Sandy Hook Elementary School Victims Relief Fund

They must like you more than they like me, which is completely understandable.

While I was attempting to accurately quote from their article in my most recent attempt at self-flagellation, I noticed that they put me behind a paywall.

The Guardian article, "as I remember it" speaks for itself.
In their “analysis” they say that the weapons (plural) featured in the “Christmas Card Heard Round the World!” are “Military Grade” but then they quoted an internet “expert” as saying that several (all?) of them besides the replica semi-auto M60 were…..semi-auto replicas, which are not very "military gradey" considering that the military need not constrain themselves with.....replicas.
It’s hard to say for sure, because the Guardian wants money for me to re-read their article and I make it a policy not to pay the likes of them for the privilege of pointing out errors in their article.

The "M60' featured by Congressman Massey himself is probably a Desert Ordinance M60 semi-auto replica, modified to fire from a closed-bolt rather than an open bolt position.
The Uzi that the young lady is holding is probably also a non-SBR semi-auto, while the Thompson that Massey's wife is holding is (and was identified in the article, IIRC) as a replica as well, judging from the finish on the rifle - and the lack of a "fun" switch.....although that particular weapon IS an SBR, or Short Barreled Rifle requiring special paperwork....at least for now.
THANKS NY!
Interestingly enough (at least to me) is the fact that either IN or not far from Massey's district is a for-real brick and mortar store KYGUNCO.com that sells REAL Thompson SMGs for about 24 thou.

None of the weapons in Massey's picture were, or are military issue.

As far as “military grade” is concerned, what weapon is or was NOT "military grade?"

Even the Colt Single Action Army (reportedly, a F.lli Pietta, or Italian made replica) that Alec Baldwin used to kill one of his co-workers, and wound another —was adopted as the standard military service revolver (M1872) until the late 1890's.
Meaning......Alec killed and wounded more people with his authentically military grade weapon than some Congress Critter that nobody ever heard about until 5 minutes ago and his entire family have or ever will with their scary replicas.

Evidently, Alec's weapon was either used as intended (thumb-cocked, and then trigger-fired) OR since is is a modern replica, Alec did not "pull the trigger"....AND, the firearm was lacking the hammer block/transfer bar safety features that are required by ALL firearms in current production - or - these safety features were removed deliberately by the armourer for "authenticity" purposes that I will not detail here.....(if you know...you know.)

 

The Guardian has never had a paywall. If you somehow thought there was one, this very much puts the accuracy of your recall of the article into question.

So when you said the article was "inaccurate", what you meant was you disagreed with their assessment that these were "military-grade" weapons because they're replicas?

I thought you were referring to the sort of inaccuracy we saw in your weird interpretation of the story on the escape from quarantine that you got all excited about and then went quiet about. But no, it was just semantics over terminology.

Cool.

By the way, you said:

In response I've asked you repeatedly for clarification on how your current ownership and use of privately-owned firearms makes you free in a way that I am not free. And you have repeatedly failed to answer.

Are we to assume that your statement was false and that privately-owned firearms in fact do not make you free? Or are you going to answer the question?

 

Correct as always!

However (comma!!)

You need to register to keep reading
It’s still free to read - this is not a paywall

We’re committed to keeping our quality reporting open. By registering and providing us with insight into your preferences, you’re helping us to engage with you more deeply, and that allows us to keep our journalism free for all. You’ll always be able to control your own .

Register for free
————————————————————————

No thanks.

If the product is “free”
YOU are the product.

Yet another example of two nations separated by a common language….along with the notion of what “free” means.

 

Mmm.

Anyway.

You said:

In response I've asked you repeatedly for clarification on how your current ownership and use of privately-owned firearms makes you free in a way that I am not free. And you have repeatedly failed to answer.

Are we to assume that your statement was false and that privately-owned firearms in fact do not make you free? Or are you going to answer the question?

 

Not really. This was originally "Article the fourth..." of 12. The original "Article the first..." was never ratified, but Congress obeyed it anyway, and we are now far beyond its scope. The original "Article the second..." was slower than a snail in getting to ratification, arriving only in time to take tag #27. The rest of the original dozen didn't wait, and were bumped up two ticks each. But except for the last couple, there really doesn't seem to be a particular order or hierarchy.

