Ann Althouse loves gun control.
crusty conservative coating + creamy hippie love chick center* (= shit sandwich. There, FIFY.)
*slogans from Ann's line of tshirts. I'm sure she thinks they're cute.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Nothing "cute" about that person....do not like and will not refer to her as a woman as I would not want offend real women...
I'm going to have to disagree with your main point, that Althouse is anti-gun, Breda. If you click on the "guns" tag at her blog, you'll see a lot of positive posts on the gun issue, for example:
I favor the bill myself, because people who are considering breaking into a house shouldn't have a complicated set of risk/benefit factors to weigh. It should be really clear. (On a Castle Doctrine bill)
Althouse is very circumspect on whether she owns guns or has a CCW. She doesn't discuss it or blog about it. And guess what, she's perfectly within her rights to do so. She has, through her coverage of the Madison protests, been subject to threats of violence against herself and her husband Meade. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the Althouse household has guns.
Check out this Bloggingheads and tell me that Althouse is anti-gun.
So what you're saying is that Ann Althouse thinks guns are okay for HER, and super smart fancy law professor types like her, but not for "ordinary citizens" (her words, not mine). I wonder if any of us would meet her qualifications.
So now I don't know which is worse - Althouse being an outright antigunner, or just an elitist asshole.
Anti-gunners always have a "but" and it shows up sooner or later.
I'm a gun owner but...
People should be able to own guns to defend themselves but...
People should be allowed to carry guns but...
Contrast to pro rights statements:
I'm a gun owner.
People should be able to own guns to defend themselves.
People should be allowed to carry guns.
If there's a "but" in there, they're anti-gun and anti-rights no matter how many guns they may or may not own.
Should violent felons or certifiable psychotics be "allowed" to carry guns, Alan? That's two of the groups I draw the line about.
Breda, could you give me a link where you found the "ordinary citizens" line?
It's in Althouse's original post. You can look it up, because I will not link to her.
Also - felons and psychotics will always own guns, whether there's a law against it or not. But I daresay they are not what anyone would call "ordinary citizens"
Breda, here's what she said: Having seen the effect of the rotunda on the human mind, I worry about ordinary citizens in the Capitol with guns. (emphasis mine). She's not saying I want them banned. Since she was talking about union thugs and hippies, I'd say that she was right to feel worry. I really think you're assigning an attitude to her that she doesn't really have.
And look at how you change what I said, Breda. I said "violent felons," not "felons." Did you know that it's a federal felony to pick up and keep an eagle's feather off the ground? Would you deny me gun ownership based on a conviction for picking up an eagle feather?
Aw, she worries about ordinary citizens carrying guns. Isn't that sweet?
I worry about Ann Althouse being allowed to vote because we've all seen how THAT turns out, unlike the absolutely zero evidence she has to support her gun-centered elitism.
But you go ahead and keep apologizing for her, if it makes you feel better.
Breda, I like you and your blog and always have, but I think you're talking like a threeper. I'll stop commenting now, because I do like you and don't want this to degenerate into a flame war.
Nah, Bob, I'm not talking like a threeper. I'm talking like a person who doesn't want the likes of Ann Althouse (or you, for that matter) putting limits on my freedom because you're worried or because I'm an "ordinary citizen."
And, frankly, I don't care if you like me or not. I never have. I don't blog for anyone's approval.
Anne's problem is basically the old "blood in the streets" fear.
See this comment of hers to her original post
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/10/wisconsin-attorney-general-jb-van.html?showComment=1318036519462#c6760531579083741642
"I understand that[those with no evil intent are denied the simple human right to protect themselves] and that weighs toward allowing guns. Agreed. But think of other situations, in which there's no one who comes in with criminal intent, planning a massacre or whatever. It's just a bunch of people who get each other wound up and they get crazy and somebody gets mad and it escalates suddenly. I'm afraid of people in that situation taking out guns."
Get it? Sure I understand you want to defend yourself peasant BUT I'm afraid that protest would be a bit too heated for your mind and you'd whip out your gun and start shooting.
Oh, and in the original post she acknowledges that this would only apply to those without criminal intent (those who want to shoot people would simply ignore the signs). So, she is explicitly worrying about the "Gun effect", or maybe the "Rotunda effect" since she hasn't come out with worries about people being armed at protests... yet.
As to the felons and psychotics, violent or otherwise, if it's safe for them to be out on the street then it's safe for them to own and carry a gun.
Sheesh! I spend the day taking care of my Landscaping and I miss all the Fun! Let's keep this simple: You U.S. Citizen? You not Convicted of any Major Felony? Judge says you NOT Crazy? You over 21? You got RIGHT to go buy Pistol. All rest of Laws there to DISARM you. Anyone who wants to impose "Common Sense Gun Control" is one who supports Tyranny. Ann Althouse needs to climb down from Ivory Tower and deal with Reality. Screw her NIMBY attitude.
I go back to my Lawn Care. With small pistol in Pocket, of course. Dirt and Dust and Mud on Open Carry Gun not good for Gun, but it's hard to defend one's self with a Hedge Trimmer.
The comments to that article ran overwhelmingly in favor of carry in the Capitol, and Ann’s responses to two of the comments indicate she might have her eyes opened regarding her knee-jerk anti-rights position.
She is not a firearms enthusiast, she is a lawprof and she lives in effing Madison, WI, surrounded by leftist moonbats of the first order, but I believe she has the honesty and intelligence to learn enough about the subject of firearms, self defense rights, firearm law and anti-rights history to become a strong supporter of the pro-rights side.
She is no Joan Peterson. The comments at the link were written mostly by frequent commenters at her blog. She has a pro-rights support group on the subject of firearms already at hand to teach her. Please think again and decide for yourself, as I have, that Ann Althouse is a blogger and law prof we should be courting to the gun-rights side.
You go ahead and court her, mikee. She's not my type.
I read some of Althouse's other comments at that post. She's not on our side.
Post in the works.
@ Les: Two minor (but important) corrections.
"Judge says you NOT Crazy?" should be "Judge NOT say you Crazy?"
The judge should not have to make an effort for you to be able to exercise your right, only to restrict it.
"You not Convicted of any Major Felony?" should be "You not in jail?"
If you can't be trusted with a gun, you can't be trusted with freedom.
I'm not entirely sure about restricting the Right to citizens, either, but I'll allow that point is debatable.
"Anyone who wants to impose "Common Sense Gun Control" is one who supports Tyranny."
That, I agree with 100%.
Post a Comment