Can someone point me to links in the past few days with the idiotic nonsense that the Founders didn’t anticipate semi-auto weapons?
[Update a while later]
Folks, I’m not asking for arguments against it. I have a devastating piece to do that. I’m looking for links to historical and illogical ignorami who argue for it.
He has two posts up now, one on why it’s hard to prevent mass shootings, and one on why bans on “assault weapons” (a phrase that means nothing to the gun community, and that no one can define with any coherence) will do nothing to do so.
Only one of them is in America, and it’s second from the bottom.
The myths and lies these people promulgate in the furtherance of their anti-liberty agenda is disgusting.
Evidence that they’re not well-funded or well-organized.
I’m still waiting for my check from Big Destroy The Planet.
Here is the official CEI press release on the motions filed on Friday.
Note that most of this is not new federal intrusions, but fixing currently broken federal policy.
Now here’s something that neither the gun grabbers or the media have time for: the facts.
[Update a few minutes later]
Glenn Reynolds wants to have a real national conversation on guns.
Don’t hold your breath. And of course, the president demonstrates the magical thinking of the gun-control crowd:
Finally, a president who has the guts to come out against the murder of children. Not only that, but he is prepared to confront those who, for murky but clearly frivolous reasons, tolerate violence, oppose tragedy prevention, and shrink from saving innocent lives. Because “politics” cannot be allowed to obstruct the solutions that every decent, right-thinking person favors.
Such as? Well, the president did not say. Neither did New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Friday, when he scolded Obama for not taking a firmer stand against the wanton slaughter of elementary school students. “We’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this,” the president had said, “regardless of the politics.” Bloomberg was unimpressed:
Calling for “meaningful action” is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership—not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today.
In Bloomberg’s view, then, we need action that is not only meaningful but also immediate. Through leadership. By the White House as well as Congress.
What disgusting, pathetic hacks.
…but the future is bright.
The present is pretty good, compared to mid-century. I hope she’s right about the future.
It isn’t gun control. It’s a much tougher problem, from the standpoint of liberty.
We’ve filed two motions to dismiss with prejudice Michael Mann’s lawsuit, both under the DC Anti-SLAPP Act, and for failure to state a claim.
The former is a relatively new law whose purpose is precisely to prevent such harassing lawsuits, and strangle them in the cradle before a defendant has to expend considerable resources on a frivolous case. The latter is a blast at his repeated allegations of malice and intention to harm on our part as though those are facts, with no actual facts to support them, and his own filing containing much to contradict. Obviously, I was quite involved with the preparation of both these briefs. As I’ve said all along, he never had much of a case. National Review and Mark Steyn will probably have something up about theirs tomorrow (they were separate filings, because the situations were different, over different postings, though there is also much in common).
Unfortunately, if these dismissals are granted, there will be no “scientific trial of the twenty-first century” over the hockey stick, but it will get the legal issues out of our hair, and we’ll get to go after him for attorney fees, possibly discouraging any future attempts to muzzle the “deniers.”
[Update a while later]
Just to expand on the issues in the second motion, in order to show malice and reckless disregard for the truth on my/our part, he has to show (among other things) that we didn’t really believe what I wrote about his “exoneration.” His logic seems to be:
a) Various investigations have exonerated me (in my not-so-humble opinion).
b) Simberg claims to have read them, and in fact even linked to them, and yet he still claimed that I was not exonerated.
c) Simberg is obviously lying. Who needs more evidence than that?
He doesn’t seem to consider the possibility that, having read the reports on the investigations, our opinions simply differ on whether or not they really exonerated him. Presumably, a judge will be smarter.