Quote of the day—The Coquette

Dude, you can wave court cases in my face all you want. At the end of the day, you’re still the wingnut who’s against centralized firearm registration and liability insurance because guns are like bibles.

The Coquette
November 3, 2013
Comment to On gun control
[There are so many lessons to be learned from this thread.

My response:

If suggesting the Second Amendment should be treated like the First Amendment means one should be called a “wingnut” then you will have to call a bunch of Federal Judges the same: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-…

And if you can’t be persuaded by the laws, the Federal Courts, or me gently pointing out the facts that makes you the dictionary definition of a bigot. I’m so glad we are a ruled by laws limited by the enumerated powers of the Constitution rather than by bigots. Otherwise we would still have Jim Crow type laws still being enforced, Jews being denied entry into schools, and concentration camps for the Japanese.

If being a defender of civil rights makes someone a “wingnut” in your book then I have a lot of “wingnut” company I am proud to be associated with. Are you just as proud of your association with the KKK?

Coquette response:

You’re not a defender of civil rights, Joe. You’re just an old white man in a fedora leaving creepy comments on my website.

It’s sad, really. You’re so myopic that you can’t even look past the barrel of your own gun and focus on the greater good.

My response:

All the evidence presented here is that the right to keep and bear arms is a specific enumerated civil right. All nine Supreme Court justices in the Heller decision agree with that. That your refuse to acknowledge that and insist that my defense of that right is somehow contrary to being a defender of civil rights takes a great deal of arrogance or is evidence of serious delusions.

We are done here. But thank you for playing along. This thread is
great material for my blog. You will be featured with Quote of the Day status on Tuesday.

Coquette response:

Looking forward to Tuesday, big guy. In the meantime, keep on using words that you don’t understand.

It should not be surprising that in addition to being prejudiced against gun owners that they have hostile opinions about people of certain ages and skin color.

Coquette is not the least bit concerned with the Bill of Rights or court rulings. All that matters is what they think is “the greater good” and looking down on people that disagree with their “superior” opinion. There is not even a glimmer of recognition that they might be wrong.

But that Coquette is concerned with “the greater good” tells us all we really need to know. The concept of individual rights is either alien or distasteful to them. The “greater good” is the mantra of the tyrant and the ever present excuse for genocide.

That someone can be that blatant in their disregard for the rule of law and individual rights is extremely scary. Even President Obama and VP Biden say they “respect” the Second Amendment and the courts rulings. They don’t of course, but they claim to. This person completely ignores the concept of rights. This is how governments end up murdering millions of their own people. People like this get into power and the rule of law disappears.

Again, the Second Amendment is to protect people from liberals.—Joe]


139 thoughts on “Quote of the day—The Coquette

  1. The commentary in that thread is pretty sad overall. With all due respect, why were you even trying to engage this chuzzlewit in a conversation?

    After the first pass it should’ve been abundantly clear: she does not care about rights, laws, court decisions, or ethical/moral conflicts. She demands those Evul Gahnz be restricted and banned. No argument will sway her, no rational approach will dent her armor of ignorance. You’d have more luck having deep philosophical conversations with a puppy; at least the puppy will be interested in you.

    • I think the point of those “conversations” is not to convince the owner of the site, but rather convince people reading the blog and comments.

      • Correct. But also to point out to others what it is we are dealing with. It’s evil masked in good intentions.

        • Fair enough; but I don’t think too many ‘convince me’ types frequent that harpy’s blog. It strikes me as an echo chamber. I could be wrong, though.

          • The charge of “echo chamber” was made about Joe’s blog by the commenters.

            Joe going there indicates that he wishes to engage others to check the validity of his ideas.

            When they come here to do the same, we will see if they can present anything better than name calling, petulance, illogic and poo flinging.

    • There is another reason to do this occasionally, and that is mercy. Some people are never exposed to the truth in their circles of influence, or if it happens it is very rare or it is done in a back-handed way that turns them off to it. If we can lay it out on the table, very clearly and without rancor or emotion, at least they’ve been given a chance.

    • That’s a gross misinterpretation. She said – direct quote – “Hell, I own a gun, and I wouldn’t want to live in a society where I couldn’t.” All she’s doing is calling for improved gun regulation. And, if you had bothered to actually read what she has to say, that would have been “abundantly clear”.

      • Except that we did.

        And it was abundantly clear that she is a bigoted hypocrite that seeks to infringe upon the rights of others because she finds the right to keep and bear arms to be “icky.”

      • Uh, yeah, did read her article.

        She’s calling for more regulations for an ENNUMERATED RIGHT (regulations that would make that right subject to the whims of bureaucrats), than are required for a PRIVILEGE.

        when someone says they want “guns regulated like cars”, they are either:

        1. Horribly misinformed as to what laws DO affect gun possession already, what “gun activities” are analogous to “driving a street legal car on a public road”, or what car regulations are involved. . .

        or. . .

        2. they are being diceptively dishonest, because they are opposed to a particular civil right they don’t think other people “need” or “deserve”.

        I, for one, would not mind if gun use was regulated “like driving a car”, especially since I do not routinely shoot my guns on GOVERNMENT OWNED AND OPERATED ranges or hunting lands, that would mean that I wouldn’t have to worry about ANY gun laws whatsoever — none would apply to me. (Note — in a true emergency, one CAN drive a non-street legal vehicle on a public street, even without a valid license, under the doctrine of necessity. Which is analogous to firing your gun in public. What is NOT analogous to driving a car on a public road is buying, possessing, shooting your gun on PRIVATE land, or peacefully carrying any gun you choose around for self defense. Of course, people who make these false analogies between cars and guns rarely have much experience with non-street-legal off-road vehicles, race cars, or farm machinery, NONE of which require insurance, driver’s licenses, etc., . . . )

  2. I just wasted about five minutes, reading that nitwit’s “advice” column. Just yet another narcissistic (big word – hope I used it correctly….) blogger who thinks her blather is better than anyone else’s blather.

    It’s not surprising that facts don’t resonate with twits of this sort – facts spoil a good rant.

  3. “There is not even a glimmer of recognition that they might be wrong.”

    You remember the guy with his shoes on backwards, telling everyone else in the room; “If you weren’t all so stubborn you’d realize [that wearing your shoes with the toes pointing outward is more comfortable]…”

    So it isn’t the quality of the brain that matters, rather it is the source of the control over the brain.

    • I do remember that. We should talk sometime.

      “Hypnotized” is just a name for a state of mind. It helps some, but doesn’t really explain why the brain’s ability to reason malfunctions in such a catastrophic manner, how it can persist for so long, or how it can be detected and treated.

      • “…..but doesn’t really explain why the brain’s ability to reason malfunctions in such a catastrophic manner, how it can persist for so long, or how it can be detected and treated.”

        I have had a thought about that for quite a while.
        My opinion is that it is NOT a ‘malfunction’ as you might define it.
        We’re dealing with a genetic mutation. Possibly one that I refer to as a different species; Homo Stupidicus.
        Not necessarily new, but a mutation previous generations and civilizations recognized and dealt with.

        Remember the ‘village idiot’?

