Bloggers, Ads and Ideology

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:11:18 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Today, for the first time since 2002, I rejected an ad for TalkLeft because of the message. Most people realize that ads on the site don't represent the point of view of the blogger. I've accepted ads before I don't agree with, and when I've thought about what kind of ad I would reject in the past, the only thing that came to mind was an ad supporting the death penalty.

So what pushed me over the top this time? It was an ad for gun control, that began in big letters, "Keep Guns Out of the Hands of Criminals" and urged people to support new laws on sales at gun shows.

Given the focus of this blog, to protect the rights of those accused of crime and particularly, constitutional rights, I would have recoiled every time I logged on to my own blog. So, even though it would have paid for TalkLeft's hosting service for a full month (no small amount since we're on our own server), I rejected it. [More...]

Ads are what keep me from asking for donations more than once or twice a year. Particularly since ad sales have been way down this year, losing even one ad hurts.

Even if TalkLeft's ideology doesn't match yours (for example, you might support the message of the ad I rejected) but you appreciate that we stick to our principles here, even when it costs us -- I hope you'll consider making a donation to recoup some of the lost revenue.

Here is the the paypal link, it's very easy (and takes credit cards even if you don't have a paypal account.)

If you don't like paypal, feel free to pull a few dollars out of your pocket and send it snail mail.

This doesn't mean you won't ever see ads on TalkLeft I disagree with...but when they really conflict with our message, I don't see any other choice. What do you think? Right decision?

< Tuesday Afternoon Open Thread | Cameron Douglas Sentenced to Five Years in Meth Case >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

TalkLeft's DMCA Infringement Notice Policy

Bloggers, Ads and Ideology | 73 comments (73 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I am not a fan of unrestricted sales of guns (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Radiowalla on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:21:49 PM EST

at gun shows. I wish you had included a link to the group whose ad you rejected so I could understand more what your thinking is on this matter. As it stands, it sounds as though you are against any gun control.

: There is no such thing (none / 0) (#74)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Apr 22, 2010 at 12:10:41 PM EST

There is no such thing as "unrestricted sales of guns at gun shows." The restrictions on the sales of guns are 100% exactly the same both inside and outside of each and every gun show.
The fact that the supporters of more red tape have to resort to this misleading phrasing should tell you all you need to know.
The restrictions on an FFL holder selling to a customer are not the same as the restrictions on you for example selling a gun to your sister-in-law. However, neither is unrestricted. Unrestricted is a lie.

As I recall, the CA man who drove across (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by oculus on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:26:34 PM EST

the country recently and was shot and killed at subway station at Pentagon obtained one of his guns via a gunshow. If not for that access, he should not have been able to legally purchase a gun, as he had been involuntarily committed to a mental health instutition.

Seems odd that someone involuntarily (none / 0) (#12)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:47:58 PM EST

committed to a mental health facility should retain the legal ability to pilot the biggest and most lethal weapon most of us every experience - a car.


Odder still... (none / 0) (#14)
by kdog on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:50:42 PM EST

that we can involuntarily treat people for mental illness.


Not really, (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by observed on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:58:11 PM EST

Some people really are a danger to others and/or themselves. Furthermore, a larger number of people are so incapable of caring for themselves they need care, whether they want it or not.
Believe me, I am well aware of the downsides of and problems with involuntary treatment, but it's willful blindness not to see the other side of the equation.


I see the other side... (none / 0) (#28)
by kdog on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 04:46:03 PM EST

I just find myself on..umm, the other side. But I get the arguments. Someone who is a danger to others surely has commited a crime they could be charged and convicted of. Danger to themselves? That gets dicier, to be sure, but locking somebody in a room is no joke, I wish our society would stop treating it like one.

I know the downsides too, a friend was commited by his parents, even though he was an adult at the time...not what he needed or deserved.


I don't think (none / 0) (#32)
by jbindc on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 05:26:25 PM EST

Rational people consider locking people up a joke. But you can't or won't see that some people really do belong "in a cage" because they act worse than animals.


A select few... (none / 0) (#33)
by kdog on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 05:29:20 PM EST

give us no choice...I always maintain that.

What other can't or won't see is we've got animals filling the cages too...and what of them?


