Gun nut bestows "Quote of the Day" honors on Blast Off!

Well, seems I've earned yet another award from the wingnut blogosphere. Following up on last April's Asshat of the Month award from MilitaryPundits.com, now Blast Off! has provided the Quote of the Day from a pro-gun blog called "The View From North Central Idaho," appropriately subtitled "Ramblings of a red-necked, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal on explosives, guns, politics, and sex." (Coincidentally, one of the hotbeds of neo-Nazism in America was until recently Hayden Lake, Idaho, in the north central part of the state. Just saying.)

Apparently Joe the Blogger took umbrage at my characterization of gun nuts as "barrel-strokers with small penises" and responded accordingly. I do have to give him credit for being fairly civil in his response, but I still reserve the right to disagree ... of course:

My primary objective of quoting this guy is to let you know what the other side thinks of you.

My secondary objective is to demonstrate how wrong he is.

The first thing that comes to mind about this guy is, "Does he thinks woman [sic] have infinitely sized guns?" Then I wonder how many penises he has measured and compared to gun sizes. If it were more than one or two my hypothesis would be it was because he was more interested in the penises than in the correlation with gun size. But my leading hypothesis at this time is that he has precisely zero data to support his claims. This is based upon the above collection of data about him. For example:

1. Buying a gun now, such as a so called "assault weapon" that was been banned from new sale to private citizens the last time Democrats controlled Congress, the Senate, and the White House, does "immunize" said buyers. There is no registration of firearms in most states. Hence after a month or two it becomes very unlikely that a judge is going to issue a search warrant for said gun based entirely on a 4473 because without other confirming evidence the owner could have sold or otherwise disposed of the firearm being sought. So, at that point what can they do to remove the gun from circulation?
2. In states where registration has been implemented, such as California, New York, and New Jersey, not to mention all the foreign countries with registration, there have been many examples of the government coming to take the guns. And even without registration guns were forcibly confiscated after hurricane Katrina. To say it won't or can't happen again, particularly when there are people, such as Sinfonian, advocating it is naive or duplicitous.
3. The gun rights community has long been aware of and fought against high taxes on ammunition. For example just on my blog alone you can see concerns over it here, here, here, here, and here.
4. Gross misreading of the Second Amendment? Did he read the Heller decision or just is he just parroting what the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Center told him? See also my blog post if you just want a dramatically abridged version of what Scalia said. In other words the highest legal authority in the nation agreed with what us "barrel-strokers with small penises" have been saying about the Second Amendment for decades.

What would be funny if it weren't so tragic is this guy confuses his imagination with reality.--Joe

Oh, Joe, everything is so cut-and-dried with you, isn't it?

First of all, the penis reference was a joke. Kind of like saying that someone who drives a sports car is, you know, compensating for something. Except with gun nuts, the compensation is just a little more phallic. No, seriously, I do think you folks who love guns so much must have something missing in your lives, something that makes you want to have a big ol' weapon at your disposal and, more to the point, resist any efforts to regulate or restrict your -- or anyone's -- access to those weapons. But, naturally, I don't have any data to back that up.

Which leads me to the allegation that I don't have data to back up what I say. First of all, I was giving my opinion -- I don't need "data" for that. However, it is pretty funny to see a wingnut going on about "data" and "facts," since they're usually allergic to both. Still, given the relatively sensible tone of the response, I figure I should respond with some facts of my own:

The statement that buying a gun now "immunizes" buyers is almost perfectly irrelevant to what I said. I said, first, that no one is going to take anyone's guns away. I grant you that point and, indeed, I think it's silly for the pro-gun lobby to prey on the fear of gun owners (which, after all, is why they buy guns in the first place, at least if they're not compensating for something), but I'm not sure what you're trying to immunize against. If it's taxation, as on ammunition, buying more guns isn't going to "immunize" you against that. So while I appreciate the strawman, I think it completely misses the point.

Second, as for the alleged confiscation of guns in states like California, New York, and New Jersey, I do find it interesting that Joe didn't link to any factual sources (reputable or otherwise -- World Net Daily and the NRA's own website are two examples of sources that would not be reputable for this purpose) for such allegations either. If it happened and it didn't make national news or send the NRA screaming over to the nearest federal courthouse, then I'm shocked.* But, more likely, I think it's more fear-mongering, keeping gun owners and lovers worried that someone's going to take away their precious protector. Whatever. Maybe Joe can give us legitimate sources. Or maybe I can Google it. Whatever.

