Incendiary Image of the Day: Conspiracy Theorists R Us Edition

The government will take care of you. One way of the other.

Lawrence O’Donnell is having trouble moving on dot org. The MSNBC commentator’s still pawing through the shambles of his “gun safety” dreams, trying to understand how the evil NRA’s lobbyists torpedoed “common sense gun control” and mob rule popular sentiment in the U.S. Senate. Apparently, the gun rights group duped gun owners into believing that firearms registration would somehow lead to confiscation. A government gun grab? As if. Oh wait . . . [h/t GS]

comments

  1. avatar JSIII says:

    I want a T-shirt with that on it…so very very true.

  2. avatar Thomas Paine says:

    calling photoshop police, 1, 2, 3…….

  3. avatar SD3 says:

    What ‘conspiracy’?

    1. avatar Jesse Nelson says:

      Yeah I was about to say. That isn’t a conspiracy theory that is HISTORY.

    2. avatar 16V says:

      Anyone who believes the rule of law applies to the government need only look as far as every treaty with the Natives ever made.

      Will also be enlightening on what happens when you capitulate.

      1. avatar SD3 says:

        Bottom line is, if your sole function in life is to MAKE the rules (congress), it’s nearly impossible to BREAK them. And even when you do, you simply change the rules retroactively.

        Voilà!

      2. avatar WLCE says:

        “Will also be enlightening on what happens when you capitulate.”

        ^this

        that is why you sharpen your tomahawk and prepare to fight until the bitter end. Go the way of the Spartan sort of speak.

  4. avatar Aharon says:

    It is ludicrous (though not too surprising once you repeatedly observe their mindset) how gun-grabbers repeatedly blame the NRA as being the puppet master for all gun owners. Most of America’s @90 million gun owners or whatever the number is these days are not members of the NRA. I’m not an NRA member (I financially support three other pro 2A organizations) and I don’t rely upon the NRA for the facts I choose to believe and the political positions I take.

    1. avatar Alex Peters says:

      They think that because that’s how the gun control organizations operate. It starts with Obama, Biden, Bloomberg, Feinstein, et. al. and the message goes all the way down the line to the low information voters turned activists. The NRA and other gun rights organizations don’t need to tell gun owners that the government is hell-bent on taking away our gun rights – we already know that to be true.

      1. avatar Aharon says:

        I think you are correct about them. Many if not most of the gun grabber sheeple rely upon the leadership of their elitist politicians and rags such as the Huffington Post for their reality. Those sheeple are probably simply projecting their own temperaments onto others.

        1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          Progressives need solid objects to isolate and demonize: in this case the NRA. Alinsky tactic 101.

      2. avatar Brock says:

        I wonder sometimes if the NRA is actually taking some of its direction from this and other blogs, comments. I started seeing Colin Noir suggested for NRA spokesmen on here only a month or 2 before he started working with them. They’d be foolish if they are not taking the pulse of their membership in some indirect form.

      3. avatar C says:

        same way the left was losing its mind over the tea party. There is no bloombergarian leader to attack and that is a wholly alien concept to them.

    2. avatar Crazed Java says:

      Consider how Hollywood likes to paint “evil” corporations and how it is easier to demonize a single entity versus 90 million individuals.

      Plus, by targeting the NRA as the evil bad guy, they don’t have to ever discuss how many millions of Americans would be impacted by ludicrous gun laws. It keeps the 2A abstract rather than personal.

      There is a method to this madness.

  5. avatar Paul53 says:

    Sign me up for some t shirts too! For the record, I don’t believe that Lawrence O’Donnell is a descendant of the guy who told Custer thee were no Indians at the little Big Horn.

  6. avatar Gregolas says:

    What a great billboard! Yes, make it a T-shirt.

  7. avatar BLAMMO says:

    When the aneurysm pops and splatters all over the camera lens, I’ll miss it because I don’t watch O’Donnell or that putrid channel. Fortunately, there are DVRs and youtube. 😀

    1. avatar Duzt says:

      i dont watch tv at all any shows im interested in i get from the pirate bay minutes after they air, and lemme tell you it sooo nice to have not watched a single commercial in over a year and a half. that crap rots your brain i tell ya.

