Endgame: Mark Pryor opposes Feinstein’s assault-weapons ban

posted at 9:31 am on January 31, 2013 by Allahpundit

Noteworthy, not just because he’s a Democrat but because Pryor actually voted yes on Feinstein’s last AWB bill in March 2004. That was sort of safe to do since he wasn’t facing reelection until 2008. The timing is different now — his seat is up next year in a state that produced Bill Clinton but now votes reliably red — and so he’s taking no chances.

As a coalition of gun control advocates pushes for a new federal Assault Weapons Ban, U.S. Senators Mark Pryor and John Boozman of Arkansas say they cannot support California Senator Dianne Feinstein’s bill. Pryor says the objective should be to lessen gun violence not violate people’s constitutional rights.

“I think everyone agrees that the goal here is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and young people while at the same time protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” Pryor said. “The question is, how do we do this and how do we lessen the gun violence? I will continue to look at proposals here and also listen to Arkansans and law enforcement.”

Pryor says the bill is cumbersome, confusing, and includes about 100 pages that list specific weapons. He says there are no details on why certain guns are banned and others are accepted.

For all the media buzz about public opinion on guns having changed dramatically, how many red-state Democrats in the Senate feel secure enough electorally to back a new AWB? The only one I can think of offhand is McCaskill and she’s onboard only because she doesn’t have to face the music again until 2018. Joe Manchin has made noise about doing more to regulate guns but the AWB appears to be a bridge too far. Mark Begich is a flat no. As of last month, Max Baucus and Jon Tester were taking a “cautious approach” and have been lying low ever since. Democrats will happily run kids up onstage for their gun-control photo ops, but if passing something For The Children involves taking a political risk, oh well. Moment of truth for Harry Reid, then: Now that he knows the AWB will fail, and fail with not a few Democrats voting no, does he bring it to the floor? He has to, right? It’s going to screw up the Democrats’ “Republicans killed the AWB” talking point, but they’re better off trying to finesse that (“it was mostly Republicans who killed the AWB”) than irritating their base by not even chancing a vote. Then again, if they couldn’t muster the stones to hold hearings about the Tucson shooting because they were too worried about the election, why would Reid muster them to force a vote on the AWB?

Via Newsbusters, here’s Scarborough achieving peak smug by asserting that Gayle Trotter looked like a “jackass” for defending assault weapons at yesterday’s Senate hearing. Watch the clip, then go here and watch the clip of a woman in Texas who found herself confronted by three home invaders while she was putting her six-year-old to bed. They don’t say what type of weapon she had but it sure looks like a semiautomatic from the video. And if you’re serious about stopping massacres, then you have to be serious about getting rid of semiautomatics, not just “assault weapons.” If not now, then eventually.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 10:43 AM

If 1934 NFA happened, I truly believe that we wouldn’t see those type prices and they would be more frequently purchased.

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Too late for Pryor. We dumped Lincoln over her Liberalism and Pryor is next. I call his office weekly to torment his staff.

Charlemagne on January 31, 2013 at 11:01 AM

What happens when I develop my inner Jedi and am able to toss people around using just my mind? Wouldn’t that be classified as a weapon? I’m not quite there yet, but how are they gonna regulate that?
HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Remember: “there is no spoon”

Weapons will continue to advance faster than liberals can try to regulate them out of existence. And conservative principles will be damn near impossible to de-regulate.

Keep trying Jedi…you will eventually get there!

can_con on January 31, 2013 at 11:02 AM

Resist We Much on January 31, 2013 at 10:45 AM

I’ve noticed that it’s always you who initiates contact with me.

It’s never the other way around.

Your psychiatrist called. He wants me out of your head, now!

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Yes, because -if only figuratively- dancing naked in the street while holding aloft a “I’m with stupid” sign that has a downward-pointing arrow is definitely not a way to beg for contact.

/bwah-ha-ha

M240H on January 31, 2013 at 11:03 AM

…Pryor actually voted yes on Feinstein’s last AWB bill in March 2004. That was sort of safe to do since he wasn’t facing reelection until 2008. The timing is different now — his seat is up next year in a state that produced Bill Clinton but now votes reliably red — and so he’s taking no chances.

