DPVA hates guns?

| | Comments (31) | TrackBacks (0)

It appears that the Democratic Party of Virginia has shown its true colors and contempt for the 2nd Amendment. I wonder what Mark Warner would say?

The proof? Below is an exerpt from a recent update by the Virginia's Citizens' Defense League via email:

******************************************************* 6.Democratic Party of Virginia pays for gun bashing attack ad ***************************************************************

Member [name redacted] of Centreville sent this item.

I was particularly intrigued by the blurb on the Democratic Party's
platform position stating support for the right to keep and bear
arms. [VA-Alert 17 September 2007, "2A makes appearance on VA
Democratic Party platform"]

I live in Sen Cuccinelli's district [Virginia Senate 37 ~ west
Fairfax County] and recently received a campaign flyer from the
Democratic Party of Virginia with a list of Ken's "kookiest ideas."
One of those items was "Cuccinelli supports allowing guns in public
places like airports, college campuses, day care centers and
libraries." The flyer states it was "Paid for by the Democratic
Party of Virginia.
Authorized by Oleszek for State Senate." As I'm
sure you know, Janet Oleszek is Sen. Cuccinelli's Democratic opponent.

Interesting that an organization that claims to support the right to
keep and bear arms would use an opponent's support for the right to
keep and bear arms as the lead item in an attack ad.

I thought you'd be interested in knowing that, at least in this case,
the Democratic Party's actions are in direct opposition to the
position stated in their party platform.

UPDATE: Apparently, the gun-grabber and "The Man" had a debate. I'll let you guess who won.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: DPVA hates guns?.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://novatownhall.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1364

31 Comments

ACTivist said:

The problem is that although the Democratic Party claims "new ideas" for a better future, they will never go away from their core beliefs; that of socialization of anything/everything and their contempt for the 2nd Amendment. When they/if they get the majority power and can overrule veto, you will then see a push for the "elimination" of the 2nd Amendment. For the good of the people, of course.

Time moves on but the Democratic Party/UN party stands still. THIS will never, ever change. Vote Dem-vote againest gun ownership!

ACTivist,

I am a Democrat who supports 2nd Amendment rights and most other Democrat that I know are in agreement. I strongly suspect that the DPV gave the candidate money for advertising but did not review each and every piece of paper that was printed with that money. I will be writing to the Committee to voice my annoyance.

As for your opinion on Democrats and the 2nd Amendment in general, you are essentially advocating a strategy for deferred defeat. The only way that we as gun owners will win in the long run is by electing both pro-gun Democrats and Republicans to office. Otherwise every election becomes a coin toss for the future of freedom.

Do you really think that it's possible (or desirable) for one party to hold on to power indefinitely? Tie this issue exclusively to the GOP and we are well and truly screwed. Look at how this has worked out so far. Stupid gun laws get passed and then even when the so-called NRA friendly party is in power they don't roll back anything. We got lucky on the 'assault weapons' ban because it had a sunset date. But during all those years of monopoly Republican rule, how many obnoxious gun laws were actually eliminated?

Basically none. So over time, your strategy leads to the erosion of our rights until eventually nothing will be left and we'll be on a crusade to protect our right to bear slingshots. Then watch that get taken away in a compromise that might allow us to own blunt, heavy objects after passing a background check.

The only strategy to avoid this is to ensure that anti-gunners have no guaranteed haven in either party. Which means that when you see a pro-gun Democrat, vote for him. There are plenty of Dems with NRA 'A' ratings. Jim Webb, Mark Warner, Harry Reid, Bill Richardson, John Tester, etc. etc.

The stronger that the pro-gun caucus gets within the Democratic party, the safer your rights are. So turn out on primary days to vote for gun-friendly Dems. And then if that guy wins, turn out on general election day to make sure he wins the election and becomes a party leader who influences party policy and helps to recruit similar candidates.

The question is whether you really want to focus your efforts on protecting the Second Amendment or if you just want to hold the issue hostage in an effort to help the Republican Party.

Dan said:

Jackson,

"The only way that we as gun owners will win in the long run is by electing both pro-gun Democrats and Republicans to office."

So true, this is why I am an issue voter. There is some truth to what ACTivist says regarding some Dems "new ideas", many of which are based on failed policies of the 60s and 70s. Is this the Bridge To The Past of which Bill Clinton spoke ?

G.Stone said:

Pro Gun Democrats ?