        In some ‘less civilized’ societies they were recognized as a threat to the community and eliminated as soon as detected. In more civilized societies, they were allowed to live, but were carefully monitored and definitely not allowed to reproduce.
        In our society, it is subsidized.

    • Oh no! Time to get out the popcorn!

      (I was already amused by the ” You’re just an old white man in a fedora leaving creepy comments on my website” quote above. This is gonna be good!)

      • It looks to me like she is schizophrenic. In this post she talks about “fundamental freedoms” in regards to firearms but in the post and comments I quote above she says guns are not a right.

        I’ve had enough contact with crazy people to last a lifetime and I’m content to just leave her along now.

        • Armchair “diagnoses” of your intellectual opponents based on the brief interaction you had with them are just a sneaky, pseudo-intellectual form of ad hominem attacks.

          • Feel free to comment on the various flavors of Markley’s Law showcased here, dude.

        • Someone has obviously never met a schizophrenic. In your part of the world, they probably shoot them.
          Coquette never said that she wanted to ban guns, you imagined that (delusions of grandeur are a symptom of a Schizophrenic mind by the way.) She never said she was against guns, you imagined that. She said that she has a gun, and you imagined that just because she wants people to have to register for them, means she is an anti-gun Nazi. Nobody cares about your guns, if you hunt with them or (I hope) someday kill yourself with them. No one is taking your guns away, you big fat drama queen. Picking an internet fight with someone who obviously will never agree with you is not practicing mercy, it is what bored 16 year olds do.

          Long story short, your neck of the country is tiny. Everyone else considers “ya’ll” crazy. We strive for the day that your ancient propaganda goes extinct. You, Mr. Redneck, are a dying breed of ignorance. I know that’s scary, try not to think about it too hard.

          • My, my such animosity Ashley. /sarc

            You know, it’s quite amazing the amount of bloodlust within the ‘liberal’ political view.

            Why do you wish death upon us?
            Is it because you want our possessions? You want our wealth? You want what we have and we’re in your way with guns and the knowledge to use them to stop you? Or, is it simply because we don’t believe what you do and it infuriates you?

            You and your liberal kin are the ones constantly wanting us dead. You wrote it yourself and you’re not the only one who has spouted such.

            Well we aren’t going to accommodate you. If you want it, try to do it yourself.

        • mikee said this on November 5, 2013 at 12:21 pm:

          “The charge of ‘echo chamber’ was made about Joe’s blog by the commenters.

          Joe going there indicates that he wishes to engage others to check the validity of his ideas.

          When they come here to do the same, we will see if they can present anything better than name calling, petulance, illogic and poo flinging.”

          How prophetic. Not even four full hours and the “name calling, petulance, illogic and poo flinging,” came out.

  4. What exactly is “evil” about her point of view? I see a lot of code words in your posts, & the comments agreeing with you, that hints at a certain level of cowardice when you & others look out into the world & are confronted with a view that questions your own.

    • I can think of a couple of items that warrant the judgment “evil”. Liability insurance and gun registries are both tools for abolishing the right to bear arms. The disdain for court cases upholding the constitution, rare as they may be, is another sign.

      • Please cite historical examples where liability insurance has been used to abolish the right to anything. Otherwise, I’m going to have to call this a myth.

        • Changes in insurance laws are currently destroying lower cost insurance for about 93 million Americans, who will be required to pay more for insurance they do not want, such as pregnancy coverage for single men. Not buying any insurance results in a monetary penalty.

          Does that count?

          • Have you talked to those 93 million people? Because I think they are getting better coverage at a more affordable rate.

            Post a link. Most of the reports I’ve read about the casualties of the ACA have been dispelled by competent report.

            That isn’t to say that there are a few people who are fucked. But that’s for the greater good — kind of like how the second amendment isn’t null and void because people are shot every year.

        • A liability insurance requirement is a well established scheme for shutting down skydiving centers.

          • And so there are no more skydiving centers, right? (You know yourself that this isn’t true.)

      • I tend to disagree, firearm insurance and registries are tools to make sure that guns are given to responsible, law abiding citizens rather than criminals. Isn’t that what the pro-gun lobby wants. Isn’t the mantra “guns don’t kill people, people kill people?”

        It seems as though owning a device that inarguably can be used to wreck significant damage to society (please don’t try to argue this point, the tirade of mass shootings that have occurred in the last year is only one drop in the bucket to societal damage that guns have the capacity to do) should be something that is monitored. (and please don’t misinterpret my belief that guns have the ability to do damage to society as a belief that guns are inherently evil)

        I understand that for someone who doesn’t trust the government (and why should you?) the idea of a registry is scary. But a fear that I have is the easy access that psychopaths and crazy people have to guns. When violence becomes an epidemic, treatment must be sought.

        The idea that you are willing to use court cases to defend your position and then immediately report disdain for the ability of the courts to “actually uphold the constitution” should demonstrate your willingness to bend the facts to suit your point of view. It’s something that everyone does so don’t feel bad. Perhaps attempting to understand the position of your opposition and refuting the basis of their belief will serve you better than discrediting the evidence that you present.

        If a national gun registry and licensing program every exists I will happily bring my guns in and confidently pass the licensing exam. And why shouldn’t I? I’m able to keep my guns, and I’m able to rest in the knowledge that something is being done to prevent people from harming others.

        • You do realize that when governments have a monopoly on force, they are able to kill VASTLY more of their own people than criminals do. Gun registries have been used MANY times for confiscation, and very rarely for effective criminal control. Until they have effective screening to keep bullies and sociopaths out of government employ (instead of all but recruiting them), allowing them to easily disarm the populace is really, really stupid.

          • So, what you’re saying is, we shouldn’t have firearm insurance and registries because if we do, the government “bullies and sociopaths” will turn the guns on the citizens and kill everyone? I don’t know if it’s just me, but that sounds like a bit of a stretch.

          • I’m sure the Germans in 1938 thought it “a bit of a stretch” when they registered their guns a few years earlier. I’m sure the same could have been said of the Russians in 1918.

            Even if it were “a bit of a stretch” that is irrelevant. The essential, unavoidable point is that fundamental rights may not be registered in order to exercise them. Gun ownership is a fundamental right recognized by the Bill of Rights, most state constitutions, and, unanimously, by the U.S. Supreme Court.

            If firearms can’t be registered then there can not be any mandatory insurance. This is because both there is no practical means of enforcement and it would constitute a tax on the exercise of a fundamental right. Again, fundamental rights may not be taxed.

          • non-violent revolutions and resistance are a thing, dude. you don’t need to lock and load at every encroachment and feeling of fear you have.

          • Non-violent resistance was a great success in Tiananmen square, huh?

            Violence should always be the last resort. But it also must always be an option.

          • Sure, you can point to quite a few examples of tyrannical oppression where non violence didn’t prevail. I can point to armed revolutions that failed. You can point to armed revolutions that didn’t fail. I can point to non violent movements that have.

            Non violence has gained power with the information age. Most revolutions that happen, definitely more recently with the internet, have been non violent.

            Violence always needing to be an option is more paradigm.

