Meanwhile, on Fantasy Island
Newsweek says gun control is back in Washington and that conservatives are making inaccurate arguments against gun control. It’s funny because 1) gun control is not back in Washington and 2) the whole piece is riddled with inaccurate arguments and information.
January 19th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
It’s in Newsweek, what do you expect. The magazine that sucked so bad no one would pay a dollar for it.
January 19th, 2011 at 12:44 pm
Holy crap the fail is strong with that one!
He thinks people might argue owning a submarine is a 2A right.
He thinks Laugner used an automatic weapon.
He thinks that DC’s high crime rate is due to “high inequality.”
He thinks saying the “bear” part in the right to keep and bear arms means you actually get to bear arms is a logical fallacy.
January 19th, 2011 at 12:57 pm
Conservatives are making inaccurate arguments, and yet this goof refers to a Glock 19 is an assault weapon? Wow the pot calls the kettle!
These folks should be forced to beat themselves with their high capacity “clips” until they at least understand the proper lexicon to make their arguments…
January 19th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
The article packed with strawmen and logical fallacies while pretending to criticize them.
January 19th, 2011 at 2:01 pm
“He thinks people might argue owning a submarine is a 2A right.”
He doesn’t seem to realize that it is perfectly legal to own one.
January 19th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
Once Newsweek was a better mag. Or maybe my world view has changed. What the article link had was lies, more lies, and some damned lies.
We need to beat these guys down once and for all time.
January 19th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Heh, that’s completely true. It’s just illegal to own the ammunition that goes into them.
January 19th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Right. No one is going to argue that a mode of transportation is a 2A right.
January 19th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
It’s not illegal to own a torpedo, or even a guided missile.
But it’ll be tough to find one for sale to civilians and you’ll need a tax stamp (and background check) from the Feds.
Are DD stamps “shall-issue” from the Treasury, or can they turn you down even if you’re not disqualified because they just don’t want you owning something that goes Boom?
January 19th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
January 19th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
I noticed:
1. On the Newsweek homepage, the link to this article is listed under “Stories” and titled “Assault-Weapons Ban Would Not Violate Second Amendment”.
2. Being listed as a “Story” not a column or editorial, I would have expected some attemot at evenhandedness. Given the title, I would have also expected the opinion of someone trained in Law. I got neither.
3. What I got was an opinion piece by a hack leftist who, according to his bio, has lived in NYC and DC. I doubt he has ever held a gun and I bet he did less research for that “Story” than I did for this comment.
The guy who bought Newsweek for $1 overpaid.
January 19th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
“Are DD stamps “shall-issue” from the Treasury, or can they turn you down even if you’re not disqualified because they just don’t want you owning something that goes Boom?”
Unless explosive DDs are banned in your state (DDs come in two flavors, explosive and large bore), then the stamp will be issued. That does not give you the lawful ability to make an explosive however – only to make the device the explosive goes into. Actually filling it with explosives would require you to have a Federal Explosives License to make the boom-boom juice, or a usage permit to buy it from someone else, neither of which are anywhere close to “shall-issue”.
January 19th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
“…concealed carry has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.”
Markie Marxist sez: “Exactly! My commie compadres at Newsweek are correct! After all, it’s the right to keep not bear arms, just like the Second Amendment says!”