Adam Weinstein (courtesy capitalnewyork.com)

“Conservatives led by lobbyists and luddites like Joe the Plumber have abandoned talk about the good and replaced it with talk about the right. The good can be negotiated as hard cases arise. The right is non-negotiable. It is immutable. It is either respected or infringed. If you believe, as Joe and the NRA do, that the Second Amendment is an absolute right to personal firearms ownership—not merely that it’s good for something, like self-defense or recreation, but that it’s an immutable right—then even background checks or limits on multiple-magazine purchases or just simply talking about compromise and offering real sympathy to survivors is an infringement on that right. In this ideology . . .

talk of social responsibility in the exercise of rights becomes synonymous with socialism. This is the ultimate problem with the modern movement that clubbed traditional conservatism to death, squeezed into its clothes, and now traipses around like it owns the place. Even if you believe that discussion of social responsibilities is the same thing as socialism—and frankly, only an ignoramus could—you can’t fight socialism by becoming a sociopath.” – Adam Weinstein, Joe the Plumber: “Your Dead Kids Don’t Trump My Constitutional Rights” [via gawker.com]

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

90 COMMENTS

    • somehow i fail to see what this has to do with anyhting about guns gun ownership responsble citizenship or dead kids

  3. “Conservatives led by lobbyists and luddites like Joe the Plumber have abandoned talk about the good and replaced it with talk about the right. ”
    As oppossed to Progressive gun control activists who are being lead by Bloomberg’s $50 million grass roots campaign, and who ignore inconvenient facts and evidence.

      • The radical greenie arm of the leftist onslaught really are Ludites (on behalf of the little people, of course; they themselves need private jets). So, point your finger at your enemy and loudly accuse them of what you are doing. Standard leftist MO. It isn’t just their A-game. It’s the only game they know.

      • Anti technology? Hmmm, I agree that Weinstein is using this term loosely. That said, “Joe the plumber” is an idiot and we should not even discuss his self serving “letter” to parents whose children have just been killed. Really? Does his “letter” serve any constructive purpose other than garner headlines for himself?

        Forget this clown and hopefully he will go away.

  4. If they were socializing the SOLUTION instead of the PUNISHMENT, they would get less argument from me. Just a little less, though, after all there is my reputation as a “heartless gun fondling child murderer” to uphold.

  5. I know it’s a stretch to believe the 2nd Amendment protects an absolute right… if only the people that wrote the original document gave that list of amendments a nifty title describing exactly what they are…

    • Yeah, like call them right instead of privileges or nifty ideas or concepts that shouldn’t be interfered with TOO much. Maybe someone forgot the asterisk?

      • I figure Federal Judges, CongressCritters and the like must all be issued secret goggles that reveal the invisible ink at the end of the second amendment that reads “….except when we feel like it.”

        • “..reveal the invisible ink ”

          No, it’s not goggles… it is a special ink that is only visible under the light of a new moon. All those congress critters have to get together at midnight to see it and we should just trust them because, after all, we elected them and they know best.

  6. Social responsibility is not synonymous with socialism. It is the antonym of socialism. In a free republic civil society takes care of most social responsibilities. Under socialism there is no such thing as social responsibility. There is only government responsibility making atomized private citizens from the responsibility to exercise it. This is another socialist perversion of the English language.

    • Well “social justice” is certainly an integral construct of soviet communism (applied socialism).

      Where is/was your social responsibility fulfilled? In the US in the church (pick your denomination).

    • Yes, but how can we ever expect gun-owning citizens to ever get behind the sensible, common-sense, gun regulations being proposed by concerned citizens—who just want to stop the carnage—when the 2nd amendment empowers obvious luddites like Joe The Plumber? Isn’t it always better for us to focus on that one child that might be saved instead of getting lost in the weeds talking about abstract “rights”? The Joe The Plumbers’ will never allow us to do that because they’ll always hide behind the 2nd amendment, claiming their constitutional rights are more important than the real suffering going on all around them. There are some “rights” that are just to dangerous for Americans to possess. The 2nd amendment is a good example of a right reasonable American don’t need.

