search
top

Reasoned Discourse Strikes Again

A Washington gun control group sets up a Facebook promoting banning assault weapons in Washington State, and it’s quickly found by pro-Second Amendment Facebook users who are quick to correct all the lies and distortions. So what happens?

reasoned-discourse

I can sympathize with a family who just wants to grieve in peace, but when your process of grieving involves taking away or limiting my constitutional rights, we’re not just going to sit back and let it happen, especially when the arguments involved are based on lies and distortions. The pro-2A has been fighting the assault weapons issue for two decades now, and we have it down to practically an immune response. I think that’s partly why groups like MAIG haven’t, so far, touched that issue.

22 Responses to “Reasoned Discourse Strikes Again”

  1. The Duck says:

    “I can sympathize with a family who just wants to grieve in peace”

    Then they shouldn’t have put it on a public forum

  2. Tom says:

    I’ve never heard of Aaron Sullivan assault weapons. What do they make that’s so bad?

    I’m so sick of this crap from these “people” If I strangle someone you going to try to ban HANDS? If I punch someone and they fall over and hit their head and you going to ban THE GROUND AND HANDS?

    quit with the goddamned stupidity and the object and focus on the PERSON already. Grow up, join the world and learn basic physics…say it with me A GUN IS AN INANIMATE OBJECT. AT OBJECT AT REST REMAINS AT REST UNLESS ACTED UPON BY AN EXTERNAL FORCE. THE FORCE (person in this case) IS THE PROBLEM!

    And another thing, quit with the naming laws after people…can you imagine how many millions of trees it would take just to print the cover page of a law outlawing murder. Yeah, we get it, you want to remember your ______ put a picture up at home, we honestly don’t care and why the hell should YOUR loved one’s name be enshrined when others are the victim of _______ as well.

    where’s that damn tylenol

  3. Carl from Chicago says:

    The Cook county (Illinois, includes Chicago) “assault weapons” ban is called the “Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban.”

    Blair Holt was a young man killed in a gang-oriented shooting on a Chicago city bus. The shooter used a common semiauto pistol.

    “Assault weapons” indeed.

  4. Tom says:

    Are you sure on that Carl? I thought BH was the name slapped on the bill in CONgress. Hasn’t the Shitcago ban been in place much longer?

  5. Carl in Chicago says:

    Yeah.

    The original Cook county ban was a list-based ban, and it was enacted in 1993. Then, it was amended in 2006 (or thereabouts) to a characteristic-based ban (far more encompassing). Recently after, the name was changed (by the Cook county board) to the “Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban.”

    Whatever beast of a bill is in the US congress by the same name (might be IL Rep. Kirk’s bill), the “Blair Holt” thing began at the Cook county level.

  6. Carl in Chicago says:

    The current HR45, an abomination of a bill by US Rep Bobby Rush (from Chicago, and former Black Panther) is called:

    “Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009”

    The Blair Holt name derives from Chicago. Rush probably wants to memorialize Chicago’s gang violence on the national level …

  7. Matt H says:

    What I found funny about the facebook page was that they seemed surprised when pro 2a people showed up.

    Better yet, they clearly have an agenda about firearms but they try to masquerade it around a slain youth. When some questions their anti-2a beliefs they have to bring up the fact the page is about the slain person. Okay….

  8. dagamore says:

    Now it would not be fair to allow the first amendment rights when they are trying to ban the second amendment rights would it?

  9. windex1 says:

    Once again, the pro-2A community proves it is made up almost entirely of men under the age of 30 who lack in social graces.

    Do ya’ll know what “tacky” means?

    This webpage isn’t so much about rights as it is honoring someone who died. It doesn’t matter if you agree with it or not. To post a negative comment isnt appropriate. It’s like spraying grafitti on someone’s wall.

    Why don’t you start your own Facebook page looking for a million people to overturn any Assault Weapons Ban? That would be a more mature thing to do.

  10. dagamore says:

    Ah windex1, nice straw man, but that page is not about memorializing a lost soul, it’s about taking away my rights! You can sugar coat that shit however you want, but that what it is shit! Now I never even posted on that wall, and I just ignore all the anti-2A pages on facebook. But there is a massive difference between polite conversations that don’t agree with that idea (removing more of our 2a rights) and vandalism. While I bet some of the post were in poor taste, and should not have been posted, I would also bet that most of them were not. From what I have seen on other anit-2a facebook/myspace pages, everything that does not fit in to the perfect lock step of the administrators of the page get removed quickly. Because dissention and discussion are not allowed on most of those pages.

    How is it ‘tacky’ to disagree with some one?

    Also you might want to look at the demographics of the NRA and 2AF and JPFO before you say we are all male and under 30. I happen to belong to 2 of the 3, not the NRA anymore but might go back, and while I am Male I am not under 30, and most of the people that I know in 2AF and JPFO I am the young punk, they are for the most part over 50 year olds. But don’t let things like facts get in your way.

