Friday, September 24, 2010

What the hell? Let's join the meme!

...Though I confess I'm still not exactly sure what a "meme" is. Guess I should have gone to college, huh?

Anyway - I see, courtesy of Sebastian at Snowflakes in Hell, that there's this hoplophobic broad who wants to play 20 Questions with gun owners. I'm just absolutely convinced she'll treat the responses she receives with a completely serious and respectful attitude. Also, she asks that responses be backed up with "peer-reviewed articles" or something similar. I can't do that, since I have no peers. I am peerless. Er...I know of no one who will admit to being my peer.

(Ahem...)



Since as usual I found Sebastian's responses unduly conciliatory, I hereby offer my own, for your time-wasting pleasure. I assure my readership that they're worth every dime.

1. Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?

I believe that they will continue to easily do so anyway, and that any "solution" you propose will succeed only in disarming their intended victims.

2. What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?

I have none. Wouldn't begin to know how to do that effectively, short of locking everybody up. I can, however, offer detailed proposals for keeping arms in the hands of their prospective victims. The first would involve getting you and your friends away from the ears of politicians.

3. Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to "keep and bear arms"?

Yes.

4. Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?

Yes.

5. If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?

The question is incoherent. "Banning" requires no physical action at all, and is quite simple to do. Even Clinton managed it. If you mean confiscation, well, there you've got a problem. Were you really coming to me for suggestions?

6. What do you think are the "second amendment remedies" that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?

I think they involved getting her elected.

7. Do you believe in the notion that if you don't like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied?

No, I have no intention of helping Sharron Angle get elected. Demonstrated desire for any position of power should comprise automatic disqualification.

8. Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?

Just for saying something I disagree with? No. For being a liar or a low person? Yes.

9. If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person's face?

That's the only way it should be done. What does this have to do with gun control?

10. Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?

This question assumes I accept the concept of a "constitutional right," which is not a safe assumption. But for the purpose of the exercise - No. An unconstitutional law does not negate constitutional rights. It may take away my ability to openly exercise them, though.

11. Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.

Do I believe in them? You mean, do I believe they exist? Yes. Er...seriously, I don't even know what these two questions are asking.

12. Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?

Heh. Good one.

13. Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?

I don't believe there should be gun statistics.

14. Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should "count" in the total numbers?

You keep asking the same question.

15. Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?

Modern guns? I'm unaware of any plausible means by which this can happen. I suppose someone could reach over and pull the trigger on someone else's gun, but...

16. Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?

Compared to what? I can imagine scenarios in which it's not enough.

17. How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country?

Mostly I stay away from cops.

18. Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?

Self-referential much? I have no opinion about anything you've ever written, lady.

19. There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).

Oh, seriously - I'm not even going there. Don't get me started on the ATF.

20. Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?

That last one. You and I will never have any point in common. I'd be prepared to deny, under oath, that we belong to the same species.

24 comments:

Jim said...

Oh my. Good one, sir.

Anonymous said...

Great answers Joel!

Here are a group of observations-

Why is my having a personal firearm an issue someone else has a right to decide?

Would you like to see my baseball bat? It will accomplish the same end result, just a lot more personal.

Do you want to ban my owning a baseball bat?

If it is my intention to do you harm all the gun laws you propose are not effective against my pipe wrench.

My personal firearm is a defensive weapon. My family and I are more secure in our home with the weapon than without.

Many folks propose calling 911 as an alternative to owning a personal firearm. In my area this results in at least an hour delay and probably a great file documenting the injuries a criminal, or group of criminals, has done.

The second amendment simply provides the option for me to decide if owing a personal firearm is in my best interest. I don't need anyone's help to make this decision. I do not need any law to remove this option from my self-defense choices.

It is not my desire to prevent you, or anyone else, from NOT owning the personal firearm of their choice.

I do not confuse 50 cal. machine guns or rocket propelled grenades (RPG's) with personal firearms.

If the criminal has a personal firearm and you do not then you are the "victim". If both you and the criminal are armed then you are an "opponent". An opponent has a chance, a victim does not. It is a choice you must be free to make for yourself.