      Sorry for the sarcasm but sometimes the sturm und drang from the left is hard to take seriously . . .

      • Sweet Jesus! A real live MUGWUMP!! Son, you got your mug on one side of the fence and your wump on the other…you danced back and forth so many times I had to go take me a Bayer for the neck cramp I got. But that remark toward the end about Americans don’t need the 2 Amendment pretty much showed where you really stand.

  7. “When they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”
    ~ Thomas Pynchon

  8. I don’t think this guy knows what ‘Luddite’ means. Is he trying to say that there is new technology that makes firearms obsolete and Joe the Plummer is reluctant to accept it out of fear of losing his job?

    • Thank you. What could be more Luddite than 7-round capacity limits, urging double-barreled shotguns over ARs, or the hue and cry over pistol grip stocks?

      • After 15 hours of on and off head scratching I went back and read Joe the Plumber’s statement just to see if he said anything against ‘smart guns’, but no, apparently Mr. Weinstein just likes using completely random and inappropriate pejoratives.

        BTW, I totally agree with your assessment of who really is the Luddite here.

  9. This is not an issue of socially responsible use of rights. We prosecute those who abuse their 2nd Amendment right to threaten or attack others without proper justification, as well we should. This latest shooter, like all mass shooters, used his rights in a socially irresponsible way, and now he’s dead.

    The socially responsible exercise of rights does not mean that those who enjoy those rights peaceably are somehow at fault for the abuses committed by others. Nor does their peaceful and responsible exercise of their rights suddenly become irresponsible because some lobbyist later decides they didn’t jump through enough arbitrary hoops in order to exercise their right. Socially responsible use of firearms does not require background checks, or waiting periods, or magazine capacity limits, or assault weapon bans, or registration, or licensing. It only requires that gun owners not use those guns to hurt others or their property without justification.

    • Posting the second paragraph of this reply on TTAG’s Facebook page. Thanks!

    • I want that second paragraph engraved on a plaque so that I may hang it on my wall next to Will Rogers quote about dogs in heaven.

      But then, those who would agree with Dave do not need to be convinced; those who would disagree are either too stupid to comprehend the statement, nor possess the attention span to read it in its entirety.

    • I was going to post a response but this statement articulately sums it up perfectly.

    • Great summation.  The problem is just that…responsibility or lack thereof.  Since the (I’m OK, you’re OK, Free to be You and Me) 70’s, various politicians, medical quacks, Hollywood and anyone with access to media has been brainwashing the American public. 

      It’s not your fault for what you’ve done…it’s society, racism, dependence on alcohol/drugs, upbringing, twinkies, bullying…fill the blank in with anything… anything and everything except taking personal responsibility for your actions.  It’s not criminals engaged in criminal activity, it’s the guns…not the person making the choice to misuse their rights.   Media glamorizes the complete lack of responsibility for one’s action…Kardashians…Hollywood (to include gaming and music industries) lives on it…We’re against violence and guns, well except when it’s lining our pockets…but it’s not our fault for glamorizing gangs or criminal activity. 

      Even the “it takes a village” mentality to child rearing…don’t worry you’re not responsible for raising your children, society is BS.  It’s the nanny state mentality pervasive in (CA, NY, NJ, CT…) and personalized in the form of Bloomberg that says you aren’t responsible enough for rights, so we need to take them away and make them privileges

    • David,

      I, too, would like to “borrow” your second paragraph. Very well said! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

      Rick

  10. It’s not that 2A guarantees a right of armed self-defense. It’s that 2A protects the right from federal restrictions. You know, like NFA, GCA ’86, and Brady Act.

