Sunday, April 15, 2012

Because we're scaredy cats, that's why.

So, the other morning I'm hearing Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, and Ed Rendell, career tax leech on the Body Politic, going at it over gun control, and Ed asks Alan "why would any law-abiding citizen need a magazine with thirty-three bullets in it?" with the sort of smug smile that usually gets wiped off faces by the butt end of a pool cue in any blue-collar Philadelphia bar. Alan blinks and stammers back something about... um... maybe, like, when we're target shooting at the range, we don't like to reload a lot?

Why do we never close the deal on this one? Why do we never respond "Well, Ed, I need a magazine with thirty-three rounds in it because when smug, officious, overreaching petty tyrants and their tame enforcement thugs come trampling up my herbaceous borders, they rarely do it in onesies and twosies"?

Or, better yet, give him the real reason: "Well, I need a magazine with thirty-three rounds in it because f&#$ you, Ed." Seriously, where does he get off thinking how many "bullets" are in my magazines is any business of his? Vobis non me dux, Ed; you ain't the boss of me.

That's why I own guns in the first place: To make sure nobody, from the mugger on the corner to the King of England to some washed-up political has-been from the Keystone State can come force me to do things against my will without me at least having a chance to shoot back.

38 comments:

Spud said...

Damn FRICKIN straight Tam !

John B said...

If that's the best the second amendment has as a defense....

....We're so screwed!

Larry said...

"Just because" is a perfectly legit reason (and, btw, one of my favorites).

John B said...

Why is Ed so worried? He's only gonna catch one round from that magazine. It doesn't matter how many. When the metaphorical balloon goes up, he's burnt toast!

Isn't there a handy bus his bestest buddy could throw him under?

greg said...

Or maybe because there are plenty of times when our highly trained police officers, in the heat of a gun battle, fire 20-30 rounds without hitting ANYTHING....and they have back-up!

Shermlock Shomes said...

I would likely respond, "I need a magazine with thirty-three rounds in it because it pisses off you and other fascists like you, Ed."

Phil R. said...

What's this, then? "Vobis non me dux?" "For y'all not me general?"

Says "You ain't the boss of me?", does it. No it doesn't! What's "vobis", then? Come on, come on!

Second person plural dative pronoun, yes. Now, you don't want a dative for the subject, do you? And why is it plural, if you're talking to this Ed fellow? What you want is the second person singular nominative pronoun, which is what?

Tu. Very good, but what does Latin do with subject pronouns?

Omits them when the person and number of the subject can be ascertained from the form of the verb. Now, it's true that you can omit the verb "to be" in Latin, which you've done here, and if you do that you're going to need a subject pronoun, but we're going to need two pronouns for this sentence, "you" and "me", aren't we? Better style to leave the verb in, and let it do the work of pointing out the subject.

So, we need the verb "to be", which in Latin is?

esse, yes. Conjugate, please.

sum, es, est, sumus, estis, sunt, quite. And which of those is the second person singular? es, thank you.

So, we have es: "you are". Let us add the negative non, which you've already got, remembering that the verb in Latin generally goes at the end of the sentence, and we get non es: to use the vernacular, "you ain't".

We still need a pronoun for "of me". We have two choices here, don't we? We could use a possessive pronoun, which would depend on the word we choose for "boss", but here I think a possessive dative construction is called for. What is the first person singular dative pronoun? mihi, yes, which we may wish to contract to mi given the colloquial register of the English we're translating.

That leaves "boss". You've chosen dux, no doubt because you recall it is related to the verb ducere "to lead". Not a million miles wide of the mark, but it does usually connote a specifically military commander, which isn't really appropriate here. Given the context, perhaps a word for a master of slaves would be more to the point?

dominus. Very good. Just what Cicero would have chosen. But then, given the register we're aiming for, perhaps the golden language of high oratory is not quite the thing. No, I think we must look to Plautus, where we shall find the word erus, most frequently used in the dialogue of slaves as a reference to their master, and so not, I venture to suggest, inappropriate as a translation of "boss", hm? What does that give us?

Mi erus non es.

Understand? Now, write it out a hundred times.

You know, if you want to.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Hold it. Last year at the NRA Con, I got to talk with Mr. Gottlieb and Mr.Gura at Lidia's Saturday Night. T-Bolt was there, and pictures are up at Jay G's. site and others. Dig them out. We had a nice discussion about the state of the RKBA and what to look forward to in the future. But Mr. Gottlieb is NOT a Smug Fast Talking Left-Wing Media Talking Head that interrupts, talks over, refuses to answer and insinuates that YOU are the worst thing since Darth Vader like former Gooberner Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and others of his ilk. Mr. Gottlieb likes to THINK before he opens his mouth. So don't expect Quick Comebacks from him, that's not his style.

Of course, his SAF did get us wins in Heller vs DC and McDonald vs Chicago at the Supreme Court, wherein Rendell has given Pennsylvania and the Republic nothing but Crap his entire Political Career. And there's some cases heading up to the Supremes that looks like the SAF will win, regaining us more Freedom to use the RKBA. And that's more important to me than trying to put some Anti-Freedom Plutocrat in his place on an TeeWee Show.

Tasso said...

Why would any law-abiding citizen need a government to restrict the size of his magazines?

Phssthpok said...

My favorite response to such questions whether it be magazine capacity, gun collection size, car top speed, or the cutting swath of my lawn mower:

"Oh, NEED has absolutely nothing to do with it!"

It usually throws an unknown value into their argument program. They are used to people trying to justify a 'need' with (lame and or contrived) reasoning. Notice they never ask why you would WANT (X)....always why you NEED (X).

(minor epiphany that just now struck) I wonder how much of that it rooted in the core [leftist/liberal/progressive/socialist/communist]value of 'from each according to ability, to each according to need'.

