antijenx

nobody here but us chickens

“I’m with Stupid.”

wm2338Someone posted this “article” to Facebook last week, and several of us took exception. We’re very, very tired, of the hoplophobic left fabricating this hysterical nonsense and attributing it to those of us who believe that we have a fundamental human right to protect ourselves and our loved ones.

That criminals don’t follow laws is, in fact, a legitimate argument against further restrictions on the rights of law abiding citizens. Stricter gun laws do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and everything to punish people who have never broken a law in their lives. If prohibitive laws worked, Prohibition itself would have been a raging success. Instead it led to more than a decade of increased violence and law breaking. The bad guys and dirty politicians got rich, while the innocent, upright citizens got the shaft, and sometimes dead in the crossfire.

The “really passionately angry” author of this piece of pap says himself that the definition of a criminal is “someone who breaks the law and commits crime”. When he suggests that those of us who are pro-gun rights don’t think there should be any laws at all is sheer fantasy on his part. We believe in the necessity of a free society to have rules to help govern civilization. What we do not believe in is the already massively bloated government stepping in, not to enforce the laws that are already on the books, but to create further restrictions that will affect no one but the people who already follow the laws. The new restrictions being proposed by various and sundry aren’t even based in any semblance of  reality. (The term “assault weapon” is entirely a political construct designed to scare people into thinking these rifles are somehow SO MUCH WORSE than an “ordinary” hunting rifle. Wake up, people.)

wm2705

And then he wrote this sentence: “The deaths of innocents is acceptable collateral damage to these people; why are we listening to them? ” And that’s when I got angry. This is the real leftist fantasy right here. If there is a person among those of us who are anti-gun control who considers the deaths of innocents as acceptable collateral damage, we would be the first to stand up and condemn him or her. Sandy Hook was a great tragedy to all of us, but no more so than the deaths of innocents any where else in this country.

How many innocent people are murdered with firearms every day in Chicago, a city with the strictest gun control in the country? You never hear about that on the news. You never hear the left rising up in anger and outrage over all the murdered children in Chicago. No, you can’t do that, because you’d just draw more attention to the fact that that kind of strict gun control simply does not work. Criminals don’t follow laws but law abiding citizens do. So who wins?

“No, an AR-15 isn’t any more lethal at killing people. It’s just highly efficient. And while we’re at this point, and I can actually hear a thousand gun zealots’ voices screaming at me that other guns are just as efficient, I call bullshit. … To get the same kind of efficiency out of a semi-auto handgun or shotgun, there’s a much higher level of training needed, at least so I’ve been told by other gun owners who don’t run out of the room like petulant kids when the very subject of gun control is brought up.”  An AR-15 IS a semi-automatic weapon. It is only as “efficient” as the person pulling the trigger, level of training notwithstanding.

wm2366

The problem with putting your “reasonable restrictions” on our rights, as we “gun zealots” see it, is with your definition of “reasonable”. We’re also a little twitchy about “restrictions”, but we’re willing to compromise. You are all so willing to toss the Constitution out the window in favor of what you deem is best for everyone, what you deem is reasonable. And what you deem is reasonable in this instance, endangers innocent lives.

But ok, set the Constitution aside for one tiny second. Let’s take it down to the most basic animal level. We’re all primates here, so let’s look at it in a Wild Kingdom, basic nature type of way. I’m a female, and I’m not a very big one. I have predators. That’s just the way nature works, the strong will prey on the weak. Do you truly believe that I should simply shrug my petite shoulders, say oh well, and allow myself to be eaten? Really? What if it were you? Would you simply roll over, hands thrown up in despair, resigned to your fate? Please.

Aside from our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms – bitch about it all you want, it’s there and it’s not going away – we have a basic human right to protect ourselves and our loved ones. And you can bet your “really passionately angry” ass, that I’m not about to surrender that right any time soon.

Regardless of the astonishingly absurd rant penned by the prog referenced above, I’m mostly saddened and disappointed by the fact that so very many of the people I call friends or family post links to this kind of nonsense. This suggests to me that this is what my friends and family must actually believe about me. That you’re taking the easy way and standing with stupid. That I am some kind of right wing nut job who “wouldn’t care if 500,000 children were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary, or in Aurora, Colorado.” Of course, these people will say to me “But we don’t think that about you, Jennifer! We know you’re not like that!” Well, I have a newsflash for you. Most of the other people who are against further gun control are just like me. They’re women and parents and college students; they’re law abiding, responsible citizens of this country, who care a great deal more about innocents than you ever give them credit for. Just like me.

wm2352

Share

30 Comments

  1. THANK YOU! I so want to speak my feelings about this, but just sputter. I’m not talented in that way. I’m so glad you are!
    It was all I could do to read that crap (you were polite using “pap”. I want to use other words)
    Well said. Really.