  11. Weinstein also called for the arrests to “punish the climate-change liars.” He’s pretty far out there.

    This whole rights thing is somewhat foreign to Weinstein. In his world, only people who agree with him have rights, including voting rights. Not much of a right at all, really.

    • Yes, wanna-be tyrants like him are why we have the Bill of Rights. If he were in power, he’d be happy to exercise his power in a capricious arbitrary manner.

    • The climate change angle isn’t surprising. Bloomberg has added that to his repertoire also:

      http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/michael-bloomberg-mayors-climate-107140.html?hp=l24

      He’s now Mayors (former) Against Illegal Gasses. That way he can heep the MAIG thing going since he’s also MDA/Everytown…

      He must be sensing his mortality. Having unilaterally decided he’s already earned his place in heaven, he must be going for sainthood… you know since he can’t be mixed in with common folk…all he has to do now is save all of us from guns, greenhouse gasses and (big) gulps for the trifecta… plus throw a few million to the Vatican and voilà… St Michael the Short!

  12. Here’s a thought, how about we discuss the limitations of rights as they infringe on the rights of others, since that’s the logical limitation of a right in the first place. I have a right to own a gun, and to carry it wherever I want. I have a right to due process that says my other rights can’t be suspended except by it’s use. Now, if my exercise of my RKBA is infringing on your rights somehow we need to talk. Keep in mind though, you don’t have a right to restrict my rights unless it’s truly interfering with yours. You don’t have a right to not see guns and at least in public you don’t have a right not to be around them, at least, I’ve never heard of such a right and it sure doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution.

    You do have a right not to be shot, except in extreme situations where your actions threaten the life of an innocent other. We already have a mechanism for dealing with infringement on your right not to be shot though. There are multiple laws against it and when these are broken that due process thing kicks in which accomplishes various things such as suspending my right to have guns and likely most of my other liberties as well.

    You don’t have a right to be protected from the possibility of being shot, just like you don’t have a right to be protected from the possibility of anything else. Anything that is possible, is, well, possible. No law can protect against it, further, remember the due process thing? It says that laws are for working out what to do after they are broken, not before.

    We can’t talk about competing rights when we discuss guns because having them is a right and the exercise of it doesn’t interfere with any articulable right of those who would ban them. From the ban guns side we hear about emotions and feelings, not rights. Just as a heads up, you don’t have a right to avoid certain feelings. What’s going on in your head is your business and isn’t grounds for limiting what I might be doing unless and until what I’m doing actually infringes on your rights.

    On the topic of rights, it seems that the gun banners don’t care much for that due process clause. They seem very attached to concepts like pre-crime and thought-crime. I realize that logic and emotions are generally mutually exclusive things but when we talk about rights we have to use logic, since emotion has no basis either in rights or in the law. Logically, if possessing the means to commit a crime is grounds for removing the means we all need to remove our hands so that we can’t punch or steal. Having hands gives us the means to commit all manner of crimes, including shootings.

    Assuming you’ll forgive my Reductio ad absurdum argument for a moment. What other sorts of rights might we infringe that would be beneficial to the public? Surely the rights protected under the 4th amendment benefit no one but criminals, surely they should go. What about those under the 5th amendment, again, useless if you’re innocent, let’s get rid of those. The rights under the 2nd amendment? Well now, those have value to innocent people at least as much as the guilty. Since defensive gun uses even by the most conservative estimates are more than twice as common as murders committed with guns taking away guns could only lead to an increase in victimization.

    I know that last is a hard pill to swallow, but the numbers are there, even using McDowall’s flawed numbers there are actually closer to three times more DGUs than murders with guns. If we used the Justice Departments numbers it’s about 15 to 1.

    It might be counter intuitive for someone who’s been steeped in the guns are bad tradition, but with ownership of guns up and the number of people carrying guns dramatically increasing over the last 30 years the violent crime rates have plummeted. It doesn’t matter if there is a causative effect, the take away is that more guns didn’t lead to more violence. The reason is that people who obey the laws regarding carrying guns obey the laws relating to rape, assault and murder, likewise, people unconcerned with breaking the laws against rape, assault and murder are not inclined to respect those regulating the possession of arms.