SGB said...

Thank you Tam. This post explains exactly why I own firearms and like you, I wish there were more direct responses to questions like it. Bravo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Fast Eddy is just Joe Biden 1.5

Why? Because I can.

Gerry

Tam said...

Bubblehead Les,

WTF?

Did you somehow read this as me slamming Gottlieb and praising Rendell? Otherwise, what you said makes no sense whatsoever.

I'm glad you got to meet Gottlieb. He's done as much for RKBA in this country as anybody alive.

Tam said...

Phil R.,

Congratulations on winning the internets for today. :)

Tasso,

I'm sorry that I just awarded the internets, but here's a lifetime supply of Turtle Wax and a copy of our home game, and a cooupon you can exchange for the internets tomorrow. :o

rickn8or said...

Because "law-abiding citizen" equals "none of the gubmint's damn business".

Drang said...

I'm surprised to hear that Alan was taken aback by that question, all I can think of is that he thought it was so silly he wasn't prepared to answer it.

I suppose you can't give "F*** you, that's why" as a response under those conditions, but you can certainly say "Because magazine capacity limits are a false issue, that's why. You limit them to 5, and you need 6 shots. You limit them to 10, and you need eleven rounds. And so forth." And then note that the military and law enforcement, limited in capacity only by practicality, often have to expend 30 or 40 rounds or more to achieve one hit.

Tom Stelene said...

The best way to answer this kind of loaded question is to ask, 'why do you need to control other people right down to what kind of magazines they own?' Or, 'why do you need law-abiding people to justify to you what guns and magazines they own?' Let's hear that answer! It's none of his business who owns what guns and accessories and why if they follow the law.

Guffaw in AZ said...

I've seen the the same tap dance from the NRA...VP Whatisname?

WHEN are they going to have their verbal magazines loaded to capacity, and not be afraid to empty them?
gfa

New Jovian Thunderbolt said...

Do I need 33 round magazines? Do I need to dress in frilly women's underwear because somedays I want to look pretty? Do I need to drink beer that cost $12 a sixpack before tax?

Need has nothing to do with it.

Kristopher said...

This 33 round firearm kills Fascists.

Panamared said...

There is a document that most Americans consider to be among the founding documents of the country. It predates both the Constitution and the Second Amendment, and right there in the part that most Americans remember are the words, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would hope that even the most die hard anti-gunner would understand the sentiment, even if they don't agree with it.

steve l said...

sometimes the philosophically correct answer is not the best when trying to reach those outside one's own community, although I really like what Kristopher did above, it may be tad too meta for televised talking heads. I'd suggest he ask Paul Brussard, who is also someone I'd like to hear expound when the phrase "just a teenager" is trotted out as evidence of innocence and/or lack of threat. Alas Mr. Brussard is unavailable for comment, perhaps some Korean grocers.....

Anonymous said...

Because I didn't realize that the federal government could be like a Sheriff Andy of Mayberry and restrict US citizens to having one bullet in my breast pocket for possible use against miscreants who are threatening my life, my family, and my liberties. That's why, dipstick Ed.

Crotalus (Don't Tread on Me) said...

Alan, being Jewish (I think), should have responded, "Because I'm not about to let Kristallnacht happen here in the U.S., you petty tyrant! You want to visit violence on me? Prepare to get plenty in return!"

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

I'd really like someone to give the "What does need have to do with it?" answer to these twits on national television, just to see their heads implode.

I'd also like to see someone point out how arbitrary the usual 10 round limit is - "Why is 9 okay and 11 bad?" - in the same situation.

Either way, trying to respond to the "need" question by coming up with an actual justification is just a trap, and one people fall into far too often.

Jeffrey Quick said...

"Because a politician like you might send 34 goons to violate my rights, and I can't generally kill 2 with one round."

agirlandhergun said...

It is odd to me how that argument made sense to me before. I never really questioned if it mattered...12 rounds, 17 rounds, 50 rounds. Why on earth I never stopped to think that a person with ill intent would not be detoured by a low magazine capacity any more than a law abiding citizen would decide, " hey, I got me some extra a bullets, maybe I should go shoot up the local Micky D's"

It sounds insane, but honestly, it made perfect sense when the anti gun crowd presented it. I bought it hook line and sinker, no questions asked.

Fear and ignorance are mighty powerful tools to use against those who are afraid and, well ignorant.

Rabbit said...

I'm content to stop at Drang's initial answer.

Eff you. Go away. Leave me alone. Keep leaving me alone, and there won't be a problem. You won't want problems, will you? Good drone.

Great post, Tam.

Joseph said...

If you're a Mad Scientist and peasants are storming your barricades, you'll want more than 32 bullets in your gun.

Aaron Burr said...

We got that covered Joe. Go ahead and ask me about our new line of shotgun shells loaded with skittles.

Sincerely,

Aaron Burr
V.P. Research & Destruction
EvilConservatives.net

And yes, these are real.

Montie said...

Tam,

Or worst case scenario, because: see your immediately preceeding post.

Jennifer said...

*applause*

Amanda said...

Because reloading, whether in a fight or at the range, takes precious time.

Pakkinpoppa said...

I like comment 3 at the linked article..."prior restraint".

Sigivald said...

I second that applause for Phil's Latin lesson.

Well played.

raven said...

Why do we need 33 round mags? Hmmm... "Because you can't belt feed a Glock?"

mariner said...

Tom Stelene,
The best way to answer this kind of loaded question is to ask, 'why do you need to control other people right down to what kind of magazines they own?'

I see what you did there. ;)

Anonymous said...

I like the two turn-around answers suggested above: #1: What does "need" have to do with my choice?
#2: why do you and people like you *NEED* to control any part of my life?