I’m always surprised and sort of flattered when one my posts gets picked up by a right-leaning website. I came home from Fanboys and the grocery store to find trackbacks from this website, and a discussion on the topic of this post.

I had originally intended to register there, and left a fairly lengthy comment responding to some of the individual comments. However, apparently the Freepers take their “no profanity” very strictly: I off-handedly said “shit” in my post and shortly thereafter, when I tried to message the person who’d originally posted the link my blog, I learned my comment privilege had been revoked. That’s too bad, but whatever: I got a blog, I can respond here!

This is my comment, in its entirety:

Thanks for all the comments. I just want to respond to what a few people have said:

-One Winged Shark: yes, I was hoping for faster progress on a lot of what you remarked. On the other hand, the guy’s only been president for a little over a month. However, some of the things you state: sorry, I believe in a woman’s right to choose, and I have no problem with stem cell research.

-Absolute Surplus Disorder: as you may have noticed, I oppose the ban (Shit, did you READ the post title?). I own three handguns and a shotgun. The day I need *you* to defend me from a criminal, I’ll happily shoot myself in the head.

Referencing your first point: if your only argument for why the Second Amendment is important can be boiled down to “uh, because it’s been there for, like, centuries!” you’re going to lose the argument. Why is it important? Hey, I can make a more convincing argument: firearms are the most convenient method of self-defense in a dangerous world. I can throw in some stuff about responsibility, if you’d like, but right now, I can make a more convincing case than you can. AND I’M A LIBERAL.

Re, your point about the Constitution not being a “living document”: that’s your opinion, you are aware, I’m sure, that new amendments can be ratified? Old amendments can be repealed? History shows us not only that the Constitution is not set in stone, but that it was never supposed to be. That’s why it’s important to be able to make an argument.

– o_zarkman44: Yes, good point. Seatbelts should be voluntary. I think it would probably be cheaper if more people were killed in automobile accidents than simply injured. I feel the same way about motorcycle accidents. My only concern is that the law would need to be changed, so that if Person A rear-ended Person B and Person B was killed because they were not wearing a seat belt, Person A could not be held responsible for Person B’s death if Person B would have survived the accident if they had been wearing a seatbelt. That makes sense to me.

-Mr Right Now: I don’t think it will get through Congress. Gun control is a traditionally loser issue for Democrats, and hopefully this is just a last burp on their way to finally realizing that.

-Renegade & Prole: You can thank George W. Bush for the GOP’s upcoming defeat in 2010 (and if I’m wrong about that, I’ll splurge for beverages).

-Dawn53: I don’t think I blamed killing on guns, although I do think guns make killing much, much easier. (Um, which is sort of the point, and why I bought four … I don’t want to club a burglar to death with an IKEA lamp).

-Greedo: Well, first, allow me to address the technical aspect of your post — I’m not a registered anything, I’m a registered independent. Now, you’re right in that I do vote for Democrats more than Republicans, so I guess you’re on the money. However, as for the substance of your post: do you agree lock stock and barrel with everything your party has done? The whole point of my post was that, as a moderate-liberal mostly-Democratic voter, I do not agree with this gun ban.