    In a microcosm, the Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot has to be the largest concentration of scary black guns in the US. All the really frightening stuff is there; machine guns, real assault rifles, submachine guns, hundreds, maybe thousands of guns, being fired fast, hundreds of thousands of times. Violence? No, never a rape or robbery or assault or a murder there. Where do mass murders take place? Virtually every single time they take place in a legislated gun free zone. Where is the most likely place to be murdered? The streets of a large city . The most likely place to be raped? A college campus. What do these places have in common? Strict gun control.

    Before this becomes a book, I’m going to conclude that more guns don’t cause more crime and that gun control doesn’t prevent any crime. There is no social utility argument to be made for gun control and though even if there were it wouldn’t be a cause for infringing on the rights of the law abiding, there isn’t in the first place. If anything there is a social utility in allowing more people to be armed in more places more often, since defensive gun use out numbers gun murder and all evidence suggests that this ratio would broaden if more people were carrying more often in more places.

    Now give me an argument for why my natural, civil rights should be infringed?

    • Actually, the rape statistic on college campuses is also overblown. Partly because it serves the current narratives.

      To your point and not disagreeing, there are already laws on the books that deal with what happens when someone uses their right to bear arms in a way that conflicts with someone else’s rights. Those are statutes against murder, property damage, injuring another person willingly or accidentally in a negligent manner, etc.

      Which is why I am so tired of the first answer of many towards “gun violence” is to introduce another law. Anyone willing to commit murder isn’t going to care if they are violating an additional 20 statues and penal codes.

      • That rape stat is way overblown, but nevertheless, college campuses are perv magnets. You have a poorly guarded concentration of clueless young women living away from home for the first time, and they’re too young to legally buy firearms. That’s an extremely vulnerable population. My university provided virtually zero security for the students, and the businesses just off campus were even worse. Girls were raped or attacked by local criminals. I was assaulted too and bought a handgun illegally because of it.

        My personal mission has been to get campus carry in TX, but now it seems like open carry, of which I’m also in favor, is going to supersede it in the legislature.

    • Not that I think race always matters, but I am often astonished at the overwhelming whiteness of many progressive pundits who advocate policies that often hurt, not help, non-whites. Yet because they are toeing the party line they are held up as champions of equality.

  14. Now they’re proposing limits on the number of magazines (metal boxes with springs) that we can purchase?

    At the end of the day, gun control laws do no good, and they infringe upon the rights of the people. Even if they did a little good, that still isn’t worth rights being infringed upon. If you don’t like individual freedom, move elsewhere. The U.S. was founded upon idea of the rights of individuals, not the “Greater Good” (cue Hot Fuzz scene). The “Greater Good” outweighing rights causes a slippery slope which leads to tyranny. Think of how many people were murdered in the 20th century by tyrants in the name of the “Greater Good.”

    • The absurdity that arises from attempts at gun control is part of the problem with gun control. It becomes increasingly difficult to take laws or lawmakers seriously when they propose the most absurd and ignorant things. It abuses common sense the things they propose and the laws they pass.

      Why ban a rifle just because it has a bayonet lug? Have there been problems with bayonettings?

      Why limit the number of rounds a gun might contain? The average number of rounds fired in a gun crime is 3.2.

      What’s the point in a shall issue CCW system? People who obey the law will get the license and people who don’t by definition don’t mind breaking the law.

      Why restrict how short a rifle barrel can be? SBRs are virtually never used in crimes.

      Why have a waiting period for a handgun but not a rifle? If I’m so bent out of shape that I’m on my way to murder someone after a stop at the gun shop does it matter what sort of gun I use? Do you think I don’t know where to acquire a hack saw or how to use one?