How obscene to imply that an American politician would make a determination about a constitutional right based upon his own self-interest in getting re-elected…
This thinking implies that our servants in Washington are not all principled statesmen, to their core, and little more than self-serving power mongers….

Don L on January 31, 2013 at 11:03 AM

I’ve noticed that it’s always you who initiates contact with me.

It’s never the other way around.

Your psychiatrist called.
He wants me out of your head, now!

Why do you always have to alert the world to my utter stupidity? IT’S JUST NOT FAIR!!!!!

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Edited for accuracy.

Resist We Much on January 31, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Don L on January 31, 2013 at 11:03 AM

I shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

kingsjester on January 31, 2013 at 11:05 AM

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Ok, so what your saying is that you weren’t confusing machine guns with semi automatics is that correct, and that machine guns were not used in the crimes? If that is the case then I stand corrected and you in fact were misrepresented. I do have a question though, do you infer that assault weapons were used in those crimes, or in at least some of them?

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Resist We Much on January 31, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Chump got so tired of the verbal floggings, I’m on his “ignore” list now. LOL.

kingsjester on January 31, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Socratease on January 31, 2013 at 10:55 AM

.300 WSM necked down to 7mm/.284 ain’t bad either. The .300 case has a longer neck than 7 WSM.

M240H on January 31, 2013 at 11:09 AM

We have tried all this before, almost verbatim with Clinton, it didn’t work, he got the ban and it stopped nothing! Try, fail, repeat using exactly same methodology. Who does that?/s

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Wow, I gave him the correction and he disappeared, who knew?

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 11:11 AM

*snip*

If that is the case then I stand corrected and you in fact were misrepresented.

Thank you! I respect your integrity regarding this matter.

I do have a question though, do you infer that assault weapons were used in those crimes, or in at least some of them?

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 11:05 AM

I’m less interested in the technical definition of the weapons used in Aurora, Newtown, etc, than I am in the fact that they have no other purpose than to kill large groups of people quickly.

I fully support individual gun ownership for personal/household protection, sport and target shooting and hunting. I don’t support the ability of any citizen to stockpile masses of weapons and ammunition. The 2nd Amendment, like any right, is not unlimited. Reasonable constraints can and should be enacted in any society that calls itself civilized.

Now, I have things to do, so I’m out of here. Those who think I’m running away; please enjoy your wank.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

I also have to wonder how a Gatling gun would fit, if someone could get his hands on an original.

Liam on January 31, 2013 at 10:40 AM

http://www.cabelas.com/10-22-accessories-gatling-gun-kit-1.shtml

Super fun to shoot. Not that I…uh…have one…I just heard about it.

Bishop on January 31, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Yeah, but do they make a Gatling holster for concealment?

Two other points:

Can’t we just be like the liberals and insist that our gun rights as well as the modern gun has…evolved?

Shouldn’t we just require any signatories of any gun-grabbing bill to first spend a night alone (no bodyguards Diane) in the darkest streets (no racism implied) of Chicago, or Watts, or…
That would stop this nonsense in its tracks

Don L on January 31, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Collectors I think would love that thought on a Gatlin, but again like you said it presents its difficulties, and when I mean collectors I mean licensed ones, and I think you would classify that as a relic, not sure, but those damn licenses are expensive to maintain, plus the insurance on your pieces.

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 10:49 AM

If you want a chance to shoot guns like these, come out to Colorado Springs around Sep 11. Dragon Man has an annual September 11 Memorial Machine Gun Shoot on his range – small entry fee then pay as you go to shoot – price depends on the weapon and cost of ammo.
http://www.dragonmans.com/

My boys and I have been to several of these and have shot at least 20 different weapons. It’s a real blast!! (literally – he occasionally puts milk jugs full of gasoline out on the range for people to shoot at)

dentarthurdent on January 31, 2013 at 11:27 AM

The people who write in to Pensacola’s local liberal mullet wrapper don’t even like Joe Scarborough. Everyone’s glad he’s gone and he won’t find many friends left to return to if he comes back.

mintycrys on January 31, 2013 at 11:27 AM

I’m running away; to enjoy my wank.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Run away little boy, your mommy is calling

Conservative4Ever on January 31, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Oh, except for Mike Papantonio, probably.

mintycrys on January 31, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Wait…this isn’t a thread about the great Cubs pitcher from 2003?

Jackalope on January 31, 2013 at 11:29 AM

I’m less interested in the technical definition of the weapons used in Aurora, Newtown, etc, than I am in the fact that they have no other purpose than to kill large groups of people quickly.

Sure. I don’t need anything greater than a semi-auto shotgun for my home defense, as I don’t see gang-bangers in my neighborhood.

If I lived there, I’d recommend an AA-12. But, alas, this weapon isn’t available for general public consumption. I would, however, hate to be limited to a 9mm with no more than a seven-clip when a dozen gangstas come through the front door bustin’ caps with their illegally obtained 15-round clips.

So it really isn’t an issue of “technical definition” anymore. Guns will continue to evolve, as will the criminals who already possess illegal firearms… illegally.

Let’s not limit the public on their choice of weapon selection shall we? I mean, afterall, the criminals aren’t.

Turtle317 on January 31, 2013 at 11:35 AM

That would pose another thread for gun-grabbing liberals, because the weapon is belt-fed, which makes it legal far as magazine capacity restrictions are concerned.

I also have to wonder how a Gatling gun would fit, if someone could get his hands on an original.

Liam on January 31, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Actually, belt-fed weapons were included somewhere in the provisions of this aspiring law. I think it was a total prohibition on those. The gatling would depend on the model – some of them were fed with a magazine. It might have been the very first magazine-fed weapon, but I’m not sure.

My point was that the Bill of Rights does not list acceptable arms.

can_con on January 31, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Yeah, I was just clarifying. (Which someone else had already done.)

What happens when I develop my inner Jedi and am able to toss people around using just my mind? Wouldn’t that be classified as a weapon? I’m not quite there yet, but how are they gonna regulate that?

HiJack on January 31, 2013 at 10:56 AM

Your mind will be limited to one thought at a time, including autonomic functions. This will put you on an equal footing with the worst liberals, who can’t walk and chew gum simultaneously. It will be enforced by requiring you to watch Fox News (a la Clockwork Orange) 24/7 until the aversion therapy takes hold.

GWB on January 31, 2013 at 11:35 AM

The 2nd Amendment, like any right, is not unlimited. Reasonable constraints can and should be enacted in any society that calls itself civilized.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Sorry, no. The reasonable constraints already exist: you’re not allowed to use your firearm to harm someone unless they threaten your life/limb/property/etc (depending on locale); you’re not allowed to shoot it off willy-nilly in most places; you’re not allowed to threaten someone with it, except in defense. You’re right, those are reasonable constraints, and they exist regardless of the scary-looking properties of the weapon or its capacity or its concealability.

The restraint on free speech that’s commonly mentioned (shouting fire) is actually not a restriction on your free speech, but it is a restriction on the results of that free speech. If you cause a breach of the peace (by making people stampede out of a crowded place, with no justification for doing so), you will be held accountable – regardless of the content of the speech. A lot like the constraints mentioned in the above paragraph.

GWB on January 31, 2013 at 11:43 AM

I fully support individual gun ownership for personal/household protection, sport and target shooting and hunting. I don’t support the ability of any citizen to stockpile masses of weapons and ammunition. The 2nd Amendment, like any right, is not unlimited. Reasonable constraints can and should be enacted in any society that calls itself civilized.

Now, I have things to do, so I’m out of here. Those who think I’m running away; please enjoy your wank.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Apparently you’re a full blown communist, right?
Then it should be perfectly reasonable to say that no person needs a house bigger than 1000 square feet, or a car that can go any faster than 65 mph, or more than $50 worth of groceries per week, or their own boat, or their own airplane, or on and on and on.

You seem to believe the citizens of this country live only at and for the pleasure of the government. What country do you think you’re in anyway?
Despite what you seem to think, this is NOT Stalinist Russia or Hitler’s Germany where the government decides what I can and cannot have.

I’ve got news for you d!psh!t – human society is NOT entirely civilised, and it never will be. If you’re willing to take on a murderous psycho with just a pair of blunt scissors – go for it.
But as long as there are criminals willing to make home invasions to rob, rape, and kill people, and tyrants wanting to control the population – then I have the right to choose how I will defend myself and my family.

dentarthurdent on January 31, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Resist We Much on January 31, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Great post. I notice none of the leftist morons responded. They can’t, to facts. No proof gun control works. Preponderant proof it doesn’t work, indeed is counter-productive. Current gun laws not being enforced. The entire emotional onslaught a gun-grabbing ruse.

rrpjr on January 31, 2013 at 11:50 AM

The FACT of the matter is that none of the Dims and a good portion of the Repubes cannot be trusted on their “word” AT ALL. They’re liars and have been proven time and time again as such. So, I’m sorry but I will not for one second believe one word that comes out of any of these people’s mouths until their vote is locked in and on the record.

Anyone remember the unbelievable shenanigans that took place leading up to ObamaTax being shoved down our throats? Do you think a bill that could be used to ban and eventually eliminate all lawful gun ownership in the country be any LESS important to them than ObamaTax was?

How long are you sheeple (and I’m referring to the electorate as a whole)going to accept being completely lied to by not only those that are supposed to represent you, but the “President” himself, before you stop listening to them and vote their dishonest, corrupt, money whoring a$$es out of office?!

Meople on January 31, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Considering these types of weapons didn’t exist when the constitution was written, I’d think there’s a pretty simple case to be made that gun rights aren’t automatically extended to these types of weapons capable of allowing a single person to easily kill many people.

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

By that logic, the First Amendment shouldn’t be extended to anything that was written on a computer.

Gelsomina on January 31, 2013 at 12:01 PM

GWB on January 31, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Well said. Chump probably did not understand it…but, well said, anyway.

kingsjester on January 31, 2013 at 12:02 PM

The 2nd Amendment, like any right, is not unlimited. Reasonable constraints can and should be enacted in any society that calls itself civilized.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

So I don’t have a right not to be a slave? That’s a right that should be reasonably curtailed by a civilized society?

dominigan on January 31, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Now if only Rush had called Fluke a “jackass” that would have been A-OK.

monalisa on January 31, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Considering these types of weapons didn’t exist when the constitution was written, I’d think there’s a pretty simple case to be made that gun rights aren’t automatically extended to these types of weapons capable of allowing a single person to easily kill many people.

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Well, if you’re going to get into unreasonable comparisons, how about this one…

At the time when the 2nd Amendment was written, many farmers had longer range, and better accuracy weapons (Kentucky long rifle) than the military (muskets).

So using the inverse of your argument… since that disparity existed at the time of the Constitution, we should also preserve that disparity by equipping American citizens (per Article I Section 8 Clause 16) with better weapons than our military!

dominigan on January 31, 2013 at 12:11 PM

Calls her a “Jackass”
Scarborough is running scared
Because she is right.

The AWB is a women’s issue.

As a man, I can use any gun in the cabinet, because they were all designed for me. Sure the shotgun kicks and I need to use two hands on the 1911, but they all work for me because they were all made for me.

But a woman has fewer choices. A revolver with sufficient stopping power is going have a lot of recoil or be too heavy to hold steady with out a lot of upper body strength. A small automatic is easier to handle, but accuracy suffers. A shotgun is out of the question. Most women will not practice long enough with a shotgun to become proficient, because it beats them up too bad.

A nice AR-15 chambered in .223 with a 30 round magazine, on the other hand, is just right. The round is not too large, so recoil is negligible. The fact that the round is small is made up for the fact that there are 30 available. With a pistol grip and a forend grip, even a slight woman can control the gun and be quite effective. The collapsible stock can be adjusted to her smaller frame.