Tam said...

"I do not confuse 50 cal. machine guns or rocket propelled grenades (RPG's) with personal firearms."

Why not?

Joel said...

Gotta go with Tam on this one. Mounted MGs and RPGs are the very model of personal defensive firearms, as far as I'm concerned.

Did you know that letters of marque and reprisal, constitutional as all hell, involved privately-owned crew-served weapons? Nobody but pirates batted an eyelash.

Anonymous said...

You, Sir, speak for me in every particular here. Bravo!

Kristopher said...

That whole fracas in Lexington was started by a Mr Hancock buying a pair of cannons privately, and donating them to the Lexington town militia.

The redcoats didn't get those cannons, BTW ... one of the militia leaders buried the carriage-less tubes in a plowed field before they arrived.

Anonymous said...

"I'm unaware of any plausible means by which this can happen."

I had an ND that involved a jammed bolt, a still-chambered round, and a wedged primer fragment that prevented the firing pin from retracting. I suffered a lapse in situational awareness when un-jamming the bolt, but thank goodness I was aware enough to be pointing down range. It didn't really involve pulling the trigger, and it was a firearm of recent manufacture.

Anonymous said...

Question 2? Check out Operation Exile in Richmond, VA. Anything lse is superfluous.

Diesel said...

I can answer #2 pretty well:

By locking up criminals for their entire sentence every time the commit a violent crime.

CorbinKale said...

I think Mike sums it up best. "If you try to take my guns, I will kill you." That pretty much answers all of her questions.

Anonymous said...

I have my doubts about whether she will post my response, but you and TUAK readers might enjoy it:

The answer to all twenty questions is the same:

You and I are different. I will not use violence to achieve my personal goals. I make my way in the world using peaceful, voluntary, mutually beneficial trade. I use violence only when necessary to defend my life and property from violence initiated by others. Even then, my response will be appropriate to the threat and circumstances.

You and your ilk use violence to get what you want. Whether it is markets that displease you or tools you fear and loathe violence is your first and only tool. It's quite pathetic really, how limited your imaginations have become. You can't even imagine solutions to most problems that don't involve violence. I typically have to choose from a myriad of options when negotiating a solution to a problem that troubles me; all you can ever do is demand new laws.

You're also a coward, and unwilling to do the dirty work required by your reliance on violence. So you rely on others to pass "laws," hire men armed with the very same guns that so terrify you, give them costumes and costume jewelry, steal the money to pay for these parasites from their victims, and then set them upon me.

There's your answer. There is no frontier here, only a bleeding edge. Because you will try to have me killed if you can't make me agree with you, while I will go my peaceful way and do my best to ignore and shun you. I have trades to make and a life to live. There's really no point to further discussion with you, since the outcome has already been decided.

Anonymous said...

How odd. I posted a comment, saw it, then it disappeared. Second try:

I doubt she will post my response, but I thought Joel and TUAK readers might find it amusing:

The answer to all twenty questions is the same:

You and I are different. I will not use violence to achieve my personal goals. I make my way in the world using peaceful, voluntary, mutually beneficial trade. I use violence only when necessary to defend my life and property from violence initiated by others. Even then, my response will be appropriate to the threat and circumstances.

You and your ilk use violence to get what you want. Whether it is markets that displease you or tools you fear and loathe violence is your first and only tool. It's quite pathetic really, how limited your imaginations have become. You can't even imagine solutions to most problems that don't involve violence. I typically have to choose from a myriad of options when negotiating a solution to a problem that troubles me; all you can ever do is demand new laws.

You're also a coward, and unwilling to do the dirty work required by your reliance on violence. So you rely on others to pass "laws," hire men armed with the very same guns that so terrify you, give them costumes and costume jewelry, steal the money to pay for these parasites from their victims, and then set them upon me.