          • Gia, I don’t know about you but it seems to me that it shouldn’t take much stretching to see such a risk exists when people commenting here say they want me and my kind dead. And further notice that neither you or anyone else said anything about that. What would be the response if that were said to someone that was gay, black, or Jewish?

            There is reason the right to keep and bear arms exists. And there are valid reasons to never allow there to be a registry of gun owners.

        • “… firearm insurance and registries are tools to make sure that guns are given to responsible, law abiding citizens rather than criminals.”

          Guns are not “given” to people by the gubmint. Honest people (such as I am) buy them in accordance with state and federal statutes. Criminals buy or steal them without regard to notions such as laws, insurance, and registries. Thus, insurance and registries do NOT “make sure” that criminals do not get guns.

          Perhaps you are not aware that a person who cannot legally possess a firearm but does so, and who does not register it but is required to, cannot be presecuted for not registering it, because registering it would require him to admit to having committed a felony. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states, in part: “No person … shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself …” It’s a Right, y’see.

          “Perhaps attempting to understand the position of your opposition and refuting the basis of their belief will serve you better than discrediting the evidence that you present.”

          Perhaps what you meant was “Perhaps attempting to understand the position of your opposition and refuting the basis of their belief will serve you better than discrediting the evidence that they present.” Perhaps one should do both. If you’ll read more carefully and try to follow it, you’ll see that this is precisely what Joe Huffman does. You should try it yourself.

        • Kyra, you tried. Thank you for your considerate, well thought out piece. Sorry about the responses.

          • Lucy, who are YOU to apologize for OUR responses? I speak only for myself, but I do NOT apologize for my response to Kyra’s comments, indeed I pointed out just how not “well thought out” part of her comment was, and I stand by my comments.

            But do keep it up. You’re doing good work for our side.

        • In what way would having a registry restrict ownership from those “crazy people?”

          Would registering their guns have stopped Cho, Loughner, Holmes, Alexis, Lanza, either Columbine shooter, or any OTHER CRIMINAL?

    • “Code words” Can you please provide me with a copy of said code-book? I seem to have missed an issue. I see facts and words used in the normal dictionary way. OTOH, I see Coquette calling him “an old white dude in a fedora,” which while it may be true I fail to see the significance of it, unless she’s trying to imply something but is two full of herself to speak plainly, and is using “white” as code for “racists,” “old” to mean “racists,” and “fedora” to imply a secret desire to roll-play Harrison Ford. Or something.

        • Out of touch with what exactly?

          He is a successful IT professional, he runs a nationally recognized firearms event annually, he has a pretty successful blog, he has a good family life and (as recently demonstrated) lots of hats.

          What do you know that we regular readers don’t?

          • I don’t think ubu52 is saying I’m out of touch. She is just saying that is what those “code words” mean.

            She’s just doing some interpretation while enjoying her popcorn and I’m fine with that.

  5. “What exactly is “evil” about her point of view?”

    It’s quite simple.

    You don’t matter. Your rights don’t matter. What matter to her is THE GREATER GOOD, which is whatever she defines it to be, to the extent that she defines it at all, and the gubmint oughta conform to that, by golly. So, whenever you want or need to exercise your rights, for whatever reason, you oughta be subject to her whim-of-the-moment.

    Now, what exactly is NOT “evil” about her point of view?

      • “I don’t think you know what the word “evil” means.”

        I can read the dictionary as well as anyone, and I do. Your response is no more than an evasion of my question, and it doesn’t answer it.

        • DJ, you can read the dictionary but do you understand it?
          You seem to only understand what you want to. I’ve been reading you comments and I think you got problems, hon.

          • “DJ, you can read the dictionary but do you understand it?”

            Sure, I do. It’s plain English.

            “I think you got problems, hon.”

            Ah, yes. Condescension. That’s in the dictionary, too.

            Now, do YOU want to try answering the question that Thomas didn’t answer?

          • I could answer it many times, using reason and logic and sound thinking and you still would not understand me. Not because you’re an idiot- I mean, maybe you are, I don’t know, I don’t know you- but because you are blocked by your own sense of right. It keeps you from looking farther than your own point of view and makes you see every other view of point as an attack.

            And it’s not condescension, just simple observation. I suggest you take a step back and look at your reactions with clear eyes.
            Dialog is only possible when there is respect, something your comments neither give nor inspire.

          • “I could answer it many times, using reason and logic and sound thinking …”

            Give it a try. Saying you could do it is not doing it. One often finds this on a playground among children. If you would have me agree with you, then you’re gonna have to do better than that.

            “Not because you’re an idiot- I mean, maybe you are, I don’t know, I don’t know you- but because you are blocked by your own sense of right.”

            Golly. That’s a sweeping analysis of someone you explicitly admit you don’t know, and implicitly admit you know little or nothing about.

            “… and makes you see every other view of point as an attack.”

            Again with jumping to conclusions.

            I see, and have seen for decades now, some behavior by others as attacks upon my freedom and my fundamental rights. What I saw here is a point of view which lends support to those attacks, and I responded to it.

            “And it’s not condescension, just simple observation.”

            And you take me to task over not properly using a dictionary. Have you no shame?

            Lessee now …

            From The Free Dictionary online, we find:



            Patronizingly superior behavior or attitude.

            Let’s go further:



            Displaying a patronizingly superior attitude.

            Your statement “I’ve been reading you comments and I think you got problems, hon.” fits that definition quite well. That’s what Aunt Betty might say to a five-year-old nephew, ain’t it?

            “I suggest you take a step back and look at your reactions with clear eyes.”

            I’ve been doing that for more than half a century. You don’t know me, remember?

            “Dialog is only possible when there is respect, something your comments neither give nor inspire.”

            I suggest you look in a mirror, step back, and then look at your comments with clear eyes.

    • What is evil about the greater good? Evil is relative — rhetorical example: Christians believe Jesus died for their sins, which is a greater good (not that I’m stereotyping you as being a bible thumping Christian “clinging to your guns and religion”). You’re really just defining the concept of greater good based on your own “whim-of-the-moment” by equating it to evil on this blog.

      She’s just some lady in the corner of the internet who has a blog of her opinions. Just relax a bit, you don’t have to subject yourself to her whims in any jurisprudential sense.

      You could argue that all laws are are whims-of-the-moment by a particular group of people living at a particular time with their own zeitgeists and hegemonies. It’s all relative.

      So why not have a dialogue rather than going all hyperbolic?

      • I would agree that there’s nothing inherently evil with the concept of “the greater good” when considered in the right context.

        Any group, whether it be a nation, a city, a state or just a bunch of people who happen to be near each other, is nothing more than a certain number of individuals.

        Sovereign individuals with rights.

        Those individuals are free to act on their own accord to sacrifice for “the greater good”. That is just, right and noble.

        But when some members of the group choose to force other members of the group to sacrifice their rights for “the greater good” it is no longer just, right or noble, it is tyranny. And it is evil.

        Speaking to your analogy: Jesus died on the cross for our sins because he chose to, not because some members of the group decided it was what he should do for the greater good.