But the very features that make the AR-15 such a good self-defense choice for women are the features they want to ban. The .223 round, Collapsible stocks, pistol and forend grips, barrel shrouds, and 30 round magazines, these are all on the list of banned features. It is almost as if the intent of the law is to disarm women.

Scarborough knows this.
So his response is “Shut Up”.
With insults thrown in.

Haiku Guy on January 31, 2013 at 12:26 PM

That’s too bad. I was hoping the Dems would ramp up the burn rate of political capital over this wishlist item.

Christien on January 31, 2013 at 12:31 PM

I’m not going to watch a video of a betch telling me my gun should be banned. Screw these communist gun grabbers.

They are impotent political pansies and need to fix the economy.

TX-96 on January 31, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Are there two more idiotic people on TV, concurrently, than Mika and her idiot b-friend?

———
Obama can shoot as good as he stands for the constitution.

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Not three days ago:
 

First, I’m not a “pro-abort”. I am pro-choice. I believe the pregnant woman should have the final say about whether to bring a pregnancy to term, not you or the government.
 
chumpThreads on January 28, 2013 at 1:16 PM

 
Compare/contrast:
 

The 2nd Amendment, like any right, is not unlimited. Reasonable constraints can and should be enacted in any society that calls itself civilized.
 
chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

rogerb on January 31, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Obama wants to take your guns away but he arms the Muslim Brotherhood, fools of the world.

May all who brung/kept him be utterly destroyed by him.

Media, you first.

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 12:45 PM

With a pistol grip and a forend grip, even a slight woman can control the gun and be quite effective.

Haiku Guy on January 31, 2013 at 12:26 PM

Well, not all women. ;)

GWB on January 31, 2013 at 12:45 PM

The 2nd Amendment, like any right, is not unlimited. Reasonable constraints can and should be enacted in any society that calls itself civilized.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Free society, fool.

‘Civilized’ is overrated…just like truly liberal, which none of your ilk are.

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Now, I have things to do, so I’m out of here. Those who think I’m running away; please enjoy your wank.
 
chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

 
You do realize these threads stay active essentially forever, right? You’re not limited in posting within a set number of hours. You could post here again tomorrow to defend your stated positions. Or next week. Heck, you could post here five years later. Watch:
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/12/31/one-more-reason-hillary-must-be-stopped/comment-page-1/#comment-844370
 
(Click to see where I just posted on a headline thread from 2007.)
 
That you don’t stick around after you can’t touch bottom says all anyone needs to know.

rogerb on January 31, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

No explanation, other than because it says so in the Bill of Rights, is needed.

Fool, you ‘erudite’ one, the internet wasn’t available when the 1st was granted you either…meh, I thought you are smarter than this.

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Now, I have things to do, so I’m out of here. Those who think I’m running away; please enjoy your wank.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

You always seem to have something to do right when you’re getting your ignorant rear handed to you.

Chuck Schick on January 31, 2013 at 12:51 PM

If Tom-Shipley is the Tom I have dealt with on another site, he’s not smart at all.

Hard Right on January 31, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Tom_Shipley is Ed’s friend.

He is supposedly an intellectual.

This thread proves that he is far from one.

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Considering these types of weapons didn’t exist when the constitution was written, I’d think there’s a pretty simple case to be made that gun rights aren’t automatically extended to these types of weapons capable of allowing a single person to easily kill many people.

Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v United States, 533 U. S. 27, (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Resist We Much on January 31, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Bishop, I just read your comment on the internet and the 1st. To be sure I did not ‘steal’ your comment when I replied similarly to the ‘erudite’ one, Tom_Shipley.

Any sane person knows this…just not the oh-so-smart leftist tools, including the supposed reasonable ones.

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Considering these types of weapons didn’t exist when the constitution was written, I’d think there’s a pretty simple case to be made that gun rights aren’t automatically extended to these types of weapons capable of allowing a single person to easily kill many people.
 
Tom_Shipley on January 31, 2013 at 9:45 AM

 
Out of curiosity, what’s your rough estimate of how many people read your post?

rogerb on January 31, 2013 at 1:02 PM

This is very significant – repeating for column two:

This is all a red herring. The real aim is to set up a national database so that when the UN mandate becomes international law, which Obama has recently signed up to, your guns will be confiscated.

