Gun nut bestows "Quote of the Day" honors on Blast Off!

Well, seems I've earned yet another award from the wingnut blogosphere. Following up on last April's Asshat of the Month award from MilitaryPundits.com, now Blast Off! has provided the Quote of the Day from a pro-gun blog called "The View From North Central Idaho," appropriately subtitled "Ramblings of a red-necked, knuckle-dragging, Neanderthal on explosives, guns, politics, and sex." (Coincidentally, one of the hotbeds of neo-Nazism in America was until recently Hayden Lake, Idaho, in the north central part of the state. Just saying.)

Apparently Joe the Blogger took umbrage at my characterization of gun nuts as "barrel-strokers with small penises" and responded accordingly. I do have to give him credit for being fairly civil in his response, but I still reserve the right to disagree ... of course:

My primary objective of quoting this guy is to let you know what the other side thinks of you.

My secondary objective is to demonstrate how wrong he is.

The first thing that comes to mind about this guy is, "Does he thinks woman [sic] have infinitely sized guns?" Then I wonder how many penises he has measured and compared to gun sizes. If it were more than one or two my hypothesis would be it was because he was more interested in the penises than in the correlation with gun size. But my leading hypothesis at this time is that he has precisely zero data to support his claims. This is based upon the above collection of data about him. For example:

1. Buying a gun now, such as a so called "assault weapon" that was been banned from new sale to private citizens the last time Democrats controlled Congress, the Senate, and the White House, does "immunize" said buyers. There is no registration of firearms in most states. Hence after a month or two it becomes very unlikely that a judge is going to issue a search warrant for said gun based entirely on a 4473 because without other confirming evidence the owner could have sold or otherwise disposed of the firearm being sought. So, at that point what can they do to remove the gun from circulation?
2. In states where registration has been implemented, such as California, New York, and New Jersey, not to mention all the foreign countries with registration, there have been many examples of the government coming to take the guns. And even without registration guns were forcibly confiscated after hurricane Katrina. To say it won't or can't happen again, particularly when there are people, such as Sinfonian, advocating it is naive or duplicitous.
3. The gun rights community has long been aware of and fought against high taxes on ammunition. For example just on my blog alone you can see concerns over it here, here, here, here, and here.
4. Gross misreading of the Second Amendment? Did he read the Heller decision or just is he just parroting what the Brady Campaign or the Violence Policy Center told him? See also my blog post if you just want a dramatically abridged version of what Scalia said. In other words the highest legal authority in the nation agreed with what us "barrel-strokers with small penises" have been saying about the Second Amendment for decades.

What would be funny if it weren't so tragic is this guy confuses his imagination with reality.--Joe

Oh, Joe, everything is so cut-and-dried with you, isn't it?

First of all, the penis reference was a joke. Kind of like saying that someone who drives a sports car is, you know, compensating for something. Except with gun nuts, the compensation is just a little more phallic. No, seriously, I do think you folks who love guns so much must have something missing in your lives, something that makes you want to have a big ol' weapon at your disposal and, more to the point, resist any efforts to regulate or restrict your -- or anyone's -- access to those weapons. But, naturally, I don't have any data to back that up.

Which leads me to the allegation that I don't have data to back up what I say. First of all, I was giving my opinion -- I don't need "data" for that. However, it is pretty funny to see a wingnut going on about "data" and "facts," since they're usually allergic to both. Still, given the relatively sensible tone of the response, I figure I should respond with some facts of my own:

The statement that buying a gun now "immunizes" buyers is almost perfectly irrelevant to what I said. I said, first, that no one is going to take anyone's guns away. I grant you that point and, indeed, I think it's silly for the pro-gun lobby to prey on the fear of gun owners (which, after all, is why they buy guns in the first place, at least if they're not compensating for something), but I'm not sure what you're trying to immunize against. If it's taxation, as on ammunition, buying more guns isn't going to "immunize" you against that. So while I appreciate the strawman, I think it completely misses the point.

Second, as for the alleged confiscation of guns in states like California, New York, and New Jersey, I do find it interesting that Joe didn't link to any factual sources (reputable or otherwise -- World Net Daily and the NRA's own website are two examples of sources that would not be reputable for this purpose) for such allegations either. If it happened and it didn't make national news or send the NRA screaming over to the nearest federal courthouse, then I'm shocked.* But, more likely, I think it's more fear-mongering, keeping gun owners and lovers worried that someone's going to take away their precious protector. Whatever. Maybe Joe can give us legitimate sources. Or maybe I can Google it. Whatever.

And I responded via comment on Joe's blog regarding the Second Amendment, just as I've done on this blog a number of times. My basic point was that citing Justice Scalia, the Court's most notorious right-wing judicial activist, in support of Second Amendment jurisprudence that went wrong decades ago is incredibly self-serving. The "right" to bear arms is hardly a settled matter, and courts have been batting around that "well-regulated militia" phrase for years. My interpretation of it as a lawyer and amateur constitutional scholar is that it refers to "militia" as a military entity, which necessarily involved the citizenry in the Eighteenth Century but which today, put simply, does not. Moreover, even if one interprets the language to include all citizens, you can't just ignore the "well-regulated" part: the NRA and their sycophantic followers would prefer, though, that guns not be regulated at all. Hardly a "strict construction" of the Constitution there, eh, Justice Scalia?

So, no, Joe, I'm not confusing imagination with reality. Actually, I'm deciding the issue for myself, in my opinion, based on reality -- something the Right might do if it weren't for all those meddling facts.

But thank you for the Quote of the Day honor. I accept it graciously, on behalf of all my fellow DFHs.

---

* Even if there were gun confiscations after Katrina, that would be perfectly acceptable under emergency conditions, via the state's police power. One isolated instance in extraordinary circumstances doesn't logically lead to mass confiscations, especially when you have a president (I mean Obama) who seems to be altogether too disinterested in restricting the so-called right to bear arms.