        Matthew 26:53″Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54″How then will the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”

        Those of us who support the individual right to keep and bear arms DO believe that our stance serves the greater good. We believe that gun ownership reduces our safety, and the safety of society as a result, increases liberty and decreases the chances of tyranny. The major difference between our ideas of serving the greater good and yours is that ours doesn’t involve coercion. No one on our side is trying to force you to own or carry a gun.

    • Nothing is evil about her point of view. Maybe there’s a little evil in how you managed to spin your interpretation of her opinion, but imaginary things don’t easily frighten me like they do you.

      • “… imaginary things don’t easily frighten me like they do you.”

        People in gubmint trying to abrogate our fundamental rights (you remember, those rights which this country was founded to support) is not imaginary. They don’t frighten us. We frighten them.

      • The evil is in ignoring individual rights in the pursuit of the greater good. I don’t have a problem, in general, with government activities that pursue a greater good. Taxes to run the courts for example (attempting to choose something without controversy). I do have a problem with pursuing a greater good at the sacrifice of individual rights. For example the excuse of greater good could be used to force all people with a dark skin color (“It’s only 10% of the population, what’s the problem?”) to be slaves so the 90% will have a better life (attempting to choose something everyone will agree is wrong).

        And so it is with the right to keep and bear arms. If the government, or even some majority of the population, can decide to ignore a specific enumerated right then that precedent can be used to ignore any other specific enumerated right on some whim in the future.

  6. I dont see her asking for anything more than the same level of personal liability and centralized registration that you’d experience in buying and piloting a car.

    I don’t see how that, in any way, infringes upon anyones right to own a gun. It’s actually pretty moderate view on gun control. That you would reduce this view point to “hurr durr tyranny” speaks volumes on your ability to reason.

    • Centralized registration opens the door to denial-of-registration for ______ (insert arbitrary rules here….”mental illness”; former military service; disgruntled ex filed a claim that was never proved but the claim still exists; your doctor doesn’t think you need one; etc etc). Any denial-of-rights, other than a prior conviction (which I think should be appeal-able after time, based on testimony of parole officers, judge, etc, for those who honestly have reformed), infringes on our rights to keep and bear arms. There is no right to own and operate a moving vehicle of any sort in the Bill of Rights. There IS a right to keep and bear arms, which specifically states “shall not be infringed.” Period. Glad I was able to dispel the “hurr durr tyranny” for ya.

      • You realize the slippery slope is a TERRIBLE argument, right? Can you prove that registration leads to denial of registration because until then, it’s all conjecture.

        And there are a number of restrictions placed on rights enumerated by the constitution. Hate speech, slander, libel, and the ever popular “fire” in a crowded theater are all (necessary) restrictions on freedom of speech. Freedom of peaceful assembly is restricted to prevent blockading civil services, etc etc etc.

        Basically, what you’re failing to grasp is that your rights only exist so long as they don’t impinge on my rights. After all, you are not more important than I am. Placing boundaries on rights is where our legal system does its work. My right to own a gun (and I am a registered gun owner) only exists so long as my use and the use of guns in general don’t infringe upon the rights of someone else.

        Sadly, we have reached a point in American history where the unregistered, unregulated purchase and use of guns are turning our public spaces into the old west. This impinges on my freedoms and rights (big rights, too. Like “life” and “pursuit of happiness”). So we need to start discussing and examining boundaries on firearm ownership because its obvious that firearm rights have started trumping other peoples rights in ways that they shouldnt.

        • Registration in Washington D.C. and Chicago lead to the denial of registration in a few years. Is that sufficient proof for you? Or look at how hard it is to get a permit to own a gun in New Jersey or New York City.

          As for the restrictions on speech those are all punishment after harm has been inflicted. You aren’t required to wear a gag when you go into a theater, get approval from the government to write a letter to the editor, or get liability insurance to write a blog.

          We already have reasonable restrictions on firearm ownership and use. It is illegal to use your firearm in a careless manner or use it to harm innocent people.

          Your last claim about “turning our public spaces into the old west” is wrong. Unless you are saying the “old west” was an example of guns being owned by a lot of people without many problems (Hollywood fiction isn’t a particularly good source for your history lesson). We have more guns in this country than ever before and the crime rate is falling. Any correlation between gun ownership rates or “easy accessibility of guns” and violent crimes rates is in the noise. See for example here. And mass shooting with easy public carry of firearms has a negative correlation.

          Rights can be abused and abusers should be punished. But only the abuser should be punished. There must not be a chilling effect placed on the legal exercise of a right. Registration and mandatory insurance is a chilling effect as well as a tax.

          • If you view needing to get a registration card as punishment, then we need to have a conversation about how much of a whiny bitch you’re being.

            If you want to own a gun but having to register it be financially liable for its use, then maybe you arent actually mature enough to own a gun.

          • I didn’t say registration was a punishment. It is a chilling effect on the exercise of a right. That is, and rightly so, unconstitutional.

            Would it or should it be tolerated to require getting government permission to interracially marry, be registered to get an abortion, or to purchase a religious book? Or would you call someone who object to things such as that “a whiny bitch” as well?

        • Note that slippery slope is only a fallacy if you can’t prove it’s happened before.

          • Have you ever heard of Europe ?

            I have, because I was born and I live there.

            France, the UK, … all had registration schemes “for the greater good”. Those honest (= stupid) enough to comply and register their guns were then forced to surrender some of them a few years down the road because they now were considered “sooper-evil” by the stroke of a pen (hint: in France, most firearms law is not voted by our representatives but by technocrats with 30+ careers whichever the political party holds the keys of the town).

            I still fail to see how a frigging piece of paper or a record on a computer hard drive is going to save any life.

            We have drug dealers, robbers who all get their hands on full-auto AK47s (AKMs !), handguns and do not hesitate to use them. When you make ten grands a week selling coke and MJ, you can definitely afford to pay three grands for an AK. Unregistered AKs, of course.

            Call it slippery slope or “salami tactics”, but if has been f*cking in the works in Europe for the past 30+ years and it definitely has hurt gun ownership.

        • Registration has lead to denial of registration for NFA items where the local sheriff or chief arbitrarily refuses to sign a simple form.

          Without that signature registration cannot proceed and ownership is denied.

          On the capricious and mercurial whim of an appointed government employee in many cases.

          • Europe? In Britain there was a school shooting by a mentally unstable man in 1996. He killed 17 children all aged under 6 years old. All ownership of handguns was petitioned and banned. Since then, there has been one shooting incident with a shotgun. ONE.

          • And yet in Britain the violent crime rate is higher than in the U.S. They just don’t use firearms as often.

            And in Britain the rate of crimes committed with firearms went up after handguns were banned. How did that happen? Could it be that firearms are no more difficult to acquire on the black market than are recreational drugs? Why yes. Yes it does. Therefore what it means is that the only people the ban stopped from acquiring firearms are those that would use them in a lawful manner, such as self-defense.

            So what is your point about there only being “one” shooting incident with a shotgun?

            And the government measures the murder rate differently than in the U.S. so comparing murder rates between the U.S. and Britain is impossible.

        • The right to keep and bear arms does not interfere with anyone’s rights.

