Times Dispatch Gets It

They take Obama to task for trying to seek a phony “middle ground” on gun control:

So it is with guns. The president is fond of speaking about “common sense” gun restrictions. To supporters of the Second Amendment, that is like speaking about “common sense” press restrictions in the context of the First — which forbids any restrictions at all. There is nothing particularly noble about compromise when it calls for someone to compromise his principles.

As the article mentions, this isn’t some obscure budgetary matter, or building a bridge, where there could be some give an take. This cuts to the very core of the citizens’ relationship with government.

22 Responses to “Times Dispatch Gets It”

  1. mikeb302000 says:

    The quote you chose is a bit faulty, don’t you think. Just like the First Amendment is not without “common sense” restrictions, e.g. you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater, so the Second Amendment can have its restrictions. True common sense would dictate background checks on all transfers, for a starter. You know the rest.

  2. Rick says:

    There is NOTHING whatsoever that prevents any person from yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. There is only the consequences, legal and otherwise, from doing so. What gun banners propose is the 1st Amendment equivalent of duct taping our our mouths shut in theaters. But I guess that’s the mentality of the anti-civil rights crowd, they think laws apply to the lawless. And when those regulations inevitably fail in their stated purpose, they just keep pushing the same tactics of oppression against the lawful.

  3. Laughingdog says:

    Actually, there can only be consequences for shouting fire in a crowded theater if there is not a fire.

    Also, if you like your “yelling fire” example so much, I would like to point out that we don’t duct tape peoples’ mouths to keep them from yelling anything in a theater, nor do we do background checks before allowing them in.

    So the only reasonable gun laws, by your example, would be those that punish you after you’ve done something to endanger innocent life, instead of treating everyone like a criminal before the fact.

  4. Rick says:

    I made no mention of what consequences or under what circumstances someone might shout “fire”, on purpose, it’s correct either way. As long as the topic up though… The consequences could be saving people from burning alive… Maybe even saving lives using a tool, like a fire extinguisher? Unless having such a tool, means a person is inviting fires?

    Question: “So the only reasonable gun laws, by your example, would be those that punish you after you’ve done something to endanger innocent life, instead of treating everyone like a criminal before the fact.”

    Answer: Yes, exactly! Don’t treat good people like criminals. Don’t limit the right of self defense for the poor (or anyone). Don’t continue gun laws that are based on the racist Jim Crow laws.

    Name any existing gun law that prevents crime with guns? Name any existing law that prevents crime?
    Name any law that can be effectively applied to criminals while not oppressing the lawful?

    I’m not saying there are not such laws, I’m saying that these “common sense gun laws” are not among them. But we don’t have to wonder, a study was done by the Centers for Disease Control that found that no existing anti-gun laws could be shown to have prevented crime. Tens of THOUSANDS of current anti-gun laws, have not prevented crime or violence. Compromise starts by repealing HALF of those, not adding to them.

    I think the mistake that many people make is the belief that laws can PREVENT determined crime or violence. This mistake leads to ever increasing, rarely relenting oppression against people that are not inclined to break the law in the first place. Crime and violence are not ‘prevented’, but instead are recorded and made into a statistic, with a possibility of bringing a criminal to justice, after the fact. However, crime and violence can be ‘stopped’ once it has started, stopped by a good guy with a gun. The facts are already in, we already know that crime and violence are lower where citizens are allowed to defend themselves.

    If the gun banners wish to focus only on “gun violence”, in front of people that pay attention, let them. It infuriates people with ‘actual’ common sense and it’s easy to “shoot down”, so to speak.

  5. Joe Mama says:

    “…you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater…”

    But that doesn’t require one to wear a gag in the theater, does it Mikey? Then again, it would be an improvement in your case.

  6. Bob S. says:


    True common sense would dictate background checks on all transfers, for a starter.

    If it is commonsense, did you do a background check when you sold or disposed of your firearms?

    Did you submit to a background check when you obtained your firearms?


    If you believe the 1st Amendment is “not without commonsense restrictions” then you wouldn’t mind subjecting yourself to the same restrictions you propose for the 2nd amendment, eh Sparky?

    Background checks, public registration of blogs and bloggers — No more hiding behind pseudonyms for you Sparky.
    Why don’t you fully disclose your identity and information as you request gun owners to disclose their information?

    Do you feel that a licensing for bloggers is a reasonable restriction? Training classes that cost hundreds of dollars? May Issue permits from your local LEO?

    Oh, wait– since you live in Italy, your laws don’t apply here and therefore your right to blog shouldn’t be recognized; right?

    You have stated that states shouldn’t have to recognize other states carry permits; so the same should apply across international borders, right Sparky?

    If people are offended by the site of a blog, shouldn’t that blog be forced to cover up or not permitted to exist at all?

    Isn’t that your rationale behind not supporting the right to Open Carry?
    Frankly allowing the very offensive Jadegold to co-author at your blog puts it at the top of my list.

    And I’m sure you’ll bleat and whine how you can’t compare rights like this — and you won’t support your argument with anything more than repetition and foot stomping that I don’t respect your rights*.

    * Because I removed the link to your blog.

  7. kenno271 says:

    “True common sense would dictate background checks on all transfers, for a starter.”

    Based on Argument by Vigorous Assertion, I gather?

  8. Rick says:

    Right… “true common sense”. The criminals will FINALLY be foiled by yet another “true common sense” measure that will only be recognized by the people least likely to abuse it…

    What doesn’t make sense must make “True Common Sense”.

  9. Gareth A says:

    “True common sense would dictate background checks on all transfers, for a starter. You know the rest”.