Again, (none / 0) (#67)
by jbindc on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:00:46 AM EST

I don't buy your premise that 75% of the people working in the criminal justice system (prosecutors, judges, law enforcement, and corrections) are bad and only have evil intents and that criminal defense attorneys are the only pure of heart and are the only champions of justice. That simply isn't true. There are many fine, hardworking defense attorneys just as there are fine and hardworking prosecutors, judges, and cops who do noble work. The opposite is true too - for every bad cop or prosecutor you can show me, I can show you a bad defense attorney.

You have a problem with the laws themselves, which are products of the voters and the legislatures they elect.


: True... (none / 0) (#68)
by kdog on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 10:12:12 AM EST

my main beefs are with the law and legislators that make so much misery possible...though the nonchalance of law enforcement and prosecutors plays a role, how seemingly unaware they are of the consequences of their actions even when they perform their work by the rules.

Well, there has to be a balance, but (none / 0) (#36)
by observed on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 05:52:22 PM EST

consider this story. I know someone who is terribly bipolar. He is completely out of control when he's manic. He realizes this, and several years ago signed over power of attorney to a relative to get him treated when he becomes manic. Unfortunately, this is a semi-regular occurence. He has to change meds every few years because of toxicity, and the new dose just didn't cut it last time.
Well, in between the last two manic episodes, the law in his state changed, so that the power of attorney could no longer be exercised by someone out of state (don't ask me why).
Hence, he spent several, damaging months in the hospital refusing medication, when he would have been out in days or weeks had he been forced to take medication.


Anyone remember this case? (none / 0) (#41)
by observed on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:16:25 PM EST

Several years ago there was a brilliant young Jewish man who was also schizophrenic. He was so brilliant, however, that he completed law school and Yale and went on to be a law professor at a top school. He did this while on psychotropic meds. If you know anything about how those dull mental functioning, you realize how exceptionally smart he must have been.
Anyway, after several years, he stopped taking the meds and then killed his wife. Horrible, horrible story...
Mental illness is very real, and for some people, not under their control at ALL.


Good thing you pointed out (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by Peter G on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 09:44:00 PM EST

the key fact that the professor was Jewish, "observed." Otherwise, I don't think I would have understood your point.

I also wonder what percentage of men who kill their wives are schizophrenic. Very, very few I would think, most likely not disproportionate to the number of schizophrenics in the general population of married men. In my experience as a criminal defense lawyer, I would venture to say that most men who kill their wives are controlling, violent misogynists. And often alcohol abusers. Those characteristics may suggest a personality disorder, in psych-talk, but I would be surprised if any significant percentage had a major mental illness.


GOod Call (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by squeaky on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:26:30 AM EST

I was struck by that as well.. my first thought reading the comment.


The only reason I mentioned he was (none / 0) (#55)
by observed on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:08:16 PM EST

Jewish was to help jog memories.
It's no different than mentioning gender, or that he went to Yale, which are the things I recall.
I'm sorry if the comment came off otherwise---that wasn't my intent.

I think you're right about schizophrenics not usually being violent, but in this man's case, as I recall, he stopped his meds and then he killed his wife, so one suspects a connection.

I don't know if you've had friends or acquaintances who take anti-psychotics, but I have. The description of what they do the mind is what makes the story so remarkable to me. In fact, I recall that he said that studying law while on these meds was like looking through a very dense fog. As I said, he must have been incredibly brilliant to finish Yale law school while taking anti-psychotics.
The story was of interest to me precisely because I had some idea of what he was up against.


Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind (none / 0) (#56)
by observed on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:16:35 PM EST

I have a question. I have read that the time a woman is most likely to be killed by her husband/boyfriend is when she is pregnant.
Is that your experience? Is there any different profile for those men?


: Homicide (none / 0) (#66)
by jbindc on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:50:58 AM EST

Is the leading cause of death for pregnant women in this country.

My mom was such an involuntary ward of the state (4.50 / 2) (#19)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:55:59 PM EST

several times. I'm not sure I disagree with the laws that protected her from herself and the rest of us from her...