          SHOOTING is strictly regulated. You are accountable for EVERY round fired.
          Thus, your argument concerning infringement of your rights by the right to keep and bear arms is invalid.

      • Gosh, I think the POINT of the registration would be because people DON’T want the mentally ill, the disgruntled ex husbands and the people that psychiatrists deem unstable to purchase weapons, as these are types of people with proven track records of violence with deadly weapons like GUNS.

        But why am I arguing with people who think complex mechanical killing machine ownership is a “right” but living in a home or seeing a doctor isn’t.

        • Already illegal, MGO, but thanks for showing how much time you’ve invested in researching this debate topic.

          Further this “Nut” lives in Massachusetts, where all LEGAL guns are registered with the state. Yet there are criminals, dangerous people, and mentally ill people still roving the gang-infested areas with guns.

          Further these lunatics are stabbing innocent people who are disarmed by those very laws.

          Further the laws aren’t being enforced, so instead the registry has only been used for confiscation of lawfully held guns for political reasons.

          seems like a slippery slope to me.

        • Please explain the process by which registration would prevent the wrong people from acquiring guns. If such a process would work perhaps it could also be used to prevent underage drinking and the use of recreational drugs.

          I think you have a basic misunderstanding of rights. Something cannot be legitimately called a right if it must be provided by someone else. If a doctor must provide care to someone that cannot afford it then either the doctor or whoever actually pays the bill is a slave to the recipient of the care. Not so with the right to self-defense and the right to possess the tools to self-defense.

          If you think self-defense is not a right then you would be able to consistently conclude that owning firearms is not a right. Otherwise you end up in a difficult logic position. Is it your claim that self-defense is not a right?

          You might also want to read this post which I think will address some of your claims and concerns about gun ownership and the right to self-defense.

    • So you see a problem with taxing fundamental rights? Really? You don’t think that the ability of the government to register people and their possessions and tax them will chill the exercise of the right? Perhaps a poll-tax to keep the poor idiots from voting would be a good idea? A $50 tax on bibles would raise a lot of dough, and of course it could be $100 on Korans because they are more likely to be terrorists, and we have to make sure they pay their own costs. It’s not like cigarette taxes are designed to discourage smoking, they are purely for revenue, right?

      • Cigarettes and guns both kill a lot of people. They should be handled with caution. No one (who really wants them) buys less cars or cigarettes or alcohol, all potentially dangerous items in the wrong hands, just because there is an extra tax on them. You see this as a stepping stone to all-out banishment, but that is not what she is arguing and that is not what her suggestions are meant to do. You’re making the assumption that this is the first step toward an extreme evil end, but what if it really helped lower the amount of unprovoked shootings in this country. There has never been a suggestion that bibles should be taxed in this argument, and your fear of these extreme, unrelated consequences makes it impossible to get anything done. Just as no one was suggesting people should be able to marry animals when they suggested any two human adults in love should be able to be married in the eyes of the law, no one is suggesting a bible be taxed by saying there should be better systems in place for the purchasing of firearms. Stick to the issue.

        • You are comparing use of a tool for self defense to use of a drug (cigarettes and alcohol) for pleasure?

          You have bigger problems than a misunderstanding of the US Constitution if you can’t see this as an invalid comparison.

          • I didn’t make the comparison, but I’ll point out that guns are often used for pleasure and many people fighting against having better regulations on them would argue that. It was brought up that cigarettes are taxed. I was pointing out that they are both dangerous. Just like cars are, which also have practical functions. Guns should be used for self-defense, but are often misused with SEVERE, deadly consequences.

        • It’s called an “analogy”. Look it up.

          Guns also save a lot of people. I don’t think Cigarettes can make that claim.

          No one buys less cars just because they are too expensive? Really? No one has ever quit smoking Cigarettes because it became too expensive? Really? That’s really your argument here or am I missing something?

          The interesting thing is that the very people who most need to be able to defend themselves…people who live in high crime, low income areas…are the very people disproportionately affected by restrictions that increase the costs and difficulty in purchasing and owning effective means of self defense.

          And, yes, we do see this as a stepping stone to increasingly more draconian restrictions with the ultimate goal being a total government monopoly on force. We see it that way because it’s happened many times and in many places (look up the history of gun control in Great Britain…talk about the slowly boiling frog effect). We see it that way because many of the proponents of such laws give us every reason to believe so in their words and actions; they have repeatedly made their intentions clear and we believe them.

          A total government monopoly on force IS evil plain and simple. Just because YOU can’t conceive of the possibility that our government could become tyrannical someday doesn’t preclude it from actually happening and history is pretty clear on the subject. I’m not just concerned with the potential of myself being subject to tyranny…I’m concerned about my grandchildren and their grandchildren and their grandchildren as well.

          • Heck….we see it that way because the gun control people have TOLD US THAT WHAT THEY ARE DOING.

            I am constantly amazed by the people jumping into the anti-rights fight without actually checking to see the lay of the land. Are you as tired as I am of repeating the same facts over and over to the “new” anti-rights bigots?

          • Right, because wanting a modicum of safety on a system that still freely allows responsible adults to own a weapon is “evil” and draconian.

            And a man firing hot pieces of metal into the chests of innocent people in public spaces is a “right”.

            Funny how people who are opponents of gun rights are never saying that we’re going to slide down a slippery slope of every man, woman and child shooting each other, yet gun advocates all seem to think even the tiniest bit of gun control will devolve into all out totalitarian, Orwellian dystopia. That fact alone is why people call gun rights advocates “nuts” because they can’t see anything but black and white in a world full of gray.

          • Wanting safety and achieving it are two different things. Perhaps you can answer Just One Question:

            Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

            No. Shooting innocent people is not a right. That is a straw man argument or else you have some serious misunderstandings of our position and the U.S. Supreme Court decisions. You can’t possibly believe all nine justices would agree people have such a right. Or do you?

            Some things are black and white. Lots of other things are gray. That there exists a specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is very black and white. All nine justices agree with this. The arguments are extremely clear to me. Is there something in the rulings or the arguments for it being an individual right unclear to you such that you see shades of gray in the rulings? If so then please explain your confusion and I’ll do my best to explain it to you.

        • Tobacco, when used as directed by the maker, causes early mortality and morbidity. Guns, when used according to manufacturer directions, are safe, and can save lives, and training in their use is conductive to responsible behavior. Guns are a specific enumerated right, with a clear connection to a specific desirable outcome (a free state, that is, the condition of being a free person). Tobacco isn’t a right, offers little benefit (unless you are a SS actuary), and dulls the senses.
          HUGE differences.
          Do you also support annual registration and competency testing to exercise the right to vote? Certainly that has at least as large an effect on the common good.

    • Lennon:

      See above. Buying, possessing, using, even carrying a gun around with you are NOT analogous to “street legal” car ownership and a driver’s license.


      Driver’s license — doesn’t require one to have insurance, register a car, etc. — one may freely borrow any legal car and drive it.

      Car ownership — doesn’t require a driver’s license. Unless you have license plates on it, doesn’t require insurance, either.

