Liberal gun bullshit

Part II

Every time a mass murder occurs in this country, there is an immediate and sharp spike in gun sales. This obviously is caused by the fear that guns are going to be restricted. As in any sane country they would be. Think for a moment how this spike in sales, spike in profit, incentivizes the gun industry. What do all other industries work to realize? Spikes in sales and profits. When an industry discovers something that causes sales to go up, like say, Christmas, then they use all of the power of their advertising genius and tactics, to make Christmas a bigger event than it used to be, a longer event than it used to be, and a more common event than it used to be.

What then does the gun industry do to bring about the ideal conditions for gun sales; fear, paranoia, mass murder.

Fear. The gun lobby stokes fear in the weak-minded by demonizing particular politicians. This works when the Democrats are in power. As they are now. The gun lobby also stokes racial fears. White people need their weapons because blackey is coming to fuck your woman, steal your chickens, and piss on your face. We now have black a Democratic President - whoa Nelly! The motherfucking jackpot of fear and paranoia for the gun industry! Sales have been through the roof! They are rolling in the green.

While in Newtown, in Aurora, in Portland, and in every town and city in this land, every single day…we roll in blood.

Then there is the more nebulous fear, without which all other fears cannot be built. It is anxious masculinity. The industry employs highly manipulative tactics to exploit anxious masculinity. Here is but one example.

Now, who needs an official “man card”? An anxious male. A male who feels impotent in some form. The decline of white male hegemony is an obvious culprit in this anxiety. There is no doubt that there exist many men who are not dealing with this decline well. I would also like to know, “Today you are a man, fully entitled to all the rights and privileges duly afforded” mean? Being a white male has always come with rights and privileges, this is the very basis of social criticism from the left. Now we see the right not only agreeing that being a white male comes with certain rights and privileges, but demanding cards proving it!

What rights and privileges does a white male holding a (what is basically a) military grade weapon have? This is a question that haunts many a black person, and many a woman of any race.

This part goes to culture. What kind of culture are we to define masculinity as how much violence you can visit upon another human being? If an opposing team member cuts you off in traffic you set his car on fire (per one of these ads). If a bitch mouths off what do you do to her? If a black youth doesn’t answer your questions fast enough or right enough, you Stand Your Ground…and he is put in the ground for an eternity.

Our culture I believe is slowly changing, but not fast enough. When a man’s worth is dependent on how fast he can kill, how much violence he can commit, we are still in a lot of trouble.

What is toughness? What is masculinity? These are terms we are slowly redefining and eventually will be the better for.
 
Last edited:
Part III

I thought President Obama’s statement that we can not be a society who says that the carnage of our children is somehow the price of our freedom, was so visceral. All of our rights have limits. And no one in this country needs a weapon capable of shooting off 100 rounds almost instantaneously. A weapon whose sole purpose, sole purpose! is to kill as many human beings in the shortest time as possible. That is not self defense. And we all know it. And that is why the nutters and the gun lobby who caters to them (because the gun lobby needs you afraid, oh how they need your fear, your paranoia) claim that we need these weapons to defend ourselves against our government.

News Flash; our government has drones.
Fight over. You’re dead.

There is no fight. And only paranoid nutters believe there should be.

I think that few want to outlaw guns all together. But, as with all other “rights” we will have limits. We will have regulations. We will have sanity.

If not today, then tomorrow. Never forget, Supreme Courts ARE subject to popular opinion, never think otherwise. And the gun lobby won’t have a 5-4 advantage forever.
 
Last edited:
That's because in a government-run system like Obamacare, rationing becomes reality, and you will essentially have death panels. We needed insurance reforms, we needed tort reforms, but what we've done is shift the burden from the private sector to the public sector and nothing more, and the result will be rationing of health care, including mental health care as well.

Obamacare is NOT a government run system. Obama has built no hospitals, nor hired any doctors. It is needed reform to an out of control private system that HAS real rationing and real 'death panels'.

You are a REAL pinhead.
 
Part III

I thought President Obama’s statement that we can not be a society who says that the carnage of our children is somehow the price of our freedom, was so visceral. All of our rights have limits. And no one in this country needs a weapon capable of shooting off 100 rounds almost instantaneously. A weapon whose sole purpose, sole purpose! is to kill as many human beings in the shortest time as possible. That is not self defense. And we all know it. And that is why the nutters and the gun lobby who caters to them (because the gun lobby needs you afraid, oh how they need your fear, your paranoia) claim that we need these weapons to defend ourselves against our government.

News Flash; our government has drones.
Fight over. You’re dead.

There is no fight. And only paranoid nutters believe there should be.

I think that few want to outlaw guns all together. But, as with all other “rights” we will have limits. We will have regulations. We will have sanity.

If not today, then tomorrow. Never forget, Supreme Courts ARE subject to popular opinion, never think otherwise. And the gun lobby won’t have a 5-4 advantage forever.

I find those words and ideologies expressed in the preceding three posts to be spot on. Of course there will be argument. Nonsensical argument. It's all the nutters have. Thank you, Darla.
 
You miss the point of my historical context. There is no way some doomsday prepper nut like SmarterthanYou can claim our founding fathers would support citizens owning assault weapons.

And reasonable gun control regulations are all liberals have ever proposed. But when you have doomsday prepper nuts like Smarterthan on the right, there is no such thing as reasonable.
how the hell can you 'assume' that the founders wouldn't support citizens owning machine guns? have you read the founders documents, debates, and writing? how about the commentators that wrote about the constitution as they presented it to the people before they voted for ratification? The founders just beat back an oppressive and tyrannical central government, using firearms, so how can you conclude that these same founders wouldn't want to prevent that sort of tyranny from ever happening with the newly created government???????
 
I would love to have a real conversation in this country over what “a well regulated militia” means.
no you wouldn't. you'd have your ass handed to you 8 ways from sunday. There are even supreme court cases where Ginsburg flat out states that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and allows for citizens to carry guns in case of confrontation.
 
I find those words and ideologies expressed in the preceding three posts to be spot on. Of course there will be argument. Nonsensical argument. It's all the nutters have. Thank you, Darla.
I had no clue that dozens of documents and written articles expressing otherwise was non sense. you liberals are a fucktard breed above all others.
 
I had no clue that dozens of documents and written articles expressing otherwise was non sense. you liberals are a fucktard breed above all others.


We think pretty much the same of "fucktards" like you, dumberthananyoneIevermet, and we also have many powerful and founding documents that might interest you but probably not. "Fucktard". Interesting word. Does it describe your particular affliction?
 
Part I

First of all, Gore didn’t lose the 2000 election. This is a very important fact since we are enumerating the reasons he lost an election that he won. He won the popular vote and Florida was stolen, and that theft was codified by the Brooks Brothers Riot and Fox News. So let’s correct that error first.

The reasons why the election was close enough for Bush to steal are myriad. Some voters were no doubt influenced by the Assault Weapons ban and feared (more on why they fear later) Gore was going to “take their guns”. Some voters were disgusted with Bill Clinton’s sexual exploits. Some voters were just tired of Clinton. Some voters were heavily influenced by the beltway media’s determination, early on, that Bush was the “cool kid” and Gore the boorish nerd. Some voters were mistakenly convinced that Gore was a serial liar by this same, criminal, media. (Love Story, invented the internet, etc).

It has been very convenient for the Gun Lobby that this “Gore lost because of guns” mythology has taken hold.

Further, even if Gore had lost the election (he didn’t) and even if he had lost it on account of gun control, we need to stop pretending that everything stopped in November of 2000. We are not frozen in time. If Al Gore had run on legalizing gay marriage in 2000, he would have assuredly lost, and on that issue. Today, it is 12 years later and a majority of Americans now support/marriage equality. Things change, opinions are fluid, we move forward. We are not frozen in time.
Gore didn't lose? The CEO of Goldman Sachs didn't become treasurer of the United States and allow Goldman's biggest competitor to fail? 1,00,00,00 iraqi's didn't needlessly die?
You speak for all the rednecks of the country as to why they voted for Bush? All the sane people in the country were not able to prevent a stolen election?
Speaking of which…we come to the founders. Some say that the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct. Well, that is bullshit. First of all the founders never meant for their words to be “sacrosanct”. I believe that anyone reading the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founders can only conclude they were providing a blueprint and that they did not know if it would be successful or even last.
No one is claiming it was sancrosant to the founders, it is sancrosant to the people.

I would love to have a real conversation in this country over what “a well regulated militia” means.
Now would be the time, this would be the place
It was not until 2008 when a right wing Supreme Court (who are not the Founders btw) ruled that the 2nd amendment protected an individual’s “right to bear arms”. No such ruling on the meaning of the 2nd amendment had been issued before.
No such ruling was ever needed before, the writing is plain enough.
Even with this radical right wing interpretation of the 2nd amendment currently (currently being operative, anyone remember Plessey v Ferguson? Yeah) having been ruled on, this ruling does not preclude regulations.
Tell us Darla, what regulations would have stopped this slaughter?
All of our rights are subject to regulation,
There exist now myriad gun regulations. Do you deny this?
even the First Amendment. This idea that there is something so sacred about the 2nd Amendment, is nonsense. Pure, stuff and nonsense.
No Darla, it is not just the 2nd, but rather the entire constitution which is sacred, but especially the Bill of Rights. Note that it is not called the Bill of Restrictions.
For a long time in our history, the 2nd Amendment was viewed as restrictive rather than descriptive. The radical 2008 decision ruled that it is descriptive. But this ruling must not stand, and I believe, long term, will not stand. And Americans need to have a discussion on just what a “well regulated militia” means in today’s world. For we live in the present.
Atempt an amendment, you have no other course.
 
Part II

Every time a mass murder occurs in this country, there is an immediate and sharp spike in gun sales. This obviously is caused by the fear that guns are going to be restricted. As in any sane country they would be. Think for a moment how this spike in sales, spike in profit, incentivizes the gun industry. What do all other industries work to realize? Spikes in sales and profits. When an industry discovers something that causes sales to go up, like say, Christmas, then they use all of the power of their advertising genius and tactics, to make Christmas a bigger event than it used to be, a longer event than it used to be, and a more common event than it used to be.
Action-reaction. We are not children, though you may talk to us so.
What then does the gun industry do to bring about the ideal conditions for gun sales; fear, paranoia, mass murder.
Read a gun advertisement lately? Didn't think so.
Fear. The gun lobby stokes fear in the weak-minded by demonizing particular politicians. This works when the Democrats are in power. As they are now. The gun lobby also stokes racial fears. White people need their weapons because blackey is coming to fuck your woman, steal your chickens, and piss on your face. We now have black a Democratic President - whoa Nelly! The motherfucking jackpot of fear and paranoia for the gun industry! Sales have been through the roof! They are rolling in the green.
Justifiable fear that gun rights will be curtailed, again. Not everyone is as emotionally driven as you, as you project them to be. It is perfectly logical to assume gun foes will resume their gun curtailment activities, as your three posts here prove.
While in Newtown, in Aurora, in Portland, and in every town and city in this land, every single day…we roll in blood.
What laws could congress pass short of banning all guns which would have prevented Newtown? This was the work of a madman.
I ask in all seriousness Darla, what legislative prevention could have been enacted? You do realize that there have been deadly assaults against school children all over the world, even in countries with very few if any guns. This tragedy was a failure of mental health, as are all such tragedies.
Then there is the more nebulous fear, without which all other fears cannot be built. It is anxious masculinity. The industry employs highly manipulative tactics to exploit anxious masculinity. Here is but one example.