OldEnglish on January 31, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Never allow yourself to be put on a national or other database.

Never allow your gov’t to determine your ‘sanity’.

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM

I realize this is slightly off-topic, but since the Dems don’t have problems using children for just about any program they want to pass…why don’t the Republicans have a bunch of kids standing next to Boehner or Ryan or Rubio the next time they’re talking about the deficit? I’m think something along the lines of having a kid looking into a camera and saying:

“Senator Reid (or Pelosi or Obama or ______), why do you want to saddle me with $400K in debt that I have no chance to ever pay off? Why do you want to limit my future by spending trillions today that we simply do not have?”

Hate to use the little ones…but it seems to work for them.

ScottiesRule on January 31, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Wyoming and Arizona (soon) approve bills to be exempt from federal gun bans.

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Make the land safe for rapists and murderers.

How progressive.

tom daschle concerned on January 31, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Never allow yourself to be put on a national or other database.

Never allow your gov’t to determine your ‘sanity’.

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM

We are already all in a database. If you have a SSN you are in a government database, and if you pay taxes, you are in a government database.

cptacek on January 31, 2013 at 1:19 PM

What does Blanche Lincoln think????/ er….oops!

ted c on January 31, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Reasonable constraints can and should be enacted in any society that calls itself civilized.

From lucifer-worshipping chump.

How many times was that exact quote kicked around the Führerbunker?

tom daschle concerned on January 31, 2013 at 1:24 PM

cptacek on January 31, 2013 at 1:19 PM

The national gun owners database is what they are after, for very bad reasons, which the left should oppose, alas.

See this significant comment (this thread).

OldEnglish on January 31, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Also, focus on the second part of my comment. When they determine your abilities, your sanity, you are their property. Obamacare will the their tool.

When asked by any doctor if you own guns, the only way to answer is “NO”.

If you answer with “what a question” or “none of your business”, they have to mark “NO” but they put notations in as to what you said.

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 1:26 PM

tom daschle concerned on January 31, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Two links for you:

Why the gun is civilization.
http://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

And:

Hitler Reacts to Brownell’s Pmag Backorder Problem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEHMZZdSjCg

Funny!

Galt2009 on January 31, 2013 at 1:41 PM

The 2nd Amendment, like any right, is not unlimited. Reasonable constraints can and should be enacted in any society that calls itself civilized.

Now, I have things to do, so I’m out of here. Those who think I’m running away; please enjoy your wank.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

lol, I’d run away too, after making a ridiculous statement like that. Using your “logic”, then, gay rights should also be limited, and so should abortion rights and the rights of illegal immigrants. You make it too easy.

A+

PS-how come you’re only interested in the welfare of the 100 or so US victims of “mass shootings” each year, yet are utterly unconcerned with the welfare of the victims of the 3 and a half million home invasions in the US each year?

Del Dolemonte on January 31, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Those Downfall (Hitler reacts) vids never get old!

Don’t worry comrades. Big Sis, Queen Progressive democrat, says you can defend yourself with scissors when confronted by a shooter!

Democrats truly are the party of death.

tom daschle concerned on January 31, 2013 at 2:14 PM

Don’t worry comrades. Big Sis, Queen Progressive democrat, says you can defend yourself with scissors when confronted by a shooter!

Democrats truly are the party of death.

And she is the head of Homeland Security ?
Bet the must be a run on scissors going on right now ?
No, you say. The run is on guns ? Oh.

Jabberwock on January 31, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Tom_Shipley is Ed’s friend.

He is supposedly an intellectual.

This thread proves that he is far from one.

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Actually “friend” might be a bit of a stretch; Ship was actually one of the Leftist Clown Princes of Ed’s prior home, Captain’s Quarters, where he inhabited the same stable as bayam and sesquipedalian.

Del Dolemonte on January 31, 2013 at 2:19 PM

Del, thanks for the update. I recall, vaguely, a comment by Ed, explaining that he’s not a “bad” guy.

