That was uncalled for. What has Slate’s Matt Yglesias cranky this time? It looks like he didn’t appreciate critics of his gun control stance calling him out on his supposed expertise on “tactical firearms.”

Yglesias has a point: anyone is allowed to have an opinion on guns and gun control, no matter how little they know about the subject or how long they’ve been in office. But while gun rights advocates have been written off by the vice president himself as members of the “black helicopter crowd,” wouldn’t the very real probability that some of that mistaken “gun jargon” will be written into the law of the land inspire just a hint of “paranoia”?

https://twitter.com/carney/status/325625582933127168

https://twitter.com/carney/status/325625782770733057

Experts like Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette?

Honesty:

  • Kabong30

    Yup, he’s happy to ban them all. They all are and that’s the ultimate goal. The minute we forget that, we’re done.

    • Pedro

      Yglesias should be banned.

    • angeleyez

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      .
      Is Slate’s Yglesia stupid enough to want to ban pressure cookers,
      instead of addressing the actions of the radical Islamic jihadist brothers ?

    • NRPax

      Typical gun control advocate: “If we just make it illegal, criminals will obey the law!”

      • radicallyalyssa

        They’re not even thinking about criminals. That’s not part of their agenda. That’s why we keep saying “law abiding citizens;” they don’t make the distinction, so we must keep reminding them.

        • NRPax

          In other words “If only we had complete control over everything and everyone, we’d finally have utopia!”

          • radicallyalyssa

            Absolutely.

  • tjp77

    If people knowledgable about guns can’t come up with a ‘workable’ line to draw, maybe its because their expertise is what leads them to conclude that gun control doesn’t work? And maybe that should lead you to conclude that perhaps you should educate yourself on the issue, seeing as how the ‘knowledgable’ people all disagree with you.

    Nah, better to just say you want to ‘ban them all’ for no good reason.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      The highest murder rate in the developed world is “no good reason”.

      • NRPax

        And yet our murder rate is not the highest in the developed world and the developed countries that are worse than us also have the level of control on gun ownership you prefer.

      • Ronald Green

        Actually our ranking in the ‘murder rate championships’ is about 27th.

    • AaronHarrisinAlaska

      They all ready are. Pressure cooker, ball bearings, some wiring, a battery, and a signal device or timer.

  • http://Rovinsworld.blogspot.com Rovin

    “Ban them all” You betcha Matty! While we’re at it let’s ban all abortions, since there’s millions of more fatal casualties.

  • Joe W.

    “If people knowledgeable about guns can’t come up with a workable line to draw, I’m happy to ban them all.”………..There already IS a workable line drawn, Matty….We call it the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. And it is quite clear. You should really try reading it, Son.

    • http://Rovinsworld.blogspot.com Rovin

      Yglesias’s liberal ideology doesn’t recognize or respect the Constitution the way we do Joe. Come to think of it, neither does the well armed Jihadist.

    • beebop1952

      When the gun laws on the books are FULLY ENFORCED (see Chicago deaths vs. convictions) and it is DEMONSTRATED that there is a NEED for additional laws, I trust those bringing them forward will be more knowledgable than this.

  • Jack Deth

    Matt Yglesias: Incalculable ignorance desperately seeking relevance.

    • http://twitter.com/BrianPHovland Brian H (wackobird)

      Pretty much nails it….although the ignorance is seeking a level.

  • Steve_J

    He starts something then he’s sorry he brought it up?

    • NRPax

      Because he forgot that people can and will beat him with the rolled up newspaper of truth.

  • waltermitty2012

    The fool speaks because he has to say something. Maybe Matty has finally learned this lesson.

  • AimToMisbehave

    Good thing it will never be up to you to “ban them all”, Matty. How’s that million dollar DC condo treating such a man of the people anyhow?

  • http://www.vatican.va/ Rulz

    “Conceit that only those who’ve mastered gun jargon can express a view on regulation of deadly weapons is absurd.”

    That’s like saying someone who can’t put together sentences in English should be an English teacher.