Except (none / 0) (#15)
by jbindc on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:52:03 PM EST

A car has an actual purpose other than to kill or injure someone or something. There is no other purpose for a gun (yeah, yeah - target practice)


How about (none / 0) (#18)
by kdog on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:55:22 PM EST

self defense? A legit purpose, not to mention an inalienable right.


So why shouldn't I be allowed (5.00 / 2) (#23)
by observed on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:58:45 PM EST

self-defense with a bazoooka or a pocket nuke?


: You should be allowed... (none / 0) (#25)
by kdog on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 04:36:10 PM EST

The bad guys have them.
And the way humanity rolls, you might freakin' wanna get on that bazooka:)
I'm to averse to potentially hurting somebody to join the international arms race myself, but I support the right for others to defend themselves as they see fit. I try not to be a "don't tread on us, tread on them" kinda guy...if an arsenal to rival the NYPD floats your boat, rock on. If you use some of that arsenal though, then we have a problem.

Indeed. (none / 0) (#20)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:56:31 PM EST

nonetheless, (none / 0) (#69)
by cpinva on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:04:36 AM EST

How about self defense? A legit purpose, not to mention an inalienable right.

the primary function of a gun is to kill, regardless of how that function is used. the primary function of a passenger vehicle is to transport people from point A to point B.

if you really, absolutely, positively must have a weapon right this very instant, because your life is in imminent danger, getting a gun from a gun show isn't the most effective means for doing so. it assumes: a. a gun show is in town., and b. you are able to quickly get to it and purchase your weapon, plus ammo.

statistically, if someone is trying to kill you RIGHT THIS VERY MOMENT, a gun show isn't going to help.

with regards to "self-defense", i have no inherent problem with that. except..................the odds are better that your gun will be taken and used against you, rather than you will heroically defend your castle, unless you have some serious training in your background. most people don't.

as far as jeralyn rejecting the ad goes, it's her blog, she can reject or accept anything she wants, what any of us thinks about it is totally irrelevant. though it was nice of her to ask.


Guns are dangerous (none / 0) (#44)
by norris morris on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:52:10 PM EST

Allowing guns it seems to me should be regulated as many irresponsible or mentally incompetents can use them against others. I respect gun rights but we should know how to sell them responsibly.


I support much more restrictive laws (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Dr Molly on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:33:26 PM EST

on gun sales at shows - it is a notorious workaround.

But I'll donate anyway!

Please donate! (5.00 / 3) (#48)
by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 07:22:24 PM EST

FTR, not only do I disagree with Jeralyn on the issue of gun control, I also disagree with her decision not to take the ad.

But she is still the best.

Please help keep TalkLeft running.

Google isn't research. Dig deeper for gun facts. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by NathanF on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 07:44:36 PM EST

"I happen to be very much in favor of closing the gun show loophole, among other measures that include reinstituting the ban on automatic assault weaponry."

People who rely on the media for facts about guns and gun laws are not presented the facts.

Did you know that there is still a prohibition on the sale of "automatic assault weaponry" that President Reagan signed into law on May 19, 1986? This prohibition did not expire in 2004. The "Gun Owners Protection Act" (GOPA) prohibits the transfer of automatic assault weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986. Only automatic weapons, commonly called machine guns, manufactured prior to that date can be transferred between individuals, and only if (1) legal under state and local law, (2) the buyer gets prior approval from the Chief law enforcement officer in the city or county where they live, (3) the buyer gets the approval of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, (4) the buyer gets the approval of the FBI Brady Center, and (5)they pay a $200 excise tax. Pre-'86 machine guns (as they are called) are highly prized by law abiding collectors, with prices typically in the $10,000-$20,000 range (some are far more valuable than that). Don't think this is true? Check these links to the BATFE website:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-machine-guns.html.

The law that expired in 2004, the so-called assault weapons ban (AWB), did not affect the sale of fully automatic assault weapons in any way, shape, or form. Instead the AWB prohibited the sale of semi-automatic firearms (i.e., one shot per trigger squeeze) having more than two of five largely cosmetic features, including such incredibly dangerous features as a bayonet lug (i.e., the metal protrusion that is the attachment point for a bayonet, not the bayonet itself). Thus rifles resembling machine guns, but using the same semi-automatic operating principle as a World War II era rifle remained perfectly legal, providing they did not have a bayonet lug, a flash suppressor (a device that minimizes the gun powder flash from shooting a rifle), and a folding stock. This is why, according to both the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the AWB did nothing to reduce the incidence of criminal activity involving fully automatic assault weapons - the AWB banned nothing but an outward appearance. Here is a link to that study: http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/173405.txt.