And I responded via comment on Joe's blog regarding the Second Amendment, just as I've done on this blog a number of times. My basic point was that citing Justice Scalia, the Court's most notorious right-wing judicial activist, in support of Second Amendment jurisprudence that went wrong decades ago is incredibly self-serving. The "right" to bear arms is hardly a settled matter, and courts have been batting around that "well-regulated militia" phrase for years. My interpretation of it as a lawyer and amateur constitutional scholar is that it refers to "militia" as a military entity, which necessarily involved the citizenry in the Eighteenth Century but which today, put simply, does not. Moreover, even if one interprets the language to include all citizens, you can't just ignore the "well-regulated" part: the NRA and their sycophantic followers would prefer, though, that guns not be regulated at all. Hardly a "strict construction" of the Constitution there, eh, Justice Scalia?

So, no, Joe, I'm not confusing imagination with reality. Actually, I'm deciding the issue for myself, in my opinion, based on reality -- something the Right might do if it weren't for all those meddling facts.

But thank you for the Quote of the Day honor. I accept it graciously, on behalf of all my fellow DFHs.

---

* Even if there were gun confiscations after Katrina, that would be perfectly acceptable under emergency conditions, via the state's police power. One isolated instance in extraordinary circumstances doesn't logically lead to mass confiscations, especially when you have a president (I mean Obama) who seems to be altogether too disinterested in restricting the so-called right to bear arms.

Florida gun nuts: breaking records through paranoia

It should come as a surprise to no one that gun permits and applications in Florida are on a record pace, as barrel-strokers with small penises* throughout the state react to an alleged threat that has virtually no chance of happening -- and even if it does, they're not going to immunize themselves by buying now. Wow, talk about stupid ...

Anyway, here are the facts:

Florida gun owners are grabbing up concealed-weapon permits at a record pace.

It might be concern for President Barack Obama's record on guns or fear that a bad economy will cause crime to rise, or reaction to last year's guns-at-work law. Or maybe a combination of all three is behind the rapid rise in applications for pistol-toting permits, state officials say.

"We're still sitting on about 50,000 applications," said Agriculture Commissioner Charles Bronson. "We're getting in about 14,000 or 15,000 a month and whenever they get a good slug out, they're getting another 15,000 in."

Bronson went to the Legislature last spring for authorization to hire 61 temporary employees — bringing the total to 202 — who have helped whittle down a backlog that then stood at 90,000 for all types of concealed-weapon permits. The backlog, alone, was roughly equal to all the applications received in 2008 — 90,331 — and the department received 75,520 applications in the first six months of this year.

That puts the state on pace for nearly 150,000 concealed-weapon permit applications this year. Most applications are approved, department spokesman Terence McElroy said, because the law allows any law-abiding gun owner to get a license. Few crooks are dumb enough to plunk down the $117 application fee if they have a felony record.

Oh, wait, it gets better. Check out what the NRA has to say about this:

Marion Hammer, a former president of the National Rifle Association who has lobbied the Legislature on guns for decades, is not surprised by the jump.

A law passed last year prohibits employers from banning guns in the workplace as long as they're safely locked in employees' cars. That led many to seek concealed-weapon permits to allow them to do so.

Obama's record as an Illinois legislator and U.S. senator also was alarming, Hammer said, along with the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the congressional clout of Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Ca.

"It really shouldn't surprise anyone that the changes in the political landscape are driving a lot of these applicants," Hammer said. "There are over 6 million gun owners in Florida, people who care about freedom, who care about the Second Amendment, who are concerned about their ability to protect themselves."

Hold on ... I thought Obama was coming personally to take away everyone's guns? He's going to get help from Schumer and Pelosi? And Justice Sotomayor? Wow -- I hadn't heard that one yet.

The article goes on to quote a spokesman from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, who injects some much-needed sanity into the debate.

"It's a little bit absurd. It's paranoia to a certain extent," [the Brady Campaign's Peter] Hamm said. "We've seen nothing out of this administration whatsoever. Law-abiding citizens who are getting permits because they think the government is coming to take their guns away are just wrong — it's an absurd, cartoonish myth."

Yes. Precisely. I mean, the Obama administration has permitted concealed weapons in national parks, for crying out loud. Let me make this clear: No one is coming to take away your guns. (Even though I personally wouldn't mind if they did.) And you firearm fellators out there who think that getting your permits now will shield you? Granted, you won't lose your guns, but a higher tax on ammunition is just going to get you even more. Didn't think about that one, did ya?

But what would you expect from the state where the Agriculture Commissioner, who supervises the processing of gun permit applications, is named Charles Bronson? Or where a candidate seeking to replace Bronson in the 2010 elections, state Sen. Carey Baker (R-Eustis), owns a gun shop and is an NRA Life Member?

All this from a gross misreading of the Second Amendment. It'd be funny if it weren't so tragic.

UPDATE (3:39 pm 8/11/09): I seem to have struck a nerve out in Idaho.

---

* Based on my assumption that the vast majority of gun owners have, um, endowment issues; the size of their gun is inversely proportional to their penis size. I think.