      Why are there gun free zones? If I’m not inclined to shoot someone everywhere else, why would I decide to shoot someone there? If I wanted to shoot someone there why would I obey the GFZ anyway?

      The litany of ridiculous, ineffective, absurd, pointless and easily subverted laws regarding firearms is both dizzying and disheartening as well as insulting to the intelligence of anyone forced to contemplate them. Perhaps the most painful part of such contemplation is that the people who make them keep getting reelected. One would hope that when a politician has revealed themselves to be a complete and utter fool, with no apology or defense but rather a vow to do something even more absurd and useless if given the chance , that politicians career would be over.

      It really undermines faith in the legislature, the law and the electorate to consider these laws. Even if they weren’t just useless, or they weren’t getting people robbed and killed, if they weren’t sending innocent people to prison for simple and harmless mistakes, if the only bad effect they had was to undermine respect for the law they should be repealed. Put the rest back in and not only should they be repealed, they should never have been passed and anyone who’d voted for them should pay the price at the poll.

  15. Wow, you people should read the comments on that article. This is the mentality of the left and what we have to go against. In just a few minutes I believe I read every single attack the loony left likes to use. Everything from we are scared to penis envy. Not a single intelligent comment from any of them of course, well they would need to have intelligence in the first place so that explains that.

    • I’ve done this a few times this week, looking at the comments section. The main themes I see from the antis comments are:

      1. They do not believe in the 2A, one bit.
      2. Europes stricter controls lead to fewer gun deaths and murders in general. Ignoring before and after data of gun restrictions and looking at other cultural and socioeconomic factors
      3. People who own guns live in constant fear.
      4. Ban or severely restrict guns in America but propose no fixes for mental health. Just high five after the ban and let everyone with a problem rot.
      5. Ignoring that knives were used, they don’t care if you die by other means. Just not by guns.
      6. Saying that the problems are simple, ummm no they are not. To prevent the majority of deaths by firearms would take a lot of complicated changes throughout the country. Many changes they would wholeheartedly disagree with as would I.
      7. The NRA is to blame for every massacre because they won’t cave in to “common sense” gun laws, but the murderer is not an NRA member.
      8. The gun laws that they so love and want to pass everywhere already exist in California and didn’t do squat. So lets try more restrictive gun laws over and over and over until something happens.

      There are more, but I think that is enough for now.

    • I spent some time over there trying to refute some of the crazier stuff, and trying to get at least some hint of an opposing view into their echo chamber. I haven’t gone to see if my comments have been deleted yet.

  16. Yes, because extensive background checks and restrictions on magazines totally prevented the sociopathic little bastard in California from doing anything wrong…and I suppose to people like this Weinstein moron the people he stabbed to death don’t matter. Or did he stab them with one of his pistols somehow?

    I think all of us feel “real sympathy” for the victims here. What we don’t feel is a need to surrender our rights to prove to some progressive twit that our sympathy is sincere. We will not be punished for the despicable actions of a single sociopathic loser.

  18. Here is the crux of the matter, as i see it, with all the millions of Progressive leftist Statist rants like weinstein’s: they view *ALL* gun owners or anyone who even supports the right to bear arms in the same way as every other mental defective progressive who has gone on a mass murder spree. there, i said it. And im right. every single mass murderer has been a leftist progressive, and a #gunsense supporter. all of them. The gun control crowd thinks that we as gun owners are simply ticket time bombs just ITCHING AND BEGGING for the chance to do it, too. They confuse themselves and project their own hate, bigotry, and arrogance/intolerance as long as their lack of self control, onto everyone else. as a result in their twisted minds it seems logical to ban all things particularly firearms, that can be used to commit murder in ways they would do so. Thats why to them giving up rights is a good idea, and to them their God and savior is the Govt in its over reach and totalitarian control and they put their trust in an abusive govt to keep them in line. Who ever said that socialism takes away individual responsibility and responsible use of rights is correct, and the liberals/progressives/leftists/ statists DEFAULT to that. Thats why even though they KNOW its a right, and KNOW gun control doesnt stop crime they STILL PERSIST with trying to harm law abiding people and strip them of their rights. They will never cease in this. the real fight is with the larger problem: statism and those who blindly support it because of their own flawed selves or their lust for Tyranny.

