|Conservatives:||Democrats want to take away our guns!|
|Liberals:||Nobody wants to take away your guns.|
|Democrats:||No, but really, we do.|
“Gun culture” was more pervasive in society back then, or at least as much as it is today, and yet violence has gone up. Not just gun violence, but violence, period. Guns are just one of the means to that violence (and one of the rarer means, by the way). The problem with our society is the same one that collapsed past societies: the intentional corrosion of morals. Every society has succumbed to the evil that its liberal rulers invited. Liberalism is the Second Law of Thermodynamics of societies.
Anonymous asked: The woman was shot in the head and you're saying that she's a tool. Woooooow. She's courageous because she's still going out there when she could get shot again and potentially killed this time, yet you disrespect her.
Anybody could get shot at any time. She’s no more courageous than any other anti-gun-nut who gives anti-gun speeches. The difference is that she is being used for emotional appeal, not logical appeal.
You are now dismissed.
Can I just say that please? I need to get that off my chest. It’s not the most sensitive thing to say, but it’s the most accurate thing to say.
Former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat who got shot in the head by another Democrat and thankfully survived, has since been a most pitifully willing participant in the liberal media’s exploitation of her. The Democrats keep her in the quiver labeled “Emotional Appeal” and put her in their bow whenever the public starts to side with the logical, reasoned arguments of the Republicans.
Giffords retired from Congress to devote the rest of her taxpayer-funded life to the cause of being used. That’s it: being used. And against the taxpayers, ironically. It seems as though she sits around her phone all day (paid for with her government checks), waiting for CNN or ABC to call her up with an urgent request that probably goes something like this:
“Gabby, it’s getting rough out there. People still want to keep their guns. Can we trot you out again for a jarring interview with us this evening, live? Yes, there will be food in your dressing room. Hm, what’s that? Oh, no, you don’t need to bring eye drops. We’ll have some onion oil here to rub under your eyes before we start rolling. You’ll tear up just fine. And you better, because that emotion is what’s going to make or break our plans.”
The latest spectacle occurred on Sunday, when Giffords was awarded the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award. In presenting the award, President Kennedy’s daughter Caroline said, “Gabrielle Giffords has turned a personal nightmare into a movement for political change.” (That’s called exploitation, Caroline.) “Her work is saving lives and sparing countless families from the pain and loss caused by gun violence.”
Uh-huh, okay, but where’s the courage come in? I’d like to quote President Obama here: “I dare you to try harder.” Because if that’s it, that’s pathetic. In what way is it courageous to turn oneself into a paid victim, as opposed to getting a real job, and stand before the public to recite an opinion that the near entirety of the news media agrees with and will happily, eagerly push for you? Where’s the bravery? Giffords’ only opposition is American citizens (who have so little power as it is that their, our, opposition may as well not even be there), and a handful of constitution-based organizations, each of whose messages amount to nothing more than “leave us alone.”
How courageous to voice opinions endorsed by the establishment and popular culture!
But seriously, leave us alone.
Thanks for the question. I’m not talking about regulating abortion or making it tougher to get one. I’m talking about outlawing it (with the exceedingly and increasingly rare exception to save the life of the mother). Bad people will still be able to do it illegally (just as bad people will use guns to kill no matter what). But doing the same thing for guns—restricting, outlawing, what have you—will make it harder for good guys to have guns. I make no claim that outlawing abortion will eliminate abortion; but it will make it less desirable for women to get them, and certainly harder. They’d still have the choice, though, just as everybody right now has the choice to make meth in his garage. If we outlaw abortion, only outlaws with commit them. But that’s better than the situation we have now. On the other hand, if we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns; and that’s a worse situation than we have now. Plus, guns, unlike abortion, are not inherently evil. A good, fair question, though.
Yearly gun-related deaths amount to about 0.01 percent of the population, or one hundredth of one percent. Roughly half of these are suicides. As Gavin McInnes points out in a piece over at Taki’s Mag, there are other, more lethal things in our society that make up a larger percentage of American deaths.
So when liberals call for stricter “gun control” laws but not stricter laws to “control” America’s deadlier elements (prescription drugs and automobiles, for example, both cause between three times and ten times more deaths per year than people with guns), we know there must be an ulterior motive.
