Frankly Speaking

He's got a point -- let's just leave the gun-owning to the smart guys. You're on the right track -- free speech, too. Here's another -- voting, only for smart people. Peacable assembly - smart people only. Due process -- ignorant people don't even know what that means, for God's sake. Why waste this "speedy trial" business on the ignoramuses, too? That should be reserved for smart folks who are far, far more important to our republic than ignorant people.

And I love you too Frank. You are by far the blog I read most.

TFG, the guy who on his own blog lambasts the media for taking something and twisting it, is going to preach to me about the bill of rights, free speech, and due process. I believe people should be free to say what they want, I even believe that if you want to carry an AK-47 under the pretext that you are hunting squirrels, why the holy hell would I care... its not against the law and so I will support your right to be a gun nut.

Ok, from the top, for the kids who ride the short bus. My original comment was that there should be IQ test to purchase guns. I also believe you should have to take an IQ to have children. Having guns or raising children are huge responsibilities, and leaving those responsibilities to someone of a lower intellect is criminal.

And i updated my blog with my "research" although since data is not clearly laid out on guns and IQ, I had to come up with my own solution on discovering the correlation. Not science, but good enough to raise the issue to debate it.

What a fascinating specimen you are, Ed. You sincerely believe, so near as I can tell, that you have a better mind than the founders of our Republic. That would be the Founders who have guaranteed, for the forseeable future, that I have the right to be a gun nut and a free speech nut and a due process nut, without the benefit of having passed Ed's IQ Test.

I'd just like to know what gives you the impression that you have the insight on which of those ennumerated rights are removable. Are you a Mensa guy, taking the test in the back of the airplane magazines? Did your mommy tell you that you were the smartest kid in the class? Why is it, exactly, that you think some rights should have IQ tests before they are issued?

I don't expect much of an answer that extends beyond "because I said so." But I'll certainly check back to see you outwit the Founding Fathers. I'm sure you think you've got it in you.

Can you read scott? Seriously. I am asking because not once in my comments have i stated that I am smarter than anyone. In fact, I didn't say, people should do this because i say so. What I did say was that people should be tested to own guns. Pass the test, own the gun. Not too much different than taking a test to drive a car or be a doctor. Either you are willfully ignorant or you just like being contrary for the sake of your own ego.

Is the threat of testing an infringement on your first amendment rights? Did you use that same argument in school? You did go to school didn't you? I think you should have the right to bear arms, but with that right, comes responsibility and clearly the easiest way to tell if someone is ready for that responsibility is through a test. Get it? Want a gun? Great, no problem... just pass this test to make sure your are not a mental deficient or crazier than a shithouse rat. I am not interesting at all.. you on the other hand are quite interesting in so much as you can't read, but you can write! That is truly amazing.

Of course I can read. I read that you believe IQ tests should be a requirement for gun ownership. Since the Founding Fathers didn't find such a test necessary, I'm assuming that you think they made a mistake with that oversight, and that it needs correcting. It's a really very simple observation that doesn't need a whole lot of clarification or verbiage, and it's based wholly on your words.

Let's stick to your IQ tests, and presumably your passing grades, and leave the 'crazier than a shithouse rat' out of it, since they are wholly different things. I'm sure you know that one can have an Ed-acceptable level of intelligence and still be a raging psychopath. We just saw one such lunatic in Virginia, just to remind you what kicked off this ridiculous bit of debate.

free palestine

"not exactly the top ten percent of the countries intelligencia"

COUNTRIES???
Do you mean COUNTRY'S ???

Not too bright, is he?

I will support uncontrolled gun rights when they stop being fascists about driving cars. They call it a "privilege" and one that the authorities can revoke at any time - even when violations take place in another state. If you run a red light or kill someone, it is a tragic accident unless you had two beers and were driving home from a legal bar. In that case, you are a dangerous murderer and should be in jail for life.

Fascism for driving is perfectly ok - because it is deadly. But guns are all ok with no control or restrictions.

Now, here is a profiles of a "mental illness" characterizing folks who ought to be denied gun-ownership:

1. People with Oppositional Defiant Disorder, who exhibit persistent patterns of angry and irritable mood along with vindictive behavior and/or negativistic, hostile, and defiant behavior:

Actively refuse to comply with majority's requests or consensus-supported rules;

Perform actions deliberately to annoy others or to provoke aggressive responses;

Consistently are angry and resentful of others;

Argue more often than not;

Blame others for their own mistakes or difficulties;

Often lose temper;

Are spiteful or seek revenge;

Are touchy or easily annoyed.

Don't you think that the gun ownership is decreasing gradually? I agree that 88.8 guns for every 100 people sounds too much but still it is not the same as it used to be few years ago.

Regards,
Jacky

"I don't hear Ed advocating an IQ test for free speech. And there have been plenty of people killed by speech."

This type of argument is a logical fallacy. Mostly because of false equivolence. Comparing speech to gun ownership simply derails adult discourse.

Secondly, people were incited to do X by Sharpton. There are other methods of incitement. There are also laws against incitement to x.

If you want to use this argument, then you should be prepared for some gun laws like background checks etc. As with your free speech argument, there are laws to protect people against incitement.

Surely if you want to use that argument then you should accept the logical conclusions from them? I think not.

You might want to check this discussion, and someone's similar claims that gun owners are morons, and children:

http://libertasandlatte.blogspot.com/2014/11/huge-2nd-amendment-win.html

True enough. Murder is NOT good for the soul in my humble opinion. Self defense is a human right, however, the line between what is "play" and "real" is being "blurred" in the current generation due to our "MTV" generations obsession with propaganda campaign which extended/"evolved" into the current "hip hop" culture as it pertains to current "demographic trends" and well; frankly, "worship" of Psychology, Drugs, and "Group Think". The "demonization" of creative thought as well as loss of personal privacy (afforded us in the constitution in the Bill of Rights) (made "obsolete" by the Patriot act) all tend to contribute as mechanisms of "misdirection". Add to that, the failing "top-heavy" education system with confusion in the History curriculum as well as language "word clearing/clarification"/over-testing and "faulty" English translation due to the growing Latin American influence. Even though there are many languages observed historically in the U.S.A (such as Chinese/Italian/Japanese etc.) Spanish has emerged in key "political" swing States due to the "demand" for illicit drugs such as Marijuana, cocaine, Opiates etc. Guns play into this equation in that every one is afraid of their own "points of view" regarding drugs. There are plenty of "legal" drugs (prescription) which are readily available and are in fact abused by many creating "competition" in that marketplace and yielding terrible results and in some sense prompting more "educated" folks to arm themselves in an attempt to "wait it out and see what happens" and the less educated folks (particularly ones unfortunate enough to not have grown up in two parent household, E.S.L, or been in the jail/mental health system for too long) seem to believe that they are protecting something with their weapons and actually are in many cases "well-intentioned" people. "People are basically good" in my opinion, but the confusion surrounding weapons in the U.S. is VERY DANGEROUS. There should be education regarding gun safety at this point in time in the U.S.A. The I.Q. test would be great, but in what language? From what point of view? Maybe the A.S.V.A.B better? Just my humble opinion.