How About “No.” Does “No” Work for You?

So much for “nobody wants to take your guns.”

Seems the New York Times, Paper of (making up the) Record, found it worthwhile to put an op-ed on its front page for the first time in forever.  The topic?  Banning “assault weapons” – oh, wait, I’m sorry – “End(ing) the Gun Epidemic in America.”  Excerpt:

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.

As was the Brown Bess musket, the 1903 Springfield, and now the AR-15. Your point?

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

Considering that our fellow citizens in Connecticut, New York and California won’t even register them, I think your idea of banning them is a complete non-starter.

So, how does “NO” work for you?

Still Playing at

The question was asked,

How realistic is the average gun rights enthusiast about their ability to use their firearm for self-defense/ home protection without being a danger to themselves or bystanders?

I have a friend who is a gun enthusiast, and while he is otherwise intelligent (PhD), I simply don’t trust his judgment or competence with a firearm. He is paranoid, can’t read situations well, and is not particularly coordinated.

If I was present at bank robbery, I would feel *less* safe knowing he was armed.
Is this an unusual case?

I responded to one of the comments.

There was a response from an anonymous user.

I Don’t Have the TIME It Would Take to Fisk This

Sweet BLEEDING Jeebus.  I thought “professional” “news” “media” had “layers of editors and fact-checkers.”  Here’s just the FIRST PARAGRAPH of a Guardian (UK) article.

A plan by President Barack Obama to close a loophole which allows Americans to buy weapons such as machine guns, grenades and sawn-off shotguns without undergoing background checks is set to be delayed, due to intense opposition from the NRA and other anti-gun-control activists.

And it goes on like that!

The mind boggles.

Read the comments, too.

(h/t to my favorite Merchant O’Death.)