Previous Post
Next Post

A recent opinion piece at the Kansas City Star tells us: “We don’t have to accept the KC Chiefs rally shooting. And we should all be angry”

While this may look on the surface like just another anti-gun screed that divorces fact from context, I’ve noticed that authoritarian progressives have been using the “I want you to be angry!” bit a lot more in recent months. In this article, I’ll not only explore the problems with the piece’s facts and context, but explain why they’re so desperate for anger.

Category Errors

The whole argument that this shooting supports gun control stems from a category error. The piece conveniently never mentions that this was a gang shooting and not some mass killer with political or psychotic motives. So, when the piece goes through the usual laundry list of things anti-gun people want, none of it applies.

Just a tiny pinch of common sense tells us that criminals don’t care one bit about getting a permit for their guns, so the constitutional carry law in Kansas would not have prevented this shooting. The writer (a “researcher” at a Bloomberg-funded anti-gun institution) says that their research says constitutional carry is bad, so there’s no room left for common sense in her head.

What about firearms purchasing licenses like the FOID card in Illinois? She calls for bringing those back, but once again, this was gang members who wouldn’t get a firearms purchasing license. Again, endless studies funded by anti-gun donors are given without disclosing that important fact.

So, all that’s really left is a bogus emotional argument about “doing something” and putting all pro-gun arguments “to rest”.

The Effect of Anger On The Human Brain

Sadly, though, this stuff actually works on the uninformed. When someone brings up a tragedy and says that we should be angry, people who don’t know better and don’t keep context in mind will get angry. After all, think of the children!

But, people don’t have to be stupid to fall for this trick, just uninformed. Once a propagandist gets someone to be angry, heart rates go up and adrenaline gets into the system. When people get to that point, higher brain functions are diminished, and people just can’t think clearly.

Going back to ancient times, this was a very useful thing. When you’re facing a threat, you don’t have time to overthink anything. By shutting off the more thinky parts of the brain and activating more raw instinct, ancient people were better prepared for a fight or other dangerous situations where you need to act fast.

But, in 2024, this important human trait can be used against us. With less thinking and more fear to guide us, it’s easy to make mistakes, ignore context and get things flat wrong.

So, when you’re talking to friends and family, try to inoculate them from this. A person’s first reaction to “You should be angry!” should be skepticism. If someone wants you angry, they’re trying to manipulate and use you. So, you have to stop, take a few deep breaths and chill out to think clearly.

If we can get more friends and family to resist this kind of manipulation, they’ll have a harder time finding fertile ground for the seeds of propaganda.

Previous Post
Next Post

86 COMMENTS

  1. I deal with my angry liberal family members all the time. They got Obama/Biden. They got Clinton twice. And they are still angry.
    The Democrats run the states they live in. And they are still angry.

    • Chris T,

      And they want US to be angry, because of (i) projection (they always accuse us of what THEY are actually doing, c.f., Trump and a bunch of idiot clowns (who were UNARMED) are “violent insurrectionists”, but Antifa-Burn/Loot/Murder thugs who literally tried to barricade police in their station and burn them are just “mostly non-violent protesters”, and (ii) IF we began acting out like those tantrum-throwing toddlers, they think it justifies their actions, and (iii) it give them “cover”, and a pretext, to unleash the full force of “the state” on us (and it isn’t like they have even NEEDED a pretext, is it??).

      Yes, the fascist Leftist/progressives are throwing constant tantrums, are always acting out in public, and are always angry. Let them die of stress-induced high blood pressure or heart problems (or ulders). I. DON’T. CARE. Now, once they start burning down buildings (or whole neighborhoods), attacking construction projects because they will be used to house/train police forces, or threatening people whose opinions they disagree with with death or bodily injury? Well, Kyle Rittenhouse learned ’em, didn’t he? Three shots, three attackers out of the fight, and CLEAR video proof that he was in very reasonable fear of death or serious injury?? Righteous shoot (and damned solid situational awareness/shooting, too, young man!!).

      I have gotten to the point where I have given up on trying to have a rational discussion with Leftist/fascists – they do not WANT a rational discussion, and never did (c.f., MajorLiar, dacian the demented, jsled). Imagine the outrage on the NYT editorial page if newly-elected President Trump instructed his DoJ to arrest Biden for violation of numerous laws in re: classified documents – and yet they are traumatized that they have not (yet) been successful in getting a successful prosecution of Trump (and any idiot who believes that any significant portion of that moronic fine entered against Trump for the HEINOUS crime of . . . paying back all his loans, to a bank that testified that they were EAGER to do business with him again, is getting high on Hunter’s supply).

      The DSM was originally designed to assist in identifying/treating people EXACTLY like the “modern” “Progressives”, but now it can’t even differentiate between biological sexes. They are clinically insane, and need to be locked up, for our safety, and their own good. Get them in a good psychiatric hospital, and try to save those poor, deluded souls, but . . . keep them off the streets.

      • “that moronic fine entered against Trump for the HEINOUS crime of . . . paying back all his loans, to a bank“

        Trump paid his loans on time, that’s not the issue. The issue is that he repeatedly and knowingly overvalued his assets when applying for those loans in order to get a better interest rate and terms. Blatantly lied about the real estate he was borrowing against.
        And did so over, and over, and over.
        And this is a crime. By “crime” I mean “something that is against the law”. By “something that is against the law”, I mean “something that the elected representatives in the state legislature thought should be punished”.
        He is being punished for breaking the law.

        • “Blatantly lied about the real estate he was borrowing against.”

          I worked in banking – lying about real estate valuation is simply not possible.

          Banks routinely undervalue property values to minimize risk to their loan portfolios. Anyone who thinks you can lie to a bank about asset valuation doesn’t know anything about loan underwriting.

        • MajorLiar,

          My you ARE a denizen of the short bus, aren’t you??? Mark Zuckerberg has made a business history of ultra-hyping, and making money off of, grand promises of things he was “going to do”, and then . . . not doing them. Every real estate developer in the business regularly claims the most aggressive valuation he believes he can get away with when seeking a loan. Banks (being rational actors, and not hysterical Leftist idiots) are well aware of this, and react accordingly. I can well believe that you have NO CLUE AT ALL how the process works, but if you think the bank simply accepted Trump’s valuation without question, you are even more of an idiot that I thought you were. Bank’s, for large loans ALWAYS get their own valuation report or appraisal for collateral. ALWAYS (in fact, for most loans from FDIC insured, or Fed-regulated banks, it is a required item on the approval checklist the bank must maintain to present to the regulators when the bank’s lending practices are audited). The negotiation over amounts to be loaned, interest rates, coverage ratios, covenants, etc. are usually, if not always, the most complex part of ANY loan negotiation.

          Now, explain the part about how the bank TESTIFIED, in court, that they were (i) perfectly happy with the outcome of the loan, had received every penny they were promised, and were EAGER to do business with Trump again. Trump did the same thing EVERY real estate developer does, as a matter of business practice. The bank was repaid timely and in full, and is not just willing, but ANXIOUS to do business with him, again.

          So you, and the idiot, biased, corrupt, political NY judge, have invented a “crime” where there was LITERALLY (i) no loss, and (ii) no victim.

          Once again, MajorMistake, you are both ignorant of the law and business practice, and an irrational, partisan hysteric of a Leftist/fascist idiot.

          YES, it was an idiot award. NO, it will not be upheld (you are probably also completely ignorant of the fact that extremely large awards such as this, particularly when they include punitive damages as a major element, are ROUTINELY reduce, or even thrown out. As I said, the chances of Trump ever paying more than a tithe of that reward (and probably substantially less than that) are slim and none, and Slim just left the building. But because you are an unschooled, ignorant, partisan propagandist, all that is beyond your ken. Not only are you absurdly wrong, you are so stupid you can’t even understand how wrong you are.

          It MIGHT, if you had the barest hint of self-awareness or introspection, have given you a hint of a clue when you found out that SCOTUS (including your three favorite Leftist “justices”) unanimously slam-dunked the idiot ballot ruling of the CO Supreme Court into the weeds, but . . . that would require that you possessed self-awareness and at least a tenuous grip on reality. Since you lack both of those things, it must have come as quite a blow to discover that even your pet Leftist “Justices” wouldn’t accept that lame-ass argument. Interestingly, it shocked exactly no one except true believers, like you, and moronic Leftist “analysts” like Larry Tribe, or Ian Millhiser, or Linda Greenwood, or “Lubin'” Toobin.

          I have lost track of the number of times I’ve listened to Leftist/fascist idiots trumpeting “We’ve got him, THIS TIME!!!”, only to end up face down in the mud. So long as Trump continues to be ahead by more than the “margin of fraud”, he will be (again) our POTUS come next January.

          I will enjoy my popcorn while watching the Left have a screaming tantrum, knowing you will be one of them. Don’t like Trump, but I’d a million times rather have him than that senile serial child-molester and traitor, Xiao Bai-din.

        • “And this is a crime.”

          If whatever he did rose to the level of actionable criminal activity, don’t you think they’d have tried him in criminal court instead of civil? After all, they have the same level of TDS fervor that you do.

          Fruitless.

        • “I worked in banking – lying about real estate valuation is simply not possible.”

          Exactly! Have any of the Democrats going along with this farce ever had a mortgage? If yes, then they know it’s all a lie. If no, then they’re being manipulated by other Democrats. Then you have the absurd fines and appeal conditions. Talk about tyranny!

  2. These Domestic enemies and Traitors are the ones that need “putting to rest,” not the RKBA.

    Necessary for the Security of a Free State….

  3. someone is gonna be angry…..TRUMP WINS in Supreme Court: How + Why? Trump v. Anderson, Colorado Ballot, January 6, Insurrection.