Here it is, your daily WTF?

Well, this is a real puzzler ... straight from Time's blog Swampland this morning and courtesy of Karen Tumulty (whom you can follow, as I do, on Twitter):

So after we've been reading all these stories about record sales of firearms and ammo, and how gun owners are stocking up because they think Barack Obama is going to take away their weapons, the NYT tells us:

WASHINGTON — Advocates of gun rights are poised to win a Congressional victory that eluded them under a Republican president.

To the frustration and discouragement of many Democrats, House and Senate lawmakers and aides say it now appears likely that President Obama will this week sign into law a provision allowing visitors to national parks and refuges to carry loaded and concealed weapons.

What exactly are you thinking, Mr. President? The Second Amendment says nothing about the right to arm bears, y'know ...

Blast Off! Radio today at 4:00 pm EDT: Taking a Constitutional

While thinking about today's exciting edition of Blast Off! Radio, it occurred to me that there is really a great deal of ignorance and misunderstanding regarding the U.S. Constitution. Now, that's not altogether surprising, considering the lengths to which the Bush crime syndicate went over their eight-year reign of terror to hide, obfuscate, ignore, and generally wipe their collective asses with the Constitution.

But even though Drunky McStagger rapidly is becoming a footnote in history and Dick "Dick" Cheney is busy working on his memoirs (at least according to President Obama), there still are a lot of -- well, for lack of a better word, morans out there (as shown at right). Therefore, today's show will focus on the U.S. Constitution, and we'll talk about some of the key points therein ... for example:

• The First Amendment, which gives us freedom of speech, as demonstrated so capably at the White House Correspondents' Dinner (a/k/a the "Nerdprom") on Saturday night by the president; and religious freedom, which is under attack again right here in northwest Florida as well as at a little college in Indiana you may have heard of;


• The Second Amendment, about which I'll have a little rant regarding the oft-ignored first clause: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ..."; and


• Article I, which establishes Congress, a body Florida governor Charlie Crist evidently would like to join -- we'll find out for sure tomorrow.

Of course, there's sure to be plenty of other topics to discuss, but much of that depends upon you, the Blast Off! Radio listener! Yes, you can participate -- in fact, it's encouraged -- and it's oh, so easy to do:

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

So please, make it a point to join me this afternoon for your daily constitutional. You'll be glad you did.

That's right, kids, Obama personally will come to your house and take away your guns

I almost have to laugh at the gun nuts who are caterwauling about how President Obama will ignore decades of (incorrect and politicized) Second Amendment jurisprudence and, presumably in person, come to their homes and "take away their guns." Almost. The only reason I don't laugh about it is because it's so fucking scary.

Never mind the fact that American courts routinely overlook half of the Second Amendment -- namely the first part, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," which if taken at its word would severely curtail the gun-lovers' argument since most private firearm owners are not part of a militia, that is, the military as it was known in the 1780s -- the hysteria about Obama "taking" people's guns rivals that of the swine flu scare.

Take for example the weapon-fondlers at the Suncoast Gun Orgy Show in North Fort Myers this weekend. Why, they're almost beside themselves with fear of the Scary Black Man in the White House!

Sales of guns and ammunition jumped, as did applications for concealed weapons permits, when the election of President Barack Obama became increasingly apparent in October. Many fear Obama will increase firearms regulations, make ammunition more difficult to acquire and ban some guns outright.

Obama, the joke goes, is the gun salesman of the year. Firearms and ammunition companies have benefited greatly.

[...]

Local Wal-Marts ... limit customers to a six-box purchase of 9 mm boxes, but they still can’t keep the ammunition in stock.

Paul Ryan, 47, of Punta Gorda, was searching for .380-caliber and .38 special rounds, with little luck. Asked about the dearth of ammunition, he pointed to the election. But he said Obama’s power will be kept in check by Democrats from rural states and pressure from the National Rifle Association.

“The situation at hand is one of panic, not reality,” he said.

But if Obama is re-elected? Then he might make a move, Ryan figures.

“I hope the NRA maintains its pressure,” he said.

I love the "logic" of the shoot-and-spank crowd: Obama's going to take away our guns, so let's buy more guns. What, you barrel-fellators think that'll stop him? Can't he just make a second trip to your house?

There's plenty I could say about the Second Amendment and the alleged "right" to own firearms. Yeah, I'm a DFH, so of course I think assault weapons should be banned, more stringent background checks should be imposed, and regulations ought to be increased. But for now, I think the firearm fetishists' rampant Obama-fear says more than I could ever put down in pixels.

"G-U-N ... see you real soon!"

As reported here last week, Disney is telling the state of Florida that they're exempt from the state law permitting gun owners to bring their weapons to work. And some of the workers are, well, up in arms about it. (Yes, pun intended.)

