On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 21:54:59 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 17:49:19 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 16:32:05 -0500, "Terry Coombs"
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI


"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child,
miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless.
Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats."
PJ O'Rourke

You need to see this one too ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imw8YGyPgk4

"My right is more important than your dead [23 children]," he says.

There's a sociopath who's really shot his wad.

You missed the whole point Ed .

No, I think that you did. The point is that looking inward at what you
think you're entitled to, to the extreme of saying "my right is more
important than your dead [and he was referring to the children at
Sandy Hook]," turns a person into a sociopath living under a thin
veneer of civility.

He's exactly the kind that are most dangerous.

Ed , my take on his words were that "my right to bear arms trumps your
attempt to deny that right by using children that were killed by an
unbalanced individual" .

First, that's not what he said. And he said it twice. It wasn't a
slip.

I don't doubt that he included your point in his thoughts; he said
something to that effect earlier in his speech. But he was becoming
more rabid and emotional as he spoke. His voice cracked. When those
words came out of his mouth, the most generous meaning I could give to
them is this: "I resent that you're using these facts to argue against
my interpretation of my rights."

If you examine that argument (which would be made by many here,
without a doubt), his resentment is based on the fact that many
people, perhaps most, DO consider 23 dead kids to be an argument to
limit the proliferation of high-capacity guns; to strengthen
mental-health prohibitions against gun ownership; to require universal
background checks; and to require registration of certain types of
guns. They don't necessarily apply to the Sandy Hook incident. The
incident was just a reminder of the weaknesses in the whole system.

The NY "Safe" act he was arguing against does those things. He was
resentful because he knows the result he wants, and he has nothing
much to argue against his opposition. Most rational people want those
very kinds of regulations, except possibly the registration, and it's
born out in poll after poll. They don't want to prohibit guns; they
just want gun owners to be checked out.

Inevitably, when he argues the way he did, his argument becomes "those
dead kids don't matter." And that, essentially, is what he wound up
saying. That's the voice and the attitude of gun nutz, as most people
perceive them.

Feel free to disagree with me if you wish , but I have to say that
attempts to deny us our 2nd amendment rights with knee-jerk reactions to
sick and twisted individual's actions is wrong . And may very well end in
bloodshed if they keep trying .

No, it won't end in bloodshed -- except that of one or a few of the
gun nutz. The vast majority of "bloodshed" talk is by mouth-breathers
and loose-talkers who wouldn't have the guts to follow through -- like
Gunner and his "cullers," or Larry and his desire (for someone else,
of course) to threaten elected lawmakers with guns.

Dunno who originally said it , but "Free citizens have arms , subjects
don't" .

The root of Weiss's fury lies in his ignorance. He has an idea in his
mind of what the 2nd means (one that's shared by many here), but which
has no historical or legal basis in fact. The Supreme Court, in
Heller, did the best job any authority has ever done of examining the
history and meaning of the 2nd. Have you read it? I've read it four or
five times now, and there is nothing in it that prohibits anything
like New York's Safe law. It's similar to what we've lived with in NJ
for around 45 years. I own guns, including semiauto pistols. My rights
have not been infringed -- a term that has a specific legal meaning.
Neither have Aaron Weiss's rights been infringed.

He knows what he *wishes* it meant, but he doesn't really know.

--
Ed Huntress