In northern Virginia they meet twice a month in a phone booth. In Alabama there may be some pro-Gun Democrats who haven't gotten the message they are in the wrong party.

I am a member of the NRA and GOA and as such have worked the 2nd ammendment for MANY years.
I can count on one hand the number of truly pro second ammendment Democrats I have met. 40% of the Republicans are worthless on gun rights. How in Gods name does anyone expect there to be this contingent of pro-Gun Dems ?.
Sorry, it is a myth or BS or spin from those desperate to regain power yet smart enough to know you don't piss off gun owners just prior to an election. After November they are back looking for the trigger locks.

If Mark Warner was truly a gun rights guy we would not have a restraunt ban in Virginia. Had he signified he was behind its repeal the required number of Dems and Rinos would have signed on providing the needed margins for this asinine law to go away. You see, what they mean by Gun Rights is you can own one but don't dare load , move, touch or use the dam thing. Dems who talk of gun rights are the ones ( like many Rinos )who talk about "sensible" gun control. Translation , you can have a gun as long it has a trigger lock, stored in a safe under your house.

Please do not get me wrong here , this is no defense of Republicans. They too are often smucks when it comes to guns. However, Democrats are bigger smucks.

When deciding who too support when it comes to the issue of guns, ask yourself who does this guy or gal have to caucus with in order to get anything done ? In the case of Democrats it is not a whos who of individual rights politicans. Democrats have to caucus with leftists, liberals and do good social engineers. This is not the group that believes in freedom and citizen rights.

The states with the most draconian gun laws are and have been controlled by Democrats for some time. NY, Mass., Maine, Ill., Maryland, Conn., DE., etc etc etc

Most major cities with oppresive gun laws are run by Democrats. They also happen to be the cities with the higest crime rates. Go figure. Detroit, New York, Philly, Newark, Baltimore and Washington are Cities all run by Democrats who could care a less if you ever have the right to a firearm.

There is more room in that phone booth everyday.

ACTivist said:

Jackson,

We can agree about there being "some" Democrats that are pro-gun. We can also agree that not all (by a long shot)Republicans are pro-gun. We can also agree that the best thing to do is vote the candidate that insures our liberties under the Constitution; espescially our 2nd Amendment right (which, by far, isures all the others).

We CANNOT agree on those names listed above as they have failed our rights repeatedly and backed down on promises made. I do belong to the NRA as well as the VGOC and I will tell you that a rating from the NRA doesn't mean squat. Too many times candidates are given a "thumbs up" just for filling out a questionnaire that espouses gun rights and protections but ends up falling apart after election. The NRA also is a lobby that makes concessions with our rights. THAT is not acceptable to me. The biggest "plus" about the NRA is that they have the money to fight for the 2nd Amendment right-with provisions when necessary.

Jim Webb failed Virginians with a false promise. He's a politician. Mark Warner got beat up so bad that he had a change of heart about the gun issue. That was as governor. Can't trust what will happen as U.S. senator.

I won't vote party until I see definitive differences between them. I will vote the strongest candidate that will uphold the Constitution.

Isophorone said:

"There is no reason under
G-d not to have gun control."

Janet Oleszek, speaking to a (mostly) firendly crowd, September 23, 2007

Jack said:

I'm sure the socialists will love that "ignorama."

stay puft said:

not as much as the fascists, Jack! hahaha

Jack, you and aCtIvIsT are King and Queen of the Strawmen, you know that?

Democrats have "core beliefs; that of socialization of anything/everything and their contempt for the 2nd Amendment"

BWAHAHA! what, are you guys really afraid of socialist gun-banners? Someone comes to take your Freedom away, you gotta pop a cap in their ass. Isn't that the whole point??

Jack said:

Pay attention, puffalump. The fascists are epitomized by the National SOCIALIST Party, the Nazi Party. The fascists ARE socialists.

stay puft said:

you're telling me to pay attention??

meanwhile we've got a government pushing domestic spying, torture, running secret "interrogation" centers, raising a private paramilitary army called Blackwater USA, polarizing the country by beating people over the head with fear mongering about "the enemy without and within,"

...and you're going to tell me to pay attention? You're going to tell me that the Dems are bogymen socialists because they're not pushing for privatized fire departments or whatever. What a crock

good thing you have all those guns! You're like a minuteman when it comes to defending America against universal health coverage and Amtrack. Keep on manning the Maginot Line!

G Stone said:

Puftster, did you sleep through history class ?
Or is it that you went to public school in D.C ?