As for the "gun show loophole" there is no such thing. Licensed dealers selling firearms at gun shows are just that: federally licensed (and in some states, state licensed) firearms dealers. The requirements for a licensed dealer to sell a gun at a gun show are the same as if they were selling at their usual place of business. The buyer completes a federal form 4473 (and in some cases a state and local form), provides a government issued photo ID (just like when you fly on a commercial airline), undergoes a background check by the FBI's National Instant Check Systems (NCIS), and only if cleared by the FBI NCIS as being legally permitted to purchase a firearm, is able to take possession of the gun. The people that claim that 50 percent of the dealers at gun shows are unlicensed fail to point out that those 50 percent of dealers are not selling guns, but are selling books, tools, sights, and the ever deadly beef, elk, and buffalo jerky.

It is true that private individuals may sell a firearm at a gun show without having the buyer undergo a background check, but that same seller can sell their firearm in the privacy of their own home, in a back alley, or in the parking lot of a police station. In any event the private seller does not have any access to the FBI NICS background check system. By federal law, access to the NICS is restricted to the following three circumstances:
* An FFL can initiate a background check only in connection with a proposed firearm transfer as required by the Brady Act and pursuant to 18, U.S.C., § 922(t)(1).
* Pursuant to Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Section 25.6(j)(i), to provide information to local, state, or federal criminal justice agencies only in connection with the issuance of a firearm-related or an explosives-related permit or license.
* Title 28 C.F.R. §25.6(j)(2) permits the NICS to respond to inquiries by the ATF in connection with a civil or criminal law enforcement activity relating to the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the National Firearms Act.

See http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/nics_overview.htm.

If you think I am kidding, contact the NICS office tell them you are not a licensed dealer and ask them to do a background check on someone. They will tell you they cannot do so.
As for private sales at gun shows being a major source of guns for criminals, there is a famous NIJ study (see http://rkba.org/research/wright/armed-criminal.summary.html) that shows criminals mostly obtain guns illegally from family and friends, not through private sales at gun shows.

As for the host of this website, I applaud you for you turned down the Mayors Against Illegal Guns advertisement. It shows you are interested in facts, not hyperbole.

: It's late, and I only have time to read up to: (none / 0) (#59)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:39:25 AM EST

Did you know that there is still a prohibition on the sale of "automatic assault weaponry" that President Reagan signed into law on May 19, 1986?
Of course, you are right.
It seems that some posters bloviate here on TL w/o even the slightest idea of what they are bloviating about...

Jeralyn (4.50 / 2) (#2)
by jbindc on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:19:43 PM EST

Do you really feel we shouldn't close the gun show loophole? I mean, you can't go to a gymnasium to register your car, the deed to your house, or a marriage license, so why do you think it's ok for any random Joe to be able to sell dangerous weapons without a background check?

I guess I feel that of someone needs a gun RIGHT NOW and can't wait for a background check, that's a pretty good indication that they should not get one.

Gun Control (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by norris morris on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:43:38 PM EST

It's ok by me if you don't like ads about limiting gun control, etc.

But I cannot see why anyone can buy a gun without ID and clearing background. Credit and background checks occur for minor things that don't involve dangerous weapons.

I cannot see the harm in this and would appreciate knowing what the legal argument is here.


That being said (none / 0) (#7)
by jbindc on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:33:44 PM EST

I have no problem with you refusing to post their ads.


I abhor guns... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:42:59 PM EST

never even held one...but if a situation should arise where I need one, I don't think I'd have time for a background check either...it would mean my life is in danger.

Shut down the gun shows, those in need will go to a back alley....seems like a waste of time to me, guns are here to stay.


I don't buy (none / 0) (#13)
by jbindc on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:49:34 PM EST

The "people are going to do it anyway, so why make it illegal" argument.