There's your answer. There is no frontier here, only a bleeding edge. Because you will try to have me killed if you can't make me agree with you, while I will go my peaceful way and do my best to ignore and shun you. I have trades to make and a life to live. There's really no point to further discussion with you, since the outcome has already been decided.

Anonymous said...

Something odd here -

I posted some comments. Nothing terribly offensive or inflammatory, not that I've Joel to be easily offended, and it is his blog.

I saw those comments appear in the comments pane.

When I reload the site a few minutes later, my comments (#10 an #11, I tried this twice) have vanished.

Very strange. Never happened here to me before.

-S

Anonymous said...

The answer to all twenty questions is the same:

You and I are different. I will not use violence to achieve my personal goals. I make my way in the world using peaceful, voluntary, mutually beneficial trade. I use violence only when necessary to defend my life and property from violence initiated by others. Even then, my response will be appropriate to the threat and circumstances.

You and your ilk use violence to get what you want. Whether it is markets that displease you or tools you fear and loathe violence is your first and only tool. It's quite pathetic really, how limited your imaginations have become. You can't even imagine solutions to most problems that don't involve violence. I typically have to choose from a myriad of options when negotiating a solution to a problem that troubles me; all you can ever do is demand new laws.

You're also a coward, and unwilling to do the dirty work required by your reliance on violence. So you rely on others to pass "laws," hire men armed with the very same guns that so terrify you, give them costumes and costume jewelry, steal the money to pay for these parasites from their victims, and then set them upon me.

There's your answer. There is no frontier here, only a bleeding edge. Because you will try to have me killed if you can't make me agree with you, while I will go my peaceful way and do my best to ignore and shun you. I have trades to make and a life to live. There's really no point to further discussion with you, since the outcome has already been decided.

-S

Anonymous said...

Yup, same thing.

I posted about my puzzlement, no problem. I posted my comments about Ms. Hoplophobe, they appear for about 45 seconds then get deleted.

Joel, you appear to have a bot policing your blog.

-S

Underground Carpenter said...

Hi Joel,

Great answers! Far more eloquent and polite than I'd have been.

Dave

Julie said...

i waded through her article and most of the comments it received ... then saw Tam's link to your answers - must say these are THE BEST! Thanks for the laugh!

Off now to explore the rest of your blog.

Anonymous said...

Today the lady has closed the 20 question response. Claiming there are too many responses to jugle. Thats probly true. Maybe Tam or yourself could offer a one to one debate with her or get another gunbloger to offer. posing one question at a time back and fourth 20 questions each one day to resond for each question?????

Anonymous said...

The answer to all twenty questions is the same:

You and I are different. I will not use violence to achieve my
personal goals. I make my way in the world using peaceful, voluntary, mutually beneficial trade. I use violence only when necessary to defend my life and property from violence initiated by others. Even then, my response will be appropriate to the threat and circumstances.

You and your ilk use violence to get what you want. Whether it is
market outcomes that displease you or tools you fear and loathe violence is your first and only choice. It's quite pathetic really, how limited your imaginations have become. You can't even imagine solutions to
most problems that don't involve violence. I typically have to choose from a myriad of options when negotiating a solution to a problem that troubles me; all you can ever do is demand new laws.

You're also a coward, and unwilling to do the dirty work required by your reliance on violence. So you rely on others to pass "laws," hire men armed with the very same guns that so terrify you, give them costumes and costume jewelry, steal the money to pay for these parasites from their victims, and then set them upon me.

There's your answer. There is no frontier here, only a bleeding edge. Because you will try to have me k***ed if you can't make me agree with you, while I will go my peaceful way and do my best to ignore and shun you. I have trades to make and a life to live. There's really no
point to further discussion with you, since the outcome has already
been decided.

Joel said...

S-

I've got nothing. I haven't deleted a comment in months, and that was commercial spam. Sorry you had the problem, but I don't know what the cause is.

Anonymous said...

I posted the 20 question debate suggestion on the ladies site no response there either. I myself lack the ability.

Geodkyt said...

Tam, et al,

The difference is that an RPG or a .50 HMG don't fall into the same category as was meant by the general legal or technical use of the term "arms" in the 18th Century -- they fall more in line with what was termed "pieces of ordnance".

Weapons such as were commonly issued to individual soldiers for "personal" use on duty (muskets, carbines, pistols, knives, bayonets, swords, even blunderbusses) were categorized as "arms", and which arms were appropriate to a particular soldier were established by his duty assignment, era, and army. pretty much anything that stabs or slices counts, likewise any man-portable, one-man served, NON-support weapon counts, including selective fire assault rifles, SMGs, scary-looking shotguns, handguns, etc.

You could make a plausible argument that certain highly-specialized, low power target guns (such as a $4000 single shot .22 rimfire Olympic free pistol) might not qualify as an "arm", but I would answer that it's a perfectly valid training aid in the use of "arms", and so invites at least strict scrutiny before banning. You might be able to draw a line at "guns that must be tripod fired, or are routinely issued as crew served weapons", which would put the M249 SAW (even though it is a "support" weapon) on the "arms" side, and the Browning .30 M1919 MMG and M240 GPMG on the "ordnance" side (even though an individual could plausibly employ either).

"Arms" ALSO includes a certain amount of non-weapon military equipage, being as a "stand of arms" was the minimum kit a soldier needed to stand duty as an infantryman. . . these days I would say that the US military's standard of issue indicates that military grade body armor (including helmet), at least unclassified NVDs (which includes stuff more advanced than we fought DESERT STORM with), standard capacity milspec magazines, milspec day optics, etc., ALL would meet the standard of "arms" if the 18th Century definition were applied to modern scale of issue. Military-grade gas masks and NBC suits probably qualify, too.

(Continued)

Geodkyt said...

(Continued)

Crew served (cannon, etc.) or what would now be termed "support" weapons (wall guns, grenade launchers. . . yes, they had grenade launches in the 18th Century) were "pieces of ordnance". (Interestingly enough, the tools to service a "piece of ordnance" such as a cannon were termed "arms", as were the personal weapons of the artillerymen.)

Doesn't mean that non-arms ("pieces of ordnance") are automatically banned, or even necessarily eligible for banning; only that they aren't "arms", and the 2nd only protects "arms". Given the existence of the "Letters of Marque and Reprisal", it's patently apparent that some right to keep and bear this heavier ordnance exists, and the fact that none of the states banned possession of "ordnance" (barring some "safe storage" laws that seem to be aimed at fire protection -- such as a limit to how many loaded grenades one may keep in an urban house) also indicates that teh Founding Fathers didn't have much of a problem with civilian ownership.

It's just that this heavier stuff isn't protected by the blanket "Shall not be infringed" language of the Second. I would say it's an unenumerated right (see 9th Amendment) to "keep and bear" "pieces of ordnance", probably subject to moderate scrutiny. You could probably justify registration of "ordnance", and perhaps restrict the open "bearing" of it without reasonable cause (schleping down to the corner bank with an M60 slung on your shoulder on your average Tuesday is probably not kosher, but in the event of a massive armed riot it may be reasonable).

In other words, if the laws commonly applied to "regular" guns (registration upon purchase, restrictions on where and when you could publicly carry them about, forcing private sales to go through FFLs for background checks, etc.) were applied against "ordnance", and EVERY law restricting "arms" (including currently NFA weapons, like the M4 carbine) were subject to the strictest of scrutiny (Constitutional carry or a "Shall Issue" permit that consists only of verifying legal residency and possession of full civil rights -- i.e., invaders, adjudicated lunatics, and convicted felons currently under sentence need not apply, no registration, no waiting period, no "Gun of the Month Club" limits, no "scary gun bans", etc.), it would probably pass Constitutional muster.

Anonymous said...

Joel,

I was reasonably certain it wasn't you deleting my comments. I tried removing a few words that I thought might trigger an "objectionable content" filter, but no dice. Whatever it is that I'm saying, the bot doesn't want anyone to see it.

Check your email.

-S