      • That’s a matter of self-ownership, and not really germane to a 2A blog, other than the self-ownership aspect. As the owner of my body, I have a right to self-preservation. It’s that simple.

        • “As the owner of my body, I have a right to self-preservation.”

          Absolutely. At least for late-term abortion, it seems that self-defense law could provide a useful starting point for a framework to ensure that the mother’s autonomy is respected while still honoring the unborn infant’s right to life.

        • I was referring to selectively defending some rights and not others. In that sense it is completely relevant.

        • That is asinine. Said “body” you possess was voluntarily put into the situation to be impregnated, actions have consequences. Live with your “choice”. Stop complaining when an action you decided to take part in actually produces the result it is designed to produce.

  19. More lies from the left. They fool us into to thinking they have carefully crafted arguments based on sound reasoning, when its bilge. “Lobbyists and Luddites” — alliteration. “Good vs. Right” — the non-distinction distinction. “Background checks and multiple magazines purchases” — neither an issue in this case; and the issue is mag capacity not plurality of mags (they make this stuff up as they go). “Talk of social responsibility”–the sacrificial alter of the left where anything deemed an offense to their sensibilites must be slain for the public good. “Clubbed traditional conservatism to death”–if one listens long enough to the left their projection comes forth and reveals their true desire. Are we to believe that they are championing “traditional conservatism” from a desire to protect their political foes? Joe the Plumber, the NRA and Tea Partiers, oh my!

  21. Huh? I feel like someone has just thrown a bucket of scheit on me. Just as stinky and almost as coherent.

  22. RF, you should know that it’s hardly fair to ban ad hominem attacks from the comments and then post a photo like that. That’s like teasing a dog through a fence.

    • Then let me quote a comment from the Gawker article:

      “Your right to wear ugly ass plaid shirts does not trump my right to raise my children in a world free from ugly ass plaid shirts.”

  23. He has a point, and while I wouldn’t use the words “must be good for something”, rights indeed have a reason behind them, the 2nd Amendment’s main reason is preservation of liberty. The problem is that if the 2nd Amendment is not taken in a fairly absolutist way, there is no way for it to fulfill the goal of preserving liberty. Anyone can agree that if guns are all registered, so the government knows where they all are, they are not very useful for preserving liberty, and so they must not be registered, at least not all of them. This is just common-sense logic.

  24. I’m pretty sure most gun owners are very socially responsible. The problem is that his definition probably doesn’t match ours, and we choose not to enforce it at the threat of being thrown in a cage by someone with a gun. But it’s okay that person was granted permission by the state, and they have a badge. I don’t think socialism is the specific word I would use to describe that solution but it’s near identical twin that starts with an F would probably fit. But that’s okay too as long as the right people are in power. In this case he probably prefers the left people.

  25. I swear every time someone really pokes the Gentrified Beautiful People of the Internet about things like this, you can almost create a flowchart or a Venn diagram of the subjects they will bring up when they aren’t following the playbook. Those gawker.com posts flowed with all the grace and self-discipline of a slowly spooked herd of cows after a thunderclap trampling over each other right over a cliff piling on top of each other with broken legs and bulging eyes.

    • You said it.

      It is like watching an old AI program run – one Lisp macro after another unfurling, spitting out an utterly predictable sequence of nonsense and claptrap based on a template being applied down a list of buzzwords.

    • LOL!! Great allegorical post. I don’t watch cable news at all for that same reason. I used to, but sitting there watching the pundits, everyone mooing at once going into a crescendo as they herded for the cliff always made me wish I owned a tranquilizer dart gun.

