There’s one crucial difference. Even if I supported slavery, I would understand the objection to slavery the OP has. The moronic way of choosing the VP is well documented. The hypocrisy of taxation without representation can be understood. What is the fundamental same level argument against second amendment that shows it as erroneous? “Archaic and not compatible with the realities of modern life” is not an argument. How is it outdated, what has it been replaced with, and why is it no longer relevant? The OP is written with the premise that it should be as obvious to me as why would somebody object to the runner up being VP.
Re: the guy and his “baby”:
Where did you get the idea that the guy was admitting he broke the law? The rifle he displays in the video could very well be one manufactured prior to 1994, and thus “grandfathered in” under the 1994 law; or it could be one of the many semi-automatic rifles (without a collapsible stock, flash hider, or bayonet lug) that were perfectly legal to manufacture, sell, and purchase between 1994 and 2004.
And personally, I think his choice of the word “baby” was merely for the ironic effect of saying that he and other Americans “really want to know if our babies are safe.”
Is that really the way things are in New York? AFAIK federal legislation only prohibits firearms ownership to people who have been involuntarily committed or found mentally defective. Is it possible to be involuntarily committed for chronic depression…?
The other thing to keep in mind about the 2nd amendment is that it hasn’t been incorporated, meaning that the states are not bound by it (as they are for almost all the rest of the BoR). Which, to me, makes it seem silly to put our presidential candidates through this gun rights rigamerole every 4 years. Let’s face it, almost all the gun regulation you’re going to encounter is going to come from your state and local governments-- as well it should. What a particular president thinks is almost completely irrelevant-- any federal law is going to be decided by the courts anyway.
Well, if I read that right he’s got a point. I haven’t a clue what, if any, position Ms. Malkin has on gun control. Her job is to bash Democrats in a newspaper column. If her argument is pretty weak this time, well, guess that’s the best she could come up before deadline.
I’ll admit Malkin never openly stated what her position is but I think there’s enough evidence to deduce parts of it.
Richardson and Biden said they favored restrictions on gun sales to criminals and/or mentally ill people. Malkin vehemently condemned them for this. So I think it’s safe to assume Malkin favors unrestricted gun sales to criminals and/or mentally ill people.
Richardson, as I pointed out above, is generally a pro-gun candidate. He has been endorsed by the NRA in past elections and has the highest NRA approval rating of any of the Presidential candidates - Democrat or Republican. So Malkin is saying that the candidate whose position the National Rifle Association says is the best of any candidate is still too weak on gun rights for her. It’s like somebody denouncing Tom Tancredo for not being tough enough on illegal immigration.
Funny how having your husband shot in the head by a certified nutcase with a gun can make you “hysterical” on the subject of gun control.
Under your reasoning, it’s logical to be a racist if you get mugged by a black man.
Townsend said that his gun was “purchased under the 1994 gun ban”. My understanding of that was that he was saying the gun was legal under the standards of that law. I didn’t feel there was any implication that he had bought the gun illegally.
I agree 100% with your explanation of his using “baby”. It didn’t jump out at me in the least. I guess you could be right about him buying the gun legally. It just seemed like a logical explanation due to the candidate’s comment.
And that is precisely the problem. She doesn’t state it, yet you come to the estimation that is extreme. And you make an assumption here about her position that, quite frankly, is even more asinine than the position you accuse you of having. Can you name one person who holds the position you ascribe to Malkin? Just one. Charles Manson aside.
It is very, very easy to have someone committed for chronic depression. The simplest way to arrange it is to provide an officer of the court with credible evidence that the patient may be a threat to himself - i.e. a suicide risk. Often when you hear about this or that person as being in the hospital on ‘suicide watch’ the details are that they have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility. Depending upon how ‘proactive’ the judge hearing the request might be, indicators of potentially suicidal behavior can include simply not showering for a couple of days.
As for being found mentally defective… if one is 100% disabled for chronic depression, I suspect that for most lay definitions that would meet the requirements. I don’t know what the law would have to say about it, though.
Charles Manson? That’s kind of weak. It would have been so much more effective if you had written: “Just one. Adolf Hitler aside.” Because nothing shows how strongly you feel about a subject like a meaningless comparison to Adolf Hitler.