Well... (none / 0) (#16)
by kdog on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:53:34 PM EST

people are gonna commit murder till the end of time...I still support laws against murder.

Buying a gun, like buying a bag of dope, is a victimless crime...I just can't seem to wrap my head around those kinda laws.


also (none / 0) (#21)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:57:44 PM EST

from a political point of view guns have become the third rail of politics.


Uh, you might want to consider another comparison- (none / 0) (#40)
by jawbone on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:14:59 PM EST

I don't think many bags of dope were used in drive-by murders.


: They should give out free (none / 0) (#53)
by jondee on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:48:15 PM EST

bags of dope with the guns, on the odd chance to a little right brain stimulation might short circuit some of that fear-based, hyper-aggressive thinking that makes so many in this country fetishize guns and violence to an extent that borders on hysterical and or, semi-erotic..
Btw, Does anyone know what the stats are on how much the firearms manufacturers contribute to the anti-gun control movement?

: Buying a gun.. (none / 0) (#64)
by kdog on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 08:50:01 AM EST

is not pulling a drive-by...it is more akin to buying something illegal or over-regulated, like dope...I think the analogy fits.

Except (none / 0) (#24)
by lentinel on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 04:26:40 PM EST

in the case of pot....


No (none / 0) (#27)
by jbindc on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 04:40:55 PM EST

Even drugs - while I support legalization for some, I think there needs to regulation and taxation. And it still should be illegal for kids to use it- even if they're "going to do it anyways".


I (none / 0) (#60)
by lentinel on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 06:21:36 AM EST

understand your concern about children.

But what does making it illegal for children actually mean?
What penalties would a 16 year old be subject to?
Would the parents be held responsible?

Ultimately, I feel that this should be the responsibility of a parent.

Children can find all sorts of ways to get high if they are determined to do so. In the olden days, kids might sniff airplane glue. There is a famous Lenny Bruce routine on that subject.

It is up to the parents to guide their children.
It should be up to the state to tend to the quality of the pot so that if a child were to obtain some, it would not be physically harmful.

In most States, consumption of alcohol is forbidden for people under 18. What good has that done?

I don't want my child getting high.
Fortunately, at her age, 11, she is not remotely interested in doing so. But were she to ask me about it, I would find it impossible to lie about it - tell her that it is evil and destructive when I don't believe it is. She sees me and her mother having a glass of red wine with dinner, and she simply considers it as something that adults do. There will come a time when she will want to try a sip. I wouldn't be able to tell her to wait 7 years and then try it.

These are random thoughts, of course.

The bottom line for me is that I feel it is a decision for parents to make, not the State. Making pot illegal has simply produced teenaged dealers in the schools.


: Alcohol and tobacco (none / 0) (#61)
by jbindc on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 06:58:08 AM EST

Are illegal for minors - treat legal drugs the same way

But....you'd have to wait for a gun show to be in (none / 0) (#39)
by jawbone on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:13:35 PM EST

your area! Doesn't sound like a plan to me, but, hey, to each his own lifeboat. So to speak.


privacy issues (none / 0) (#29)
by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 05:01:26 PM EST

If the sale of the item is lawful, and government notification isn't required by the amount of the purchase (e.g., its not an amount that triggers financial reporting requirements) why should anyone be entitled to know your identity?

But my primary opposition is based on the resort to histrionics, that people who buy guns are criminals or mentally ill.

Also, according to a Bureau of Justice statistics report, based on interviews with inmates, less than .7% of offenders got their guns at gun shows. 78.8% got their guns off the street or from family members.


Jeralyn, did your family hunt when (none / 0) (#30)
by oculus on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 05:09:22 PM EST

you were growing up? Did you? If you wish to answer, I am interested in knowing if you own guns.


No I don't hunt or (none / 0) (#45)
by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:58:02 PM EST

own any guns


: Thanks for responding. (none / 0) (#46)
by oculus on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 07:07:25 PM EST

Lawful items (none / 0) (#34)
by andgarden on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 05:41:13 PM EST

are routinely subject to transfer regulations, if only for taxation purposes.