Yes, pay attention !!

Jack said:

Man, puffy, have you been drinking the cool-aid. I think the "domestic spying" has been going on for decades, under both Republicrats and Demicans.

Blackwater is no more a private army than is any other security guard company. Furthermore, "private" armies are, by definition, NOT raised by governments.

The socialists thrive on fear-mongering. You use fear-mongering to promote gun control, social security, socialized medicine, socialized schools, racial quotas, "hate crimes" legislation, and higher taxes. You are socialists because you think it is the government's responsibility to take care of you. It is not. The government's job is to protect us from each other and from external enemies, not from ourselves and from our own mistakes.

Finally, puffalump, I do think the feral government should be subsidizing the building of railroads. The infrastructure is clearly beneficial to the general welfare of the states. However, the feral government should not deal with the fire departments and the schools.

stay puft said:

kool aid drinking socialist? Is that the best you got?

I've never commented on half of those things, and fear had nothing to do with my comments on the others. Meanwhile, you did say that universal health coverage is the first step in a democratic plot toward totalitarianism. for christs sake!

I know that you have a selective ability to understand nuance, so let me be plain: I never said the government should take care of us. Who said the government could levy taxes? ...me and the founding fathers?

you're putting words in my mouth and then implying that I'm a nazi cult member for saying those things, and then extending those sentiments that to all Democrats? Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last?

Jack said:

"[You] did say that universal health coverage is the first step in a democratic plot toward totalitarianism."

No, I did not. Post a link to the post in which I said that. The first step came long ago, with the New Deal programs.

"I never said the government should take care of us."

Then why Social Security? Why Federal Unemployment Insurance? Why Medicaid? Why Medicare? Why Universal Health Care? Why gun control? Why Welfare?


"Who said the government could levy taxes? ...me and the founding fathers?"

Uh, no. The founding fathers had taxes levied on the STATES. Taxes on individuals were ruled unconstitutional -- the 16th Amendment was required to do so.

"you're putting words in my mouth..."

Then you oppose the above-mentioned programs? You oppose Social Security, Federal Unemployment Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Universal Health Care, Welfare, and gun control? If you support these programs, you are a socialist.

"then implying that I'm a nazi cult member for saying those things"

The Nazis were a SOCIALIST Party, yes. Their gas chamber murders pale next to our abortion clinic murders.

"and then extending those sentiments that to all Democrats?"

Not all. Many, particularly the blue-collar union workers and the poor Blacks, are mislead. The Socialist Party, a.k.a., The Democrat Party, is made up of the ignorant lead by the evil.

"Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last?"

Have you no sense at all? Twenty million murdered babies, and you have the gall to question my decency?

ACTivist said:

"BWAHAHA! what, are you guys really afraid of socialist gun-banners? Someone comes to take your Freedom away, you gotta pop a cap in their ass. Isn't that the whole point??"

I think that was the whole idea behind the 2nd Amendment towards a tyrannical government.

"meanwhile we've got a government pushing domestic spying, torture, running secret "interrogation" centers, raising a private paramilitary army called Blackwater USA, polarizing the country by beating people over the head with fear mongering about "the enemy without and within,"


For a second there I thought you were talking about FDR's presidency and WWII. You had me going Puft.

Strawmen? No matter what we site to you, you tend to disbelieve or "spin" your way out. Is there no cure for your mania? I fear those people who truly believe the socialistic crap they espouse. Just remember this, Puft. Everytime you have a thought, you just weaken our country!

stay puft marshmallow man said:

"I think that was the whole idea behind the 2nd Amendment towards a tyrannical government."

Activist that the whole point. If you need guns to defend your freedom, and your freedom includes the right to bare arms, why are you worried about the government taking your guns away? Based on your own reasoning, if someone tries to force you to hand over your guns, you have to shoot them. Otherwise you're all talk.

Jack,

"If you support these programs, you are a socialist."

"The Democrat Party, is made up of the ignorant lead by the evil."

"Have you no sense at all? Twenty million murdered babies, and you have the gall to question my decency?"

I'm not questioning your decency, I'm saying you're comments make you look like an ass pulling a cart full of bullshit rhetoric.

Have you no spine? 20 million babies killed by evil Nazi-Democrats and you have all this time to sit around blogging about hypothetical restrictions on gun ownership? I'll see you in hell!

Jack said:

"If you need guns to defend your freedom...."

"What the hell are we supposed to use, man? Harsh language?" --Frost

"...and your freedom includes the right to bare (sic) arms, why are you worried about the government (sic) taking your guns away? Based on your own reasoning, if someone tries to force you to hand over your guns, you have to shoot them."

The point is not to use deadly force unless necessary. Since you socialists find deadly force against unborn children acceptable to avoid being "inconvenienced" by a child, and you find deadly force against the women and children of Waco and Ruby Ridge acceptable, never mind Elian Gonzales, I know that concept is difficult for you to comprehend.

"I'm not questioning your decency, I'm saying you're (sic) comments make you look like an ass pulling a cart full of bullshit rhetoric."

All you have is rhetoric, puffy. You have no evidence, and no logic, to back up your position. You have repeatedly seen the evidence that the possession of guns by the people reduces violent crime, and you come back with nothing but rants and one "scholarly paper" that hand-picks the states to look at, and even those hand-picked states do not support their case when examined individually.

You ignore the evidence -- that makes you ignorant.

Will I see you in Hell? Maybe. As one George Gordon Liddy was fond of saying, "If God is infinitely just, I'm screwed; if He's infinitely merciful, I've got a shot."

So every day I thank God that I have been born in this country, and I pray that I have not already had my reward.

stay puft said:

I'd say the same about you, my friend.

for instance, you keep interjecting your abortion rhetoric, is purely semantic. You know that isn't going anywhere.

based on your definition of "socialism" every country in the western world is socialist, and by extention, fascist. Is that crazy, I think so. So please don't try to remove the speck in my logic when there's a log in yours.

I've never commented on hate crime laws, have I? Still, it's a poor example of socialist government.

guns: I don't want to ban guns. I don't want to ban hand guns. I haven't seen studies that focus on handguns in particular, in part because I haven't looked. I have a hunch that handguns and violent crime go hand in hand, but without additional studies to back it up I'm not making that case. The point I made in that discussion, which you still manage to missed even though I explicitly stated it about 14 times, was that a tax on handgun purchases would reduce the number of handgun purchases without violating the 2nd amendment. nothing more, nothing less. reread sec. 8, it gives congress the power to tax (among other things). It doesn't stipulate who or what. It says 'excises shall be uniform throughout the US.' what's an excise you ask? dictionary.com:

"1. an internal tax or duty on certain commodities, as liquor or tobacco, levied on their manufacture, sale, or consumption within the country."

yes, the constitution part of the constitution, which was written by the framers of the constitution, gives the feral government the power to enact sales taxes on specific goods. : )

health: I made the case that UK's health system works better that ours does. I didn't say we should have socialized medicine. I said we should have universal health coverage.

I do not believe that it is the government's job to protect us. I do believe that society has a duty to look out for the less fortunate. By it's nature the free market isn't going to provide temporary assistance for people who are laid off, or shelter the homeless, etc. (What's your proposal for insuring that children in low income families get to see a doctor?) If you want to equate me to nazis believing this, that's your problem.

so there it is: you mischaracterize what I've said, throw in a line about nazis, a line about murdering babies, and what does it add up to? Jack squat!

jacob said:

oh the humanity! can't we all just get along?! (sob)

Jack said:

"based on your definition of 'socialism' every country in the western world is socialist....

Pretty much, yes.

...and by extention (sic), fascist."

No. But you seem to think that fascism and socialism are mutually exclusive. They are not. The Nazis were socialists.

I do not recall whether you have commented on hate crimes legislation -- and I don't care. The point is that it is an example of fear mongering by socialists.

"The point I made in that discussion, which you still manage to missed even though I explicitly stated it about 14 times, was that a tax on handgun purchases would reduce the number of handgun purchases without violating the 2nd amendment."

And what you seem to miss is that you are wrong. First, it is wrong because any "undue burden" placed on the exercise of a constitutional right is a violation of that right. Second, why would you want to put a tax on handguns, when the evidence indicates that gun ownership by the people reduces violent crime. The only reasons you could want such a tax are to increase violent crime, or to increase the dependence of the poor on the government.

"yes, the constitution part of the constitution, which was written by the framers of the constitution, gives the feral government the power to enact sales taxes on specific goods."

The Amendments override the "constitution part of the constitution," thus, the Supreme Court ruled back in the 1930's that the two cent tax on newspapers was unconstitutional.

" I made the case that UK's health system works better that ours does."

You tried to make the case and failed.