Some Democrats admit their real agenda is ultimately to ban all guns. Other times we must rely on internal memos to reveal to us that Democrats acknowledge gun control doesn’t work and that the only way to achieve their professed goal of there being fewer gun-related deaths is to confiscate guns duplicitously and obliquely through gun buy-back programs.
The point of eliminating guns is ostensibly to eliminate mass shootings by the criminal and psychotic, secondarily to safeguard against accidental deaths by the irresponsible.
But as we saw back in February of this year with Officer Chris Dorner, a member of the Los Angeles Police Department, even cops can succumb to the psychosis that triggers rampage. There are just shy of 10,000 police officers in the LAPD, which means that Dorner made up 0.01 percent of the force, the same percentage of deaths per year in the United States attributed to gun violence. If Dorner’s rogue-cop action was considered an anomaly, then so must all gun deaths in America. So why are we not hearing from outraged liberals that we need tougher restrictions on the LAPD? Why are we not hearing from the few liberals who are more open and transparent that we need to ban the LAPD? Statistically, they are as deadly as the rest of America’s gun-owners.
Then we come to the fascinating fact that police officers on the whole accidentally shoot 11 times more innocent civilians than the rest of America’s gun-owners. So why do we not seek to “control” the police and have them take part in a gun buy-back program? Why do we not ban the police, who are 11 times more deadly to civilians than armed citizens? Is it because protecting lives is not the object of gun confiscation, but that confiscation itself, the widespread disarmament of the American people, is the goal?
Of course I don’t believe in eliminating the police force. But if liberals really wanted to protect innocent civilians from rogue bullets, they would have the intellectual honesty to admit that, by their own logic, they’d do better to outlaw our men in blue than to outlaw the Second Amendment.
Anonymous asked: Homicides in Australia has dropped more than half since 1996 after a very serious massacre. It took them only 3 months to make this regulation take effect. They have a special police task force to protect the public. The public don't really care because they're safer without guns. Even gun activists had said they felt it was their duty to give up their guns for their fellow countrymen.
Then again, Australians aren’t known for their brains.
“The public don’t care that they’re giving up freedom for security.” Then, as Benjamin Franklin once said regarding this very same pathetic attitude, they deserve neither.
Also, your Australia stats are incorrect.
No one says background checks infringe on the 2nd Amendment. They say that people who are going to use guns for evil are not going to submit to background checks, so the only people whose backgrounds will be checked will be people who aren’t planning on committing crimes with the guns. That’s logic.
It’s not against the First Amendment to ban a Muslim student from a school. If you’re banning him because he’s Muslim, yes, that’s against the First Amendment. But I’m unaware of anyone saying Muslim students should be banned from schools only because they are Muslim. You’d have to link me to that.
I’d also like to see who said that the widow of the older terrorist brother should be imprisoned only for wearing a hijab.
Of course Fox News is biased. But still less biased than all the other networks (they employ more Democrats than any of the other networks employ Republicans). There’s one network that’s right-leaning, and allllllll the others are left-leaning to far left.
“Cry me a river.” - Justin Timberlake
Most people do treat their weapons with respect. Which is why like 0.000001% of gun owners end up shooting someone.
Also, gun ownership is not a privilege, it’s a right. After free speech, it was the right that the Founders thought of next.
Guns also look pretty on a wall. There’s nothing violent about that. Guns can be used for good or bad. Pressure cookers can be used for good or bad. Anything can be used for good or bad. Steak knives are always violent—there is no purpose but to cut. No one hangs steak knives for decoration like they do a gun. Call for banning steak knives and I’ll be right at your side, m’ li’l fascist friend.
Paul Ryan Now Supports Gay Adoption
No, I’m serious. Go.
As far as I’m concerned,...
Leftybegone is wicked smart.
BOMBSHELL: Mayor Sarah Palin Denied Police Protection to Family, Resulting in Their Murder
[Posting this earlier than...
so i googled gangster goose and let me tell you that i was not disappointed
Mi papá tiene 47 años= my dad is 47 years old
Mi papa tiene 47 anos= my potato has 47 assholes
I love spanish