really doing wonders for proving us wrong about that whole “unable to differentiate fact from fiction” thing…

  6. Joe and Linoge, I got you now. You’re right. Joe’s explanation above was very clear.

    I really don’t mean to defend liars and prevaricators. It’s just that sometimes I overlook their lies because I agree with their overall point. Often what you guys get all worked up about is some insignificant detail, although I admit that may not be the case this time.

  7. “It’s just that sometimes I overlook their lies because I agree with their overall point.”

    Mike, it’s nice to see you admit that. Unfortunately, I think that the reverse is also true in your case. Let’s try this on for size:

    It’s just that sometimes I overlook their (gun proponents) facts because I disagree with their overall point.

    Now it is nice that you admit that you overlook the lies your own side makes because you agree with them, but can you admit that your bias also blinds you to the truths provided by your opponents?

  8. Wow. Just wow.

    I hope MikeB isn’t due for a performance evaluation soon because somebody isn’t getting their money’s worth.

  9. *sigh* The concept of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” means absolutely nothing to you, does it, Mike?

    If a premise is based on a lie, that premise, in its entirety, is inherently flawed. It could very well be that the premise is, in and of itself, true and factual (for example: “this ball will fall if I drop it”), but if the reasoning supporting it is fallacious (for example: “fairies do not like things other than them flying through the air, so this ball will fall if I drop it”) then the concept cannot be accepted.

    Now, if you can ever get around to proving those concepts (in this case, that “courts don’t want guns going to dangerous people”) with something approximating facts and truth, then you might be getting somewhere… but by initially fielding your argument with a lie, you have already dug yourself a hole from which you will have to extricate yourself before you stand any chance of making headway.

    The world is defined by insignificant details, and just as it only takes a single bolt to come undone to cause an entire bridge to collapse, so too does it take a single flaw in an argument for it not to hold up. In your case, though, you are still working on digging up the iron ore to make the steel to fabricate the girders, so this whole conversation is somewhat moot…

Comments are closed.