Or having citizens pre-equipped and ready for call-up to militia duty on very short notice.

What does "the people" part mean?

Remember that the phrase "the people" appears several times through this foundation document. A former Supreme Court Chief Justice hopes that you are not assigning different meanings in different places.

And don't forget the definitions of the militia. I have aged out of the federal definition, but am still included in my state's (updated and non-sexist) definition. And I, and most members here, are very clearly included in "the people".

 

That is a normal reply when gun control activists claim they are not trying to interfere with deer hunting at the same time they are promoting restrictions that actually do so. E.g. when complaining about 'ugly-guns' and associated ammunition as being 'too powerful', without understanding what ammunition most states require for hunting deer or other game.

While some hunters love the challenge of archery, muzzle loaders, or shotguns, most others don't want to be forced to abandon traditional center-fire deer rifles.

 

You also didn't believe that he would be out of office now, regardless of the actual outcome of last year's election, if even held. Unless he passed his crown to Ivanka.

Fortunately, your prediction failed. While you did accurately suggest (as did millions of us) that removing him would be extremely difficult, we still achieved it within our defined political processes. Not with the armed force or assassination that you irresponsibly and inexcusably suggested, which would have unavoidably mushroomed into a far bigger disaster than we actually experienced.

While serious peril still remains, I'm working through legal means to make sure your new prediction also fails.


Re: The Insurrection

Hundreds of them are heading to jail. But I'm not sure that what they did, some with intent to hang the VP and kidnap/try/execute certain congressional leaders, was any worse than someone else (look in a mirror) impatiently challenging us several years ago for not having already forcibly overthrown or assassinated our head of state. That was also inexcusable.

And if you had said it on our soil, potentially worth being assigned a brief term as their cellmates.

 

I must classify alcohol as a luxury indulgence, not a necessity. And cannot understand the rationale for why a very deadly luxury should continue being less regulated than a much less deadly enumerated civil right.

Over here, "OK with" is typically taken as excuse or justification to put something on the back burner and move on to something else. To cease much effort to further reduce the damages and casualty toll. I cannot do that with motor vehicle deaths or alcohol or guns. I suggest you stop trying to push us into your straightjacket.

Over the three decades I've been watching these issues, homicides with and without guns have been cut by a greater fraction than have motor vehicle deaths. Fatal gun "accidents" have been slashed, down more than about anything except commercial airline fatalities. Alcohol -- well, those on the road have been considerably reduced, but non-road deaths have more than made up for them.

As for other violent deaths, suicides with guns did fall for a while. Unfortunately, they have now rebounded. [heavy sarcasm] Fortunately, that gun rebound was accompanied by an even faster increase in non-gun suicides, so today, the gun fraction of suicides is significantly lower than three decades ago. And as everyone knows, a gun suicide is more horrible than a non-gun suicide, [/heavy sarcasm] so any shift away from gun to non-gun methods, produces dead people who can still be counted as "lives saved from gun violence" (**).

(**) I'm not kidding. I have found it hidden in the data behind the smoke and mirrors of certain peer-reviewed "science".

 

You shat on anything and everything short of a ban.

I haven't. You are confusing me with other sparring opponents, probably prior to my entry into FHoPol.

I haven't. You are confusing me with other sparring opponents, probably prior to my entry into FHoPol.

You must be excluding your "angry sarcasm" from that denial.

After I mentioned the basic gun safety training received in my public school, you suggested that as really training for killing each other. That was beyond misrepresentation. It was worse than the folks who believed sex education in school should be "just say no, stay abstinent until marriage, you can learn the rest when you get your marriage license". It was more analogous to suggesting that sex education for boys is really just training them how to rape.

You repeatedly held me responsible for claims and slogans of partisan "hard core" proponents, possibly from those you engaged before my FHoPol arrival. Your claims of when you were engaging me, certainly fit that timeline.