  8. avatar CarlosT says:

    Someone who’s distrustful of government in the current environment isn’t paranoid: they’ve merely been paying attention. The past decade plus has seen ludicrous abuses and the Constitution has taken blow after blow. It needs to stop.

  9. avatar Sammy says:

    Gun confiscation , as I posted about 6 weeks, ago lead to the slaughter of 151 Lakotas mostly, women and children at Wounded Knee. In their accelerated effort to enforce Federal “law” they also killed 31 of their own while wounding an additional 33 troops. But a grateful nation bestowed the CMH on 3 of the killers er soldiers for gallantry in the face of the savagery of defenseless people who’s land we invaded.

    1. avatar Sammy says:

      In the above the following sentence:

      “In their accelerated effort to enforce Federal “law” they also killed 31 of their own while wounding an additional 33 troops”

      Should read:

      “In their accelerated effort to enforce Federal “law” the Calvary also killed 31 of their own while wounding an additional 33 troops”

      I don’t anticipate any better treatment when it’s our turn.

      1. avatar Okthen says:

        In the above post

        Calvary

        should read

        cavalry.

      2. avatar Tommy TenToes says:

        Sammy, There is quite a difference between Calvary and Cavalry. I do not recall any mention in the Bible of men on horseback at Calvary. However there were many armed “Cavalry” at Wounded Knee. Had the government adhered to the founding fathers following of the Bible, there would never have been a Wounded Knee. Perhaps there would be a Chief instead of a president! (Commander-in-Chief????)

        wóitȟaŋčhaŋ okhížatA (Government liars)

        ( I wear the Tee-Shirt! )
        http://www.zazzle.com/sure_you_can_trust_the_government_ask_an_indian_t_shirt-235523380664938545

  10. avatar Alex says:

    Conservative white men compare themselves to slaughtered American Indians and slaves! Classic! Get me a violin to play for the oppressed!

    1. avatar JimD says:

      If you can;t keep up, then go to another site……

    2. avatar Ensitue says:

      OH I see! What your saying is that Whites are Oppressor Racists, The ONLY Opressor Racists on the planet and other such tripe that has been disproven by history over and over. Of course if your God is named Obama (or Allah) that is the only meme you are able to verbalize.
      BTW Obama, through H. Clinton Personaly oversaw the reduction of security assets in Bengazi prior to the 9-11 attacks that killed US Citizens. Feel better?

      1. avatar Jim says:

        It’s like the Gremlins, do not feed the trolls, and they magically go away…

    3. avatar Roll says:

      Let me guess, you’re one of the types that think’s ONLY white people can be rascist? What a flawed and illogical way of thinking….

    4. avatar Dr Duh says:

      @Alex Please clarify. Are you saying

      1. All gun owners are conservative white men? Because Colion Noir and Destinee say you’re wrong.

      2. Gun owners should ignore the lessons of history, i.e., that you surrender your ability to defend yourself and rely on the good will of the powerful at your peril?

      3. Conservative White Men should not show sympathy for minorities who have been oppressed? Because I think you’ve lost track of that ‘all men are created equal’ thingie.

      4. The weight of government force is only used against minorities? Because there are plenty of modern examples, like the people who were led out of their house at gun point in Boston last weekend, along with plenty of historical examples, like the strikers who were roughed up and occasionally killed by Pinkertons.

      5. Or you’re just trolling?

      1. avatar MadLarkin says:

        #5 seems to ring the most true. Obvious troll is obvious.

      2. avatar Alex says:

        Number 5 is the most correct.

        As to # 2: remember the AWB you love to talk about because it DIDN’T prevent more mass killings/decrease the gun death rate (or whatever stat y’all love to quote)??? Well it also DIDN’T lead to the abolition of the 2nd amendment! So NOW you’re saying ANY gun control bill — no matter how toothless – would? Just because there’s a kenyan african democrat socialist fascist muslim liberationist theologian in office??? I’m not the democrats or Obama’s biggest fan, but when you say that ANY gun control leads to SLAVERY and have the absolutist, dualistic logic that refuses to see ANY prudence in saying you can carry SOME guns but not ALL guns (because it will lead to confiscation of all guns), then your argument immediately loses all persuasiveness among people who possess brains.

      3. avatar jwm says:

        What does that spell?

      4. avatar Alex says:

        And now that they are being posted, all I’m saying is that when you think ANY gun regulation –> ALL guns will be confiscated, I am very skeptical. Remember the AWB? I’m sure you do, because you looooooove to cite statistics that show that it was ineffective. Well I know my history, and that means I know that it was gun control THAT EXPIRED! It DIDN’T lead to the confiscation of all guns! We continued living in a democracy! Plenty of other guns were still legal and in no way were going to be criminalized! When your thinking is all black-and-white, either complete freedom or complete tyranny, it is YOU who are threatening democracy.

        BUT I’m not scared that your twisted ideology and opinions are somehow actually a SERIOUS threat to our republic. Moderation will continue to rule the day, even as fringe folk like y’all push us more to the right, there are plenty of fringe folk to the left who I disagree with that will pull us back.

        So, good day.

        But seriously. Tone it down. This rampant individualism and division is the type of thinking that keeps the powerful CEOs and rich big government types in charge. I’m like you — I think they need less power, but I think that the free market, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps, trust only yourself and be wary of police is EXACTLY what they want and what keeps them in power. Like, why so much distrust of local cops??? I think we should all be able to agree on SMALLER government on the federal level and BETTER, MORE EFFICIENT public works projects on the local level!

        1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          I don’t have the time to respond to this nonsense other than: Get Deprogrammed!

          Some people just don’t get the fact that a lot of us are happy the way we are and don’t need a bunch of self-appointed do-gooders telling us what to do differently.

        2. avatar Alex says:

          I’ve been reading posts on this site long enough that you would think it would have happened by now.

          Have you considered the possibility that perhaps it is you who have been “programmed?” That it is you who are the “sheep” at the beck and call of the free market and the $$$$ for the NRA?

        3. avatar Alex says:

          Laws tell people what to do. Sorry about that. If you want to live in absolute “freedom” without laws, then you’re going to need more than semi-automatic hunting rifles with high capacity magazines and military-style cosmetic modifications….

        4. avatar Dave says:

          With a correctly written law, background checks can be a moderate middle ground. However, telling people to use no more than 10 rounds for self-defense is not. Neither is banning guns based on their cosmetic features.

          One thing that makes many otherwise not particularly militant gun owners wonder is seeing State laws in the more restrictive States and major large cities. They may have started out “reasonable” at one point, but over time ended up draconian in more than one place. Not always, but often enough. It is not paranoia if it has already happened.

        5. avatar Alex says:

          Thanks for your thoughtful response, Dave. Why is it necessary to have more than 10 rounds for self-defense? I assume that it’s because criminals will have access to higher capacity magazines, and if you’re facing a criminal who never has to reload, that’s not exactly a fair fight.

          My response to that is, first off if you’re a trained, responsible gun owner, why is a criminal intent on coming after you? According to the gun lobby’s logic, aren’t criminals “smart” and thus prudent enough to back off and find someone who isn’t as well armed? They may have 20 rounds to shoot and you only have 10 in self-defense, but aren’t there plenty of folks (like me) who would have 0 rounds to shoot in self-defense?… I’m sure you could give me a DGU (or failed DGU…) example showing otherwise. I’d love to see it, and I’d love to know why the criminal was so intent on robbing/assaulting that particular armed (but not well-armed enough) individual.

          Second, if it were possible to wave a magic wand and eliminate all semi-automatic weapons, would you still feel the need to own one in self-defense? I ask because it seems like over and over again I hear that the reason it’s necessary for law-abiding citizens to own them is because the criminals have them…. My question is, how do we begin disarming the criminals? Does anyone think the cold war arms race was a good idea?

          I agree that you can’t legislate away “evil” — that there will always be people intent to kill and cause harm. But when most people intent to cause harm as quickly and efficiently as possible can’t access the weapons that allow them to cause maximum carnage, then life is still preserved.

          Again, it’s about degrees and root causes. Can we, to some small degree, ALL FREELY decide to disarm while also agreeing to research, identify, and then address root causes of deviance and malicious/criminal behavior?

          RF pointed out last week that when a bunch individuals make the personal decision to demand drugs, the systemic consequence of their actions is to fuel violence and oppression in mexico. Can we not reason that when a bunch of law-abiding individuals make the personal decision out of a sense of individual freedom to demand semi-automatic weapons, the systemic consequence is to make semi-automatic weapons that much more prevalent, and thus available to criminals? You rationally act to up your firepower to protect yourself against well armed criminals, but paradoxically that is what is leading them to be so well armed. Just as anyone who rationally acts to stock up on gasoline in case there’s a shortage is actively contributing to the shortage that they’re so scared of.

          The solution? COMMUNISM!
          (Just kidding. That was only to get you riled up.)

        6. avatar Dave says:

          No, the logic is not that one may need more than 10 because criminals may have 20-round magazines. My logic about the number of rounds was as follows:

          (a) Consider reasonable, i.e., non outlandish self-defense scenarios and ask how many rounds are asufficient. I would say that a home invasion with 3 perpetrators is within the realm of “it happens often enough not to be considered an outlandish scenario”;

          (b) Even cops miss quite a bit under stress. I don’t recall the exact numbers, but it may be 40 percent or so. So, you can’t count on 10 hits with a 10-round magazine.

          (c) The goal is to stop the attack, i.e., to prevent the attacker from advancing towards you or your family members and/or being able to shoot back. It is known that with pistol rounds, more than one shot may be needed to stop an attacker.

          In light of the above, 10 rounds in a handgun cannot be argued to be sufficient for all reasonably common self-defense scenarios.

          Now, these are my own speculations. I am more of a recreational target shooter and thus not very familiar with self-defense. Others here could correct me if I am wrong.

        7. avatar Jarhead1982 says:

          How is it, reviewing those 76 self defense incidents between 12/26/12 & 2/15/13 from GunsSaveLives.com website we see that 26 incidents had 2 attackers and 8 incidents had 3 to 5 attackers?

          Since the police at best only hit their target 15% of the time (police firearm discharge reports, google Virginia, NYC..), that = only 4.5 hits out of a standard 30 round magazine.

          Since the antis always infer civilian gun owners are so poorly trained they shouldnt disagree a 7.5% hit rate is an agreeable # that us poor untrained civilains to start with.

          7.5% x 30 rnd mag = 2.25 rnds hit

          So explain again how many rnds does it take to stop an attack?

          Oh wait, all self defense courses state clearly, shoot until the attack stops, hmmmm, thats more than 1 rnd eh?

          Since the police are that poor of shots, and it takes on average more than 1 shot hit to stop an attack, where again is your logic that civilians don’t encounter the same dangers as police and therefore don’t need to be just as equally armed?

          Here is a clear example.

          http://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/

          My good friends brother was SWAT and during an encounter with a hopped up on drugs 145lb felon holed up with a hostage, a breach was initiated (shots were fired) where the first team member through, came down on the hostage and bad guy like a sandwich. Now the 1st team member was shall we say NFL linebacker sized and strong as a bull, he had both hands on the bad guys arm, and couldnt stop him from turning the hand gun towards him. My friend, the second member through the door in the breach, didnt hesitate, and put a .40 right beside the bad guys nose, an immeadiate kill shot, and the bad guy still struggled and got a shot off (didnt hit anyone luckily) for almost 10 seconds before his body let him know he was dead! Lot can happen in 10 seconds.

          The distance for such a shot was less than 3ft.

          The US Army in the phillipines fighting Moro warriors after we took the Phillipines from the Spanish in the little dustup we had, had then standard Army issue .38 spcl revolvers, and many records of Moro warriors taking out multiple soldiers even after being riddled with .38 spcl rounds. It was why the 1911 in .45 ACP was developed, and as noted in the link above, even then a bad guy can absorb a lot of .45 ACP and keep going until that certain kill shot can be used.

          But who here can or will even claim to make such a shot in the heat of an exchange of gunfire with the first shot at distance, no sane person familiar with firearms will!

          That is the reality.

    5. avatar Ing says:

      I’m with all of you fellas.

      While I can see where Alex is coming from, and I largely agree on the other stuff, I don’t agree about the gun part. Individuals may vary, but the gun control industry as a whole is working for total prohibition. Every restriction enacted is just one step toward a goal that will end with us–regular Americans–having no guns and no way to defend ourselves against the everyday tyranny of garden-variety thuggery. Anybody who has ever been bullied knows what that feels like, and it’s a terrible, dehumanizing way to live.

      Expecting the government to abide by the Constitution is not an extreme position. At least, it shouldn’t be. Gun control isn’t the only thing that’s stomping on the Bill of Rights, but it’s the most visible.

      Any white male who thinks his plight is anything like what happened to the Native Americans through 400+ years of colonization is either fantasizing or deluded. And so is *anyone* who thinks our government isn’t capable of doing something like that again; that’s the point this post is making.

      Maybe there’s a middle ground to be found. I hope so. The gun culture would be a lot better off (and probably not so embattled) if it wasn’t held hostage so often by the far-right ultraconservative mindset.

      1. avatar Alex says:

        Ing,

        I think you are right and that there IS a POSSIBILITY that the government could disarm the populace in order to institute an oppressive (like, actual oppression, not “boohoo there are magazine capacity restrictions in my state” “oppression”) regime. However, there are so many legal, democratic safeguards in place to keep that from happening! It seems like some people think 2a is the only part of the constitution keeping us from tyranny — and it IS important, which is why it would be ENORMOUSLY difficult for it to be overturned — but there’s a sh*tload of other well-founded principles of freedom and democracy in our constitution that ALSO guard against tyranny without the use of guns/the possibility of armed rebellion “for the people by the people.”

        What frustrates me is the absolute distrust of ANY gun control legislation. Because it seems like some folks won’t consider the notion that gun control could be used NOT to disarm the populace in order to pave the way for a totalitarian regime but instead to promote values of peace, trust, solidarity, and respect.

        THAT is why we have “gun free” school zones — not to create easy targets but to create an environment that says “We settle our disagreements with words, not bullets. This is not a place where violence is tolerated, so you don’t have to worry about being attacked.” And events like Sandy Hook are so horrible because they destroy that social trust and solidarity that schools seek to foster! As with our schools, then, the solution is to look for ways to build that trust back rather than giving in to terrorism and admitting “yeah, this place isn’t safe, so you better either keep out or be armed and vigilant, ready to cover your own @ss.”

        Again, gun control in my mind is about promoting and trust rather than legislating away evil or taking away people’s personal rights. I know we disagree, but that doesn’t mean I’m evil. (and that was directed to the blog in general, not to you, ing)

        1. avatar Alex says:

          Haha, freudian slip, I should have said that the message of gun free school zones is that “this is a place where violence is *****NOT****** tolerated.”

          Oh well.

        2. avatar Roscoe says:

          Alex, there is an “absolute distrust of ANY gun control legislation” because of progressively more restrictive laws such as have been passed in CA over the years, with new confiscatory proposals in the works.

          For example, AB169 makes a completely transparent and bogus use of the CA DOJ List of Approved Handguns as a back door means of gun confiscation by disallowing even intra family transfer of entirely safe firearms upon death.

          For background see:
          http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=738278&highlight=AB169
          and
          http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=687628&highlight=AB169

          With the Democrat super majority in both the CA Assembly and Senate which is mostly controlled by LA and San Francisco, there is much reason for all firearms owners to be concerned in this state. The anti gun legislators keep chipping away, even with blatantly unconstitutional proposals, hoping that as time passes, more and more will stick, even though no actual reduction in crime will be realized from the passage of these laws.

          If these lawmakers were sincere about reducing crime, they would demand and fund better enforcement of statutes already on the books. But they’re not sincere at all; rather, they want to push their gun confiscation agenda for illusory utopian dreams that will never be achieved in any human based society.

        3. avatar Ing says:

          You make some good points, but I’ll continue to completely disagree with you on gun control. The thing is, the criminals always have the edge because they’re not following the rules; so it follows that any rules that prevent good people from having the most effective tools of defense will put them at an even greater disadvantage. There’s no point in denying people the option to be prepared.

          As for the built-in safeguards, they only work if we take them seriously and actually use them. Our political system works only insofar as the people keep politicians accountable. If we don’t vote them out when they don’t play by the rules (i.e., the Constitution), then they’re naturally going to abuse the rules and their power; the incentives to do so are far too strong, and human nature just doesn’t equip people for ethical behavior in positions of power.

          As for “gun-free school zones,” your Freudian slip was the truth. To people who have violence as a goal, a gun-free zone literally does tell them that violence is tolerated–because if it wasn’t tolerated, someone would be making a real effort to stop it.

          Again, the bullying thing comes to mind: advertising that you won’t and can’t fight back, especially if you have something the bully wants (your lunch money, your self-respect, your fear), is just like painting a target on yourself. Bullies only pick fights they’re sure they can win. The murderer who has a gun–any gun–in a gun-free zone may lose in the long run, but for that precious few minutes he’s the undisputed king of the world.

          The discreet presence of guns doesn’t mean violence is tolerated. It means deadly violence against the innocent is *not* acceptable and will be ended with deserved prejudice the second it starts.

    6. avatar jwm says:

      So if my rights are violated it doesn’t matter and I have no valid complaint because I’m white, Alex?

      1. avatar Alex says:

        That is incorrect, I never said that. We all forfeit some “rights” to live in a civilized, free society. However, you are still viewed as a human being, not property, and when you compare your situation to those who were (and in other places of the world, still are) treated as property simply because of the color of their skin (by saying you live in a “slave state”), then I feel very tempted to mock you and find it nearly impossible to have any sort of empathy.

        If, on the other, hand, you are not saying that, then I’m not talking to you.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Alex, I prefer constitution free zone to slave state. It’s all about civil rights.

        2. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

          Again Alex, I will make this simple: A whole bunch of us are happy with the way things are and see no reason to change the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution. A whole bunch of us also will straight up tell you to stick your grand ideas for hope and change up you a$$. I’ve done just fine without your ideas in my life thus far and I’m not about to start now.

    7. avatar Bill says:

      I know I’m feeding a troll here, but we’ve got a lot of SIOUX blood in our family tree, While I mostly look white (if somewhat caucasian like the Sarnaev brothers) I empathize with their history very much and do not believe we are above initiating such pogroms again. Democracy is the tyranny of the 51%, that is why we have a republic, to avoid persecuting minorities, its not perfect, we’ve done it before, but its the best we’ve got. If we are not vigilant, some other group of people (gun owners?) may be driven from their homes and their lands (though we do have guns, so we’ll see how that goes).

      1. avatar Alex says:

        It’s okay Bill; I’m full. I need to go exercise off all these “calories” and then I’ll be coming back for more tomorrow, now that I now where I can get them. I’m like a stray dog. Or, if you prefer, a “welfare queen” expecting a handout.

        1. avatar LC Judas says:

          Alex

          I would be more inclined to believe that gun control were benign if it wasn’t so dead set on making laws de facto and creating criminals out of the law abiding. You say “social trust” but I’m not going to wake up and take what I spent my hard earned money on, my private property, and turn in, register or get rid of anything that I own. My guns are fine where they are with the accessories they have.

          The bigger question is what do you know about gun control? The compromise concept you’re selling smacks of someone arguing a principle without actually putting your feet on the ground and applying what is happening to your hypothetical social trust.

          Laws in New York, Maryland, and soon to be Rhode Island criminalize ownership of magazines holding more than 7-10 rounds and rifles with cosmetic features. There is no reason for anyone to wake up tomorrow and be considered a criminal. Further, NY has a line you can call to tell law enforcement that laws are being broken. This beseeches law enforcement to get an unconstitutional warrant to search the premises because you own things that make you a felon. So you commit a felony by living with things you bought in the house. The punishment for ownership is actually higher than the crimes you can commit WITH the objects in some cases. So consequences are not only disproportionate and excessive without a need to prove intent, not only are you creating a climate where laws that don’t make sense are being treated as commonsense solutions, you push it upon law enforcement to enforce these laws at their own peril in the line of duty. This will get blood spilled needlessly and backlog the justice and corrections systems indefinitely.

          Your statement that citizens tooling up creates the problem we have in the nation with violence us ridiculously flawed. Armed populaces on the whole are not victims. Out of nearly 100 million gun owners who own them legally and harm no one you expect that drying up our supply will maybe in time erode the criminal supply of the same. No. It will not. Cops get guns stolen, too. Cops get robbed and mugged. Cops miss and have high capacity magazines. And…if gun control was so benign why is factual data being skewed and name calling the primary approach of people in favor of gun control?