: Well, guns are also subject to sales tax (none / 0) (#50)
by scribe on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:35:27 PM EST

and additional excise taxes targeted specifically for wildlife.
ANd, if you look in the outdoors and gun press or on their websites, you will see in almost every ad for a gun show something to the effect of "All firearms laws will be strictly observed" or "All firearms laws will be strictly enforced". That's in large part because of the "know your transferee" law, which basically pus the transferor on the hook for criminal liability if they transfer a gun to an ineligible person. Thus, in a private sale, to be safe against potential liability, you pretty much have to take your gun to an FFL holder, give it to them, then they run a check on the transferee. If, for some reason, the transferee decides to back out on the deal after that point, then the FFL holder has to run a check on you before giving you your gun back.
So, the gun show loophole is not much of a loophole b/c (as I understand it) there is no exemption from the liability for transfer to an ineligible person that pertains specifically to a gun show. The exception would swallow the rule. Because the transferor is exposed to liability if he does not run the check, he just isn't ging to transfer the gun without one.
So, the whole "Close the gunshow loophole" is a propaganda exercise in which the gun control people are trying to regain some relevance in the debate. An inelgible person is very likely to get turned away at the gun show, video stings to the contrary notwithstanding.
In reality, the heat in this issue has no real relation to the issues in the gun market - a glut of available guns (taken care of, a 100 yr old gun is likely to be as good or better than a new one, and often better made), a shortage of buyers, and high prices. Remington dropped possibly half of its product line this past winter (a lot of which was made overseas, anyway) for the basic reason behind every manufacturer cutting product lines in mature technologies: they weren't selling. The purported shortage of ammunition last year was the reaction to advertising/propaganda engendered panic buying, the fruit of a propaganda campaign in the spring of 2008 (which also stuirred the tea party mentality), but in large part it was a convenient device to raise prices and keep them higher. I mean, when deer rifle ammunition is going for about $0.80 to $1.20 a shot, you gotta have a lot of money to devote to shooting and in this economy....

I couldn't agree more. (none / 0) (#72)
by Chuck0 on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:53:54 AM EST

I believe the whole "gun show" loophole is a red herring. One private party should be able to sell another private party a legal item without government intervention. I can sell you my car without checking with government first. And hey, you can kill someone with that car. I should be able to sell a gun to my neighbor (or whomever) without checking with "the man" first.

The whole "criminal" thing is a red herring as well. I agree with Jeralyn that there seems to be some assumption that anyone buying a gun from a private party is a criminal or has criminal intent.


With jbindc, on the Policy, But it Is Your Blog (none / 0) (#37)
by msaroff on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 05:55:07 PM EST

I disagree with the recent Supreme Court radicalism, and the current structure of the gun laws, which makes prosecuting sellers who pretty much knowingly sell to straw buyers, whether through the gun show loophole, or the laws preventing using sales data to allow feds to identify gun shops that sell to criminals.

As to your ad, not accepting it is absolutely your prerogative.

When I have a problem with ads on my blog, I go and post a screen shot as a post, and ridicule the advertiser (without link, that would be ad fraud).

I got a lot of mileage out of John Seymour McCain III's ads early in his campaign ads, and Newsmax is always someone that I make fun of.

Then again, I have less control, as I do Google ads, which obviously offers less control than for Blogads (I get a lot less page views, and I'm not worth Blogads time).


You are misinformed, (2.00 / 1) (#42)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 06:17:36 PM EST

no bans of automatic assault weaponry have been vacated.

The ban expired in 2004 (none / 0) (#47)
by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 07:09:55 PM EST

It was passed by Clinton in 1994. The House voted to repeal it in 1996 but the Senate took no action. It was a ten year ban and expired in 2004, under Bush. Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill to reinstate it in 2004 but it didn't pass.

Obama and Eric Holder want to reinstate the ban.


Just like they wanted to close Gitmo (none / 0) (#51)
by scribe on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:39:48 PM EST

and wanted a public option in the HCR bill and wanted EFCA.

Ain't gonna happen.


I think there is some confusion among (none / 0) (#57)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 10:54:14 PM EST

some posters here between "automatic" and "semi-automatic" weapons.

I would think that if someone took the time to write such a long missive, that person would at least have the most fundamental facts straight.