But within the section concerning those who deal with explosives is an exemption for an "employer who has obtained a permit required under 18 U.S.C. § 842 to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in explosive materials on such property."

Said Suarez: "We have the permit. We deal in explosives every day."

But the NRA's chief state lobbyist, Marion Hammer, said the exemption should be read in the context of those employers whose "primary" business is explosives.

"Disney is a prime offender in denying people their rights under the Second Amendment and the laws of Florida," said Hammer, adding that the law was drafted in response to Disney firing an employee for having a gun in his car.

Now Attorney General Bill McCollum, whose office is tasked with enforcement, must interpret what it all means. Spokeswoman Sandi Copes said the office is still reviewing the case and the legislation.

Until and unless McCollum sides with Fiore or someone successfully sues to stop Disney, employees are being told to keep the firearms at home.

Disney security guard Edwin Sotomayor protested his employer's policy by announcing to the news media last week that he would lawfully bring his weapon in his car to work. He was promptly fired. Sotomayor, 36, said it was worth it to "prove a point" and pave the way for the numerous other employees who keep their mouths shut about the guns they have in their cars.

He said the Orlando area's crime rate makes pistol-packing a must for many.

"If you're going to let the Mouse rule the world, it's not worth it," he said. "There are two worlds: the world of Disney, and the real world. This was for the real world. It can be scary."

Fiore is among those who worry. But while she appreciates the attempt to give her the right to protect her life, she said she doesn't want to lose her livelihood by bringing a weapon onto Disney property.

"I'm not going to make a point and get fired," she said. "But if I need protection to and from work, it's my constitutional right."

Yep, that's the answer. Carry guns to work. I mean, having guns readily available to every rent-a-cop and soccer mom in America sure has kept the crime rate down ...

I hate to bring it to the NRA's attention, but their interpretation is all well and good ... and wrong. The Legislature could have written the statute to cover only those businesses whose "primary" business is explosives, but they didn't. In fact, the original bill did say that, but the Legislature changed it to cover businesses with federal explosives licenses -- to make the exemption broader. Therefore, the legislative intent is clear and indeed the final version of the bill, which became law, evinced their desire NOT to limit the exemption to businesses primarily engaged in the explosives business.

Of course, the problem is that we have to rely on one of the batshit craziest wingnuts in Florida, Bill McCollum, to make a ruling on this. Hopefully even he can't ignore legislative intent in this case ... but I'm holding my breath that he'll do the legal and correct thing.

I don't know which wingnuts are the most rabid, but the Second Amendment crazies are definitely finalists for that award. They're motivated solely by fear, and that permeates their entire world view. How sad. How pathetic. How batshit crazy.

People with guns kill people

The Virginia Tech tragedy (I hate that the networks are calling it "Massacre at Virginia Tech." Insensitive bastards ...) is yet another reminder of the horrible consequences of our gun-happy society.

Would Cho Seung-Hui have been able to kill 32 people with a knife, or his bare hands, or really any other weapon besides a gun? A bomb, maybe, but that's about it.

The gun lobby always says "Guns don't kill people; people kill people." No, people with guns kill people, at least more readily and more effectively than people without guns. The logic doesn't hold up.

And we look like a lawless society to the rest of the world.

There was harsh condemnation for U.S. gun control laws. In Sydney, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Tuesday the university shooting in Virginia showed that America's "gun culture" was a negative force in society.

Howard, who staked his political leadership on pushing through tough laws on gun ownership in Australia after a lone gunman in his country killed 35 people in a spree, said the Virginia university shooting was a tragedy of a kind he hoped would never be seen again in Australia.

"You can never guarantee these things won't happen again in our country," Howard told reporters. "We had a terrible incident at Port Arthur, but it is the case that 11 years ago we took action to limit the availability of guns and we showed a national resolve that the gun culture that is such a negative in the United States would never become a negative in our country," he said.

He offered his sympathies to the victims of the Virginia shooting and their families. In India, which has some 80,000 students in the U.S., commentators called for greater protection and stricter gun laws.

"It's not a question of an Indian professor getting killed in the firing. This is related to the American gun laws," said K. Subrahmanyam, a former member of India's National Security Council. "We can't do anything about it. It is something which has happened in the United States. They have got to change the law."

But as long as there are gun nuts who twist the Second Amendment into support for arming every man, woman, and child in America, there will be no change to the law. Never mind that the Second Amendment's dependent clause refers to the right to bear arms because "a well-regulated militia" is "necessary," meaning that said right is one for the military, or perhaps the National Guard, but not every freaking citizen.

No, this sad scene will be repeated over and over again, thanks to those misguided, fearful people who think the answer is more, not fewer, guns. How tragic. How stupid. How wrong.