          The fact remains that banning guns won’t reduce violence. It will, by law of unintended consequence, make gathering in groups to perform strong arm robbery easier. Limiting them will only limit people playing by the rules. How am I so sure? Simple, Alex.

          Empower cops, hope they get there in time and prevent crime when the best they can hope to do is react to crime. Believe what you want but save your breath. I’m laughing at your simple minded approach, benign as it is. Response time should not be a challenge for someone to survive until it elapses. I wouldn’t wish it on anyone and that is what gun control does when it creates a gun free zone made of social trust.

          I speak from simple experience. If you think that will work, more people will be hurt and killed in opportune fashions because cops aren’t omnipotent or impeccable at responding to everyone’s crises in an appropriate manner. Take it from me. I’m a cop.

    8. avatar C says:

      Re: all of the above

      TL;DR

  11. avatar إبليس says:

    Only honkies apologize for winning.

    1. avatar 16V says:

      1-800-Y-T-GUILT. Classic In Living Color

  12. avatar JimD says:

    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

  13. avatar Alex says:

    Actually, I’m pretty sure YOU just said all that.

    What I’m saying is that when you compare the notion of restrictions on the types of weapons people can carry to slavery and the threat of genocide, the only people who listen are either deaf or ignorant.

    Yes you have a right to bear arms. No one is striking the second amendment from the record. There is a continuum in the level of power/potential damage that is allowed in weapons that are lawfully available to any Joe Schmoe in this country. Given the violence and social alienation that characterizes our country as of late, the continuum needs to move back in the other direction — not DRASTICALLY, only moderately. To say that you CAN carry a gun, but just not the guns that enable their users to potentially kill as many people as quickly and efficiently as possible is NOT tantamount to slavery. During the AWB, perhaps mass shootings or gun deaths or WHATEVER statistic you 2a-ers love to cite didn’t go down, but no one was led away in chains to do forced labor AND the ban was later REPEALED. In other words, it DIDN’T lead to the confiscation of all guns! To claim that, now that there’s a democrat african socialist fascist muslim liberation theologian illegal alien in the white house, NOW any gun control measure will magically lead to overturning the second amendment gives the gun lobby NO credibility to people who possess brains.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      It’s incremental Alex. a constant attack and erosion on our civil rights. It’s never enough for the anti’s and they always want more. Many years ago, many, I told a fellow that I didn’t want to own an Uzi. But I would support a law that allowed Uzi’s to be sold at hardware stores, no questions asked.

      When that person, who was not pro gun, asked why I would support such a thing I told him it was to put a layer of insulation between my guns and the anti’s. They would not stop at the Uzi, but it would slow them down a little.

      And they don’t stop Alex, we give them a reasonable gun law today and they’ll be back for another tomorrow. And another and then another. It never stops. Thats why we have to treat even the most common sense and mundane of gun laws as if it was the one that took all our guns away.

      Had the anti’s been willing to compromise I’m willing to bet that gun control would have been a dead issue in this country years ago.

  14. avatar Tim U says:

    If that image made it to a t-shirt, I’d buy one.

  15. avatar jwm says:

    First. the NRA is outgunned by kapo bloomberg. But in spite of it’s shortcomings, and it has a few glaring ones, the NRA is still the 800 pound gorilla in the room. At least in DC. For that reason alone all gun owners should belong to the NRA. As much as the pols fear, hate and demonise the NRA when it has less than 5 million members could you imagine their terror if it had 50 million. And that would only be about a fourth of the gun owners out there.

    Second, it’s only a conspiracy theory if it ain’t true. These pols have openly stated they want our guns.

    1. avatar Roscoe says:

      AAA+++

  16. avatar bedbugeddy says:

    This needs to go viral…

  17. avatar Shade101 says:

    2 things:
    1) I want the Tee which shows the Original Homeland Security (Indians with repeating rifles)
    2) How is the NRA holding up the Boston Bombing investigation?

  18. avatar WLCE says:

    we dont deal with conspiracy theory, we deal with conspiracy fact.

    there is a conspiracy in our country all right, and it will be the average man and woman that gets f^cking screwed once again. History doesnt repeat itself, it rhymes. 😉

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email