  26. How appropriate that this intellectual giant wants to turn the Bill of Rights into a bill of goods.

  27. Guy. Nice one. Not fair to the cows but I get your point.

    Normally I wouldn’t recommend quoting someone like Joe the Plumber, or Sarah Palin, only because for about 90% of the progtards, that just sends them off in a full-on flight of moonbattery, where facts will never matter…

    But then, you could say thats a feature, not a bug.

  29. Actually, you would think liberals would really understand that concept about a murder victim not trumping someone’s Constitutional rights. After all, somebody’s raped daughter ultimately failed to trump Mr Miranda’s Constitutional rights, and any number of murderers have since been turned loose because somebody’s dead kid did not trump their 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendment rights.

  30. This guy needs to go back to school and demand a refund. He’s clearly mis-educated, brainwashed, un-educated, or maybe just stricken with mental retardation. How, how in any form of government is an absolute right equate to socialism? That takes a special kind of stupid to put together.

  31. I dunno.

    Where did the political bumper-sticker phrase “A right delayed is a right denied!” get started?

    Oh yea, that whacky group of conservatives, the feminist abortion rights movement.

  32. A good rule for reading: Stop at the first insult. It is an indication that the person is either out of intellectual ammunition, or doesn’t know how to use it.

    Another good rule: Take the first insult and change it to the worst slur you can imagine. That’s what the writer wanted to say. Would you listen to someone who, six words into a conversation, said you have inappropriate relations with your mommy? I read no further than “motherf…,” I mean “Luddite.”

  34. I didn’t know that “Joe the Plumber” was leading anyone. Never mind.

    With an immutable right, there is no compromise. It reminds me of Jew-hating Palestinians who insist they’re willing to negotiate and compromise with Israel. Their default position is Israel has no right to exist and must be exterminated. However, they’re willing to compromise on the means of extermination. Seriously? That’s not a negotiation. Neither is the disarmament that the gun grabbers seek. Negotiation in good faith strives for an agreement where both parties gain. That’s an impossible outcome with the gun grabbers as their only aim is infringing our rights.

    By narrowly defining their own objectives, the transform the issue from a good faith negotiation into a pure zero sum game. Their gain must necessarily come at our expense. There’s no mutually beneficial outcome possible. The gun grabbers must be outnumbered, outmaneuvered and made irrelevant. They’re the ones who don’t give a rat’s rear end about “the children” or any other victims. They’re the ones whose policies help foster victim rich environments, and who then dance in the blood and exploit each tragedy to spread their policy of vulnerability even further.

    And where do these people get off calling us Luddites, when they’re the ones demanding a return to 18th century technology, or at least interpretation of the Constitution in those terms?

  35. You are right ‘your dead kids don’t trump my constitutional RIGHTS’ cause WE didn’t kill them,and WE would have protected them if given the opportunity.A CRAZY person killed them with a knife and a gun and a hammer ,had he had one. We choose to exercise our RIGHTS as given too us under the Constitution.We choose to protect our family’s well being.

    Hey JasonM ,I’m on a regular computer now and I’m trying to do better.Is my spelling OK? Am I slamming too much information at you? Could you correct my grammer for me?Maybe I should just log off ,that should make you happy,wouldn’t want to upset you with spelling and grammer errors. I want to get an ‘A’ in this class.Hope you guys forgive me!!

  37. My new policy is to stop reading anti-gun blogs when I hit the first ad hominem attack.

  38. If God is dead and all that matters is the now, Sociopaths are just the next logical step in human evolution.

    “See? I’m not a monster. I’m just ahead of the curve.”

  39. If all that matters is the now, then nothing necessarily matters from moment to moment, because the now is always in motion. Now, if something that matters persists beyond the now, then we have a problem…

    But let’s step back. Does the universal truth “nothing matters but the now” endure beyond the now?

    If only the now matters, then any sociopathology is potentially acceptable. Just give it time…

Comments are closed.