Now, who needs an official “man card”? An anxious male. A male who feels impotent in some form. The decline of white male hegemony is an obvious culprit in this anxiety. There is no doubt that there exist many men who are not dealing with this decline well. I would also like to know, “Today you are a man, fully entitled to all the rights and privileges duly afforded” mean? Being a white male has always come with rights and privileges, this is the very basis of social criticism from the left. Now we see the right not only agreeing that being a white male comes with certain rights and privileges, but demanding cards proving it!
You must disdain man to make your point? What does your lipstick do for you? What does it represent? Why must you remind us of this? Why do you insist to wear it when I tell you always you are beautiful without it?
What rights and privileges does a white male holding a (what is basically a) military grade weapon have? This is a question that haunts many a black person, and many a woman of any race.
None which exist without a gun.
This part goes to culture. What kind of culture are we to define masculinity as how much violence you can visit upon another human being? If an opposing team member cuts you off in traffic you set his car on fire (per one of these ads). If a bitch mouths off what do you do to her? If a black youth doesn’t answer your questions fast enough or right enough, you Stand Your Ground…and he is put in the ground for an eternity.
Judge your fellows based on Madison Ave if you choose too, I choose not to.
Our culture I believe is slowly changing, but not fast enough. When a man’s worth is dependent on how fast he can kill, how much violence he can commit, we are still in a lot of trouble.
We are still in a lot of trouble. Here is a thought for you; God's time.
What is toughness? What is masculinity? These are terms we are slowly redefining and eventually will be the better for.
Masculinity, toughness, anything else you can think of in moderation. Those who slaughter innocents know no moderation. So we throw the focus to ineffectual measures, the mental illness continues, the violence against women and children and men continues daily, most of the time we don't hear about it, much of the time there are no guns needed. Let us pursue the largest goal with our outrage.
 
no you wouldn't. you'd have your ass handed to you 8 ways from sunday. There are even supreme court cases where Ginsburg flat out states that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and allows for citizens to carry guns in case of confrontation.

It isn't written that way. The militia tie-in is as clear as it possibly could be.
 
Part III

I thought President Obama’s statement that we can not be a society who says that the carnage of our children is somehow the price of our freedom, was so visceral.
Yes, he is a wonderful speaker.
All of our rights have limits. And no one in this country needs a weapon capable of shooting off 100 rounds almost instantaneously. A weapon whose sole purpose, sole purpose! is to kill as many human beings in the shortest time as possible. That is not self defense. And we all know it. And that is why the nutters and the gun lobby who caters to them (because the gun lobby needs you afraid, oh how they need your fear, your paranoia) claim that we need these weapons to defend ourselves against our government.
Sorry Darla, but let's keep it factual. The weapon you describe is a fully automatic machine gun. We will have to ask STY when it was last legal to purchase such a gun, but IIRC it has been some number of decades. They were already illegal long before the Clinton/Gore assault rife ban.
News Flash; our government has drones.
Fight over. You’re dead.

There is no fight. And only paranoid nutters believe there should be.
Not going to argue weapons and tactics with you, neither of us are qualified to do so, though one of us is far less qualified than the other.

I think that few want to outlaw guns all together. But, as with all other “rights” we will have limits. We will have regulations. We will have sanity.

We do. The very weapons you think are available are not.
If not today, then tomorrow. Never forget, Supreme Courts ARE subject to popular opinion, never think otherwise. And the gun lobby won’t have a 5-4 advantage forever.

Go for it. Tilt at windmills. Wag the dog. That will be helpful, meanwhile AIG will continue to syphon off a bit of every dollar that goes by, a husband will have his head bashed in by a hammer, a wife's face by a fist, a child's throat cut, another thrown off a bridge.
 
We think pretty much the same of "fucktards" like you, dumberthananyoneIevermet, and we also have many powerful and founding documents that might interest you but probably not. "Fucktard". Interesting word. Does it describe your particular affliction?
I would LOVE, absolutely LOVE, for you to show me these documents that categorically state that the 2nd Amendment applies ONLY to state regulated military units.
 
I would LOVE, absolutely LOVE, for you to show me these documents that categorically state that the 2nd Amendment applies ONLY to state regulated military units.

It's right there in black & white, the way it was originally written. Why would more "documentation" be needed? Any strict interpretation of that clause is clearly tied to militias.
 
It isn't written that way. The militia tie-in is as clear as it possibly could be.
you are daft. you also need to make up your liberal minds, either the 2nd Amendment is vague, or it's crystal clear. If the militia tie in is clear, why does it categorically state that 'the right of the PEOPLE' shall not be infringed?
 
Back
Top