Monday News Links

This week is going to be rough due to some self-imposed deadlines I am determined to meet for work. I’m mostly in documenting mode, and while you might think someone who bangs out five or more blog posts a day can probably bang out documentation just as quickly, I’m slow with documenting, unfortunately, at least partly because it’s necessary but thoroughly joyless and uninteresting work. But one must plan for the proverbial bus (which always seems to run over the IT guy). With that, there is still some news:

Rubber band gun with functioning slide and ejector. Very cool.

The difference between Massachusetts and Florida. Our opponents really do seem to think that violence that isn’t gun violence is somehow preferable.

Bloomberg gets a press conference talking about how New York City’s gun problems are blamed on other jurisdictions. He wants everywhere to be as strict as New York, which essentially bans firearms.

The Myth of the Atomic AR. Something is fishy with that claim. Unless the bullet hit a propane bottle, I can’t see how the fire would get going that fast. Even a gas line would give you enough time to get out.

Piers Morgan’s Misstatement on Virginia murder rates. “This is a teachable moment, because this is what rabid gun control proponents are prone to do—to argue from emotion rather than reason and throw out numbers that have no basis in reality.”

Some interesting history regarding passing FOPA, on how we outfoxed Rep. Hughes to get the bill to the floor. Of course, Rep. Hughes had some last minute revenge waiting for the bill, which we are all familiar. Most people I’ve talked to in the FOPA fight think if it hadn’t been for that bill, they would have succeeded in killing off the gun culture.

Not gun related, but one of my favorites series on PBS (or Channel 12, as we called it) growing up was Connections, with James Burke. So I was delighted to find the whole thing posted online.

24 thoughts on “Monday News Links”

  1. Add this to it……

    New Bill Would Ban AR-15 Receivers, Barrels, and any Necessary Parts to Assemble a Semi-automatic Firearm

    Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has proposed a federal gun bill in the United States House of Representatives that would ban the sale and possession of 80% Ar-15 receivers. However, the way the legislation reads, it actually bans much more than receivers. It appears to include virtually any part used to build a semi-automatic weapon. H.R. 2910 was introduced on August 1, 2013.

    1. Does anyone remember one that was alot like connections, they would start with 2 seemingly unrelated things and show how the one lead to the other.
      Can’t remember the name of it….

  2. And any conservative should give this answer about abortion: Yes, I disapprove/hate/despise abortion and would work to stop it BUT I believe in the Constitution and until an amendment to that Constitution is passed, I will respect the RULE OF LAW. And if some “progressive” journalist asks “will you work to ban contraceptives”, the correct response is WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? No one in MY party has said anything about contraception. Are you some shill for the daily kossack?

    1. Bogus. Constitutional protections apply to all life, inside the womb or otherwise. As much as I could see, that argument amounts to, “don’t like slavery? Don’t own one.” An easier argument to make is, I support the dstruction of all human life, whether it be from guns, knives, or doctors.

      As for contraception, the only time this issue has come up was when access to them was framed under ObamaCare, with GOVERNMENT money going toward the use thereof. Any constitutional-minded individual would find that public money should not be spent on this, nor should anyone be compelled under force of law to provide them to employees as “health care”. Treating pregnancy as a disease is a relatively new (~50 year) talking point foisted on America by progressives.

      1. Oh boy. A TRUE BELIEVER! What branch of religious superstition do you pin your hopes on for an “afterlife”? And “Constitutional protections apply to all life”? Really? So it would be illegal to eat MEAT? Or VEGETABLES? Those are LIFE, right?

        And you have heard of the Supreme COurt of the United States? Right? Separation of powers? Well, too bad “true believer”. You may Feel a “need” to support your non-existent “gawd”. But you don’t really matter. Polls show a lot of “social conservatives” showed up and voted for Romney. He still lost.

        And “contraceptives” were ILLEGAL in a lot of yankee states until the Supreme Court told states to get the hell out of the way.

        So minister of the “committe to protmote virtue and prevent vice”( like the wahabis have in Saudi Arabia), should Roe V Wade ever be overturned, which would you support? The Russian model, where police are stationed in EVERY DOCTORS OFFICE to “make sure” no abortions take place, or would you prefer the Chinese model? That is where EVERY female of child bearing capability, even the homosexual ones, have to show up and PROVE to the neighborhood watcher that they are having their period. Doesn’t that sound wonderful? And it might “save one life” no matter how many it killed. Would you consider a miscarraige to be a murder? Would a pregnant woman that drank a glass of wine be guility of “child abuse”? On the plus side, can I apply for my full social security benefit 10 months earlier?

        1. Right. You sound unhinged.

          I hope you aren’t a public spokesman for gun rights, otherwise our opponents may actually have something when they claim guns are only used for killing massive amounts of children. At least that’s what I would think if my first introduction to a gun rights site was something like this.

        2. Also funny you choose Russia… With one of the highest abortion rates in the world… Or China, where government enforces a one child policy through forced abortions and violence.

          Are you for or against violence? I support a textual reading of the 2nd and the 14th.

          1. Well of course this is the opposite of the CHina policy of “you CAN’t have a baby” to “You MUST have a baby”. So you didn’t answer if you think a woman that has a miscarriage is a murderer. Is she? Does a woman that smokes when she is pregnant a “child abuser”? And if the female is not a relative, WHAT FUCKING BUSINESS IS IT OF YOURS? So “conservatives” want “smaller government” EXCEPT where they want ALL ENCOMPASSING GOVERNMENT? Don’t like abortion? Then amend the Constitution. Otherwise, shut your face.

        3. Fiftycal,

          You REALLY ought to actually READ the Roe v. Wade ruling. Seriously.

          It doesn’t say what you think it does.

          What is says is, “Uh, we dunno when ‘personhood’ begins, so we’ll set these arbitrary rules in place until the nation has reached a concensus on when legally protected life begins.”

          And that is the whole crux of the matter. When does legally protected personhood begin?

          Right now, the answers of very large chunks of the population range everywhere from “fertilization” through “breathes outside air”. Most people (according to polling) seem to agree that somewhere around “viability” (which was one of the benchmarks that caused SCOTUS to pick their trimester theory – theoretical viability in 1973 corresponded very neatly to the end of the second trimester) is probably the point where abortions should be restricted to only saving the mother. Which is a position completely anathema to pro-choice activists, despite that being the central holding IN Roe v. Wade.

      2. Where you think full protections of human life depend on where you believe life really begins. Like I said, I’m not convinced I have any special moral insight into that. I tend to think it doesn’t really happen until viability, but viability isn’t exactly a clear, bright line either. On the reverse, I think considering a clump of cells, or a fetus that is quite difficult to distinguish from that of any other placental mammal, or even fish if you go back far enough, is difficult to accept deserves to override the mother’s right to control her own reproductive organs.

        1. I obviously do not agree with that interpretation (a clump of cells) at all, which is a Gosnell-esque way of justifying the unjustifiable. I think people are more than just “clumps of cells” or piles of flesh. I would also think even “pro-choice” folks like yourself would tread lightly in speaking of something they are not sure of and perhaps err on the side of caution in protecting something that “could be” life… a child… a future parent, gun owner, etc. Otherwise gun owners look like people who want their own stuff protected constitutionally by the 2A but not that much interested in a reading of the 14A, either.

          BTW I was responding to a random post from “Fiftycal” which, I agree, seemed to have nothing to do with the basis of this thread.

          1. All living multi-celluar organisms are clumps of cells. Legally we treat our own species as distinct. But why? We have the ability to reason ourselves distinct, whereas other animals do not. I tend to think with abortion you have two competing interest… the rights of the potential person and the right of the person carrying it. I can see the argument that it should be conception, but what’s special about a zygote biologically? At what point does a person become a person? It’s difficult for me to accept “Conception! And that’s just the end of the debate.” Maybe that’s where it needs to be to avoid ambiguity, but it doesn’t, at least to me, appear to be that simple.

            1. What’s special about a person that deems us any more worthy of constitutional rights/protection (in the U.S. at least) as a whole, then? Sure we have laws protecting animals with less reasoning ability than we have, but we still “oversee” their protection.