The claims of both major partisan flavors of this debate normally do fail scrutiny from a separate flavor of more neutral researchers, whose output does appear from various government agencies but is not sufficiently exciting or agenda-confirming for the partisans or mass (MSM or MAGA) media to get widespread attention. What little stuff I've seen you bring here, without having gone back to your days of pointing to reference material before my arrival, is solely of that partisan flavor. The bulk now is insulting and shitting on your opponents.

I previously labeled you a troll on the gun issue. I haven't seen reason for retraction.

 

You are "free" to assume anything that you would like to.

 

the reason those people you keep knocking down are important (and you ar

now that i realize you consider everyone elses opinion as "stupid" per your above response, i understand

why you're bumping into important people

instead of being one.

 

To be clear, I am perfectly happy to interfere with deer hunting.

On the other hand, I think it is utterly ridiculous that the general populace has guns. Ugly or beautiful. I find a lot of the arguments for gun regulation in the US to be ridiculous: restricting ownership of "ugly guns" or "ammunition that is too powerful" while ignoring what pretty guns and weak ammunition are designed to do. People seem to make that argument as some sort of compromise with the gun enthusiasts, but it's pointless.

 

Yes, I was wrong. Thank goodness.

Barely.

And let's be clear, had your defined political processes failed - something they came very close to - the Second Amendment Enthusiasts wouldn't have been the ones who would have tried to remove him from an illegal Presidency. Present company excepted (I know this is not you), many of the most-enthusiastic Second Amendmentists would be among the most comfortable with illegal far-right tyranny.

Yes, this is true. We all know that America is only in favour of armed insurrection and assassination in other countries. Never at home. That would be irresponsible and inexcusable. Assassinations and armed insurrections are only responsible and excusable when you're doing them to foreigners.

(Probably worth remembering at this point that you even engineered a coup in Australia, in collaboration with the British. Not an armed one, thank goodness, but a coup nonetheless. Democracy and rule of law are for Americans, not for anyone else.)

I never said that it was worse than my suggestion. Or better. I said it was as close as I have seen to an accurate interpretation of the Second Amendment.

 

One can (or SHOULD) at least respect people who are open and honest about their position on guns......

 

I KNOW!!!!!! THAT IS WHAT I HAVE SAID!!!!

A luxury is something that has a high price - however that price may be denominated - and which most people could easily live without, but which some people want because they really like it.

Alcohol definitely falls into that category. There is a high price - one we've already discussed - of alcohol-related violence, drunk driving, and alcohol-related disease. But many people think that these are prices worth paying for the luxury of a good party or a relaxing beer in front of the football. Yet many societies - those in many Muslim countries, as well as some Australian communities, Kerala, and many, many individuals - choose not to pay that price and not to have that luxury.

Guns equally fall into that category. There is a high price - one we've already discussed - of school shootings, gang violence, a quadrupled murder rate, easy suicides, and so on. But many people think that these are prices worth paying for the luxury of shooting holes in pieces of paper or shooting holes in deer. And many societies - those in almost every developed nation outside of the US - choose not to pay that price and not to have that luxury.

I am willing to pay the price for the luxury of alcohol. You are willing to pay the price for the luxury of guns. I am willing to admit that I am willing to pay that price, because I am honest with myself - hence the use of the term "OK with", with which you take issue. You are not willing to make that admission, and I find it hard to understand why, when, on every other issue that I've seen you discuss, you are reasonable, logical and sensible.

You can't legally drive when you're drunk. You can drive with a gun under certain circumstances.
You can't legally drink when you're under 21 (18 in some states, I understand, and 18 in many other countries). You can shoot.
You can't legally get around the under-21 restriction or other restrictions and prohibitions by going to an "alcohol fair" when everyone can buy whatever they want.

I mean, I could go on..... It's not less-regulated. In many states it is easier to buy a gun than a beer, especially if you're under 21.

And yet this is exactly where you appear to be on guns.

Yes, it is good that most of the killings are deliberate.

Remember when I said that your murder rate was four times that of comparable countries, and that guns accounted for 3/4 of your murders, and that the entire difference between your murder rate and that of comparable countries was made up for by guns?