    Yes I do, more so than you. After the background check law, there should be a list of bans, composed of only two words:

    “That’s it”.

    True common sense dictates that criminal and negligent misuse is NEVER put before proper use. Laws can be made to stop criminals getting guns, sure, but they are only sensible so long as the law-abiding can purchase, own and transfer the exact same weapon.

    The bans your side advocate do not do this, so can not legitimately be called common sense.

    Mind you, the anti side has always been known as the liars and charlatans of the debate, so it shouldn’t be surprising that you shamelessly lie about common sense too.

  10. Laughingdog says:

    Rick, that was directed at MikeB. You apparently need to work on your reading comprehension. If I was a gun banner, I wouldn’t be advocating only having laws that punish bad behavior after it was done, instead of punishing everyone because a few may misuse their rights.

    Seriously, if you see MikeB post in a comment thread, you can pretty much assume that every other comment in the thread is there to tell him that he’s a moron.

  11. Ian Argent says:

    I’ve noted a couple of times; the “shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” doctrine isn’t even good ConLaw any more for the First Amendment. It came up in a context of prior restraint of the First Amendment during WWI, and has since been overturned by later decisions.

  12. AntiCitizenOne says:

    The guy who wrote “fire in a crowded theater” later had it necked down to ‘imminent lawless action” – and the original writer regretted writing that broad of such a restrictive ruling.

    Nice try Sparky.

  13. mikeb302000 says:

    A lot of what you guys are saying seems to presume that I’d like to take your precious guns away. That’s not the case at all. If it were up to me, you’d have to be licensed and pass a background check to buy a gun, you’d have to undergo some kind of psychological screening, your every gun would be registered to you and you’d have to be responsible for them.

    There would be other restrictions, but those right there would probably eliminate about half of you. And since that would be the worst half, the ones left won’t be doing much of the murder/suicide incidents or the “making it easy for thieves to steal your guns” trick, or threatening road-rage behavior, or setting up a table at the local gun show and selling your guns to any asshole with a few hundred bucks, no, under my system, many of you would continue to have guns but you’d be constrained to behave.

  14. Ian Argent says:

    Begging the question. You assume that there is a non-trivial number of otherwise non-prohibited persons who would be properly prevented from possessing firearms by your proposed scheme. Prove it with facts and figures, not anecdotes and individual tragedies.

    Otherwise you are infringing on a fundamental human right guaranteed by amendment to the constitution exercised by law-abiding persons in a fruitless attempt to prevent lawlessness by restricting the law-abiding.

    And if you do prove it, I have to remove the word “fruitless” she replace it with “useless”. Lawbreakers break laws, by definition.

  15. Bob S. says:


    many of you would continue to have guns but you’d be constrained to behave.

    There were laws in place when you illegally owned firearms, they didn’t constrain you to behave.

    You keep talking about firearm owners being responsible for their firearms.

    So, come clean (like you said you would do a week ago).
    Where are the firearms you owned?
    Who did you sell them to or give them to?
    Did you do background checks before disposing of them?
    Did you commit any crimes other then illegally owning them?

    Come on Sparky, tell us about your firearms.

    You’ve stated over and over again that gun owners are responsible for their guns even after getting rid of them.

    Prove that you are more than a bloviating hypocrite

  16. mikeb302000 says:

    Bob, What could possibly explain this unshakable obsession you have with what I might have done or failed to do 30 YEARS AGO?

    Do you have other obsessions? Are you being treated for them? You know they have good meds for this stuff nowadays. No one need suffer like you do in this day and age.

  17. Sebastian says:

    Don’t dodge the question mike! Where did you bury Jimmy?

  18. Ian Argent says:

    Oh, I am pretty sure he has stopped beating his wife

  19. Bob S. says:

    Don’t you just love how the man who believes in shared responsibility for ‘gun crimes’ ducks answering questions about his admitted gun crimes?

    Don’t you love how the man who ‘doesn’t do personal attacks’ stoops to personal attacks when backed into a corner?

    Sparky, you are the one pushing for accountability aren’t you? That every gun owner is responsible for every gun he has ever owned?

    Aren’t those your sentiments?
    I’m just trying to help you be true to your beliefs.

    Or are those just hypocritical words?

    Don’t you also believe in ‘one strike’ and you are out?

    Hmm, shouldn’t we know all about your firearms since you call for gun owners not only to register their firearms, submit to a background check, be finger printed, photographed but also submit to psychological exams and yearly inspections of our homes?

    Isn’t it a little hypocritical of you not to want to answer questions about firearms when you want to put our lives under such a microscope.

    Come on, tell the truth about your firearms. They say confession is good for the soul.

    (By the way Sebastian, I’m betting on it involving a rifle and a grassy knoll. Either that or a visit to Ford’s Theater)

  20. Bob S. says:

    Oh and does anyone else find this

    What could possibly explain this unshakable obsession you have with what I might have done or failed to do 30 YEARS AGO?

    Absolutely IRONIC coming from a man who is unshakably obsessed with restricting the rights of people who even he admits are law abiding — people who HAVEN’T done anything illegal?

  21. mikeb302000 says:

    Bob, Don’t you realize how damning these comments of yours are? If they ever begin screening for mental illness, this one thread would disqualify you.

    I think you like the stalemate more than I do. I offered you a way to get the real scoop. You wanna reconsider?

  22. Sebastian says:

    I offered you a way to get the real scoop. You wanna reconsider?

    I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert. I think Bob found out about your prevertion, and you were organizing some kind of mutiny of preverts.