Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
User Journal

squiggleslash's Journal: Pudge is a big fat idiot, part 94 25

Journal by squiggleslash

Ever since the election, Pudge has been expressing his sense of terror that someone is going to take his guns away. This is on the grounds that All Liberals support Taking Innocent Hard Working Americans Guns Away(tm). He even started supporting civil liberties, after eight years of being an apologist for the Bush regime, making it clear that the only one that seemed to matter was, well, guns.

(Yes, there's a reference to the tenth amendment in there, but the 10th doesn't enumerate anything and neither does Pudge. The only concrete civil liberty referred to is in the 2nd amendment reference. No reference, of course, to the other rights in the Bill of Rights, but why would there be?)

Anyway, many of us pointed out that the paranoia wasn't justified, that no Democratic administration was going to pass sweeping gun control legislation. Indeed, even Obama himself pointed it out last year, earning the ridicule of the NRA because, frustrated, Obama pointed out that he couldn't do it even if he wanted to because there wouldn't be the votes.

Well, if he's not going to believe the liberals, and he's not going to believe PRESIDENT OBAMA, perhaps he could listen to Nancy Pelosi. Here's the thing Pudge. Politicians who support things or feel compelled to support them because their supporters do do not generally say the opposite in an effort to pull the wool over the eyes of their opponents. Perhaps Obama was wrong in thinking he doesn't have the votes (though yesterday's Senate vote on DC suggests he was, with a clear majority in favor of overturning DC's gun laws), but Pelosi can pretty much say whatever she wants. If she and the Democratic Congress believes gun control is what the nation wants and needs, she can get it passed in Congress as a stunt, and then blame that pesky Senate for not doing what the people demand.

Pelosi says she's not going to do it. She's not. Really, she isn't. And while Obama says that while he "supports" the AWB, he hasn't said he's going to push for it. Obama's not going to push any serious gun control legislation and has no good reason to do so, so Pelosi isn't about to be overridden or blackmailed into passing something she disagrees with.

And liberals have openly pointed out from the beginning that this was how it was going to play out. The AWB is bad politics. It's not an effective law. It's of questionable constitutionality. It serves to upset law abiding gun owners without having much affect on criminals. There is no constituency that would be enormously placated by introducing the law regardless. There is more pressing business to contend with, and Obama is doing his best to transcend party politics and appeal to groups that traditionally have voted Republican over issues like this despite generally opposing Republican viewpoints on issues like pointless wars, torture, abuse of prisoners, the war on drugs, and federal funding for Protestant religion.

It's over.

This discussion was created by squiggleslash (241428) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pudge is a big fat idiot, part 94

Comments Filter:
  • I really hate it.

    Catholicism and the Eastern churches are corrupt, but in them, God is still alive and the experience is of mystery and spirit.

    Protestant churches, except those with strong African roots, hold God as a concept - as a principle of the mind. For the protestant, God is almost a historical figure.

  • It's SUCH a good idea that 95 Senators voted for it. And it was SUCH a good idea that the Republicans in the House didn't even bother asking for a role call vote. It passed overwhelmingly, and none of the Republicans cared to record who voted for the bill (in order to attack them for it later.)

    Bad politics? No. Letting the Republicans rewrite history is bad politics. I say fuck them. You don't need a gun with a bayonet mount and a tripod on it.

    • So you believe that Holder's jack booted thugs should take away the guns of hard working Americans? Isn't that typical of the Nazi lefist liberals with their socialized health care and forcing mortgage companies to give mortgages to illegal immigrants?

      Ooops, I forgot to log out.

      • No, Holder's jack booted thugs should not take away the guns of hard working Americans.

        I'm hoping that I get to do the job myself. I'm gonna take those guns, and I'm gonna melt them down. And I'm going to make them into barbed wire for the concentration camps that I'm going to lock the former owners up in. But NOT BEFORE I use the guns to blow their dogs brains out right in front of their eyes.

        Oh, this can be a lot of fun. How else shall I kill libertarians and others who erroneously think that government i

        • How else shall I kill libertarians and others who erroneously think that government is horrible?

          Just point out that all of the food in the local supermarket, and their drinking water, has been approved by a vigourous FDA process. That should have them boycotting food and water in no time, or demanding non-approved food and water.

    • 95-4-1, eh? Yep. [senate.gov]

      (And look who voted against! Russ Feingold the Wisconsin Democrat? Mark Hatfield the moderarte Oregon Republican?! Wow.)

      Grouped By Vote Position
      YEAs ---95
      Akaka (D-HI), Baucus (D-MT), Bennett (R-UT), Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Bond (R-MO), Boren (D-OK), Boxer (D-CA), Bradley (D-NJ), Breaux (D-LA), Brown (R-CO), Bryan (D-NV), Bumpers (D-AR), Burns (R-MT), Byrd (D-WV), Campbell (D-CO), Chafee (R-RI), Coats (R-IN), Cochran (R-MS), Cohen (R-ME), Conrad (D-ND), Coverdell (R-GA), Craig (R-ID),

      • by iminplaya (723125)

        Feingold's the man. He was the only senator who stood up to Bush since the beginning. On the other hand, it's easy to vote the opposite of how one feels, knowing full well their vote won't matter, but they end up looking good to the folks back home. You cannot stray very far and remain a party member in good standing. It's just not allowed.

    • by ces (119879)

      I thought the AWB was bad legislation, because it was poorly drafted, and banned features and combination of features that simply made a gun "look mean" rather than having anything to do with lethality.

      The only thing that might have some real benefit was the limitation on magazine capacity. However there were real problems with the implementation, not the least of which was the sheer number of pre-ban magazines out there.

      The real problem I have with any sort of gun control is the people I most want to keep

      • Agreed on all points. I'm not sure PMF was entirely serious, or at least I think his central point was that Republicans have somehow managed to be seen as being on the "right side" of the issue despite being originally largely supportive of such legislation.

        I saw what the NRA was doing during the election, where they managed to "forget" how McCain had a history of siding with gun-control proponents, and focussed on defeating Obama instead, when actually the right place to go would have been the legislatu

        • No, I'm quite serious about that. Sometimes I'm not serious, but generally speaking, this is what I think about guns.

          Long guns are fine. Hunt and target shoot with them. Go to Walmart and walk out in a half hour with a new rifle.

          Handguns are fine too. Hunt and target shoot with them. Be prepared for some restrictions and waiting periods. Yes, they can be hidden, and yes, we want to check you out before you buy one.

          Now, here's some definitions from Wikipedia:

          By former U.S. law the legal term assault weapon i

          • "You don't need" is not a reason to ban something.

            I have little objection to some restrictions on handguns, and I have few reservations about restrictions on guns concerning features that would appear to be dangerous even when used by responsible gun owners (requiring guns to have a "safety" mode is an obvious example, and I really can't get cut up about restrictions on fully automatic weapon sales.) But I'm failing to see how a bayonet attachment to a long gun is likely to fit into either of those categ

            • The bans aren't because "you don't need". That wording is my own rhetorical device that I'm using here. The reason for banning particular features of a weapon is that they serve no legitimate purpose.

              As was already noted, bayonet mounts serve no purpose in hunting, target shooting, and possibly not even in war. They do make the weapon more dangerous for non-legitimate purposes, so they should be banned.

              The AWB is bad law because it doesn't really ban much that's actually worth banning

              Now this is a different

          • by ces (119879)

            Yes, those are all mostly cosmetic restrictions, designed to ban guns that "look mean", in particular the bits about folding stocks, pistol grips, and flash suppressors are silly.

            Sure nobody needs a bayonet on their rifle for hunting deer. Hell bayonets are of dubious utility in a military setting.

            A further problem is most versions of an updated AWB I've seen are far more restrictive than the old one. They all but outlaw AR-15 variants for instance, which happens to have a very large target shooting communi

            • Then it should be easy and painless to buy rifles that conform to the law, or to modify weapons to conform to the law.

              It's all just "cosmetic" as you said. Why get worked up about getting that hacksaw out to remove the extra grip from your pistol?

              See, I don't get that. An extra grip on a pistol isn't cosmetic. It's damn functional, helping to stabilize the weapon.

              And a folding stock can make a concealable weapon easier to shoot accurately. That's not just cosmetic, it's a functional improvement. If it's cos

              • by ces (119879)

                You still haven't answered why a new AWB is needed. What "problem" is it solving other than needlessly pissing off a bunch of gun owners who happen to vote?

                See, I don't get that. An extra grip on a pistol isn't cosmetic. It's damn functional, helping to stabilize the weapon.

                Well not for all of the restrictions but for many of them there were some workarounds that rendered parts of the AWB moot.

                And a folding stock can make a concealable weapon easier to shoot accurately. That's not just cosmetic, it's a functional improvement. If it's cosmetic as you say then weld the thing open and stop whining.

                Ok, if you consider an AR-15 or semi-auto AK-47 variant "concealable". Even with a folding stock and a minimum length barrel those are still pretty big.

                And please don't blame the problems of our cities on guns. I'm not an idiot, and neither are you.

                Well reducing crime seems to be the main justification for those who advocate furt

                • You still haven't answered why a new AWB is needed. What "problem" is it solving other than needlessly pissing off a bunch of gun owners who happen to vote?

                  The AWB is needed to restrict dangerous weapons which have no legitimate use in our society. The main features which I think are too dangerous are the
                  -detachable magazines on a rifle
                  -grenade launcher on a rifle
                  -larger than 10 round magazines on any weapon

                  The other features I actually don't

                  • by ces (119879)

                    The AWB is needed to restrict dangerous weapons which have no legitimate use in our society. The main features which I think are too dangerous are the
                    -detachable magazines on a rifle
                    -grenade launcher on a rifle
                    -larger than 10 round magazines on any weapon

                    You'll get quite an argument on the first and the last. Target and match shooters like them.

                    There is also the issue of the large number of rifles with removable magazines and greater than 10 round magazines already out there.

                    As for the "grenade launchers" the ones in the ban were essentially enlarged flash suppressors. These are not launchers like the M203 as used in US service. Those are already tightly controlled for civilians. In military use they are used for firing rifle grenades. In civilian use they

                    • What is your opinion on full auto weapons?

                    • by ces (119879)

                      What is your opinion on full auto weapons?

                      Well those are very tightly controlled under existing firearms laws.

                      It is possible to own one as a civilian in some states. But there are a lot of hoops to jump through, and firearms that qualify for the tax transfer stamp are expensive.

                      Though I will point out that since passage of the NFA in 1934 I believe there have been exactly two incidents involving a firearm with a tax stamp being used in a crime. I believe one of those was actually stolen.

                    • But what is your *opinion* of the ban on full auto weapons? Do you think that it's a reasonable thing, despite the very low rate of incidents?

                      And what are the parallels between full auto weapons and high capacity magazines?

                      If you make a distinction between full auto and high capacity, it's one of degrees I presume. Am I correcct?

Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.

Working...