Your suicide rate is more than twice that of the UK, and about 50% higher than that of Australia. More than half of your suicides are carried out with guns. The entire difference between the British and American suicides is made up by gun suicides.

The difference between the Australian suicide rate and the British one is accounted for by the very high suicide rate among Australian farmers (droughts, floods, isolation and other issues are factors here), and our farmers are the only section of our population with high levels of gun ownership. They tend to use those to kill themselves. The difference between the high Australian rural suicide rate and the lower urban suicide rate is accounted for by guns, as is the difference between the national Australian rate and the national British rates.

More guns = more suicides.

You talk about the "shift" from gun to non-gun methods. Given that we have so many other countries to use as control samples, it's clear that, both for murder and suicide, there's no such "shift" to any significant degree.

Guns make murder or suicide easier and more accessible. People who have access to guns can commit murder or suicide with far less effort and thought than those who don't. And that small barrier is enough to stop 3/4 of murders and half of suicides.

Again, I get that you seem to think this is a price worth paying for being able to shoot deer. I don't.

You put a huge amount of effort into cherry-picking figures, and into whataboutery on cars and alcohol. It would be far easier to just be honest with yourself.

You like guns. I get it. You don't need to tie yourself in knots to try to justify it. You'd be much happier if you were to just admit it.

 

No. The bulk is taking apart arguments I find to be ridiculous. I've attacked arguments, not people.

The ad-hominem attacks on this thread have been made on me, not by me (see @privilege ). I'm not complaining: I know gun enthusiasts get angry when confronted with facts, and I can take it. In fact, if anything, it strengthens my arguments.

Yet you feed me.

I make one sarcastic comment about how schools should be banned (with the clear implication that we know no-one is going to do anything about the guns), and you absolutely go off on one, searching through archives and complaining about posts from years ago, back when I still had the Prius that is on my avatar.

 

Gosh, I wonder what this was going to say. I am on tenterhooks.

I countered your arguments. I didn't say they were stupid. I said I thought they were wrong.

We're all important, love. Not just politicians and actors.

You're important too! And special!

 

I would most likely feel exactly the same if my gun exposure was entirely from popular entertainment and mass media crime news.

Instead, I grew up in a very different culture, witnessing and receiving plenty of hands-on experience before absorbing much media. It is similar to what a recent news report described as a completely separate firearms culture, entirely distinct and disconnected from street crime gun culture. I experienced a culture where high gun prevalence and low violent crime rates cohabitate.

Changing regions provided exposure to both primary cultures, and revealed plenty of biases, distortions, half truths, and outright lies that each commonly believes and tells about the other. I have adjusted numerous of my views, adopted some new ones, and retained others.

And don't really fit into either camp.

I have previously listed some compromises I can work with. It isn't apparent that hard partisans noticed.

Progressing gun control successes by various affinity groups in the 1970s and 80s, including incrementally converting previous compromises into outright bans, pushed the NRA to replace its old guard leadership and turn right. And pushed numerous enthusiasts beyond that into even farther-right groups. Both primary sides dug in, and what began as an urban-rural divide metamorphosed into a left-right divide.

Dismissing compromise as pointless is exactly how and why we have reached this impass.

As I once linked from a ProPublica article, both major sides have narrow views of what solutions to apply. One side is focused on more lock-em-up, the other on stronger gun control. Others not cemented to either group have tested many other crime reduction straregies in various locales, and a number have been demonstrated as successful. But not fitting either narrow affinity group view, they don't appeal to any significant audience, so are generally ignored. So paralysis continues.

I know, from first hand experience, that low violence rates and high gun ownership can coexist. And see from the official statistical abstracts that my regional cultural experience is neither unique nor anywhere close to universal. It is very painful to see both major partisan sides refuse to closely examine and compare these successful areas to problem areas to discover what works and what causes failures, to produce a set of measures and best practices that can be applied more broadly.

Those trying to convince me that my first hand experience is impossible, have an extremely difficult task.

 

Now, where are those squirrel pictures you used to post for responses ...



We had many former high officials who should have been charged with war crimes. Some are still living. Since our own system is politically incapable for trying them, I do wish that others would do so.

 

So now luxury = necessity?: