Let me see if I understand this correctly
Gun control is over but guns won. So let’s push for gun control.
Uhm, no.
9 Responses to “Let me see if I understand this correctly”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 6th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
Markie Marxist sez: “I, you know, I don’t know about pushing for gun control right now. Most gun owners I know right now, are very upset right now, and they have stuff like tomahawks, scalping knives and, you know, other stuff that’s like on fire right now, and they’re very loud, right now. We might, you know, uhhh, like uh, cool it for a while. We can, you know, always fuck them over later, right? Really we can!”
August 6th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
He asks “Where are you people?”
Well, for the menioned incident, probably a place same as he – at home, unaware until later.
About “gun control” discussions, I have not heard a “reasonable” point from pro-control people for decades. Yes, some people who should not have guns can get them: but then I have been hearing that all my life, with no new proposal other than banning firearms. Hey, let’s ban knives too so people like the Asian guy who last week killed eight and wounded more will not be able to stab anyone at all! Problem? What problem?
Not that he wants to ban firearms, he just does not want people who will start killing other people to have then. Well, neither do I – so how does he propose to accomplish this, other than a ban? Not a clue.
And of course, he knows – and likes – some gun owners. Echoes of “some of my friends are [whatever].” And where has he been on discussing gun control with them?
August 6th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Look, let’s just tell these jackasses that we know their code. We know that gun control = banning guns, a la those dipshits in the UK.
August 7th, 2012 at 9:44 am
I’m reasonable, and willing to have a conversation about violence. Like everyone, I deplore the idiots that shoot up Sikh temples. So, let’s have this conversation, come to a compromise.
What is the other side willing to bring to the table? What rights are they willing to give up? I’d say that we start the conversation by repealing all feel good gun laws since 1968 and starting the conversation anew.
There’s the rub. The antis aren’t willing to give up anything. Their version of compromise always has me losing. Not anymore. My guns didn’t hurt anyone over the weekend. I didn’t kill anyone. I’m not giving up anything until they’re ready to meet me halfway.
August 7th, 2012 at 11:10 am
I see that this Idiot from Esquire waited until the SECOND Paragraph to push the “Nutjob Military Veteran” Meme. But he did use the THIRD Paragraph to imply that Veterans need to be Stalked by the DHS.
But if the FBI was watching all those wonderful Peace Loving people at EARTH First, or the New Black Panthers or the Occupy Movement….
August 7th, 2012 at 11:32 am
PawPaw, that’s a symptom of Marxism called Hegelian synthesis (surprised Markie didn’t beat me to that). We now look at that through its corollary, the Overton Window. It’s kind of like the Art of The Possible, but Not Possible for You.
August 7th, 2012 at 11:50 am
Someone needs to remind him that the responsible gun owners were likely ordered to disarm.
And ask about the “responsible” mental health officials who let these lunatics loose on the street despite years of warnings. The latest MAYBE didn’t have a history, but in the Arizona and Colorado cases they most certainly did.
August 7th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
There’s always a debate to be had about guns… Until they finally win one, then the “science” is suddenly “settled”.
Ther is a debate to be had about gun laws. It involves heavy and frequent use of the word “repeal”.
August 7th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Sorry, but as of right now, I have SCOTUS and the public at large on my side. I’m just not inclined to compromise with people who’s idea of compromise is they get 100% of what they want, and we get nothing.
Seriously, would you go back again to deal with a guy who broke your arm and called it a compromise because he didn’t get to break your leg along with it?