Reply #79: well, that was an utterly incoherent screed

[iverglas]

(You can just scroll down to the bottom below the dotted line if you want the executive summary)

But then the gunheads do love their straw targets, so may as well offer 'em one once in a while and let 'em have at it.

The thing is just stuffed with straw.

In contrast, the solutions offered by liberals and conservatives would each have prevented the Virginia Tech massacre. If the left had its comprehensive gun legislation, Cho would never have acquired the weapons for his murderous rampage in the first place. If the right had its way, some of Cho’s victims in Norris Hall would all have carried concealed weapons and would have been able to defend themselves.

Neither statement is "true". (In that both statements are predictions, neither could be actually true.) Even with tight regulations, there will be a black market of some sort, just for starters, since all of the millions and millions of unregistered firearms in existence in the real world when regulation began would not disappear in puffs of gunsmoke, so statement one is wrong. Even with unregulated carrying of concealed firearms, not everyone, and not even one person in ever conceivable group, is going to be carrying a firearm, so statement two is wrong.

Therefore, we are led to an interesting conclusion. In theory, the left’s position on gun control would be optimal (“No Guns, No Crime”).

Huh. Suddenly it's not "comprehensive gun legislation" any more, it's "no guns". And suddenly it isn't "having fewer guns will lead to fewer gun-related crimes" any more, it's "no crime". What kind of a moron would actually say "no guns, no crime"? It's false to start with, and pointless at the very best.

In practice, however, the right’s position (“More Guns, Less Crime”) ...

Well, lucky right-wingers. They aren't being portrayed as *complete* morons.

Either of these solutions would work. Unfortunately, a mixed, decentralized stance on this particular issue would not, given the unique power and danger held by those who hold guns.

Work ... FOR WHAT? Recreating the garden of Eden? Probably not ...

The process of enforcing a total disarmament of our population will be costly and may require draconian measures. It may be necessary to modify parts of the Second Amendment. And given the political influence of the National Rifle Association and pro-gun Republicans in Congress, it will almost certainly be difficult to pass such stringent gun control legislation. But if our leaders could pull off such a legislative feat, our streets would be as safe as Singapore’s.

BOGEYMAN BOGEYMAN!!! OVER THERE!!!

Oops. It was just a straw one.

And some people think ... or claim to think ... that people who write shit like this actually support firearms control ...

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


Here's a little of who the author is:
http://www.stanfordreview.org/About/Staff/cseck.shtml

Though there is some truth to the idea of global warming ...

Unfortunately, although Obama’s current rhetoric calls for America to transcend her racial differences, his past views on race, as indicated in Dreams from My Father, suggest a character that is deeply compromised, shrewd, and expedient. While these ugly qualities might make him a good D.C. politician, they should not make him president of the United States.

An Early Introduction To Liberal Bias

But what the fuck is the Stanford Review??

Well, here's the self-advert on its home page:



So ...

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS DOING AT DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND?