January 24, 2013

Let me get this straight:  Law-abiding Americans shouldn’t be allowed to have “military-style” weapons that liberals think look scary (a. k. a. “assault weapons”), which are used in about 1% of gun crime (rifles of any kind are used in less than 3% of murders), but the government is giving free tanks and fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt who thinks the people of Israel are “bloodsuckers” and “the descendants of apes and pigs” for whom Egyptian children should be “breastfed hatred”?

No, go ahead, keep voting Democrat, I’m sure you have your reasons…


See also:

24 Responses to “Huh?”

  1. Snoodickle Says:

    here’s a reason – I don’t want to get shot.

    • Then the data indicate you should live in a concealed-carry state, where you benefit from the spillover deterrent effect of all the other gun owners, even if you choose not to carry yourself.

      In the meantime, these days, every time we vote for a Democrat for president, it puts us four years closer to a possible second Holocaust at the hands of Iran, Egypt, etc.

  2. Snoodickle Says:

    Has Barry said anything about repealing CCW laws?

  3. He has said something about concealed carry, as it happens (“I am not in favor of concealed weapons”), but more to the point, he is right now trying to ban so-called “assault weapons”, which are used in about 1% of gun crime. Would you care to defend that?

    If you’re looking for complaints against President Obama on guns, the NRA will be happy to help you out:

    • Snoodickle Says:

      Ya, I’ll defend it. The maniac who massacred those children used a weapon that would be banned. As did most, if not all, of the perpetrators of the other recent mass shootings in this country. This isn’t rocket science. There’s no utilitarian reason for a civilian to own a high powered semi automatic rifle, except to carry out mass killings. The shotgun is the most effective home defense weapon, according to gun experts. All you’re going to do with an assault rifle is kill your neighbors.

      • Tevyeh Says:

        “There’s no utilitarian reason for a civilian to own a high powered semi automatic rifle…”

        A solid majority of the centerfire hunting rifles in the U.S. are “high powered semiautomatic rifles,” most of which are of a larger caliber than the .223 Bushmaster used by Adam Lanza. A ban on “assault weapons” wouldn’t have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre.

      • Snoodickle Says:

        If you can’t kill an animal with a traditional rifle or cross-bow, you shouldn’t be hunting.

      • Tevyeh Says:

        Okay, so are you proposing a ban on private ownership of all semiautomatic firearms? ‘Cause that’s going a lot farther than the ban on scary-looking firearms proposed by Obama–which is what I thought you were defending.

        At least if “assault weapons” are banned, I can stop worrying so much about being bayonetted. I can’t sleep at night knowing that crazies have such easy access to rifles with bayonet attachments, folding stocks, etc.

      • Right, I really want to make sure this doesn’t slip by unnoticed by anyone else who may still be reading at this point: Snoodickle just admitted that he doesn’t know anything about these things, and is forming opinions on them anyway. He should consume more conservative media. He said, “There’s no utilitarian reason for a civilian to own a high powered semi automatic rifle . . . .” The dead “assault weapons” ban of 1994-2004, what Obama seems to want to revive, did not ban the high-powered rifles. David Kopel explains:

        “‘Assault weapons’ are also said to fire ‘high-power’ or ‘high-velocity’ bullets which are unusually destructive. Elementary ballistics show this claim to be false.

        “As detailed above, ammunition for genuine assault rifles (battlefield weapons such as the AK-47 or M-16) is classified as being ‘intermediate’ in power. The ammunition for semiautomatic rifles which look like, but do not fire like, automatic rifles is the same. This ammunition uses bullets which weigh the same or less than bullets used for big-game hunting.”

        “The second major factor in the force of a bullet’s impact is its velocity. Other things being equal, a bullet traveling at high velocity will be more destructive than a bullet traveling at lower velocity. The muzzle velocities for the ammunition types listed above are: For the 9mm, between 975 and 1,500 feet per second (fps); for the 7.62 x 39, from 2,100 to 2,500 fps; for the 30-06, from 2,100 to 4,080 fps; for the Colt pistol, 770 to 1140 fps; and for the 458 Winchester magnum, from 2,100 to 2,500 fps.

        “A bullet’s power to damage its target depends mainly on the kinetic energy delivered by the bullet. Kinetic energy is produced by the combination of bullet weight and velocity. A typical 7.62 x 39 bullet for the AKS rifle (a Kalashnikov variant) achieves 1,445 foot-pounds of kinetic energy per second. In contrast, the 30-06 hunting rifle bullet carries 2,820 foot-pounds of energy.”

        I think you should read the whole article, Snoodickle. Consider it your first step to shaking off the foggy thinking the liberal media are training you in.

