Saturday, March 1, 2014

Now you can see more clearly why they want to trash the Second Amendment

It's funny how you can understand motives of a political movement if you realize that the policies it champions are connected. They shed light on the purposes of the movement.

Can there be any more clear demonstration of the intentions of the Left than Georgetown Law professor Louis Seidman's jaw-dropping op-ed in the New York Times advocating throwing out the Constitution, and the moronic Leftie frenzy over gun control.

They are connected. The latter is what would make the former achievable.

Gun control has nothing to do with school shootings or reducing violence. Where Leftists govern (Chicago, Washington DC, etc), gun violence is everywhere. Leftist-governed municipalities are the most violent enclaves in America. In Leftist governed enclaves, the government and the criminals have all the guns. Only law-abiding citizens are disarmed.

Gun control and Constitution-trashing are part of a fabric: Leftist hegemony and the radical transformation of our nation. 


  1. For shame! Shame on you for noticing such things.

  2. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 1, 2014 at 8:09 AM

    Will no one rid me of this troublesome document?
    --- Henry II (approximately, with apologies)

  3. I don't think we need a new constitution, I think we need two, and a fence.


    1. We know you think we need a new Constitution because you hate this one. That much is clear. There are lots of things in it that you don't like--the First and Second Amendments, for example. It also doesn't contain all of the made up rights that you wish were in there such as the right to sodomy, the right to birth control, the right to live in a God-free zone, the right to "safe space", and the right to marriage.


    2. @Joey: I think he said that we don't need a new constitution. But it's pretty clear that he doesn't like other people to have any rights at all. Everyone who disagrees with him is a bigot in no way deserving of constitutional protections.


  4. In other news, a group of men entered a train station in China and
    proceeded to massacre innocent victims
    in a seemingly senseless attack. Reports now indicate at least 28 dead and 109 wounded.

    They used knives.If only they had had some sensible knife control laws this wouldn't happen.


    1. Thank God they didn't have assault rifles.


    2. It's a pity that the people had no means of defense, having been disarmed by KW's buddies.

  5. I see Jerry Coyne has a considered rational thread on the Idaho Senate proposal to allow concealed handguns to be carried on state university and college campuses, so I expect that there will be soon an un-considered irrational diatribe from Egnor addressing not a single point Jerry Coyne made.

    1. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 1, 2014 at 5:58 PM

      barkmad, you are barking mad. "Rational" thread?

      Point 1 re the silly NYT editorial: "“When may I shoot a student?“
      Answer: When that student is shooting at you.

      See how easy that was?

      Point 2 re legislating in the face of opposition...
      Answer: Public approval of health care law - 39% approve, 52% disapprove (RCP); uninsured unfavorable 56% (Kaiser).

      Speaking of opposition, anyone having the barest familiarity with statistics knows that the gaggle of people voluntarily showing up at a legislative hearing to "testify" are not a random sample. Obviously, you and Coyne lack the barest familiarity. However, I am surprised that Coyne is unaware that applications for gun permits are outpacing applications for Obamacare in his home state.


    2. Senile old fart,

      When I refer to a thread being 'rational' I mean that the author is making an argument and putting forward reasons for it.

      You and Egnor just make unsupported assertions and engage in irrelevant asides.

      What exactly does Obamacare have to do with the right to carry concealed handguns on a university or college campus? Besides in your inadequate mind?

    3. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 1, 2014 at 8:15 PM

      blankfield, you poor thing. I know what "rational" means. I doubt you do, though.

      What "unsupported assertion" did I make? The law in the US is when someone shoots at you, you can shoot back if you have a gun (otherwise, you just get shot). It's common knowledge, but I'll be delighted to give you a link if your ignorance is that profound.

      And did you read my phrase (question 2) "speaking of opposition" and the idiotic claim that Coyne made about a tiny gaggle of complainers in the legislature? Well, let me spell out what Obamacare has to do with that. I'll use short words...


      Does that spell it out for you, lackwit?

      Are you drunk, blankfield?

    4. And I was referring to the article in the Boise Weekly, which referred in the first paragraph that opposition amongst witnesses is 4 to 1.

      Surveys are notoriously unreliable. The answer you get depends greatly on the way you phrased the question and the questions you asked beforehand.

      There can't be any doubt about the opinions of witnesses who bother to appear before a house committee. Their opinions might be different to that of the general population or electorate.

      However, what's the point of a hearing, if the decision of the members were already made, as shown by the fact that the vote went along party lines?

    5. Adm. G Boggs, Glenbeckistan NavyMarch 1, 2014 at 8:49 PM

      buckfart, I assume that dog of yours is a service dog. You need one.

      And if you look back, you will see that in the comments you will find that virtually every "assertion" I make is referenced, and referenced with a link if it might be difficult to find. You are the one who makes claims about bullshit you think you read and understood in some pop-sci book.

    6. Senile old fart,

      I don't bother reading your references anymore, because they're either irrelevant (there're often just YouTube videos), or from biased sites.

      And anyway, I don't believe everything I read in 'pop-sci' books. I look at the references and decide whether it's plausible or true.

      You're the one who has decided that it's wrong, just based on your worldview. And what's wrong with the observation that eyewitnesses are often not reliable because what is seen is often not registered or remembered?

      Unless you want to believe that the 'Design' of humans is perfect, not just good or adequate for needs?

      You're a fuckwit.

  6. its really about identity. These democratic areas represent blacks and browns.
    its a identity problem and not a political party matter.
    its the absolute moral right ofd all men to have weapons for any reason.
    The few bad guys using weapons can not take this right and dignity of having firearms. Its foolish to disarm mankind for the evil or foolish.
    Poor driving must not prohibit cars.
    We must endure the rare cases of evil doing for a greater right and dignity.
    It is American identity to have weapons. Its a core value and core part of the soul. Canada less so.
    Its about the essence of freedom to have and hold what you want about important things to you.
    Crime is rare enough or in segregated identities and their own fault.
    Its about freedom to maintain the hearts delight and dignity.
    Leave Yanks guns alone.
    It was freedom like this that made a better world. Not Yanks guns as it might seem.