    • Nope, no Anger, it was pretty clear this is how it would go because the feds hate to give the states full control of the ballot.

      Remember when the Supremes smacked down the right wing argument that state legislatures control the ballot in each state?

      How much more interesting case is the absolute presidential immunity case presented by Trump.

      It will be exciting to hear the Supreme Court consider whether the president is a king.

      • even though it was just a general comment about some gonna be angry and not you specifically its interesting you need to make it known “Nope, no Anger” cause when people say something like that about something they are negatively obsessed about (in your case your mental illness obsession with Trump) it means they are extremely angry on some level.

      • A very daft comment. SCOTUS ruled with citation to legal precedent and textual law. Not one single Justice took the position you ascribe to them.

        • The justices mostly said it was up to Congress to enforce that particular section of article 14, even the other sections don’t require congressional action for enforcement so it’s a bit strange.

          Even more interesting was the fact not one Justice denied that an insurrection occurred, letting the findings of fact by the lower courts stand.

          And not one Justice asserted that Donald Trump did not ‘engage in an insurrection’, again leading the findings of fact by the lower court stand unchallenged by the Supreme Court.

          As Wolfgang Busch would say, “Very Interestink… “

        • “Even more interesting was the fact not one Justice denied that an insurrection occurred, letting the findings of fact by the lower courts stand.

          And not one Justice asserted that Donald Trump did not ‘engage in an insurrection’, again leading the findings of fact by the lower court stand unchallenged by the Supreme Court.”

          You apparently don’t understand English.

          You are implying and saying that the lower courts were correct that it was an insurrection and Trump did engage in an insurrection because of some ‘findings of fact’ by a ‘lower court’ because SCUOTS did not say otherwise.

          I see you and the truth and you and ‘context’ don’t know each other.

          The fact that SCOTUS stayed away from saying either way, neither denying or affirming the lower court only indicates that SCOTUS knows its a separate issue and it is no matter how much you want it to be an ‘insurrection’. In other words its a separate issue that needs to come to SCOTUS first to be decided, and there has been no case come to SCOTUS yet to determine if its an insurrection or not.

          Then you are also ignoring that SCOTUS also did not say if it was or was not a ‘protest’ or a ‘legal insurrection’ (meaning one constitutionally permitted).

          Next, you are also ignoring the very thing you assert, that not one Justice asserted that Donald Trump did not ‘engage in an insurrection’ yet you ignore that not one justice did assert that Donald Trump did ‘engage in an insurrection’.

          Also, do you not understand what the word ‘assert’ means?

          The fact that the justices, including the left wing justices, neither asserted, stated, hinted, opined, or in any way indicated either way if it was or was not an ‘insurrection’ or if Trump did or did not engage in an ‘insurrection’ for the unanimous overall opinion of all 9 justices including the left wing justices – only means it has yet to be decided by SCOTUS not that the ‘lower court’ was correct like you assume.

          OK, you have been using the term ‘lower court’ here like its significant. Its not. It was a state court and although that is a lower court its decision means nothing in this instance because it is effectively mooted by the SCOTUS decision so in effect there is no “findings of fact by the lower courts”. And although this may seem to you to be a victory in letting the lower court rulings stand, it isn’t and you once again ignore context and the reason is this: The fact that the Justices opinion basically says that the states can not remove Trump from the ballot for their reason of ‘insurrection’ means effectively the ‘lower court’ decision was in error and effectively mooted because SCOTUS just basically indirectly said that Trump legally was not engaged in an insurrection because the president is not included under the 14th for that reasoning. So basically you and your left wing buddies lost the case in the ‘lower court’ and Trump legally did not engage in an insurrection as the lower court decided. And the SCOTUS decisions also indirectly indicates that there is not yet true ‘finding of fact’ for the ‘basic insurrection’ claim because the lower court failed to establish an actual fact that an actual insurrection happened because they focused on Trump engaging IN an insurrection which is not the same as saying there was an insurrection by others.

        • “The justices mostly said it was up to Congress to enforce that particular section of article 14, even the other sections don’t require congressional action for enforcement so it’s a bit strange.”

          And that’s the constitution to you, a ‘bit strange’ because tyrants don’t get to control it ’cause they say so – in other words its a bit strange to you because you look at it from the ‘marxist/socialist’ angle.

        • “In other words its a separate issue that needs to come to SCOTUS first“

          The issue was brought to the Supremes when the appeal was filed, the Supremes considered the entire decision by the Colorado Supreme Court and only found fault with one issue, letting the other findings of fact by the Colorado Supreme Court stand without question.

          “Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing section 3 against all federal officeholders and candidates, we reverse,” the ruling said.

          By deciding the case on that legal question, the court avoided any analysis or determination of whether Trump’s actions constituted an insurrection.“

          https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-cannot-kicked-colorado-ballot-rcna132291#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20%E2%80%94%20The%20Supreme%20Court%20on,implications%20for%20the%202024%20election.