      You may freely drive your unlicenced car with no insurance all over private property, even if you don;t have a driver’s license. You can freely transport your unlicensed (and not even street legal) vehicle on public streets, so long as it is not being driven or parked there. You can build vehicles that are not registered with the state, and use them on private land. You can buy and sell vehicles across state lines, nor do you need to be an arbitrary age before doing so if you have cash in hand. You can leave your car and keys where someone not normally allowed to drive it (such as a minor, unlicensed person, or your spouse with a DUI) have access.

      You can even drive your unlicensed, not-street-legal, uninsured vehicle on public streets in a bona fide emergency where necessary to save innocent life — which is EXACTLY analogous to peaceably carrying a gun in public for self defence.

      If guns were treated like cars, I’d be able to build my own machineguns, shoot them all I want on private property (like my land), freely buy and sell them across state lines, freely carry them in public, etc. It would only be if I pulled it out and USED it in public that I would have to show one of two things:

      1. Either I have previously jumped through administrative hoops AND my use in public was legal, or. . .

      2. My use was necessary to defend life or limb, and therefor the lack of administrative compliance is excused by necessity.

  7. I didn’t even need to read the article to absorb your so-called “opinion”. I can tell you need attention, and a gun to substitute for your underwhelming genitalia. At least The Croquette has erudite points. I’m assuming that you’re regurgitating Alex Jones.

    You writing a blog is a waste of the infinite space of the internet. And that’s saying something.

    • Congratulations! You will be featured on an upcoming Markley’s Law Monday! Currently they are scheduled out through the middle of March. I’m a little behind or I could have them scheduled for about a year in advance. But I’ll try to move you close to the head of the queue.

      Your assumption would be wrong. I’ve spent about two minutes of my life listening to Alex Jones and that was about 1:55 wasted. But I’m an extremely patient person.

      As for the blog being a waste perhaps you missed the awards I have received. Check out the bottom of the right column on the front page. Nearly two million visitors would seem to be worth something as well.

    • Another person that has some serious gender confusion, or else has never seen a picture of a girl with a gun. Name calling and insults instead of facts and science. As expected from someone that demands comfy chains for everyone else so they can feel safe…right up until they see the firing squad of the people they helped put in power.

    • “I can tell you need attention, and a gun to substitute for your underwhelming genitalia.”

      I can tell you need attention, and a forum to subsitute for your overwhelming fixation on the genitalia of others.

  8. The problem with the whole 2nd amendment debate is that anyone who cares has already made up their mind about the philosophy behind the arguments. Some set of experiences with firearms or hunting or gun violence or marksmanship has colored your worldview of guns and who should have them. The other problem is that each side jumps to conclusions and stereotypes the other. If you favor gun control then you’re an naive liberal-solicalist child who wants the centrally governed totalitarin nanny state to keep you safe. If you oppose restrictions on gun rights then your a selfish inbred redneck who wants to return to the colonial era and live in an abandoned cabin eating MREs. Neither of these people exist, but everyone points to them as if they do.

    If you’ve had any real experience with a gun then your opinion should be respected. Firearms have been (and will continue to be) a big part of our history and our culture, used in ways that have made us proud and made us mourn. I’m not afraid to consider all sides of the debate because it’s an argument that will likely never be resolved.

    For the record: Support concealed carry, Against firearm registry, Support insurance requirement, Support banning mentally ill from ownership, Support banning felon ownership

  9. I take a pretty strong objection to your blatant equivocation of he Coquette’s definition of “The Greater Good” and “genocide”. Coquette uses the phrase with specific reference to responsible gun ownership in order to prevent further tragedies. There is context to her words and the cherry picking of her phrases throughout her arguments is the same sort of logic applied to understanding the Constitution to support your radical and selfish views of individual liberties with disregard to the social contract. While we’re taking things to the extreme, it was a ” wingnut patriot” and supporter of “individual liberties” who shot up LAX. Not fun to have extremist actions associated with your side of things, is it? This is what she’s talking about. All of the conjecture and extremist thinking here is the exact lack of “nuance” and “myopia” that stops anyone in this country from having a real conversation about responsible gun ownership and letting the rest of us move forward into a more cooperative and respectable state of being.

    For the record, yes, if you open a door, a moose might run in. Same with gun registry leading to gun seizure. But the odds are against both.

    • I take a pretty strong objection to your blatant equivocation of Coquette’s definition of “The Greater Good” and “something that will work as described”. My personal resistance to registration and insurance is that IT WON’T WORK. Not to reduce crime, anyway. There is a number of reasons I would reference. 1. Criminals don’t necessarily get guns through normal channels and so won’t automatically have their guns registered. 2. Criminals, I would propose and I think you’d agree, are less likely to voluntarily register their guns than law abiding citizens. 3. Criminals who have unregistered guns won’t be required to admit it under 5th amendment protections. 4. I’d say it’s a lot more likely that a moose walk into my house than future politician not twisting the law to force disarmament of the population. I don’t leave my door open, so why would I “trust” someone from a particular subset of the community that has already proven cannot be trusted? 5. They can’t take it if it’s not registered. 6. They can’t force me to insure it if it’s not registered. I could go on.

    • “For the record, yes, if you open a door, a moose might run in. Same with gun registry leading to gun seizure. But the odds are against both.”

      Except that’s exactly what happened in Great Britain.

    • I’ve never received a copy of this so-called “social contract” that I never signed. Could you post it here?

    • Do you have any evidence about his being a “patriot?” Other shooters have had manifestos that sounded “right wing” until you read the whole thing and it turns out they were leftist “occupy” types. Have you seen the note or just parts leaked by anonymous sources?

  10. Why do think that an enumerated right in the Constitution can’t be legislated on? All enumerated rights in the Constitution have supporting laws and interpretive case law that state the limit of those rights. For example, you are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures, but that doesn’t mean that the police can’t stop you on the street and ask you questions.

    • I didn’t and don’t say it can’t be legislated on. I have been saying you cannot be forced to get government permission to exercise a right and the exercise of a right cannot be taxed.

      • But what the person was advocating for was government regulation of this right, which is different than getting government permission to carry a gun. An analogous example of this in other areas is that religious organizations need to get tax exemption status from the government. Another, is that practitioners of a religion can’t just break the law because their religion requires it (take for instance the case involving Native Americans where the court found that they couldn’t smoke peyote even though it was part of the ir religious practices). Another example is that the government can limit free speech in specific instances.

        Further, has the court even flatly stated that the term “bear arms” refers exclusively to guns? Can’t it refer to knives and bats and other weapons?

        • But the fact is that requiring someone to buy insurance might be denying them that right, if they cannot pay the premiums. Poor folk have more “need” for a gun for self defense than most “middle class” people, because they tend to live in worse neighborhoods. We are seeing it right now with health insurance.

        • “Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American. … The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people”

          Tench Coxe

          Yes, swords, knives, bayonets (unfortunately useless for drive-by’s, so why are bayonet lugs so ‘eeee-vil?), Hand-gisarms, Arquebuses, Lances(unbarbed) and Halberds as well are all protected.

          But of all these, the current state of the art firearm is the easiest to use and is most predominate in the area of ‘arms’ capable of being borne.

          Your mileage may differ, however.

