« Death Comes In Many Ways | Main | Championship Playoffs - 2013 »

January 15, 2013



I couldn't agree with your last paragraph more, Rob. Luvs ya!

Craig Moore

You are quite mistaken that I as trying to catch you. I was interested in knowing how you may or may not have changed your opinions. BTW it was not what you wrote in 2004, but 2009. http://www.leftinthewest.com/diary/2723/

Tester responds to proposed Obama assault weapon ban
by: Jay Stevens
Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 10:22:55 AM MST

In this piece from The Hill, which focuses on the tough vote that faces appointed NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on a possible assault weapon ban, Jon Tester had this to say about the proposal:

"It's baloney."

Tester and Mark Warner's opposition to the bill (and one assumes Baucus' as well?) means that there would have to be crossover Republican votes for the ban to pass....
The assault weapons ban was simply bad law. It fails every test for effectiveness. Every one. There's a helluva lot of us 'libruls' out there who know that, accept that and will live with that....
by: Rob Kailey @ Fri Feb 27, 2009 at 21:11:32 PM UTC

In terms whatever the "gun control/grab/ban" attempts that will be put on the table, will they affect the .5% of gun owners that use guns to commit crimes, or the 95.5% who are law abiding? Does your sympathy for the "gun control" argument require a symbolic sacrifice by the 95.5% for politicians to merely appear having done something to stop the .5%?


Wow, that's mighty interesting there, Craig. Especially given that I answered your 'question' in the last post. My opinion of the 'Brady Bill' hasn't changed at all, in the years I've been writing about *why* it was bad legislation which started well before 2009. Research is more than finding a quote, Craig.

And you still spectacularly miss the point of the post. Sympathy is a human ability for reasoned understanding of what another values and desires. It does not imply agreement or really anything at all, save that one has thought about those things. Dave Budge explained and argued for sympathy much better than I can or can be troubled to in his post concerning the Ideological Turing Test. Oh looky there. That's actually one of the tags used in this post. As Dave well argues, Sympathy facilitates better discussion, understanding, and frankly helps keep one from looking like an idiot.

By way of example, perhaps you could explain how my, or any, sympathy for the "gun control" argument requires anything from anybody? That's funny. It doesn't, mostly because I don't agree with some of the proposals of that stance, I don't write policy and I certainly disagree with your bad logic against the 'opposition'. Since you missed this point completely, even though it's plain in the post, one thing I have no respect, tolerance or sympathy for is the "symbolic sacrifice" of the privileged victim.

First, almost every gun owner is a legal gun owner, until they aren't. Sideshow Bob bought his firearms, his ammunition, his combat rig, his smoke canisters and the materials for napalm online - all legally. He didn't become a member of your evil .5% until a very tragic night in Aurora. If you have a proposal to identify the folks who 'will in the future' commit gun crimes, I'm sympathetic and all ears. But you don't, because almost every gun owner is a legal gun owner until they aren't.

Second, my wife suffers from sinus trouble and allergies. She is a consumer of Sudefedren, and the percentage of people who use that legally is likely much higher than those who use it for nefarious purpose, especially relative to firearms. Her possession of 200 tabs of Sudefed can't be used to kill 20 school kids in a matter of minutes. But, to purchase that necessity, she has to show ID, sign her name and buy it in limited quantity. That is a sacrifice, but far from symbolic. Irksome as it is, we the great society have decided that we must control this tool, because some people are doing wrong. One argument I've yet to find a hole, and trust me I've looked, is that no one outside of law enforcement or the military needs an assault style weapon. We just don't. My wife's sacrifice for quality of life is very real. If little (or BIG) Billy can't get the AR-15 with a compass in the stock from Santa Claus, that sacrifice is truly symbolic and completely meaningless. Little Billy might grow up without the chance to own a weapon that could slay his enemies, see them driven before him and hear the lamentations of their women. I can think of at least a hundred times that a grenade would have come in handy and improved my quality of life. Sad, I can't buy one. The folk I would have fragged would probably disagree with my sense of 'need' anyway. They lack 'sympathy' for me, and they damned well should.

Third, and this is the important part, we live in a Democratic Republic. Whether I have sympathy for X, Y or Z doesn't really matter and your opinion of my sympathies matters even less; except maybe to you, and I don't care about you. You should be arguing the point you desire with those you elect, and not weakly attempting to deride me. I think you are ridiculous. What gets "put on the table" will get discussed, debated and hashed into some kind of sausage. If you don't get what you want, well that's kinda your problem. I would suggest your efforts would be better spent coming up with solutions that serve the will of both sides, which seems remarkably the same. That was the point of the post, which you quite obviously missed, Craig. Trolling my happy ass doesn't actually change anything, just so's you know.

Craig Moore

I agree, neither my sympathies nor my quest for clarification of firearm issues matters to you. I have neither the energy nor the motivation to explore the matter further with you. You win. I have been vanquished. Celebrate your victory. Doesn't matter that we may be closer to agreement than you may otherwise imagine. Now focus on the true enemy of your ire. http://www.ktvq.com/news/baucus-and-tester-react-to-obama-gun-plan/ and http://www.jontester.com/issues/protecting-gun-rights/ Perhaps they will yield to your will as well.


I wasn't trying to "vanquish" you, Craig. I just think you're being silly for even thinking it's a competition. Looking to me in your "quest" for "clarification of firearm issues" is really silly. I'm a blogger, not a lawyer or a Senator.

But I thank you for thinking me important enough that Senators might "yield to my will". YAY me! Can you even identify what "my will" even is? Yeah, I kinda doubted that.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Read This!

Friends like Family

Blog powered by Typepad