          Understanding these decisions sure does seem difficult for you folks, perhaps you should avail yourself of some of the legal analysis available from noted scholars.

        • ““In other words its a separate issue that needs to come to SCOTUS first“”

          Once again you cherry pick out of context.

          The ‘insurrection’ claim its self is a separate issue that needs to come to SCOTUS first. What came to SCOTUS was if Trump engaged in an insurrection in terms of the 14th, not if an insurrection existed. The SCOTUS decision was in effect that Trump did not engage in an insurrection because the president is not included under the 14th, which is contrary to that claimed by the state court – in effect, the state court decision to remove him from the ballot due to a violation of the 14th by claiming he, while president, engaged in an insurrection, that decision is effectively in error and moot and non-effectual and not factual, or in other words a loss for you and the rest of your left wing idiot buddies who wish it to be so.

          Again, learn to read and understand English and learn what context means.

        • MajorMistake, you pathetic simpleton, your reading comprehension would embarrass a planaria.

          Point the First: Only an ignoranus, such as yourself, would so completely ignore a fundamental principle of appellate law (not JUST SCOTUS, but definitely SCOTUS) – you only rule on the ISSUES PRESENTED. The “issue presented” to SCOTUS was, “Who has the right to enforce the 14th Amendment? Can a state unilaterally determine that a candidate can’t be included on the ballot for a violation of the 14th, when no Federal action is being taken?” The answer to that one was VERY clear (unanimous, in fact – including the three liberal harpies), so . . . once again, you have NO idea what you are talking about.

          Point the second: The issue of whether or not Trump had “engaged in insurrection” NEVER CAME UP. While normal appellate practice is for the appellate courts to accept as a given the factual findings of a lower court, that doesn’t apply to a situation where THE FACTUAL CONSIDERATION WAS NEVER PRESENTED, DEBATED, OR AT ISSUE in the lower court. Apparently, you completely missed the whole part about the seven (Dimocrat) CO Supreme Court Justices pulling that out of their collective @$$es (and even then, they only got FOUR of their seven to go along with the charade. You also missed that part, didn’t you, MajorIdiot????) NO factual determination as to whether or not Trump had “engaged in insurrection” occurred, except in the diseased minds of the four fascist CO Supreme Court judges. Kind of an important issue, most knowledgeable persons would think.

          Point the third: You keep glossing over the fact (as do all the OTHER Leftist/fascist “analysists” and “commentators” on this issue) that it was a 9 – 0 decision. Kagan, Sotomayor, and Brown-Jackson were PART of the “per curiam” ruling (do yourself a favor, to avoid further embarrassment, and go look up what “per curiam” means, you babbling incompetent). Their joint concurrence questioned only the potential scope of the ruling, NOT whether the ruling was correct, or not – they AGREED it was the correct ruling.

          Once again, your knowledge of law, politics, and reality are “of a piece” with your knowledge of firearms (i.e., all are non-existent). To ANY competent analyst, the ONLY people who have beclowned themselves on this are the CO Supreme Court, the CO Secretary of State, and all the Leftist/fascist pundits (who nearly universally declared the CO ruling to be “unassailable”. “You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.”)

          MajorMistake, just take the “L” and go away quietly, please . . . or, just keep stepping on rakes and p*ssing on your own shoe; both are amusing.

      • MajorLiar,

        Once again, you display both your ignorance, and your illogic. There IS a case that can be argued, based on Section 3 of the 14th, that someone who is demonstrated to have “engaged in insurrection” can be barred from Federal office. Now, cite me to the court determination, reached AFTER a contested hearing and due process, determining, AS A MATTER OF FACT AND LAW, that Trump “engaged in insurrection”.

        What’s that??? There ISN’T any such determination??? The hell you say!!! No, NO “eminent jurist”, elevated to the Supreme Court of a state, would pull something that absurd out of his/her backside!!

        Trump never “engaged in insurrection”. Now, you can quibble about whether he “did enough” to discourage the morons who threw an Antifa-like tantrum (without the weapons and firebombs) in the Capital, and that is a fair discussion. From that to “insurrection” is more than a “leap”, it is jumping the shark.

        But you Leftist/fascist idiots keep flogging that expired equine – what it mostly does is illuminate your insanity.

        As for the immunity claims, you once again, demonstrate your COMPLETE lack of knowledge and understanding of law, the Constitution (and politics in general). Yes, the (alleged) claim of being able to send “Seal Team Six” to kill an opponent was “over the top”, and (I would argue) stupid, claim.

        Now, go find that language in the pleadings. Oh, it isn’t there??? Quelle surprise!! Lawyers (and prosecutors) frequently overclaim, and underdeliver. Personally, I find it stupid, but it IS reality – I have 40+ years of experience with it. IF they made such a claim, I assure you the attorneys had no belief they had a chance in hell of such a ruling. You NEVER get your “opening offer”, so you always “start with the moon”, and end up with a small satellite.

        Now, if you are interested in expanding your VAST knowledge of law and Constitutional law, you might be interested to know that, while no one believes that a President enjoys “absolute immunity”, all RATIONAL Constitutional scholars generally agree that a President cannot be criminally charged for actions taken in the “course and scope” of his actions as President (elst Senile Joe needs to start sweating bullets about his intentional failure to enforce existing law in re: the border). He can only be impeached for “professional” misconduct, and THEN tried for actual crimes. If it is a crime NOT related to his duties (Gropey Joe’s various alleged rapes, for example), he can be tried, but ONLY after he is no longer in office.

        That’s kinda standard law, but y’all are too farkin’ stoopid to know that. Now, there are about eleventy thousand other issues related to Trump’s possession of documents that he came into possession of WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT, and the extent to which that is illegal, and his power to declassify such documents, but . . . not a single one of those arguments applies to what Senile Joe did when he was an idiot of a Senator, or a VP.

        So, if you THINK you have an actual argument, trot it on out, so I can dispose of it, and mock you. Your brilliant legal analysis didn’t avail you very much with your three Leftist/fascist SCOTUS justices, who ALL voted against the CO Supreme Court, WITHOUT oral argument. Kinda makes you, and your fellow Leftist idiots, look like ignorant hysterics, dunnit, MajorDumbass????

        • “Now, cite me to the court determination, reached AFTER a contested hearing and due process, determining, AS A MATTER OF FACT AND LAW, that Trump “engaged in insurrection”.“

          Sure, here you go:

          “A Colorado judge finds Trump ‘engaged in insurrection,’ but keeps him on the ballot
          NOVEMBER 17, 202311:59 PM ET
          By
          The Associated Press”

          “In her decision, Wallace said she found that Trump did in fact “engage in insurrection” on Jan. 6 and rejected his attorneys’ arguments that he was simply engaging in free speech.“

          https://www.npr.org/2023/11/18/1213961050/colorado-judge-finds-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-keeps-him-on-ballot

          I might add, Judge Wallace’s finding of fact was upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court, and not questioned by the United States Supreme Court.

        • MajorSimpleton,

          Wow, you’ve apparently never met a hole that you wouldn’t dig deeper, did you, MajorSimpleton???

          No, you complete less-than-quarter-wit, there WAS no factual finding by this (equally simple – apparently there is something in the water in CO that produces half-wit judges) decided on the pleadings, so (other than briefs) there WAS no “factual evidence” presented. She determined Trump “engaged in insurrection” based upon WHAT, exactly???? Oh, she read it in the pleadings and motions, and from there pulled the remainder out of her arse. You need to learn the definition of “factual finding” MajorMistake (it has a quite specific meaning, in the law).

          It might interest you to know that NOT A SINGLE CASE (that you used to so vehemently (and foolishly) crow about) holding that there “was no election fraud” in 2020??? Was decided after full due process and evidentiary hearing with ability to call and cross-examine witnesses. NOT. ONE.

          I know you didn’t go to law school, MajorMistake (hell, I’m beginning to doubt you ever managed public high school!!), but . . . some basic information about how this all works is available on Teh Intarwebz, for those with the wit to seek it out. Even Wikipedia (as reliably inaccurate and Leftist as it is) seems to know more about this subject than do you.

          THERE. WAS. NO. “FINDING OF FACT” (in the legal definition). OF. TRUMP. COMMITTING. INSURRECTION.

          EVER. ANYWHERE. Please, just stop embarrassing yourself. Or, perhaps you are just such a simpleton, you aren’t even aware what a fool you make of yourself.

          Once again, I commend to you the wisdom of the “First Rule of Holes” (of which you seem wholly ignorant). You continue to make asinine comments about “findings of fact” in cases where . . . no such “findings” have actually been made. Perhaps your parents were just exceptionally clumsy, and the floor in your nursery was concrete, but . . . otherwise, I can only conclude that you are either a moron, or a partisan propagandist (but embrace the healing power of “and”!!!). Take the “L”, MajorMistake.

  4. I fled NJ because of all the angry people. It doesn’t seem to matter how angry Democrats get. Their anger does not stop the bloodshed in Trenton, Patterson, Camden or Newark.

    Dummies get angry about gun violence.

    Smart people ask who commits gun violence and why.

    Smart people know the answers to those questions and understand that, outside of certain communities of people, gun violence is about as rare as a winning lottery ticket.

    • That’s what got us Trump in 2016, anger at the left.

      I just might work again this year… 🙂

      • Wow, you guys figured it out, a little bit at a time.

        “Angry people are emotional.

        Emotional people are easily manipulated“

        “That’s what got us Trump in 2016, anger at the left“

        • And now you’ve made us angry again.