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Now, I have things to do, so I’m out of here. Those who think I’m running away; please enjoy your wank.

chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

You always seem to have something to do right when you’re getting your ignorant rear handed to you.

Chuck Schick on January 31, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Especially when one reminds chump about how his Dear Leader needed an alltime record number of other ignorant rears to vote for him in order to win re-election!

Del Dolemonte on January 31, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Ship’s not “bad”, just willfully ignorant just like all the other Dems.

Del Dolemonte on January 31, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Indeed, Del…was just recalling Ed’s comment…been a while.

Because of Ed I expected more from Ship, compared to the other gnats around here.

Cheers, as Ed says.

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Because he took off Chump and I never got to finish and I was going to respond to his comment, about constraints, which by original intent there weren’t any in the 2nd, plus he doesn’t get that the 2nd is more about tyrannical government resistance and deterant and that the other things he listed are just happy by product of. Plus assault weapons is a term wrongly applied and I honestly believe that he knows that, though ultimately until he answers we really don’t know.

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 1:15 PM

It would seem that everyone picked up where I left off and credited themselves extremely well in defense of our rights. Wyoming is also home of the free state project if I am not mistaken.

MarshFox on January 31, 2013 at 3:04 PM

I thought it wasn’t possible to have NEGATIVE respect for somebody, until I saw that clip with Scarborough at the end of it. What a jackass!

JannyMae on January 31, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Mr. Arrogant on January 31, 2013 at 1:51 PM
From that link:

“Speaking is difficult but I need to say something important,” Giffords said. “Too many children are dying
We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is now. You must act. Be courageous, Americans are counting on you.”

I am sorry for what happened to Gabby Giffords, and I wish her well, but I’m disgusted to see her being used as a tool for the leftist gun-grabbers, and her husband is a slimeball who has made a name for himself by smearing Sarah Palin. He can go piss up a rope.

JannyMae on January 31, 2013 at 3:39 PM

I am sorry for what happened to Gabby Giffords, and I wish her well, but I’m disgusted to see her being used as a tool for the leftist gun-grabbers, and her husband is a slimeball…

JannyMae on January 31, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Howdy MF

Schadenfreude on January 31, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Now, I have things to do, so I’m out of here. Those who think I’m running away; please enjoy your wank.
 
chumpThreads on January 31, 2013 at 11:19 AM

You do realize these threads stay active essentially forever, right? You’re not limited in posting within a set number of hours…
 
That you don’t stick around after you can’t touch bottom says all anyone needs to know.
 
rogerb on January 31, 2013 at 12:48 PM

 
It’s uniquely comical to note how an outspoken and low-info Obama voter actually believes he can convince other people that situations beyond his control prevent him from finishing his argument today, tomorrow, the next day, etc.
 
Obama 2013!

rogerb on January 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM

It’s uniquely comical to note how an outspoken and low-info Obama voter actually believes he can convince other people that situations beyond his control prevent him from finishing his argument today, tomorrow, the next day, etc.

Obama 2013!

rogerb on January 31, 2013 at 5:36 PM

and to think I’ll never get to read his usual concise, coherent persuasive post.

arnold ziffel on January 31, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Why not just let the people have CCW’s it’s proved to work.

I would bet the know what works and what doesn’t.

How’s things in gun free Chicago?

InFlorida we reduced violent crime by over 60%. If it just saves one life, yada yada

tarpon on January 31, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Too late for Pryor. We dumped Lincoln over her Liberalism and Pryor is next. I call his office weekly to torment his staff.

Charlemagne on January 31, 2013 at 11:01 AM

Mark, son of David, Pryor’s office stopped responding to my emails when I called him a socialist for his votes FOR obamacare, CPSIA, et al…

Too bad Halter is running for Governor and not for Pryor’s seat…

Gohawgs on January 31, 2013 at 6:27 PM

ScottiesRule on January 31, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Love this idea.
Only problem is, Boner isn’t too much better than the Donks on that count.

VelvetElvis on February 1, 2013 at 7:51 AM

Comment pages: 1 2