Other than that advice, I’ve got nothing. I can’t think of any possible way to interpret Malkin’s position on gun control other than the way I have for the reasons I’ve given. But you obviously can. So enlighten me, please. Explain to me your interpretations of Malkin’s article and offer the evidence that you feel supports your position.
No, you’re wrong here, as well. You see, Hitler is dead, so using him would have given you too easy an out. I used a real live nut, who by virtue of his nutiness, may infact hold the position you described. But by taking this well-known maniac off the table I force you too try a little harder to come up with someone who holds the position you describe. Which you still haven’t done. And, oh yeah, Hitler is way over used and brings cries of Godwinization.
Let’s see: 0+0= yep, nothin’. 
Well, I thought I provided an interpretation of it in my initial post. Feel free to scroll back. She was being an idiot, but 1) she did not state her position. If you really want to know what her position is I’m sure you can glean it from her posts on her website. Now while I’m sure it is some flavor of pro-second amendment, I’m also sure that she is not in favor of 2) giving guns to felons and the mentally ill. Please look at the position that you tried to assign to her. Tell me, who holds that position? The candidates didn’t answer the question, they offered some safe pablam that would get them in no trouble with anyone—pro-gun or anti-gun. Because they know that even a staunch gun advocate (which some dems are) will not have a problem with that position. No one except maybe felons and the mentally ill.
I am not sure what the procedure for that would be, or if there is one. I’ve never had to try to get information removed from the database.
Because the people who responded to it chose for it to be that scary. They choose to believe that this man had to be talking about his rifle as if it were a literal baby, not in the figurative sense such as my car is my baby.
What do you base that on? Richardson and Biden said they were not in favor of giving guns to felons and the mentally ill and Malkin said they were wrong.
I’m pretty sure that nobody was thinking that Townsend literally believed he had given birth to a rifle. Everone understood he was speaking figuratively.
Personally, I always find it strange when people call anything “baby” that isn’t an actual infant. I don’t care whether it’s a rifle, a car, a boat, or a cat.
Well here’s what she actually wrote about their comments. Concerning Richardson: (all emphasis mine)
(bolding mine) So, she is evidently upset the Richardson did not share the ideological underpinnings of his position on guns. The same position the Cooper was alluding to. Instead, not wanting to scare away the gun-hating dem contingent he served up some safe pablam—that everyone agrees with.
Here’s her take on Biden:
So, her problem with Biden is similar to her problem with Richardson. They are both being evasive and not talking about the crux of the gun issue—the secoind amendment. Richardson, who evidently has a strong pro-gun record took the easy/safe way out. Biden made light of the issue so he wouldn’t have to actually answer it. Notice how neith of them answered the actual question. Instead they made a comment on an aspect of the gun issue that IS NOT IN DISPUTE. One that virtaully every sane, non-felon agrees with. So neither of them shared with potential voters what their position is on the issue.
Additionally, we can look to see if Malkin said or implied anything that would align her with being against the pablem offered up. I don’t see it. The only insight that I see into what her position might be is:
S, she doesn’t offer much of her views. But the article in its totality seems quite clear that she is taking them to task for not taking the issue seriously enough. No where can I see where she is in disagreement with the safe apblam offered up. Again, I ask oyu, are you awasre of anyone who holds the position that we should give guns to felons and the mentally ill? Your insistence that this is in fact her position is completely absurd. I hope you see that now with the parsing of her article.
Yes, I am. Michelle Malkin holds that position. Nothing you’ve written has convinced me otherwise. Which isn’t surprising because while I offered evidence of why I believe that to be her opinion, you’ve offered no evidence to the contrary except to say that such an opinion would be foolish. I agree with you on that but I believe Malkin is a fool.
If you think Malkin believes otherwise - if despite what she wrote, you believe she actually agrees with Biden and Richardson on the issue of gun sales (and I can’t see how anyone would read that column and think that) - then please do as I asked above and offer some evidence in support of that. Provide a cite to where Malkin says she is opposed to the sale of guns to criminals or mentally ill people.
Not that it would get Malkin off the hook if you did find such a cite. Because then I’ll just point out that she’s an idiot and a hypocrite for mocking Biden and Richardson for holding the same position that she herself does. But this line of debate is winding down and a new direction like that would freshen it up and give it new life.