          Bill Burr said it best. You made a martyr out of Trump. Made him a hero to the little man. Every other comment you make here throws Trump back out in front.

          And you are too fucking stupid to see it. In my day the professors at MU were sub standard. You’ve proven that they haven’t improved any at all.

        • Yes, MajorLiar, and we ALL know that no one is more angry than Leftist/fascists who are verklempt because rational people won’t buy their blarney. Leftist/fascists are the angriest, least rational, people in the world.

          Didn’t I just post a comment, recently, about the SPATE of studies, recently, about Leftist/fascists being angry, bitter, more prone to psychological “issues”, more emotional, etc., etc.??? Why, YES, yes I did. Seems everyone is catching on to the fact that you Leftist idiots are a bunch of irrational hysterics.

          Men can become women, “Drag Queen Story Hours” for primary school children are “cool”, calling (very specifically) for “common sense gun laws” in the wake of a tragic shooting, when those very laws would have done NOTHING to prevent that shooting, our military will be “stronger” if our generals are all transgender, and Lia Thomas winning an NCAA championship against actual women is “fair”.

          Leftists are irrational idiots, and you are one of the biggest idiots of the pack of clowns you associate with, MajorMistake.

          Oh, and your “Progressive” heros (like Woodrow Wilson, for example)?? A bunch of racist fascists. I seem to recall some Biblical story about “motes and beams”.

          Just stop your insane babbling MajorIdiot. The only think you’ve “convinced” anyone on this forum of is that you are an irrational hysteric, and a liar. Do better, or go away.

        • I had that worked out over 4 decades ago. Probably longer than you’ve been alive.

          Calls to ban firearms are not new downunder. The anti-gun groups call it “maintain the rage”.

        • Southern,

          I have no idea how long MajorLiar has been alive (and even less interest in the issue), but I can assure you you’ve worked this issue out LONG before MajorLiar became sentient (since he has yet to achieve that state).

        • “jwm
          March 4, 2024 At 22:40
          And now you’ve made us angry again”

          Bravo, at least you will admit to the right wing anger that the rest of your brethren are in complete denial regarding.

          But I must point out the simple fact, I am not responsible for your emotional state, your feelings are your own.

          But you folks might reconsider that anger, it’s probably not a healthy emotion to act upon.

          “Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned”

          Buddha

        • Anger is an honest and justifiable emotion when confronted with the behavior of you fascists, miner.

          Anger can be of great benefit when you fascists push us to act.

          You misidentified legit anger for ‘right’ wing anger.

        • MajorMistake,

          I guess we can safely conclude that you don’t own a mirror. However, at least in my case, you are quite mistaken. I am not angry at you (or dacian, or jsled, or Prince Albert) – none of your are important enough to warrant the emotional energy of anger.

          No, what I am (and I suspect MOST of the commenters on this site who relentlessly mock your terminal stupidity) is a combination of amused by your ignorance, arrogance, unthinking partisanship, and unwillingness to learn, as well as a healthy dose of finding your Leftist/fascist flailings simply pathetic. The more you flail uselessly, the harder we mock. You FLATTER yourself that you are important enough to elicit anger (hint: you aren’t). Nice try, though, for someone who took the short bus, and never managed to get off of it.

  5. Sneaky Gun Control zealots use the Criminal Misuse of Firearms to advance their agenda all while giving the Criminal Misuse of bricks, bats, knives, fists, feet, vehicles, etc. a complete and total pass. It’s not just plain Violence it’s Gun Violence, it’s not Firearm it’s Assault Weapon yada, yada, yada.
    My message to those trying to shove an agenda Rooted in Racism and Genocide down the throat of America? Drop Dead.

    • Do you honestly nothing else to say but “muh racism”?

      Judging by black culture and inner cities, it was right to have those policies.

      • “Do you honestly nothing else to say but “muh racism”?”

        No, and it’s because she’s a genuinely dim-witted moron, and we get to suffer because of it.

  6. even though it was just a general comment about some gonna be angry and not you specifically its interesting you need to make it known “Nope, no Anger” cause when people say something like that about something they are negatively obsessed about (in your case your mental illness obsession with Trump) it means they are extremely angry on some level.

  7. Once you’re angry at someone, they own you like a puppet on a string. Group think is unconscious. Marxocrats are really good at this and build it into their indoctrination mirroring cluster B Personality Disorders . Well said.

  8. After the Civil War, all those laws that kept guns from black people, maybe that wasn’t such a bad thing…

      • Crime stats speak for themselves. It’s time to face uncomfortable truths and not apologize for them just because it might hurt some minorities feelings.

        • I do not give up my rights because another white man shoots up a church. The uncomfortable truth is that folks like dacian and miner and biden will not just take rights away from blacks. They will take all our rights away.

          Every man, woman and child in this country, regardless of race or religion has these rights.

          To talk otherwise simply gives aid to folks like dacian and miner.