    If you don’t know your guns and you’re going to publicly mouth off about gun control, you’re going to make a fool of yourself.

  • JR48

    So he takes ‘ignorant’ and doubles down on rescinding the second amendment?

    Asshats this week, as far as the eye can see.

    • TheOriginalDonald

      and they’ll be asshats next week.

      And the week after that, and the week after that, and…………

    • http://twitter.com/BrianPHovland Brian H (wackobird)

      They seem proud of their ignorance of the subject,and seem to have taken the position of “if I don’t know anything about them,then they aren’t worth keeping”. Both irrational AND shocking. Matty, does the world end at the horizon as you see it?

  • PatrioticDissent

    Inside every “liberal” is a totalitarian screaming to get out.

  • https://twitter.com/SmileyRoffle Smiley

    @Neal_Dewing Bad form. Matt Yglesias was molested by a priest.

  • Tom Anderson

    Happy to ban them all is the key tweet here. That translates to “I don’t care if I don’t know anything about guns, I just want them gone so that the unicorns can repopulate the earth.”
    Its a simple concept Matty, if you don’t want to get mocked and become a punching bag for general consumption, know your subject matter before you tweet and opinion based on emotion not fact or logic.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Bullets come out, put holes in people, people die. How much more does he really need to know?

      • mdtljt

        I take it your nom de plume & exceedingly simple comments on this topic refer to the fact you obviously DON’T have anything in the “bathing suit area”…but wish like hell you did…sad little banana hammock….

        • Bathing Suit Area

          I can’t count the number of times I’ve cried myself to sleep at night over the fact that some strange lady on the internet imagines my genitals to be not very big. It’s a real tragedy.

          • ForTheRepublic

            The point she was trying to make being that nobody really cares what a troll thinks. If you honestly believe banning all guns would fix anything, you really aren’t worthy of a debate. “Oh, but it’ll be harder for criminals, derp.” “Uh, sorry, it won’t. No criminal working off of the black market would turn in their guns, leaving millions un-confiscated and thus able to be placed into the hands of a criminal.”

      • AaronHarrisinAlaska

        Whether or not your going to die depends on where the hole is. That’s something more to know.

  • jojofido

    ok heres a workable law……..LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE! Now go teach your kids to not be psycho!

    • TocksNedlog

      And, if it turns out that your kid IS a psycho, then have the courage to get him treated at an in-patient lockdown facility.

      • jojofido

        not sure if that was aimed at me but I don’t have kids, if I did, my kid starts keeping pictures of dead people or skinning animals alive I DAMN sure would get him locked away for treatment. That’s not being DIFFERENT that’s PSYCHO!

  • gekkobear

    Boston police, in a shootout with the 2 bombers fired 200+ rounds.

    But I should be able to make do with… 10?

    Don’t get me wrong; I’m glad we both agree that I’m super-amazing and awesome; but are we sure I’m 20 times better than a trained police officer?

    Lets let me have a 30 round magazines… I’d hate to tell them everyone in the country with a firearm is expected to be 20 times better than them… it might hurt their feelings.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      You’re not really meant to be going out chasing armed fugitives though.

      • Jeff McCabe

        Ergo, no one other than a police officer will ever encounter someone who means them harm. Congrats, your logic just ended all crime, with the exception of that against police officers.

      • mike_in_kosovo

        So, the police, who work in teams with backup, *still* need more rounds available than Joe Snuffy, facing the criminal alone in the middle of the night?

        Yeah, that makes *perfect* sense… to an idiot.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=7011573 Beth Lott

    Gun n00b here, so I don’t know if there’s some jargon I’m missing, but isn’t every gun–and, indeed, every weapon of any description–a tactical weapon?

    • Cochetope

      It depends on how you are defining tactical. My take on tactical would be any gun that is meant to be used in close quarter situations. You wouldn’t want to use a hunting shotgun or long rifle to clear/defend your house. The reason being the barrel sticks out long before you can come around a corner, giving an intruder the chance to grab the barrel and wrestle the gun from your control. Thusly, a handgun/pistol or shorter barreled shotgun or rifle is more ideal for defense of tight quarters. That is where the devil is in the details, is the definition. Until they define what “tactical” means to them, it can mean anything, just like “assault weapon.”

      • MrApple

        Yesterday I accidentally caught my thumb with my “assault hammer”. It still hurts today.

        • Cochetope

          Ban all “assault hammers!” It’s the only way to keep the children safe! *snork*

          • MrApple

            And my other thumb.

    • AaronHarrisinAlaska

      Depends on the situation. When you’re in a cramped environment like, say, a ship or building would it be more or less tactile to carry an m16 vs, say, an M4 or an MP5?

      You ask a good question though for an admitted gun noob. If only they could all ask instead of just assuming.

  • Zathras11 @B5

    “Matt Yglesias ‘increasingly sympathetic to draconian gun regulations’”

    I am, unfortunately, becoming increasingly sympathetic to gun-grabbers being beaten in their homes.

  • ceemack

    Doesn’t this nitwit understand that those two doucebags managed to kill and maim all those people at the Boston Marathon WITHOUT using a gun?

    How many kids could Adam Lanza have killed with bombs instead of bullets?

    You’d have to be a special kind of stupid to think, in the wake of the Boston bombing, that banning any sort of gun can stop mass murder.

    • Bathing Suit Area

      Obviously criminals can get hold of shrapnel bombs, so we should just legalize them and have them on sale at Wal-Mart.

      • Evil Otto

        They didn’t “get hold” of them. They made them, out of parts that are easily obtainable. What are they going to do… ban pressure cookers? Those are available at Wal-Mart.

        • Bathing Suit Area

          Not exactly a big distinction.

          • http://twitter.com/BrianPHovland Brian H (wackobird)

            At this point, I am not certain if you are just that stupid,or if it is an act. Either way, you are not effectively making any point whatsoever.

        • Bathing Suit Area

          To be clearer: since we know that criminals are just going to ignore bomb control laws, and that it’s easy for them to get/make them anyway, shouldn’t we just make it legal to make/buy/sell bombs? What’s the point of trying to enforce “bomb-free zones” when criminals will ignore them?

          • Evil Otto

            That’s clearer?

            I’m sorry, but what exactly is your point? What are you advocating? Are you wanting to ban the legal purchase of guns? It’s hard to argue with you since you just keep asking random questions.

            Enough with the hypotheticals. Tell me what you want to do. If you want Wal-Mart to stop selling guns, say that. If you want guns to be banned, say that.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            I’m trying to fully understand the ideas behind anti gun control arguments. Does the same logic not apply to bombs?

          • Evil Otto

            No. Bombs are not guns. Bombs are indiscriminate. They are explosives. They are not considered “arms” under the “keep and bear arms” clause of the 2nd Amendment. So no, the same “logic” does not apply to bombs.

            Come on, already. Do you really need this explained to you? Do I have to spend time telling you the difference between guns and bombs? Do I have to spend time telling you why one is illegal and the other legal?

            Now I noticed that you did not state what you wanted to do. AGAIN, what are you advocating? Be specific.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            It applies to the argument that “we shouldn’t ban them because criminals will ignore the law”, unless we’re dismissing that as being any part of the argument (which is kinda what I was replying to).

            If you’re gonna change the argument to not banning any guns because of the legal opinions on liberty of some guys who owned slaves some centuries ago, that’s rather a different line of argument.

            Tbh, I’m not sure what solution I’d advocate, although I do feel much safer in Australia than America.

          • Evil Otto

            Criminals will ignore the law. Do you dispute this? I’m going to guess that the two Boston bombers never had this conversation:

            Dzhokhar: “Y’know, bro, it just occurred to me… we shouldn’t plant these bombs in Boston. It’s illegal!”
            Tamerlan: “What? Really? Why, I had NO IDEA it was illegal! You’re right, we shouldn’t do it. Thank you for pointing that out before we made a huge mistake.”

            If you’re gonna change the argument to not banning any guns because of the legal opinions on liberty of some guys who owned slaves some centuries ago, that’s rather a different line of argument.

            That’s not an argument at all. Whether they owned slaves or not is utterly irrelevant to the discussion, nor is the fact that they lived centuries ago. Considering that the earliest forms of gun control in the United States were designed to prevent freed slaves from owning guns, one would think

            Personally, I’ve read the words of the Founders. I know why they advocated gun ownership. It wasn’t for hunting or self defense of sporting purposes. It was so that the American people could stand up to their government if it ever became tyrannical. Their words are very clear on this. they didn’t trust even the government that they created.

            Tbh, I’m not sure what solution I’d advocate, although I do feel much safer in Australia than America.

            Then why are you posting here? You have no useful opinions to give and don’t even live in the damned country. I don’t go over to Australian message boards and tell Australians how to run their country. Australia banned guns, and their crime rates have increased dramatically. This has taken place in country after country… but y’know what? That’s their business. If they want to ban guns, then they can.

            Here in the States, we have a different view… we are not subjects, we are citizens, and we have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2UGlJWlqfs

          • Bathing Suit Area

            “Criminals will ignore the law” Applies equally to guns and bombs, yet you don’t want them both legal, my original point.

            And if the law didn’t stop them, you think it should just be legal to go bomb a marathon?

            The debate is hardly settled in either country, I find it worthwhile to read opinions on both sides in both locations. I don’t quite get the holy reverence for your founders, or why a politician’s opinions from back then trumps the opinion of one now, but whatever. I’d say their slave owning is relevant however, it detracts somewhat from their credibility on the topic of freedom.

            Murder and suicide rates both dropped here, directly correlating with gun removal (different states implemented the plan at different speeds, and the drops in gun deaths matched). We had around one mass shooting a year in the decades before, and zero in the 16 years since. Oh and the government here hasn’t gotten to tyrannical just yet.

          • TocksNedlog

            “‘Criminals will ignore the law’ Applies equally to guns and bombs, yet you don’t want them both legal, my original point.”
            — Because they are two different things. Responsible gun owners are capable of using their weapons in a defensive and discriminating manner. Homemade, non-laser-targeted bombs are indiscriminate offensive weapons, regardless of the intent behind their use.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            Which says nothing about whether criminals will follow laws against them.

            To be clear, I’m not disagreeing with you on the potential different uses for guns vs bombs, I just think the whole “criminals will use them anyway” argument is a crock of shit.

          • TocksNedlog

            “And if the law didn’t stop them, you think it should just be legal to go bomb a marathon?”
            — Again with the false equivalency? Pay attention: We think it should be illegal to kill an innocent person regardless of whether the weapon used is legal or illegal. THAT is a consistent position.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            Agree with that position.

            Sounds like them you don’t think that we should scrap laws just because criminals will ignore said laws. So let’s stop making that argument re: guns.

          • TocksNedlog

            WHAT laws do you think that I, or others of my political stripe, want to “scrap”?

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Why pass even *more* laws, when you *already* know that criminals won’t follow them?

          • Evil Otto

            Except nobody is making THAT argument. We on the right in the US believe that most gun laws should be scrapped because they are unconstitutional. They are an infringement upon our right (see that word? RIGHT) to keep and bear arms. Pointing out that criminals will violate the law is a legitimate argument, but it is not the core of why we want gun laws scrapped.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            Plenty of folks have made that argument (see below this for example), I’m glad we agree they’re foolish.

            The constitutional component is a different argument entirely. But sure it’s worth getting into here, but it seems to me the term “unconstitutional” describes what the law IS rather that what we think it should be.

          • TocksNedlog

            “I don’t quite get the holy reverence for your founders”
            — As your use of the phrase ‘holy reverence’ makes clear. What we have (most of us, anyway) is respect and acknowledgement for what they have given us: a founding document that is the basis for the freest, most productive society on earth. And they didn’t ‘get it right’ right away. Twelve amendments (including the right to keep and bear arms) were made to the original document within 15 years of its ratification; along with an additional 15 amendments in the years since. Those first ten, the Bill of Rights, is what codified the law of our land into a blueprint for regulating a civil society while at the same time preserving freedom.

          • TocksNedlog

            “or why a politician’s opinions from back then trumps the opinion of one now”
            — It doesn’t. Who said that it does? The Strawman?
            Ya see, if one or more of our current politicians thinks that the will of the people is leaning towards revising or repealing the Second Amendment, then by all means he or she is free to propose a new amendment to the Constitution in order to do just that.
            But it isn’t gonna happen; and do you know why? Because it is THE OPINION OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE that the opinion of SOME of our current politicians is flawed, and that the opinion of our founders in crafting the Second Amendment was indeed the correct one, then AND now.

          • TocksNedlog

            “I’d say their slave owning is relevant however, it detracts somewhat from their credibility on the topic of freedom.”
            — We, of course, fully acknowledge that our founders were fallible human beings, and that on some issues they were flat-out wrong; however, it is extremely disingenuous on your part to conclude that a flaw in one area requires an extreme degree of skepticism, if not outright dismissal, in all other areas.
            An intellectually honest person will be both skeptical AND pragmatic in regard to every issue.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            Murder and suicide rates both dropped here, directly correlating with gun removal

            Correlation is not equal to causation. Your point is invalid.

          • Evil Otto

            And if the law didn’t stop them, you think it should just be legal to go bomb a marathon?

            Good God. You can not possibly be this dense.

            Oh, and before we go any further, let me point out that these criminals did not purchase bombs, they made them out of easily available, common items. Anyone with basic understanding of such things (or, nowadays, a web browser) can make such things even in Australia. Arguing about legality is meaningless.

            I don’t quite get the holy reverence for your founders, or why a
            politician’s opinions from back then trumps the opinion of one now, but whatever. I’d say their slave owning is relevant however, it detracts somewhat from their credibility on the topic of freedom.

            It’s not “holy reverence.” It is a deep respect for brilliant men who set up a system that could improve and grow human freedom. They didn’t try to create a perfect system, they tried to create one that could become better over time.

            For the record, SOME Founders owned slaves. Others did not. Some were abolitionists, opponents of slavery. You didn’t mention them in your haste to label the Founders as slaveholders. Had they not been able to compromise with each other, there would have been no United States.

            We had around one mass shooting a year in the decades before, and zero in the 16 years since. Oh and the government here hasn’t gotten to tyrannical just yet.

            There is more to crime than mass shootings. Your crime rates have shot through the roof, so instead you focus on only one kind of crime to avoid talking about the rest.

            Oh, and if your government turned tyrannical, there wouldn’t be anything you could do about it. Thankfully, such things never have happened in human history. No democratic government has ever turned tyrannical. Ever. Really.

            (Actually, Australia probably wouldn’t turn tyrannical… those Europeans, though, the ones who make the same arguments as you do… they’re screwed. Some of my buddies have a betting pool going to see which Eurostate turns fascist first. My money is on Spain.)

          • Ronald Green

            Not according to the UN Report on Crime.

          • TocksNedlog

            False equivalency, it’s what’s for dinner in libbyland.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            Got anything more specific on why the argument applies to one and not the other? Or is just declaring it false enough for you?

          • AaronHarrisinAlaska

            Declaring it false is enough. Because it is false.

          • Bathing Suit Area

            Your grasp of logic astounds me.

          • AaronHarrisinAlaska

            I can see why. I’m not the one making false equivalancies in a circular argument because I’m not getting the answer I want.

          • mike_in_kosovo

            because of the legal opinions on liberty of some guys who owned slaves some centuries ago

            Ad hominem, nice – remind us again what that adds to the argument?

            You *DO* realize that, by your “logic” (for certain values of the word, anyway), that we should also be getting rid of the *rest* of the Bill of Rights, since those *other* rights were written by those same “guys who owned slaves some centuries ago”.