        In other news, Snoodickle just told us that the guns that fire one bullet at a time are more useful for mass shootings, while the guns that spray deadly buckshot in a scatter pattern should remain legal because they’re so useful for self-defense. I suppose twelve-year-old girls (the intruder not only broke into her home but also tried to follow her into her closet), mothers (again, the intruder tried to follow them all the way into the attic), and grandmothers on the bus should use the gun with the heaviest recoil, because nothing else should be legal?

      • Snoodickle Says:

        Three things (1) no one else is reading at this point. This blog only has one regular poster – me. (2) If Obama’s proposed ban doesn’t go far enough based on the semantics that you just cited, then Tevyeh is right, I am advocating for a more broad ban. (3) Do you own a gun?

      • President Obama’s plan is just common sense. Oh I mean I agree, it’s totally irrational.

      • Snoodickle Says:

        Oh, I wasn’t aware that the final legislative text had been released for public comment. Even if his plan only bans certain types of firearms and not others, I still support it. Also, do you own a gun? If you won’t answer that simple question, you need to stop commenting on this topic forever.

      • Can you articulate how, specifically, you think either of the things you just linked to changes anything in our previous discussion?

      • Snoodickle Says:

        Feinstein’s bill, which the president helped craft, signifcantly strengthens the previous assault weapons ban; it specifically does away with the scary bayonet test that you and Tevyeh were raving about. You obviously didn’t read the text of the bill, but commented on it anyway. Oops.

      • Nice try. Unfortunately, you’re only showing that you still have no idea what you’re talking about. (Did you even bother reading what you linked to?)

        The bayonet provision you mention isn’t some odd “test” added on to the 1994 law as an afterthought; it was part of the core of the law, which banned weapons that had two or more of a list of features that liberals think look scary. According to your own source’s summary of the bill, Feinstein’s proposed ban retains the same basic structure of the 1994 gun ban. As you say, it strikes bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the list of characteristics. (Liberals are apparently also twice as scared as they were in the 1990s; under Feinstein’s proposal, it takes only one feature to trigger the ban, rather than two.) Still on the list are various other features that are similarly goofy to obsess about, such as folding stocks (which Tevyeh also mentioned above).

        “The legislation bans the sale, transfer, manufacturing and importation of:

        “All semiautomatic rifles that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.

        “All semiautomatic pistols that can accept a detachable magazine and have at least one military feature: threaded barrel; second pistol grip; barrel shroud; capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip; or semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm.”

        In other words, Feinstein would ban some features that make guns safer or more useful for home defense, ban some features that are basically never used in a crime, and just generally constrict individual liberty and make things difficult for the gun industry. If she thinks it’s worth giving up our liberty in the vain hope of eliminating violent crime, she should at least be honest and call for a handgun ban.

      • Snoodickle Says:

        She can’t call for a handgun ban; those have already been declared unconstitutional.

        P.S. You intentionally omitted my post that puts the lunancy of the NRA in clear relief for good reason: you don’t want to be seen as a lunatic.

      • I deleted your off-topic comment that tried to smear the NRA, yes. If this were your first time (and if you provided an address other than “”), I might at least have sent you a message to let you know that it was off topic, but you’re past repeat offender at this point. This blog is not a receptacle for every piece of liberal propaganda you happen to pick up.

      • Snoodickle Says:

        So an article on the NRA, in the context of a blog post about guns that explicitly cites the NRA, is off-topic?

        P.S. Did you really expect to reach me at

      • The blog entry above did not cite the NRA. Did you even read it? It’s not that hard; it’s only a paragraph long. It makes no mention of the NRA. It links to eight sources, none of which is the NRA. Remember when you used to think it was so important to read things before commenting on them?

      • Snoodickle Says:

        If you’re looking for complaints against President Obama on guns, the NRA will be happy to help you out:

        Dude, seriously?

      • OK, so you called a comment a “blog post”. Yes, your comment is still off topic. I tried to help fill you in on the national conversation about gun control to this point; you came back a month and a half later with some unrelated article that tries to make the NRA look bad. It’s not relevant. (Are you really trying to say that you don’t believe Obama holds the positions or made the calls for gun control listed on the page I linked to? Did you even bother looking at the list? It links to its sources, most of which are the liberal media.)

        Again, this blog is not a receptacle for every piece of liberal propaganda you happen to pick up.

      • Snoodickle Says:

        Did you read it? It claims that he didn’t implement a major gun control regulation until 2011, three years into his presidency. One gun control regulation in three years? What a dictator!

        Anyway, since I answered your question, you are now obligated to answer mine. Do you support the NRA’s position [“when did you stop beating your wife”-type question from Snoodickle’s earlier attempted comment likewise deleted—Chillingworth]

        Prediction: You won’t answer the question.

  4. […] know what its best interests are”, calling Netanyahu a “coward”,  giving free tanks and fighter jets to the Muslim Brotherhood president of Egypt who thinks the peopl…, etc., etc.), some wonder why he’s even bothering to visit Israel now.  NPR, no Republican […]

Agree? Disagree? Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: