Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun Control vs Social Security (160 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sexist? A female superior in the military is SIR? (9+ / 0-)
    "Yes, M'am, right away M'am!"
    will not have her size 6 shoe in your exhaust, scuttle, or discharge port.  

    (service dependent references)

    •  Every time a "ma'am" or "woman" (0+ / 0-)

      Was used, the overall sentence was dismissive.  Every time but one that "man" was used, the context was positive.  As neither the author nor the Senator is in the military, there is not need to use any gendered terms of address, at all.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 10:50:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're trying to create controversy where there (8+ / 0-)

        is none so you can employ your relativistic morality to denounce someone you don't agree with.

        Sweeeet!

        ;)

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:05:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  As you know, (0+ / 0-)

          Denouncing gun nuts is not something I have difficulty doing straight-up.  The morality of arguing for the public good of near-unrestricted individual ownership of instruments of mass death invites its own refutation.  The best thing is to say about the zealots is that their legal analysis is shallow and circular, as that at least allows for the possibility of good faith mistakes.

          Whether that's "relativistic morality" depends on the meaning of relativism, really.  Since I think it has an absolute meaning, which you are misapplying, I'm going to disagree.  In fact, i suggest you're only pretending not to see the sexism because its inconvenient for the whole public relations aspects that your side made a viral Internet sensation (allegedly) out of such blatant sexism.  Honestly, I'm disappointed.  I miss the days of being buried with irrelevant historical details, technical specs, and anecdotes -- that at least took work.

          That leaves the political case against acting, but most gun voters won't vote dem anyway, and unless folks here were lying when they got mad for accusing them of embracing Republican positions, we won't lose those votes either.

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 11:29:33 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  As you know, (9+ / 0-)

            Denouncing gun grabbers is not something I have difficulty doing straight-up.  The morality of arguing for the public good of restricting the rights of the law abiding en masse based on the actions of a madman invites its own refutation.

            "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

            by kestrel9000 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:27:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then you don't need (0+ / 0-)

              The sexism, kthxbai.

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:43:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not really (5+ / 0-)

                I don't need it,  but......I kinda understand why it's there. Military culture. It ain't gonna change overnight.
                But you really should stop seizing on one aspect to avoid having to discuss the larger point. It's unbecoming, and speaks that you are incapable of refuting the remainder of what the man said.

                Oops? Did I say, "man"?

                My apologies. His sexism must have rubbed off on me. >;)

                "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

                by kestrel9000 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:49:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  There was no argument (0+ / 0-)

                  in what the man said.  He doesn't feel like complying with a law that hasn't even passed yet.  And we're supposed to believe his gun protects ordered liberty, now in civilian life?  

                    It's not news that gun control is unpopular in some circles, but that's not an argument against it, and it's not a sufficient argument against the politics of pursuing it.  Indeed, I strongly doubt this guy ever voted for Feinstein from his derision towards her, so what is she losing by ignoring him?  There probably won't be registration at the end of the day, so you're derailing the debate by reacting to anything other than the matter at hand -- the public will support the '94 ban, and some additional measures to close some of its glaring holes, and you know it.  I'm not going to credit that tactic.  I can defend registration as necessary to enforce regulations of private sales, but it's too academic to get into detail.  

                  Anyway, I think the fact that you posted it without considering the tone is indicative of other problems worth addressing.  I'm not single issue.

                  Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                  by Loge on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:13:22 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This resonated with me: (5+ / 0-)

                    and I make no apologies for it.

                    I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
                    I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
                    and, quite frankly, if you don't get that, you're my enemy, and I'll see you in the political arena.

                    I will not vote for any politician who supports Queen Apparent "for me but not thee" DiFi's fucking monstrous attack on my Constitutional rights.
                    That is one hundred percent non negotiable, and if you can't leave it at that, then by all means, fire off the personal attack I know you will now resort to and walk away from, feeling superior just like Queen Dianne,  for no valid reason.

                    "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

                    by kestrel9000 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:45:34 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That was his last job, (0+ / 0-)

                      Not his current one.  Well-regulated militia, etc.

                      "Queen" twice is just trolling.  Anyway, I prefer Boxer to Feinstein, so I think there could yet be common ground between us!

                      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                      by Loge on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:53:51 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  "Well regulated militia" (6+ / 0-)

                        You know better than that.

                        I prefer Boxer to Feinstein, so I think there could yet be common ground between us!
                        Gawd, these "armed guards in schools" folks.....damn 'em, they're no better than the "ban guns" crowd.  

                        It's two sides of the same coin. The hell of it is, both sides think they mean well.

                        Shit.

                        The extremists on both sides make it hard for reasonable people to talk.  

                        Seriously, I hate this shit. I used to love blogging. Any more, it begins to seem like an obligation and a pain in the ass.

                        "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

                        by kestrel9000 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:58:21 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

          •  So, you don't want women to be on equal footing (5+ / 0-)

            with those whom may be stronger than us?  Isn't that the point here? You want to ban guns.  Women are not allowed to be safe, unless of course there is someone whom will stand by her side to protect her, most generally, a man, in this society.  

            I saw your position and understood that immediately.  Hey but that's me being a woman and all.

            I guess it's okay for you to be sexist but not the Marine.

            Hummm.....

            Convince me I'm mistaken here.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:16:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, you made that up, (0+ / 0-)

              and as the specific issue is whether one needs to have an unregistered assault weapon to be on equal footing, the answer is no.  Pointing out that women are more likely to be victims of gun violence and most victims of gun violence are killed by acquaintances would only indulge your equivocation, so I won't mention it.  You may not feel emasculated by gun control, as does our Corporal (Ret.), but this is a case of the exception proving the rule.

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 01:25:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  So, in your infinite wisdom, how does a woman (5+ / 0-)

                defend against a superior force?  

                Ask nicely?

                Beg?

                Plead?

                Cough, "call the police", cough, cough?

                Domestic abuse victims usually die, even after repeated calls for police assistance.

                I don't feel "emasculated", I'd  feel helpless.  There is a huge difference.  Helpless in the face of reality in these "United States" where "special rules" govern crimes against woman because they're labeled as "domestic disputes", so therefore not "real crimes".  Crimes that if done to anyone else would bear the full brunt of our legal system.  

                And who's fault is it today? People that claim they're helping protect society, Bull crap.  We are members of society as well and labeling crimes as "domestic disputes" where a conviction is a slap on the wrist with the promise not to do it again IS WHAT MAKES US VICTIMS.  If they knew there would be real life-threatening or life altering consequences, maybe less of us would be dying!

                You'd then take the one tool away that can prevent me from becoming that helpless victim and you now "won't mention it" because its the "exception proving the rule"?

                Who here among us is truly being sexist?  It sure as the hell isn't me.  Women are still clearly secondhand citizens in your mind.

                Thanks for sharing.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 02:51:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I hate to indulge this further, (0+ / 0-)

                  But you are arguing that Jared Loughner and not Gabrielle Giffords is the real feminist.  I agree with everything you say, up to the point where you suggest the solution is that anyone can have an assault weapon.  Unless more is done to protect women from the abusers by law, the same statutes or lack thereof that might protect women in your scenario, would also arm the abusers, because of Second Amendment interpretive extremists.  At best, your argument meets the problem sideways.  

                  As it stands, I believe the federal and local governments can and should weigh the aggregate risks of legalizing kind of individual gun ownership.  Guns that go well beyond any conception of self-defense, like those at issue in Feinstein's legislation, are easy cases.  For handguns, the self-defense rationale can't be dismissed out of hand compared with guns that fire off high capacity magazines, but you're just incorrect that more people, women or men, would survive than if we had the gun laws of other Western democracies.  

                  Either way, it's not tantamount to sexism or ignoring domestic violence to think otherwise.  I noted the author's sexism based on his writing, not on his support for laws that allow women to be shot to death in their own homes, like Kassandra Perkins.  That's the difference.

                  Have you considered the dangers of lead exposure from being around bullets, and how that might impact your cognition?

                  Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                  by Loge on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 03:18:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Aggregate risks", A zero-sum game? An esoteric (6+ / 0-)

                    exercise?  "Lead exposure"???  Laughtner is the feminist"???

                    Didn't you mean "would not survive than if we had the gun laws of other Western democracies"

                    ------------------------------

                    The author was being condescending a bit, but sexist, I didn't see that, I saw military respect being employed.  "Ma'am", I've been called that by polite military men while at work and they may have not heard a question I've asked them.  I've heard the same respect from many Southerners, including young women.  

                    Banning items will not save lives, especially items that do very little killing.  It's clear the intent isn't to save lives but condition people into accepting the conversion of an unalienable right into a privilege, nothing more.

                    I believe the federal and local governments can and should weigh the aggregate risks of legalizing kind of individual gun ownership.
                    It seems to me that's exactly what you want here.

                    ----------------------------

                    In any case, there is only one legitimate avenue of action, change the constitution.  Miller v. US, it did make clear the military usage of firearms.  That was their key finding.  If the military uses it, so can any citizen.  How do you get around this? Ignore the law?

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                    "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

                    You couldn't ban assault rifles or magazine clips that the military uses.  

                    Your solution is a dog chasing its tail.  And yes, the sexist nature of our system of law that you will not address does kill women.   The sexist nature of this society that teaches women to be helpless victims and not be taught or utilize tools for self-defense kills women.  The sexist nature of "police responses" kills women.    

                    Hey, but the police have been given absolution for it.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 09:08:04 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Miller left that question open, (0+ / 0-)

                      in fact (finding the gun in question could be regulated), and  Read that bloc quotation some more - it's not good for your position.  It says any weapon that's non-militia has no protection under the second amendment, and it certainly suggests there wouldn't be an individual right to one, so long as the test is what has "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."  Anyway, Heller leaves room to bar ownership of weapons that are exceptionally dangerous or some such formulation.  It interprets Miller to protect only what weapons are in common use, by saying there's only an organized militia when it's disassembled, like an anarchist convention.  (Speaking of linguistic difficulties, if I put the "not" in there as you suggest, it would either misstate your position, wouldn't be modified by "incorrect," or I'd have to take out "than.")

                      The Gonzales case is many things but certainly not an example of not enough guns (the abuser shot daughters in front of police station and was himself shot to death) -- two of the dissenters in Heller dissented there too.

                      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

                      by Loge on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 10:19:19 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

      •  "ma'am=sexist=need gun control" (5+ / 0-)

        Your logic is flawless.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Fri Jan 04, 2013 at 12:44:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site