          • Ken Alan Draper

            some guys who owned slaves some centuries ago? you don’t even know how long it’s been since the founding fathers founded the country? Did you know most of them didn’t own slaves? did you know that it took weeks of negotiation to work out the U.S. Constitution because the northern states wanted to make slavery illegal, but the southern representatives, many who considered slavery wicked, even though they held slaves couldn’t make such a monumental change in their society. crime in Austrailia has increased since they banned firearms, not decreased, as opposed to Washington DC which saw it’s firearms ban ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court which has seen crime decrease by 45% since the ban was nullified. the most dangerous cities in America have the strictest gun laws, the safest cities have the fewest laws. Chicago has very strict gun laws & has become a more dangerous place to be then Afganistan, meanwhile just across the state line in Gary, In. the crime rate is much lower. 1 in 3 people in Switzerland own Military grade rifles, yet the Swiss have the lowest crime rate in the world. there seems to be a pattern here.

          • Ronald Green

            Isn’t that the place where their Parliament is now struggling to define ‘Home Invasions’ ?

          • TocksNedlog

            Yes, the same logic DOES apply:
            Detect criminal activity, identify the criminal, end the criminal activity by either capturing or killing the criminal.

          • TocksNedlog

            “To be clearer: sincee we know …”
            — You can’t get much clearer than that!

          • Bathing Suit Area

            Whoops, typo fixed now.

      • TocksNedlog

        OR, if the FBI and DHS would just do their jobs …

      • AaronHarrisinAlaska

        Bomb: indiscriminate death, maiming, and destruction.
        Gun: controlled maiming and death if maiming is not an option.

      • mike_in_kosovo

        Argumentum ad absurdum, the first choice of idiots everywhere.

  • sako204

    Nuff said…

  • Masmani

    “If people knowledgeable about guns can’t come up with a workable line to draw, I’m happy to ban them all.” Matt, if you would eliminate everything before the comma in that sentence it would be more succinct and truthful!

  • NRPax

    You know, Matt, there are a lot of other countries that have the level of gun control that you find acceptable. What’s really neat about it is that they also have the internet. So you can be somewhere you like better, continue to work as a writer and be happy. And that million dollar condo of yours could set you up in a semi-decent place.

  • Kleverabevera

    I screwed my bicycle handlebars onto the stock of my, Red Ryder Carbine-Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle Now it is “Tactical.” Shhhh! Don’t tell Matt he will ban them all!

    • http://twitter.com/BrianPHovland Brian H (wackobird)

      You’ll put your eye out with that thing!

  • waterytart

    We knew what you were thinking about banning guns all along, twerp, you just finally put it in black and white. Now, I’m sure all you want to hear from us is “just leave the tip on the dresser please”.

  • Gallatin

    Matt Yglesias ✔
    @mattyglesias
    @willcain @KevinNR If people knowledgeable about guns can’t come up with a workable line to draw, I’m happy to ban them all.

    And this is what we have known about all you libturds all along.

  • Public_Man

    What difference does being knowledgeable about your subject make? The administration is ignorant about our economy and economics generally. The President has no knowedge of leading free people. You might have just hit on the motto for our low-information age, Matt.

  • TDS

    And the last one finally gets to the root of the matter: The Liberal desire to ban ALL guns.

  • KansasGirl

    Matt, this gun totin’ lady could care less if you’re happy.

  • AaronHarrisinAlaska

    The line was drawn in 1777 Matt.

  • sako204

    Matt, what you are doing is called, “intellectually sheltering in place.”

  • J.N. Ashby

    I dunno, Matt. How many more would have died if he could’ve been arsed to go to Lowe’s and buy fertilizer to make a proper bomb?

  • DurkaDurka

    Man oh man.. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler would get their knob so polished by this maggot.. if only they weren’t so busy burning in Hell.

  • http://extremesplash.wordpress.com/ Ben Bollman

    He’s happy to ban them all, I’m shocked.

  • EverybodyTalks

    The AP just came up with a new word phrase, “Law Abiding Criminal”. This references those who hold to the 2nd Amendment. I have to admit it is catchy.

  • rivers

    Every time I see Matt Yglesias picture I think of the character James in One Fifth Avenue and I can’t help but laugh at him.