I think there's a good chance DFH (none / 0) (#63)
by Rojas on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 08:22:13 AM EST

worked on the legislation.


: That makes it even more embarassing. (none / 0) (#70)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:10:41 AM EST

Actually the functional (none / 0) (#62)
by Rojas on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 08:15:35 AM EST

ban was passed by Papa Bush. It is the ban on importation of certain military style firearms. This is the one that took care of the flood of 60 dollar AKs and other assorted former military weapons.
The 94 ban was written by Schumer if I recall correctly, who was as ignorant about firearms as he appears to be about financial regulation. It's value was propaganda mainly as it dealt with cosmetic issues for the most part.


: Yes. And just for the record, (none / 0) (#71)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 11:23:04 AM EST

"The Ban" everyone is talking about was for a certain group of semi-automatic weapons.
DFH talks about automatic weapons in his diatribe.
The difference between semi-automatic weapons and automatic weapons, to borrow a phrase, is like the difference between a lightning-bug and lightning.
There is no expired or vacated ban of "automatic assault weaponry."
Automatic weapons continue without interruption to be heavily regulated at both the federal and state level and as a result continue to be virtually illegal for a private citizen to own as they have been since 1934.

it does (none / 0) (#1)
by Capt Howdy on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:15:04 PM EST

and I do and I will.

good for you

Good to see principles... (none / 0) (#5)
by kdog on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:33:21 PM EST

still exist somewhere, would you mind running Goldman Sachs?..:)

I'm long long long overdue, criminally so...some love goin' in the mail tomorrow J. Thanks so much for everything.

Bravo J. (none / 0) (#8)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:37:20 PM EST

I Don't Understand the Reasoning ?? (none / 0) (#9)
by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:41:50 PM EST

I disagree with plenty, and I agree with plenty, but gun control on the basis of "constitutional rights" ? Particularly the "right of the people to keep and bear arms".

So the arguement you seem to be making is that you defend all rights including the above. I would argue that 'arms' is fairly ambiguous. What arms, a .45, a machine gun, bazooka, RPG's, Stingers, at what level of arms are you comfortable with defending on a Constitutional level ?

My wording if off, but let me ask you this, would you accept an ad for a group pushing to make surface to air missiles legal ?

Defending the right to bear arms would, in my opinion, mean that you would defend individuals right to "keep and bear" any arms, not just firearms. Would that be a fair assessment ?

: One Last Note... (none / 0) (#11)
by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:45:21 PM EST

Concerning gun shows. Guns are like drugs, if someone wants one, they are going to get it. The market is so saturated pretending that fixing this loophole is going to save lives is pretty damn naive.

was it the title? (none / 0) (#17)
by pitachips on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 03:55:01 PM EST

or the underlying message?

The title was what put (none / 0) (#26)
by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 04:39:39 PM EST

me over the top, in big, big letters, "Stop Criminals From Getting Guns" ...but also the propaganda-ish text of the ad and branding criminals and the mentally ill.


: Isn't the point of gun control... (none / 0) (#52)
by diogenes on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 08:42:29 PM EST

Isn't the alleged point of gun control to stop "criminals" from getting guns? If the premise of gun control is to stop "non-criminals" from getting guns while letting criminals get them off the streets then no wonder no one is in favor of it.

Kudos Jeralyn (none / 0) (#31)
by BTAL on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 05:26:03 PM EST

Don't normally agree with your politics...

The 2nd Amendment was and still is one of the core tenets of the Bill of Rights.

In general, I would probably adopt (none / 0) (#35)
by andgarden on Tue Apr 20, 2010 at 05:42:38 PM EST

a hands-off policy. But I would always reserve the right to reject particularly objectionable ads.

I don't think I really agree with you on this one, of course.

As always, it's your site.

Thank you NathanF (none / 0) (#65)
by DancingOpossum on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 09:01:09 AM EST

Your post was factual and informative, a much-needed injection into the debate. I admit to being ignorant about guns, although I fully support the right to own them and agree entirely with Jeralyn on this one.

Good for you Jeralyn... (none / 0) (#73)
by desertswine on Wed Apr 21, 2010 at 12:09:49 PM EST

Now, if you can only get that picture of John Boehner to go away... it's drivin' me!