  11. Brad says:

    Fat chance any ban on so-called “assault-weapons” will ever pass in Washington state.

  12. dagamore says:

    Brad, they have already banned Full auto, silencers (sorta(you can own but not use/be able to use them)) and with the massive liberal bastions of Seattle, Tacoma (even with Ft Lewis right there) Olympia, and all the damn Greeners (not just from the college) in the state. Hell they banned dish soap with phosphates! and with how liberal the WA Supreme Court is right now, i would not be surprised if they did pass a ban that would be ok with them as long as you could still buy something else(i.e. not a total ban, just a limited one like they have in CA/MA/DC).

  13. mikeb302000 says:

    What is the “immune response?” Is it, “Define an assault weapon?”

  14. Bob S. says:

    MikeB,

    How many times do you have to ask what an “assault weapon” is?
    It’s been explained to you on your own blog, on other blogs and yet here you are trying to make us think you don’t know what an assault weapon is.

    From your own blog post –http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2009/04/assault-weapons-ban-back-on-agenda.html

    Another interesting thing was mentioned. The lapsed assault weapons ban would ban “19 types of military-style semi-automatic rifles.” That sounds extremely specific and very clear. So, what was all that talk about anti-gun people not knowing the difference between fully-automatic and semi-automatic? What was all that ridicule about people who didn’t know what a “gun shroud” was?

    Why do you continue to lie?

  15. Carl in Chicago says:

    “Windex” has obviously not visited that FB web page. If they would have, they might have clicked the Notes tab, where they would have found this:

    “Washington Ceasefire Assault Weapons Ban Overview ”

    Washington Ceasefire is one of, if not the, leading gun control organization in WA.

    If that Facebook page was about honoring the life and the memory of Sullivan, it would not be full of arguments for enacging a ban on semiauto firearms in Washington. If it is about honoring Sullivan THROUGH the enactment of a gun ban … then they have chosen the wrong approach.

    We are very sad that Mr. Sullivan was killed by a violent person, and would love to honor Mr. Sullivan. But if it’s a gun ban that you are after … we can’t let that happen.

  16. Sebastian says:

    windex1:

    The site specifically advocates banning assault weapons and is the creation of Washington Cease Fire, a gun control group in Washington State. Just because you slap the picture of a dead kid up on your site, and name the ban after him, doesn’t mean we can’t go after it.

    I have no doubt there were probably comments on there that fit the category of immature and tasteless, and wouldn’t blame them for taking such comments down, but that’s not what they chose to do, and there’s a reason they chose to do it.

  17. Sebastian says:

    mikeb:

    Immune response means you get a lot of people hitting the site, and debunking all the bullshit about assault weapons.

  18. mikeb302000 says:

    Bob S. said, “here you are trying to make us think you don’t know what an assault weapon is.”

    Maybe you misread my comment and went off half-cocked.
    I wasn’t trying to do any such thing.

  19. Mike w. says:

    “Do ya’ll know what “tacky” means? “

    Yup, tacky is using a kids death and his picture to create a facebook page with the sole purpose of advocating for more gun control. It’s tacky, rude, and disrespectful, but it’s what anti-gunners do. They always dance in the blood of the dead and exploit these tragedies.

  20. Carl from Chicago says:

    Mike, you were asking about “immune response” and what it is.

    It is not the question “define assault weapon.”

    It is the adaptive phenomenon of an instantaneous response from those of us who support and protect your rights guaranteed by the second amendment. As soon as some person or group says or writes the words “assault weapon”, our radar instantly goes up … the adaptive immune response initiates. That is because we know that the words were deceptively created for the purpose of forwarding gun bans and gun control in general.

    Whenever someone begins talking about “assault weapons”, the lymphocytes (adaptive immune response cells) of gun owners begin to pour fourth. “Killer T” cells … look it up.

  21. Bob S. says:

    Yes, I’ll admit I miss read the question.

    Of course, from you I’ve learned to expect the worse. Sort of a conditioned response.

  22. The problem with making such a change by statute is that the Washington Supreme Court has already ruled that a CAR-15 is a constitutionally protected arm under the Washington Const. See State v. Rupe, 101 Wash.2d 664, 683 P.2d 571, 597 (1984). This was a tremendously unsympathetic defendant, who had gone into a credit union to solve an overdraft problem, lost his temper, and murdered everyone inside (leaving his checkbook on the counter). The Washington Supreme Court ruled against Rupe on every part of the appeal–except his claim that introducing Rupe’s ownership of a CAR-15 (unrelated to the crime) as evidence of depraved tendencies had a chilling effect on the right to keep and bear arms.

top