  2. Thanks for reading my piece and taking the time to respond. You’re not paying enough attention if you don’t think the left doesn’t rise up and scream about Chicago. But the right is going to have to stop cherry-picking big cities with tough gun bans because we can point to New York City and see where tough gun laws implemented correctly are working.

    The right just has a very, very simplistic view of regulation (maybe because they knee-jerk react as if you’ve punched them in the kidney when you just mention the word “regulation”). Laws can be written to address any number of issues. One reason you don’t see a massive drop in Chicago’s gun crime is that it’s very easy to just go over to Indiana or even an outlying Chiacgo suburb and buy a firearm that you can’t get in Chicago. The lack of a Federal trafficking law enables that little loophole to keep killing people day in and day out.

    Tell me, if I’m so stupid, why do over 90% of Americans agree with me on background checks? If I’m so stupid why do the majority of Americans agree with me on limiting the size of round feeders? If I’m so stupid why do the majority of Americans support the Assault Weapons Ban — as I do? If you ask me, stupid is deliberately misinterpreting the Constitution so that the gun manufacturing lobby can continue to rake in money hand over fist every time one of these spree killings happens and the NRA fearmongers you all into making a run on semi-automatic weapons.

    Read D.C. vs. Heller. Even Justice Scalia says the Second Amendment, like all rights, is NOT unlimited. Your basic “animal right” to protect yourself doesn’t give you the basic right to own basically any gun you want…basically. That’s not me saying it, that’s Justice Scalia.

    “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapon” –Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia; D.C. vs. Heller

    Whether you like it or not, the Supreme Court has already invalidated every single one of your arguments. Thanks again for reading.

    • Is this the homophobic, oft-cantankerous and bumbling Scalia you’re quoting? The same one who said in 2012: “The death penalty? Give me a break. It’s easy. Abortion? Absolutely easy. Nobody ever thought the Constitution prevented restrictions on abortion. Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state.”

      That’s your Justice saying how easy it is to make decisions on things like killing people who commit heinous crimes, outlawing abortion and, of course, creating laws that stop make being gay illegal.

      The Supreme Court hasn’t invalidated any of those arguments. In fact, it’s upheld Second Amendment rights at every turn.

      I’m not saying there can’t be agreements made and certain restrictions set in place, I’m just saying you’re throwing around “facts” that aren’t even true. 90-percent of Americans agree with you? Hogwash. I guarantee you can’t prove that number, nor is it even fathomable that it could be true.

      If you wrote with a little less “passion” and a little more facts and figures, you might actually come off as someone who creates a valid argument. Instead, you’re whining and throwing a tantrum because you’re “sick” of an argument.

      Ignorance on either side of this debate is still ignorance.

    • “Tell me, if I’m so stupid, why do over 90% of Americans agree with me on background checks?”

      IDK, maybe the same reason over 90% of Americans agree with you that vanilla ice cream is moderately tasty and most puppies and kittens are cute? Agreeing with your rare reasonable positions does nothing to rehabilitate the patently unreasonable ones. Your lead argument – that the mere fact that criminals don’t obey X is a lousy argument against X – was a sound one. The rest of your article was pure crap. You should have written the first couple paragraphs and stopped there.

    • AntiJenX

      March 24 at 1:51 pm

      You are mistaken. The Supreme Court has not invalidated my arguments, else they would have ruled, for example, that D.C.’s gun ban was constitutional, or that Chicago’s gun ban was constitutional. But these gun laws are not constitutional, and the Supreme Court rulings reflected that.

      I very clearly stated that none of us believed that we do not need laws. I don’t know where you’re getting that I believe my rights are “unlimited”. What I said was that we were willing to compromise as we believe that laws are important to a civil society. And there are existing laws that are sufficient, should they be enforced. You alluded to shoddy enforcement yourself when comparing Chicago to New York.

      My basic human right to defend myself means that, basically, I can and will use any weapon at my disposal to do so. Should that weapon be an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine, well, I’m that much more likely to walk away with my life, as far as I’m concerned.

      It’s not any easier to go across state lines and buy a gun for illegal purposes than it is to stay in the state of Illinois and do it. There aren’t any criminals subjecting themselves to background checks that I’ve heard of. Whereas I, on the other hand, underwent a very thorough background check and fingerprint process in order to legally obtain my firearm.

      In what way, exactly, are we “deliberately misinterpreting” the Constitution? We tend to read the Constitution as a pretty straightforward document. I have a right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution doesn’t specify which arms, it doesn’t limit the type or number of arms, nor does it dictate how much ammunition I am allowed to use in my arms.

      Additionally, please, cite your source for your claim that 90% of Americans support stricter gun control. I find that number incredibly difficult to believe, that is, if the poll were conducted by a legitimately objective pollster. We’ve all seen plenty of examples of skewed polling by the left.

      You cannot deny that almost all mass shootings happen in places where firearms are specifically prohibited – schools, movie theaters, college campuses. Further restrictions on law abiding citizens endanger innocent people. If you really cared about innocent people so much, you’d stop telling us exactly how we’re allowed to defend ourselves.

    • James, I really enjoyed your “If I’m so stupid, then ____” paragraph, except that I’m not really seeing where this author claimed that you were stupid. From reading your piece, I gathered that the epithets and such are more your cup of tea.

    • Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapon

      I’d be careful in thinking you’ve divined Scalia’s opinion on “common use”, “dangerous”, or “unusual”. Your post displays a cocky assumption of understanding on a topic with which you have only passing familiarity.

      • Oakenheart

        March 25 at 6:56 pm

        Not to mention Scalia’s pontifications on those subjects are Dicta – they were not a matter before the court and are not binding.

    • Oakenheart

      March 25 at 7:38 pm

      We can point to New York as a place where they stop and frisk innocent people on the street too, not exactly behavior I’d choose to emulate. One city out of all the others you cherry-pick, and the one that’s thrown more money into police. Hm, is it the gun laws, or the police presence that makes the actual difference? Restricting people who are not going to commit crime does not one thing to reduce crime.

      When did Rights ever depend on a majority? The entire concept of a Constitutional Republic is so that the majority cannot infringe on the rights of a minority. You are being quite foolish in pushing to change that. What happens when the political pendulum swings the other way? Not to mention the poll used to get that 90% number is flawed.

      If you ask me, stupid is not understanding the concept of Rights, the history of the Constitution, or how our Government is supposed to work. I bet you have never read the 1100 Charter, the Magna Carta, Locke, The Federalist Papers, or any of the Founder’s writings so you could get an idea what they intended. Have you read Bastiat’s “The Law”? Here, if you don’t have the books I’ll point you to a free library where you can read them yourself. http://oll.libertyfund.org/

      If you have not read history, if you have not discovered why the Constitution was written, I submit it is you who do not understand, and are the one who has misinterpreted the constitution. It is plain English, and if you follow the rules of Grammar, and the precise definition of words from a dictionary written at the time of the founders it’s meaning is quite plain. It’s even more plain when you read the Federalist and Antifederalist papers.

      The “gun manufacturing lobby” is the NSSF, and has nothing to do with the NRA. And how, exactly is it fear-mongering to point out that over the course of the last 40 years anti-gun groups and politicians have said in their own words that they intend to make all firearms illegal? There have been many quotes reported. Feinstein said on CBS-TV’s 60 Minutes, February 5, 1995, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in, I would have done it.” There are MANY more quotes of this nature. There is concrete proof that these gun laws are not intended to reduce crime at all, but are intended to ratchet down on firearm ownership until they can get a complete ban passed. It’s history, it’s factual, and we are not fools sir!

      As to Scalia’s pontifications – are you familiar with the term Dicta? As in when some justice opines on something not in front of the court for them to decide on? All that you listed is Dicta – it is not relevant nor is it binding. Not to mention the concept of Stare Decisis is repugnant to the Constitution itself and to just law. Why should people suffer for years because of a bad, politicized court decision? They should NOT! The power of the Federal government comes from consent of the people. The Supreme court IS NOT the superior branch of government. Powers are separated as a check against Tyranny. When the PEOPLE have decided that the constitution has been violated, it is the province of the states to nullify. If that fails, then it is incumbent on the people to exercise that natural right protected by the 2nd amendment to correct the matter. You wish to push us there because some crazy people and gangbangers have cost a few lives? There is SEVERE corruption in the government as it is. I would much prefer to fix it peaceably. I am however not the one trying to violate people’s natural rights – you are.

      All of Scalia’s Dicta can be proven wrong. Felon in possession laws? 1968 -Hardly longstanding. Unconstitutional, also. If a Felon is a danger to anyone he should be kept locked up! Same with the mentally ill – if they are a proven danger, they should be kept locked up! US v Miller’s test was if the weapons were in use by the military – which broadens the scope a lot. Using that test bazookas, full auto, mines, claymores, grenades, etc would all be legal.

      Thanks for your time.

    • Lack of a federal trafficking law? From the gun control act of 1968 ” 922. Unlawful acts

      (a) It shall be unlawful — …

      3) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained by such person outside that State ….

      (5) for any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) to transfer, sell, trade, give, transport, or deliver any firearm to any person (other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector) who the transferor knows or has reasonable cause to believe does not reside in (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, does not maintain a place of business in) the State in which the transferor resides;

      Sounds like trafficking is illegal to me. But maybe you know where and when this law was repealed?

      If Chicago’s crime problem is because of Indiana’s easy access to guns why doesn’t Indiana have as bad a problem? If Indiana is the problem how come only 13% of the guns traced in 2011 (last year with data) came from Indiana? If all the crime guns are coming from Indiana how come 76% had a time to crime of over 3 years?

      Do you really think that 90% of the people agree with you? Bet you still believe that Elvis is traveling around in an RV too.

      The Supreme Court invalidated all arguments? When exactly did that happen?

      Can you point me to the articles about the left decrying the violence in Washington,DC and Chicago?

    • Because, if those 90% believe the way you do, they ARE stupid. But then, the idea that 90% of Americans agree on ANYTHING is idiotic.

      We have read the Heller decision. Your copy of what Scalia wrote states that weapons in common use, suitable for a miltia, and used for a lawful purpose are protected by the 2nd. Its not hard to understand. The restrictions are on people restricted because of due process or sensitive places. We already have restrictions on the types of weapons.

  3. What an amazing display of willful ignorance, circular reasoning and argument by vigorous assertion.

  4. Sorry, but if 90% of people still support a stupid law that enables evil, it’s still a stupid law that enables evil.

  5. Oh, and AntiJenX — this was very, very well written. Not that it’ll matter to the anti-gun left, but kudos to you.

  6. Lazy Bike Commuter

    March 24 at 12:31 pm

    And these idiots keep bringing up the “Yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater” argument.

    You know what? It is perfectly fine to yell “Fire”. IF THE BUILDING IS ON FIRE.

    They are suggesting the equivalent of banning the use of all words that indicate danger, on the off chance someone might yell fire at an inappropriate time.

  7. AntiJenX- Thanks for a great response to an abhorrent article. The author of the article you referenced wants to place blame for “the death of innocents” on me?! In gun free zones and other areas of “reasonable gun laws”, we are stripped of the right to protect ourselves. Yet, the ones responsible for these “reasonable gun laws” that leave us defenseless, raped and murdered feel no responsibility for the slaughter their laws have enabled. Schlarmann mocks me for “avoiding dialogue” and then insists that I “shut up. Just shut up.” And so ends yet another liberal argument: “SHUT UP!”, he explained.

  8. ” One reason you don’t see a massive drop in Chicago’s gun crime is that it’s very easy to just go over to Indiana or even an outlying Chiacgo suburb and buy a firearm that you can’t get in Chicago. The lack of a Federal trafficking law enables that little loophole to keep killing people day in and day out. ”

    This is stupid. Criminals in Chicago aren’t just hopping over to Indiana to buy all their guns because of some “loophole” in federal trafficing laws. An IL resident cannot just hop over to Indiana and legally buy a gun at a gunshop there.

    Oh, and I’ve never killed or harm anyone with MY firearms. As such, I have absolutely NO culpability, moral or otherwise for people in Chicago or any other big city killing eachother. It’s mostly black criminals killing black criminals. What in the heck do you want ME to do about that?

  9. “The deaths of innocents is acceptable collateral damage to these people; why are we listening to them? “

    Dead stop.

    The instant this straw man is raised, that portion of the readership who can think their way out of a wet paper bag is gone and out of the room.

    The rest is puerile demagoguery and preaching to a half-wit choir. I suppose that stokes the author’s ego a bit, but he only fools himself. The rest of us can see right through him.