        • @jwm

          I’d rather have a relatively peaceful and small ethnostate with homogenic culture and traditions than this failed melting pot experiment where we all suffer because the actions of an ill adjusted few (that are going to outbreed us in the next handful of decades regardless, so you won’t even be around to suffer through the consequences of your sentiment).

          Our founders were right in saying we should avoid foreign entanglements, that includes the inclusion of poisonous minorities that refuse to share our way of life. I don’t give two craps about dacian and miner, they stay here because you people give them attention. I care about maintaining what little bit of our culture we have left.

        • jwm got most of it the rest are the actions of the trash of various races are irrelevant to the rights of the law abiding. Trash is trash throw it out and move on.

        • If that is your desire,X, it is time for you to move where it would be possible.

          Under our constitution and laws your ‘ethno’ state is not a possibility.

          I lived in a part of WV that was virtually all white. Most connected by family and church ties. We still had murder, rape and robbery.

          I think your ‘ethno’ state is not and can not be a reality.

  9. the actual reason for trying to stoke the anger of the less than bright is they represent the majority of Democrat voters. The Democrats are terrified most of their voters won’t show up to vote turning the certain Biden loss into a down ballot disaster. Clearly they hope to keep their less than bright voters stirred up enough to show up.

  10. Actually, there is nothing wrong with being angry. At times, anger it is THE appropriate response to a threat or an injustice. Scripture says Jesus Himself becme angry sometimes. The Bible does not forbid anger; it simply teaches us that when we become angry, we must be careful not to sin or act hastily and unwisely. What we must remember here is to be angry at the right time, at the right level, for the right reason, and most importantly, using it right. So I would conclude that we need MORE anger. I’ll go even further! If we are NOT angry at what we see around us, we’re not doing it right.

    That said, the author’s expose of govt’s insidious attempts to make and keep us angry (for all the wrong reasons and at all the wrong levels) was a necessary and important cautionary tale.

  11. quote———-The whole argument that this shooting supports gun control stems from a category error. The piece conveniently never mentions that this was a gang shooting and not some mass killer with political or psychotic motives. So, when the piece goes through the usual laundry list of things anti-gun people want, none of it applies.——quote

    It was never proven it was a gang shooting rather it was two young kids that easily purchased guns second hand that they should never have been able to do and would not have been able to do if we had Universal Background Checks.

    Try and buy a gun on the street in Europe or Japan some time. Good luck with that hairbrained idea but the Far Right scream “Who cares we want zero gun control”.

    The sick paranoid Far Right Scream “Let’s do nothing and hope the problem just goes away”.

    And when people get “made enough” guess what? It means they will start voting out corrupt Far Right Politicians that prevent sane gun laws from being past and then the cowards will get the message fast and that those left in power will finally “do something” about America’s out of control gun problem.

    • War on Drugs. Raging success.

      War on Alcohol. Same as above.

      War on guns. Another complete failure.

      War on the American People. What it really is. A bunch of jackbooted fascists thugs trying to do away with human and civil rights.

    • “It was never proven it was a gang shooting”

      yes it was, you have not been paying attention. There were opposing known gang members with existing beefs with each other – basically, one side looked at the other, other side didn’t like it, confrontation, then a shoot out, or in other words a typical gang score settling shoot out that happens many times around the country every day although usually not in a crowded area like this was but sometimes it is.

      Kansas City area has had this gang warfare thing going to a while, for example, on Jan. 17 two rival gangs had a shoot out at the Kansas City Crown Center > https://news.yahoo.com/two-men-charged-kansas-city-231932591.html > “The shooting broke out after a disturbance between two groups believed to be gangs, according to the affidavit, which was determined by investigators using witness statements and video surveillance. Three people wounded in the shooting were not involved in the disturbance between the two groups, prosecutors said.”

        • Depending on the gang and location sources of firearms include:
          Theft from lawful owners
          Purchase from smugglers
          Bribing corrupt officials
          Straw purchase
          Make it themselves
          No laws will ever prevent any of the above in any country even your fantasy civilized nations.

        • I didn’t ignore anything. Especially this part where you were once again 100% wrong and deliberately lied.

          “It was never proven it was a gang shooting rather it was two young kids that easily purchased guns second hand that they should never have been able to do and would not have been able to do if we had Universal Background Checks.”

  12. “I’ve noticed that authoritarian progressives have been using the ‘I want you to be angry!’ bit a lot more in recent months.”

    there is a reason for that – its a typical Marxist socialism communism tactic. Get the ‘masses’ riled up so they will side with you, its how ‘socialist communism’ regimes get installed in the beginning.

