Woah! Just found this blog via the usual suspects.
I decided to post a comment addressing the factual errors of this paragraph:
Hunters know that an AK-47 is not helpful in shooting a deer (it’s neither sporting nor useful if one wants to enjoy some venison). Hobbyists know that rapid-fire weapons do not measure one’s skill on a range or a skeet-shooting context. People who sincerely believe they need a gun for self-protection know that a conventional pistol or shotgun will suffice.
So who benefits from non-existent gun control laws? Weapons manufacturers. And, arguably, criminals.
We all know the the truth behind it, that indeed people use “Assault Weapons” for hunting, target shooting, and home defense….so the next bit doesn’t jive.
Seems he doesn’t moderate his comments. MAYBE she’s reasonable and we can all take a talking point and add a little truth….or more likely he’s a typical anti and he’ll simply delete any reasonable rebuttal that doesn’t fit his world view.
Sebastian links to this interesting quote:
When people find it necessary to demand a “debate” or complain about the absence of same, it usually means they’re frustrated because there is a debate and their side is losing.
Let’s see what happens!
**UPDATE** Seems she’s more reasonable than I suspected:
Thank you for your comments. Seriously. It is gratifying (on a personal level) to have people take the time to engage with one’s thoughts; it is gratifying (on a policy level) to think that one’s blog stimulates discussion, particularly on a matter as fraught as this.
Let me say a couple of general things:
The main purpose of this blog was to draw attention to teen suicide-by-gun. I see that most of the responses have to do with 2nd Amendment rights in general. OK. I said what I have to say about this, and not from any special standpoint. I do think, however, that the unfortunate numbers of teens who kill themselves with guns is something we as a nation should contemplate.
The comment about original intent is interesting — and helps make my point! To me, strict constructionism as a legal ideology (Federalist Society etc.) is non-supportable, logically and practically.
By the way, I didn’t say, ever, that ‘guns are always bad.’
For anyone who’s wondering, I’m not only not paid by any group — I’m not even a member of any group! Full disclosure: I’m a registered Democrat (I guess that’s a group, although usually you wouldn’t know it). Who doesn’t always vote the party line. That’s it for groups!
A little goal-post moving with only addressing teen suicide (sorry, but I don’t think many people are killing themselves with rifles of any sort, and it really doesn’t matter the mag size for a self-inflicted GSW) but otherwise it looks like she’s not going to dump the comments.
Time will tell.