        • And the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation and Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership have applied for and received tax exempt status. Neither the members of those organizations or the members of the religious organizations have to be registered. The texts of those religions do not need to be registered and neither should the arms protected by the Second Amendment.

          Free speech limits are always punishment for misuse/abuse of the right after the fact. There is no “prevention of slander/libel” movement like there is with the “prevention of gun violence” movement.

          And acceptable regulation of the right to bear arms might be a law against carrying a gun tucked inside the waistband without a good holster. The law has minimal impact on the right to bear arms and is effective in achieving the desired goal–fewer accidental discharges.

          There have been some cases claiming Second Amendment protection for knives. I’m not sure of the status of those. What is your point? If important I could probably pursue that some.

        • A license is the very definition of “getting government permission.”

          As for the definition of “bearing arms” referring to other weapons….yes.

          Heller defined those weapons protected under the 2nd Amendment. However, I don’t think that there has been a case to expand that definition.

  11. Since it was brought up, the slippery slope fallacy is a term from formal debates where example A conjecturally leads to example n without supporting evidence of a logical progression.

    However, in the real world there are slippery slopes where the presence of the first law leads to the passage of the second and so on until there are no rights remaining. This has been seen with guns more than once and since it takes decades of hard work to reverse a law it’s considered far better to fight their passage in the first place and skip all of the potential harm of having it on the books.

    The historical fact is that governments can’t be trusted with lists of gun owners. All too often those lists become the means to disarm the law abiding. And it has happened in the US and it is happening in California since they have recently banned a subset of firearms which were registered.

    Often the argument to ban guns is couched in terms of saving lives. That would be a noble goal; except that deaths caused by the criminal use of firearms is trivial compared to the number of deaths caused by governments deciding that a particular group needs to be eliminated. Hitler and the holocaust are a common example, but he’s just an honorable mention in the race to murder the most of your own citizens. Every nation that’s murdered millions of its own people has gun registration followed by gun prohibition before any “undesirables” are arrested or killed. It literally takes centuries for the criminals to murder enough people at their present rates to catch up with the number of people murdered in a mere 40 years of the 20th century.

    That the entire intent of the 2nd amendment was that the populace be armed well enough to resist tyranny (however unlikely) seems to contraindicate the government having the power to even locate all the guns, let alone confiscate them. The people who wrote the Bill of Rights left copious notes about their position and the intent of every one of the first ten amendments (and of the Constitution itself).

    Because lists can be used to do so much harm to the populace, it is wise to prevent any lists to be made of both guns and their owners. Requiring insurance is merely making a list that is held in the hands of a private company. Those lists could be appropriated and then used to confiscate.

    Remember the intent of the 2nd. It is to allow the populace to be armed well enough to resist tyranny. In practical terms that means the citizenry must have access to an arsenal equal to the government and not subject to the government’s permission because tyranny is a government job.

    • ” Requiring insurance is merely making a list that is held in the hands of a private company. Those lists could be appropriated and then used to confiscate.”

      D’OH! I never even thought of that. That observation will now be used. Awesome.

  12. Last time I checked, “centralized firearm registration and liability insurance” was not synonymous with an all out ban of firearms and repealing of the 2nd amendment.

    • That’s the way it worked in the UK. That’s the way it worked in Russia. That’s the way it worked in post-Weimar Republic Germany.

      Sometimes you have to get your experience first hand by making the bad decisions and then thinking about it really hard when you wake up in the hospital bed while inventorying what body parts you no longer have.

      A better way to get experience is to see the terrible flaming wreck and say, Damn, I am never going to get myself in that situation.

      • My first squad leader told me this:

        “Experience is the best teacher, and someone else’s experience is cheaper and painless.”

    • Also its a bit of a false argument. Also claiming that certain oppressed people can own SOME limited guns isn’t infringement is like the various “Defense of Marriage” types saying “Gays have the right to marry! They just need to marry somebody of the opposite sex!”

      Many of the places praised by gun control types seem to have the gun rights limited to a limited classification of “Sporting Arms”.

      One forgets that George Washington was not crossing the Delaware to get to his duck blind.

      Further I would ad that owning guns ONLY for hunting and sport shooting is not a particularly strong argument for owning guns at all.

      For instance let’s say I own only one gun. A Biden-approved Over-under Shotgun. I use said shotgun to break sporting clays once a week, and to kill a few birds during their respective hunting season.

      Yeah that’s a fairly non-threatening way to own and use a gun for most of the people who clamor for gun control. Still this gun can still be handled improperly and cause an accidental injury of death (ask Dick Cheney) it can also STILL be misused by a child, or even stolen and turned into a black market firearm.

      Meanwhile take a concealable handgun or a 16″ AR-15. Now you have a gun that indeed can be used for fun and sport, but also is an ideal choice for personal protection and home defense.

      Now not only do you a glorified toy, as is the 28″ O/U shotgun, but you have a life saving tool.

      Guns save lives, and its VERY well documented by some very reliable sources, and that is a VERY good reason to own and promote the lawful ownership of guns.

  13. So I keep seeing that people (even Temocil) talking about liability insurance and how that is a good. Seeing that I live in Oregon where such a bill was introduced and the fact that I actually work in insurance, you don’t understand what they really want.

    There are two instances where you likely already have liability coverage if you have a homeowner’s or renter’s insurance. Those instances would be if you accidentally shot someone or shot someone in reasonable defense of property or persons.

    The Oregon law sought to make you strictly liability (you are assumed at fault) for any discharge of your gun. This included if your gun was stolen and then used to shoot someone. Then they stated that the insurance company had to pay the claim and couldn’t deny coverage, but they could later to go after the insured if they would otherwise would have denied the claim but for the new law.

    The issue that type of insurance doesn’t exist. There is an exclusion for intentional injury in every policy and no insurance company in their right mind would ever write a policy that would cover such a thing. So if it had passed what would have gun owners done? Secondly wouldn’t there be a difference in say the hunter who goes to the range once or twice and hunts a week versus say myself is carries a gun in public everyday? That wasn’t addressed just a blanket requirement and finally how is this going to be enforced? Do I have to carry a copy of my homeowners policy with me anytime I have my gun with me? Do I have to file my insurance with the state like I do with the DMV?

    Finally there is the little issue of putting conditions on a right. If a poll tax is a violation of your voting rights, how is liability insurance not a violation of your second amendment rights.

  14. I have always felt that (at the grass-roots level, not at the national-stage-politician level) gun-control advocates are pushing their ideas with the objective to reduce crime and violence. A worthy objective, itself not objectionable and one that the gun-rights advocates are pushing for as well. The difference, in my opinion, is in the tactics used by the different sides.

    Our side notes that guns allow the weak to resist the will of the strong. That an female college student leaving the university library at night can protect herself better with a pistol than a rape-whistle. That an elderly man is better off with a 1911 than his car keys against 5 thugs with a baseball bat. And, yes, that the citizens of the United States at one time said “No More” to an oppressive government and had to back it up with the force of arms – and may again in the future. Oh, and guns can be fun too.

    Their side thinks that their good intentions and, apparently, magic will cause individual firearms and the knowledge to create them to disappear overnight. Along with all the basis of human violence. Gone. Poof.