    Marxists socialist, politically today, don’t support gun rights. That’s how we know the ‘Democrat party’ is really the ‘Marxists socialist’ party, and how we know the anti-gun orgs and Joe Biden and their authoritarian progressives are really ‘Marxists socialist’ even if they claim to not be. They try real hard to claim ‘our democracy’ but notice they don’t use ‘our constitutional republic’ in their claims. In a democracy the majority get to make the ‘rules’ thus they become the ‘ruling class’ overall represented by a ‘ruling class of elites’, which is a basic ideal of the ‘Marxists socialism’ concept. After the ‘Marxists socialism’ is installed that ‘ruling class of elites’ then brings in the communism aspect, and those that thought they were among the ‘ruling class’ that helped usher it in are eliminated either by marginalizing them, seizing their property, and some times out right killed, to keep them from challenging the ‘ruling class of elites’. A key element of this is ensuring the populace does not have the arms necessary to resist, thus all the attacks on the second amendment and the emotion baiting ‘I want you to be angry!’ concept.

    The founders understood this danger of ‘democracy’, thus they established a ‘constitutional republic’ and enshrined in the Bill of Rights the unalienable inherent human rights in the first 10 ‘amendments’, the second of which we all know. And the reason for that was basically because the founders understood the dangers of a ‘democracy’ establishing a ‘ruling class’ of “the majority’, or in other words, what later became known as ‘Marxists socialism’ (e.g. communism) or more commonly referred to broadly as ‘tyranny’. So the real reason the anti-gun orgs and Joe Biden and the ‘democrat party’ and the left wing agenda for ‘gun control’ is because an armed populace able to resist that tyranny keeps them from installing completely a ‘Marxists socialism’ in which ‘rights’ are really treated as ‘permissions’ controlled by the ‘ruling class’ or the ‘rights’ are removed by the ‘ruling class’, represented by a ‘ruling class of elites’, to be as they want or desire and the ‘human right to exist’ is replaced with the ‘state deciding if you can exist’. Or in other words if the Second Amendment falls every unalienable inherent human right in the Constitution falls and so does our country, the founders understood this.

    And in case no one has noticed, installing this ‘Marxists socialism ruling class’ has already started. For example: ‘Diversity-Equity-Inclusion’ (AKA DEI) are just another name for a ‘Marxists socialism’ concept, and Biden has installed the ‘White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention’ which is composed of only those with an anti-gun agenda from anti-gun orgs and they are formulating and implementing policy and completely eliminates any input from other than their fellow ‘Marxists socialist’. The California governor and democrat leadership and the many school boards in California are also an example of installing a ‘Marxists socialism ruling class’, they get to decide if your 6 year old child can be taken from you if you do not want your child to undergo the transformation from one state-of-being to another state-of-being (in the case of California transform the natural biological gender to another non-natural biological gender ‘identity’) – just like Mao Zedong did to take children away from parents to place children in ‘education’ camps to indoctrinate them in ‘socialism’ or in other words one state-of-being to another state-of-being in ‘identity’

    (note: ‘Diversity-Equity-Inclusion’ (AKA DEI) are just another name for a ‘Marxists socialism’ concept, or in other words a ‘communism’ concept.

    First, lets begin with ‘Equity’: Equity is the goal of all DEI programs, which is to say that DEI programs exist to force captive audiences of people to achieve “equitable” redistribution of resources, status, and wealth according to neo-Marxist Identity Theories like Critical Race Theory.

    Next, ‘Diversity’: Diversity initiatives are rooted in the goal of installing (placing, enacting) ideologically consistent political officers (or people) within organizations to effect and enforce policies directed toward achieving equity. These political officers, often called “Diversity Officers,” (but may be known included under other titles, or operate from other authoritative areas such as ‘human resources’ in some cases) are in fact a rebranding of the older concept of commissars, who enforced socialism in the same way.

    Finally, ‘Inclusion’: Inclusion is an overarching value structure for the “Diverse and Equitable” commissar system that’s being installed. In fact, it’s a justification not for inclusion as most people understand it, but for censorship and purges, just like in any Communist state. Inclusion, and its extension in “Belonging,” are a manipulative strategy akin to Mao Zedong’s “unity, criticism, unity” formula for taking over not just institutions but the value structure of populations and bending them toward socialism or, in this case, equity.)

    And installing that Marxist socialism communism always begins, in effect with, ‘I want you to be angry!’.

    • “Get the ‘masses’ riled up so they will side with you…”

      It also gives people motivation to show up. There’s a reason the Dems went full crazy in the election year of 2020.

  13. and now something else that’s gonna make some people angry….

    The US Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. Anderson about whether President Trump could be removed from presidential ballots because he allegedly engaged in an insurrection on January 6, 2021. In the decision, the Supreme Court focused on actual laws enacted rather than generalized history, which is consistent with the NYSRPA v. Bruen methodology of interpreting the 2nd Amendment. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner analyzes the decision.

    • The thing that has a lot of people angry right now, and yes already mentioned but those that bothered to read English and comprehend it would have seen this coming so the “told ya so”. The US Supreme Court issued a per curium decision in favor of President Trump confirming that efforts to kick him off the 2024 presidential ballot using the 14th Amendment were flawed. Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses the opinion here.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here