The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
"They didn't mention that in the decade or so after the passage of that act, 100,000 felons lost their right to bear arms, but not a single hunter lost that right."
Nor should they have done so, since they never had that right in the first place. Presumably, they mean 100,000 felons lost the ability to purchase firearms through otherwise lawful channels - but that was under the Brady Act, which didn't expire, not under the "assault" weapons ban, which did.
Excellent piece, Kevin. The irony of Westen's position is staggering. I don't know how you could stand it.
One part I didn't quite understand. When you say that GHWB was defeated by "read my lips... " -- what does that mean? At the time I lived outside of the U.S. and was too young to care about elections; but I had always understood that Clinton won because of Perot. Not so?
The part that bugged me the most was that Westen tries to use facts and logic to prove facts and logic don't matter. His clearly demonstrates facts and logic don't matter to him with all of his factual errors (see also my post). But far from proving his point with me he identifies himself to me as either dangerously stupid or evil. I'm reminded of the character Ellsworth Toohey in Ayn Rand's book "The Fountainhead".
Sarah, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Read_my_lips:_no_new_taxes
The first two paragraphs explain it reasonably well. A surprising number of my co-workers voted for Perot for the reasons stated there.
Ah, so he broke the promise. Thanks for the link, DJ.
I was thinking exactly the same thing. "Evil" and "stupid" came to my mind, too, and based on what Kevin has posted here I suspect he is an evil man who believes the public is stupid. In other words, Ellsworth Toohey.
And something of a "Troofer" with his machination-statement, an electorate that has finally figured out that the once larger-than-life Wizard of Terror was nothing but a projection on a screen.
While the law did affect the availability of new "standard capacity" 15-round magazines for the Glock, it did not affect the availability of used ones.
This actually overstates the matter: even new magazines were perfectly legal to sell (I bought several myself) as log as they were manufactured or imported before the effective date of the act. Prices were a bit higher, but many manufactures had ramped up production to get a lot of mags in inventory before the cutoff date, so they weren't particular hard to find for most common firearms.
Good grief, look at all the typos! I guess I need to adopt a never-past-midnight commenting rule, eh?
Great stuff, I was gonna steal it and make myself look brilliant, but I am too lazy so I will just link up. Friends of the NRA dinner tonight, I better win a Kimber.........
Well, isn't it nice that we have all found something to agree on...from the same study..
"Republicans have a keen eye for markets and they have a near monopoly in the marketplace of emotions. They have kept government off our backs, torn down that wall, saved the flag, left no child behind, protected life, kept our marriages sacred, restored integrity to the Oval Office, spread democracy to the Middle East, and fought an unrelenting war on terror. The Democrats, in contrast, have continued to place their stock in the marketplace of ideas. And in so doing, they have been trading in the wrong futures. Our futures."
Yep, Westen is, as Kevin says, a bald face liar.
Looking forward to your return...
My local Bolshevik rag, the Palm Beach Post, routinely lies about US and Florida firearms laws.
When called on it with a letter to the editor, they never print those letters. They always print letters from rubes whining about needing a new gun control law for something that has already been on the books for 40 years though.
Hard to fight these bastards.
One reason the "old" media hates the internet: Their role as "gatekeeper" to information is obsolete. Of what use are gates when the walls are breached?
Anyone who thinks their political masters are smart, dispassionate, coldly logical, and can reason to get to any valid conclusions is a moron with whom I would not trust to take care of a houseplant, much less heed.
Short of an outright house-to-house search and seizure mission, just how are we going to achieve some significant reduction in the number of firearms available?
I can think of many politicians who would have no problem with that.
I just think they should show up to take them personally...