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.
Place your bets! How long until Reasoned Discourse?
I’ve got 5 hours…by 1:00 today.
If rapid-fire doesn’t measure your skill, why does bulls-eye pistol include rapid-fire courses?
Its pretty obvious her statement was simply an ignorant regurgitation. A quick google search would have found all the evidence she’d need to find the info I posted….she obviously didn’t care enough to bother.
Funny how the first post is Baldr once again trolling for hits on his own blog.
That appears to be the first comment there in MONTHS.
I’m going with Reasoned Discourse within 24 hours.
Well given that all previous instances have had that EXACT outcome, it would be foolish to predict anything else.
I don’t think that Reasoned Discourse will break out. It seems to be a mildly liberal blog but not your typical gun control blog.
I think that the blogger will just ignore everything.
Though I am curious about any responses to my comment.
Could be interesting to see, as it appears the antis were the FIRST people to actually find this blog. I scrolled through a few months of posting and this is the FIRST thread with ANY comments.
If that is the case, Weerd, enjoy this image:
“Oh yay! I have comments!”
“Oh, shit, they are destroying my argument!”
Well, we’ll see how it works out.
Just in case Reasoned Discourse(TM) does break out, here’s my comment for the record.
—–
“It’s also a fact, from a strict constructionist standpoint, that the founding fathers could not have intended private citizens to enjoy untrammeled rights to automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, as those technological ‘advances’ had not yet been made.”
Think about that statement for a moment. Would it hold true if the object were changed?
“It’s also a fact, from a strict constructionist standpoint, that the founding fathers could not have intended private citizens to enjoy untrammeled rights to computer word processors or desktop publishing, and the instant content distribution of the internet, as those technological ‘advances’ had not yet been made.”
The existence of the Right, and the purpose behind its protection under the Constitution and Bill of Rights, does not depend on the technology used to exercise it. The founders knew about innovation and revolutionary changes in technology – heck, Benjamin Franklin was a scientist and inventor! – and did not base the Bill of Rights on what they considered possible technology, but on the basic human Rights necessary for people to remain free from oppression.
That’s one of those anti-right arguments that only exist in anti-gun reality.
Remember its illegal for police to hack into my computer to search for evidence of a crime without a warrant, or probable cause. Same goes for wire taps.
None of these things existed then but they apply today….
I just left her a long comment about how screwed the anti-gun side is in NC. What I didn’t realize until I finished is that she is also from NC. That was accidental, I swear. It’s still pretty funny.
That makes it a LOT better. Maybe we’ll get a reaction!
Left my two cents, although I think it’s more like a dollar-fifty! 😀
Might re-post here if “Reasoned Discourse” sets in, if that’s alright by you.