    I’m an engineer. I do a lot of risk/reward evaluations in my job. I think I’d take the (statistically rare) mass shootings to be able to defend my family against those who would use force to do me harm (which happens statistically rare-but-not-quite-so-rarely) over the Underpants Gnomes theory of gun control (1. Pass a Law!!! 2. ??? 3. No more violence!!) every time.

    Call me back when you figure out step 2.

  15. Pingback: Sharp as a Marble - Why ‘gun liability insurance’ is a bad idea

  16. You guys are hilarious. Come to the UK. Unlicensed gun ownership is a criminal offence and we’ve not fallen apart just yet 😉

    • OTOH, the UK records “murders” by their final disposition in a conviction. Meaning they could find thousands of dead bodies with bullet holes in them, but until they convict someone for murdering them, the stats don’t show any murders as having happened, even if they are all clearly dead from homicidal violence. You are on the slippery slope, and farther down than us, just not quite there yet. You will be, though.
      Of course, you could also say that even though gun ownership rates are going up, violent crime rates are getting better, so it certainly can’t be the guns causing the crime.

  17. My goodness. What have we here?

    The lede:

    “It’s exactly what critics of the Common Core school curriculum warned about: Partisan political statements masquerading as English lessons finding their way into elementary school classrooms.”

    In a “lesson” about how to use possessive nouns, we find the following statements:

    “He [the President] makes sure the laws of the country are fair.”

    “The commands of government officials must be obeyed by all.”

    “The wants of an individual are less important than the well-being of the nation.”

    Naw, it’s all imaginary, ain’t it?

  18. As a resident of New Jersey, I can say that state regulation of firearms does lead to the denial of people civil rights. We have cases in the garden state where women have been specifically denied a firearm purchase card based on the “descretion” of a single individual. Even in cases where permits to purchase are issued it often takes months to go through the process, and that is just to own a gun.

  19. Constructing false dichotomies, especially ones involving Godwin’s Law, isn’t an especially sound way of proving your argument.

    Don’t worry, Kurtz, firearm liability insurance isn’t going to kick in your door with it’s jackboots and send you to libertarian concentration camps. If a little paperwork and record-keeping is all it took to reduce a democracy to the world from The Road Warrior then your country would’ve unraveled way back in the eighteenth century.

    • I have no idea who “Kurtz” is. Are you sure you are referring to someone real?

      There won’t be any mandated firearm liability insurance anymore than there will be mandated book or religion liability insurance.

      • I am not surprised that you have no idea. If indeed you ever stop clutching your pearls and put down your firearms long enough to pick up a book, this one’s pretty short: http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/526/pg526.html

        Now, I’ve read the second line of your reply going on half a dozen times and I still haven’t been able to divine your meaning. Are you equating guns to religion and books? Are you suggesting that ideas and beliefs are as dangerous as a loaded firearm? Are you suggesting people should be held liable for all these things, or that they should not? Because if it’s the latter, I have some bad news for you.

        • Nothing like somebody making an unfounded judgement call against somebody they don’t know to really make an impression.

          Yep, Joe is just a big old dumbshit and not well read at all. I think it would be well founded for me to call you an idiot ragweed.

          Still I’ll honor you with a reply to your questions you SHOULD be able to figure out on your own.

          “Are you equating guns to religion and books?”

          Yes he is. One is the 1st Amendment, the other is the 2nd.

          “Are you suggesting that ideas and beliefs are as dangerous as a loaded firearm?”

          That is also true. One must simply note religious wars, genocides, and the amazing death toll done by people who were motivated to create a “Utopia’ from Marx’s “Communist Manifesto”.

          “Are you suggesting people should be held liable for all these things, or that they should not?”

          We sure are, and that’s why we’re opposed to the stupid liability insurance idea suggested. Lawful gun owners are NOT the problems. Just look at the deaths by firearms in this country. First up Approximately 55% of all firearms related deaths in this nation are suicides. While sad, the killer and the “Victim” are the same person. No insurance needed, its all “In house”. For the remainder the vast majority are ILLEGAL gun owners, often engaging in the ILLEGAL drug trade in this nation in one way or another.

          The idea of a liability insurance to be paid by lawful gun owners to somehow pay the liability of criminals and people who have chosen to take their own life is both foolish, and punitive.

          • “We sure are, and that’s why we’re opposed to the stupid liability insurance idea suggested”

            This level of cognitive dissonance is staggering, but not altogether shocking.

        • Books, religion, and ideas have been responsible for far more innocent deaths than ownership of firearms. In fact there is an inverse relationship between private firearm ownership and innocent deaths. Yet the restrictions on books and religion are minimal because we value the good that comes from the free exercise of speech and religion. And so it is with firearms. That someone does not or cannot recognize the good from firearms ownership does not mean that it does not exist and that the courts do not recognize the parallels between the First and Second Amendments. They do recognize it and are slowly overturning the repressive laws preventing people from exercising their rights.

          People that continue to advocate for the oppression of gun owners are no different than those who continued to advocate for the oppression of former slaves after the passage of the 13th Amendment. Those people too could rationalize all their “common-sense” laws but it did not and does not matter. It was, and is, a denial of civil rights to do so regardless of whether it is a right guaranteed by the First, Second, or 13th Amendment. See also the legal meaning of a “chilling effect”.

          As for suggested reading material I think you would benefit from reading the U.S. Constitution including all the amendments and a few court cases. I didn’t recognize the name Kurtz but I’ll bet you don’t recognize Gura, Kates, Hardy, and Kopel. I’ve met and talked to all except Kates who I have corresponded with. Those people are civil rights attorneys with special expertise in the 2nd Amendment. Their writings and work are directly applicable to the topic at hand. I have read most of their books and many of their papers and court briefs.

          I read the plot summary of Heart of Darkness on Wikipedia to figure out who Kurtz is and can’t imagine how it applies here but I’ll read the entire thing later.

          You should not think that I am not well read. Here is a partial list of the period 2006 to 2010.

          I am saying there are already liability laws that hold people responsible for their action. Any liability insurance required to exercise your Second Amendment rights is no more legally or morally acceptable than similar liability insurance to exercise any other specific enumerated right such as the First Amendment rights.

          Go ahead give me the “bad news”.

          • Oh my god, here I was merrily reading your reply expecting some more fallacious reasoning and mildly bothersome misreadings of arguments and then you went ahead and equated contemporary gun owners to freed slaves. Sir, you done swallowed the blue pill.

          • And then you fail to present any argument at all–let alone evidence.

            Are you conceding by withdrawing from the case?

        • Are you suggesting that ideas and beliefs are as dangerous as a loaded firearm?

          Oh hell no.

          We (or at least I) am stating outright that they are far, far MORE dangerous.

  20. Troll is trolling.

    Interesting that those who seem to be so smugly confident in their dreams of gun control seem to be completely disinterested in actually supporting their beliefs.

    Namely because they cannot.

  21. As usual with Liberals they have no respect for the law when it is not on their side. For them the law is only important when it is backing their agenda. Up yours Coquette!

Comments are closed.