              All I’m saying, it may not be easy or readily obvious, but we should err on the side of caution when it comes to “is it or isn’t it?”

              1. We protect them, but not under the same doctrines of rights as people. But I don’t think it’s that cut and dry, which is why I can coalition with pro-lifers, and don’t think the GOP needs to become the pro-abortion party. There’s real division on the issue, and I think the GOP can do well promoting the position of protecting unborn life. But I do think it needs to be realistic that most of the population supports abortion being legal under some circumstances. By the same token, I’m relatively understanding that the GOP isn’t going to adopt “machine guns for all,” plank even though I would love that.

                1. I’m relatively understanding that the GOP isn’t going to adopt “machine guns for all,” plank even though I would love that.

                  Me too!
                  Who knows, it might get more people on their side if they did…..

        2. I look to the Bible for when life begins, It says that God breathed the breath of life into man an made him alive, so I’d say when you take tour first breath you are a person.
          Best authority on it I can find…..

  3. The first Connections was great. The second one with Burke, well, meh not so much.

    1. I think this is a cross-over from another post. I’m quickly trying to catch up on things, and I seem to recall reading a post about how Social Conservatives need to compromise with Libertarians–but their idea of “compromise” is to have the Libertarians shut up and vote.

      Because of that, the comments didn’t seem out of place for me. I had to go back up to review this post, and confirm that none of the links had anything to do with the topic.

      (For the record, I’m in agreement with HappyWarrior6; however, I’m inclined to believe that Roe v. Wade should simply be overturned, because it’s bad law, and States should be allowed to figure out the best ways to address the issue (which will likely settle down to “20 weeks and after, abortion is bad”); I’m inclined to think that Fiftycal is a little over-the-top when he’s expecting that we’re going to put a police officer in every doctor’s office to prevent abortion–which we didn’t do when abortion was illegal.)

      (I would also add that I may be conservative, but I’m a conservative libertarian anarcho-capitalist, so I’m inclined to think that even murder itself should be “legal”, and be a civil matter between you, the family and friends of the person you murdered, and the arbitrators that you and they agree on; and that the husband has as much reproductive interest in the child as the mother does, and that, if his girlfriend or wife has the right to abort, then the father has the right to give the ultimatum of “if you don’t abort this child, then I refuse to pay for this child’s support if he or she is born”…not that I’d agree with such an ultimatum, but as reproductive rights currently stand, they are currently weighted heavily towards the female, with males at the mercy of her choices.)

      (But I really need to stop now. This thread isn’t the place for such arguments–even if my thoughts had any more sense than Fiftycal’s or HappyWarrior6’s–and besides, I already declared myself a Libertarian, so this is where I’m supposed to just shut up and vote, right? ;.)

      1. And I forgot to mention: doesn’t the “shut up and vote” attitude sound familiar? Oh, yes, it does! Whenever the Anti-Gun Crusaders come out with new “Common Sense” gun legislation, we’re supposed to “Shut up and Support” it, no questions asked.

        Surely, Libertarians should be able to find common ground with Conservatives on *some* things! Say, deregulation…or decreasing taxes…or even things like protection for churches to prevent them being forced to perform gay marriages (which is a real fear that some churches have, in part because it’s happening in other countries) or even compromise on abortion (as something that should only be handled on the State Level, for example, and shouldn’t happen after the pregnancy progresses to a certain point. Heck, I’d be satisfied with “let’s just leave the abortion issue alone, ok?” because it’s a cantankerous issue, even among Libertarians!).

        But then, I strongly suspect that the attitude has strong roots in the fact that we really have just two parties: Statist and Statist-Lite. Libertarianism (and technically, Conservatism–Social or otherwise–and true Liberalism as well, for that matter) don’t fit very well into that two-party picture…

        1. Quite so Alpheus. Take Christie. He’s a republican, but he’s neither conservative nor libertarian. And he’s hardly unique.

          As for abortion, oh yah, that’s devisive among Libertarians.
          Again going down to when personhood is defined.

          Given a core principle is: “An action should be legal unless it, unjustly, harms another person.”

          Ah well.

Comments are closed.