  10. Very eloquent. I enjoyed reading it.

  11. Oakheart’s “When did Rights ever depend on a majority? The entire concept of a Constitutional Republic is so that the majority cannot infringe on the rights of a minority.” is the meat of it,something libs never understand.Well done Oakheart, and AntiJenX!

  12. Very nice. You are a new daily read.

  13. I’ve left some comments over at the other post….REALLY ticked him off. He STARTED with Markely’s law. And went down hill.

    He needs to cut back on caffeine.

    • I just read on his site that “it shouldn’t be harder to vote than it is to get a gun” .. someone has obviously put a lot of thought into the issue. Granted, they are feeble thoughts, but there are a lot of them.

  14. Rob Halvorson

    March 29 at 1:30 pm

    I am really getting tired of the same hackneyed buzz phrases being thrown about by the people who want to decide how I get to live my life and who want to take my guns. Thing is, the crap they throw around isn’t true and reflects stupidity.

    “You don’t need a gun capable of killings hundreds of people, a weapon of war on America’s streets yada yada etc.” Well lets look at this. Assault weapon is a term made up by Josh Sugarmann that he admitted was conceived of to fool the public into thinking they were banning machine guns. Killing hundreds of people at one time? In 2012 375 people were killed with rifles of all types including assault weapons. Hold that number in mind.

    “You don’t need…” Do you really want to allow the government or public hysteria to decide what you need? Remember, eventually the pendulum will swing and the people you hate and fear will be deciding what you need. Lets say you don’t need a smart phone. “What???” you cry. “That is ridiculous, my smart phone isn’t designed to kill!” But it does kill. 6000 deaths a year from distracted drivers, 11 teen deaths a day from texting, 1.6 million accidents a year. http://www.textinganddrivingsafety.com/texting-and-driving-stats/ Lets just call them “Death Phones.”

    http://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-accident/cell-phone/cell-phone-statistics.html

    “But we have laws against texting and even talking on the cell phone while driving. We don’t need to ban them. ” Okay then, 11 teen deaths a day and 6000 a year from smart phones compared to 1 a day or 375 a year for “assault weapons.” We have laws against murder despite the “legal to hunt human beings with a 150 round magazine” sound byte. Lets ban them for the “children.”

    “But I have a right to my cell phone.” Um, no. Not actually. Just because the Unicorn Prince said so and gives them out doesn’t make it so.

    “What about the First Amendment?” Remember your stupid comment about when the 2nd Amendment was written the founding fathers only knew about single shot muskets and not “assault weapons?” So why should the First cover more than quill pens and hand set printing presses?

    “But cell phones do more good than harm. You can’t just ban them because some people abuse them.” Really? Remember when we said you can’t stop all the nuts and you accused us of accepting collateral damage? 6000 to 375. Death phones go first.

    “But with my cell phone I can get help when people need it and report criminals.” Even the NY Times is willing to concede that guns are used defensively 100,000 times per year and the Department of Justice says 1.5 million times. So 8300 murders and non-negligent deaths compared to 1.5 million saves. Nope, you don’t accept the benefit of firearm ownership over the risks of misuse so I don’t have to either. Next.

    If we let you keep “Death Phones” lets talk about “common sense.”

    How about those bogus statistics you guys throw out about the cost to society of firearms. 1.6 million auto accidents a year. What does that do to my insurance rates?

    Oh, how about this one? It shouldn’t be more difficult to vote than it should be to get a phone that kills 6000 people a year. Cause if I pay my taxes or renew my drivers license or get found on a headstone I am going to get a voter registration card. To buy a gun I have to show id and get a background check but I can buy a prepaid burner phone with cash and no id.

    Background checks? What have you got to fear if you have nothing to hide? Lets keep felons, people who have ever been in an automobile accident or ever had a moving violation and people on the no fly list or the terror watch list from ever owning a cell phone? Terrorists for sure use cell phones because the government eavedrops on them. Before you can have a cell phone you have to present id and undergo a background check. Lets pick 11 states and say that you have to get permission of a bureaucrat and tell him why you want a cell phone before you can have on in those states. Lets pick 2 more and say that you can’t have a cell phone outside the house in those states. Lets make sure that you can’t have a cell phone until you are 18 or 21 for one that allows texting.

    “You are gonna ride this cell phone thing to death aren’t you?” Yeah, probably. Just remember, 11 teen deaths per day. Its for the children.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

© 2017 antijenx

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