"I didn't say we should have socialized medicine. I said we should have universal health coverage."

What's the difference?

"I do not believe that it is the government's job to protect us."

Then why do you want the government to provide health care? Do you then oppose social security, Medicaid, Medicare, and Welfare? Those are programs that stem from the belief that it is the government's job to take care of us.

"I do believe that society has a duty to look out for the less fortunate."

The government is not society.

"By it's nature the free market isn't going to provide temporary assistance for people who are laid off, or shelter the homeless, etc."

Of course not. The problem is that the government has interfered with the free market by establishing minimum wages, driving many into unemployment and homelessness.

"What's your proposal for insuring (sic) that children in low income families get to see a doctor?"

That's why conservatives contribute more time and money to charity than socialists do. We believe that these things are the duty of the people, not the government.

What does it add up to? That you are a socialist who ignores any data opposed to your point of view.

Jack said:

Jacob, you know I really don't suffer fools gladly, but at least _I_ did not call him an sob. :-)

stay puft said:

the two aren't mutually exclusive. I agree with you 100% Jack my man. You keep equating socialism to nazi-ism. Explain the democratic peoples republic of korea, the democratic republic of congo. The Chinese are republicans; it's right there in the name!

you want me to explain the difference between social medicine and universal health coverage? come on. One means the government owns all the hospitals and clinics and all the doctors and nurses and etc. are government employees, the other means that everyone in the country is able to access to affordable health care. I'll let you figure out which is which.

You've got a great imagination when it comes to making claims that gays harm society. Can you imagine a way for us to achieve universal coverage, as every other developed country has, through the free market alone?

guns, taxes and "undue burden": perhaps it isn't an undue burden. Do you have evidence that handguns reduce crime? No. We haven't seen conclusive evidence either way, because all of the articles we've discusses look at all guns, not handguns specifically. I know that's somewhat nuanced, but I think you can wrap your head around it.

...are you referring to Hugh Long tax at the state level against specific newspapers? What's that got to do with national taxes that are uniform throughout the US? If you're talking about something else, please elaborate. Which amendment specifically rescinds the rights granted congress in sec. 8? 24 bans a poll tax, suggesting that an amendment is necessary to prohibit a specific tax.

I know you don't like taxes, but you don't have a case. in other words, it's time for you to accept that "You tried to make the case and failed."

"Of course not. The problem is that the government has interfered with the free market by establishing minimum wages, driving many into unemployment and homelessness."

propaganda

"That's why conservatives contribute more time and money to charity than socialists do. We believe that these things are the duty of the people, not the government."

oh I see, so the poor should be dependent on the good nature of conservatives like you, who blame the poor for being poor because they make bad decisions.

remember a republican talking about a government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

Abraham Lincoln: another raving marxist lunatic.

"you are a socialist who ignores any data opposed to your point of view"

A. wrong
B. at least my point of view don't rely on making up lies about the other guy

"I really don't suffer fools gladly"

ah, I see you've added *2* more pitches to your repertoire! along with rhetoric you now have name calling and lies. typical republican!!! your journey toward the dark side is complete!

Jack said:

"you want me to explain the difference between social medicine and universal health coverage? come on. One means the government owns all the hospitals and clinics and all the doctors and nurses and etc. are government employees, the other means that everyone in the country is able to access to affordable health care. I'll let you figure out which is which."

Actually, puffy, the one is communist, and the other is socialist.

"guns, taxes and "undue burden": perhaps it isn't an undue burden. Do you have evidence that handguns reduce crime?"

Yes. Violent crime in Florida declined dramatically when their concealed carry law passed. Concealed carry means handguns. Meanwhile, violent crime against tourists ROSE, because tourists were not allowed to carry. When a handgun training program specific to women was introduced, rapes dropped ever further. Similar results have been seen in other states that have passed concealed carry laws.

You, on the other hand, want to restrict people's freedom to defend themselves, and put poor people at greater risk of harm, with no evidence whatsoever that you are right. Furthermore, if a $1000 tax were not an undue burden, then it would not have the effect you are looking for, would it?

"oh I see, so the poor should be dependent on the good nature of conservatives like you, who blame the poor for being poor because they make bad decisions."

Obviously they will be better off than if they rely on socialists such as yourself. How's that "War on Poverty" going, anyway? You want them to be defenseless. Your social programs want them to be unmarried -- a key factor in poverty. You socialists are very giving with other people's money. When the socialists give more of their OWN time and money to charity than the conservatives do, when you do not want to leave them defenseless, then I'll listen to your rants about caring for the poor.

"Abraham Lincoln: another raving marxist lunatic."

Another president that suspended habeas corpus and got us into an unnecesary war.

"'you are a socialist who ignores any data opposed to your point of view'"

"A. wrong"

You ignore every piece of data on gun control. That makes you ignorant.

"B. at least my point of view don't rely on making up lies about the other guy"

It requires you to lie repeatedly. You lie that handguns cause crime. You lie that the socialized medical system of the U.K. is superior to our capitalist one. You lie about the humanity of unborn children, and you lie when you deny being a socialist.

What lies have I told?

ACTivist said:

Jack,

My internet access thru my work computer is VERY restrictive so I am unable to cite things during the day.

You might give this to Puft. Isn't a $1,000 tax on handguns likened to what the Caucasian government tried to do the Negroes to keep guns out of their hands? And wasn't that deemed illegal? And since the poor couldn't afford high quality guns, didn't manufacturers provide firearms at an "affordable cost" so that the poor could own them? That said, wasn't it the Democrats in colusion with the "anti-gunners" that considered inexpensive guns (cheap) as being "Saturday Night Specials" and tried to have them ALL made unavailable to anyone?

Also, Jack. I might be wrong but it is unfair to state that Puft is ignorant. If he READS that which is presented to him, he is no longer ignorant (unaware). If he refuses to belive that evidence it just makes him an idiot. :-)

Jack said:

ACTivist, thank you for the additional information.

I was using "ignorant" in the sense of active refusal to know. It is from the Latin "in" + "gnarus" = "not knowing." Perhaps "ignoramus" would have been a better choice. Its literal translation is "we take no notice."

ACTivist said:

:-)

Anonymous said:

"You, on the other hand, want to restrict people's freedom to defend themselves, and put poor people at greater risk of harm, with no evidence whatsoever that you are right"

That's incorrect. I've said again and again and again that a tax on handguns would reduce their demand without violating the 2nd amendment. I'm not saying that we should do this without further evidence that it's necessary. What I did say was that I have a hunch that handguns => increased violence. I'm not lying. I'm not advocating for a policy, I'm saying that if it turns out that action is necessary, here's a policy that would not violate the 2nd amendment. Do you understand?

you keep broadening the scope of what I'm saying and then calling me ignorant for wanting to do something without more evidence.

the poll tax was designed to target a specific racial group and prevent them from voting. This interferes with the democratic process. The purpose of a gun tax would be to pay for the societal cost of gun proliferation, and would only target people who desire to own a gun.

Let's say everyone in the country can see a doctor when they need to. Let's say their insurance is through a private insurer who gets a tax break for providing low cost insurance premium to people below a certain % of the poverty level. Is that communism? of course not.

charity vs. government assistance: the difference is that the government is more accountable to the people than wealthy donors are. (that's democracy, not communism)

please settle down Jack. I'm not lying by saying that the UK system is better than ours. Is that not a judgment call anyway? It depends on your preferences. If you prefer spending an exorbenant amount of medicine for the latest high tech treatments, even when there's no evidence that they're any more effective, and the consequence is that 40,000,000 of your fellow citizens don't get little to no health care, and even after that your health isn't measurably better than had you spent a fraction of the amount in a system where everyone who needs to can see a doctor, than yes, you could say that our system is better.

...but to call someone a lier for disagreeing with you? lame.

now I like you, because you remind me of me, so I'm going to share with you some articles I just dug up:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_6kJWGgXi4wC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=guns+public+safety&ots=93idCawNpV&sig=lQu1StoEAvSAUi8DA1et02tASow#PPR10,M1

http://www.desarme.org/publique/media/USgunsinhome.pdf

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/286/5/605-a


Anonymous said:

"You, on the other hand, want to restrict people's freedom to defend themselves, and put poor people at greater risk of harm, with no evidence whatsoever that you are right"

That's incorrect. I've said again and again and again that a tax on handguns would reduce their demand without violating the 2nd amendment. I'm not saying that we should do this without further evidence that it's necessary. What I did say was that I have a hunch that handguns => increased violence. I'm not lying. I'm not advocating for a policy, I'm saying that if it turns out that action is necessary, here's a policy that would not violate the 2nd amendment. Do you understand?

you keep broadening the scope of what I'm saying and then calling me ignorant for wanting to do something without more evidence.

the poll tax was designed to target a specific racial group and prevent them from voting. This interferes with the democratic process. The purpose of a gun tax would be to pay for the societal cost of gun proliferation, and would only target people who desire to own a gun.

Let's say everyone in the country can see a doctor when they need to. Let's say their insurance is through a private insurer who gets a tax break for providing low cost insurance premium to people below a certain % of the poverty level. Is that communism? of course not.

charity vs. government assistance: the difference is that the government is more accountable to the people than wealthy donors are. (that's democracy, not communism)

please settle down Jack. I'm not lying by saying that the UK system is better than ours. Is that not a judgment call anyway? It depends on your preferences. If you prefer spending an exorbenant amount of medicine for the latest high tech treatments, even when there's no evidence that they're any more effective, and the consequence is that 40,000,000 of your fellow citizens don't get little to no health care, and even after that your health isn't measurably better than had you spent a fraction of the amount in a system where everyone who needs to can see a doctor, than yes, you could say that our system is better.

...but to call someone a lier for disagreeing with you? lame.

now I like you, because you remind me of me, so I'm going to share with you some articles I just dug up:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_6kJWGgXi4wC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=guns+public+safety&ots=93idCawNpV&sig=lQu1StoEAvSAUi8DA1et02tASow#PPR10,M1

stay puft said:

"You, on the other hand, want to restrict people's freedom to defend themselves, and put poor people at greater risk of harm, with no evidence whatsoever that you are right"

That's incorrect. I've said again and again and again that a tax on handguns would reduce their demand without violating the 2nd amendment. I'm not saying that we should do this without further evidence that it's necessary. What I did say was that I have a hunch that handguns => increased violence. I'm not lying. I'm not advocating for a policy, I'm saying that if it turns out that action is necessary, here's a policy that would not violate the 2nd amendment. Do you understand?

you keep broadening the scope of what I'm saying and then calling me ignorant for wanting to do something without more evidence.

the poll tax was designed to target a specific racial group and prevent them from voting. This interferes with the democratic process. The purpose of a gun tax would be to pay for the societal cost of gun proliferation, and would only target people who desire to own a gun.

Let's say everyone in the country can see a doctor when they need to. Let's say their insurance is through a private insurer who gets a tax break for providing low cost insurance premium to people below a certain % of the poverty level. Is that communism? of course not.

charity vs. government assistance: the difference is that the government is more accountable to the people than wealthy donors are. (that's democracy, not communism)

please settle down Jack. I'm not lying by saying that the UK system is better than ours. Is that not a judgment call anyway? It depends on your preferences. If you prefer spending an exorbenant amount of medicine for the latest high tech treatments, even when there's no evidence that they're any more effective, and the consequence is that 40,000,000 of your fellow citizens don't get little to no health care, and even after that your health isn't measurably better than had you spent a fraction of the amount in a system where everyone who needs to can see a doctor, than yes, you could say that our system is better.

...but to call someone a lier for disagreeing with you? lame.

now I like you, because you remind me of me, so I'm going to share with you some articles I just dug up:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=_6kJWGgXi4wC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=guns+public+safety&ots=93idCawNpV&sig=lQu1StoEAvSAUi8DA1et02tASow#PPR10,M1

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/286/5/605-a

Jack said:

Amusing reading, Puffalump. The first uses the same flawed methods that your earlier citation does -- it selects only the states with the highest and lowest rates of gun ownership. When one goes to the source of that data, none of the low-gun-ownership states have accident rates that are large enough to be stable, and only TWO of the eleven high-gun-ownership states have accident rates that are high enough to be stable. Furthermore, the state with the highest accident rate, Louisiana, is not in the top 11 states for gun ownership rate. Still, go buy the whole book, and I will read it. I will let you borrow Basic Economics. (The Wealth of Nations is available online, so I will assume you have read it. Yes?)

You second citation is a mere paragraph with no data. Buy the article.

Your last citation is also amusing. Despite the fact that their case subjects(homicide victims) were 54.1% Black, but the "control" group was only 25.8% Black, they did NOT include race as a possible co-variate! Furthermore, their own data shows that, "Overall, firearms were slightly more common in the homes of control subjects than case subjects. Long guns in particular were more common in control subjects' homes; the proportion of case subjects and control subjects with handguns in the home was very similar."

Do you even READ the papers you put up to support your ideas?

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

ECOSYSTEM