Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Laci on Ft. Hood

Laci the Dog published a wonderful piece on the Ft. Hood shooting. For any faint-hearted pro-gun folks who have been offended by Laci's satire, I can assure you there's nothing here but straight up analysis. And I really like what I read.

This for example:

First off, that it could have been allowed to happen. Even more so when you consider that the ridiculous access to firearms is done under the guise of the Second Amendment. This is a text that includes the words:

"necessary to the security of a free State"

And this:

Yeah, sure guns are tools. They are highly effective tools for killing. They work quite quickly as the Fort Hood shootings show.

And especially this:

It is completely moronic to give terrorists the tools they need to accompllish their goals. Those who block any restrictions, especially if they do it in the name of "fighing tyranny" are complicit in this act.

What's your opinion? Does Laci make some good points? Please leave a comment.

18 comments:

  1. So many logical fallacies and flat out incorrect statements in her post I don't know where to start.

    Of course this is par for the course for someone like Laci.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Laci and yourself are true bigots, and your arguments are deeply flawed.

    I'll be making posts on people like you and your deplorable comments soon once things in my neck settle down.

    Stay posted, and be ashamed!

    ReplyDelete
  3. thank you for not deleting my comment, I do appreciate that.

    I would appreciate it MORE if I didn't have to make them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Laci's satire???

    Saying that she wants to kill 80 million Americans to commit suicide is satire?

    Saying that she wants to kill 80 million Americans is satire?

    Sorry, but the DHS feels otherwise.

    "First off, that it could have been allowed to happen."

    Just who "allowed" this to happen?


    "ridiculous access to firearms is done under the guise of the Second Amendment."

    Isn't it Laci who constantly argues that only the police and the military should be allowed to have guns?

    "necessary to the security of a free State"

    You guys lost in Heller, get over it already. And you're going to lose on incorporation as well.

    "They are highly effective tools for killing."

    Which makes them perfect tools for self defense.

    "It is completely moronic to give terrorists the tools they need to accompllish their goals."

    Just who is it that gave this terrorist the tool? Could it by the FBI who approved his background check?

    "Does Laci make some good points?"

    No, she doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are you saying that there wasn't a conpiracy to attack Fort Hood?

    Are you saying that it isn't easy to purchase a firearm in the US?

    Why was the Fort Hood shooter able to acquire a gun?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Those who block any restrictions, especially if they do it in the name of "fighing tyranny" are complicit in this act."

    By this logic, then it not follow that those who favor restrictions are complicit in any robbery, rape or murder than happens because the victim has been disarmed.

    Right?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "I can assure you there's nothing here but straight up analysis. "

    Well, I haven't read a whole lot of "straight up analysis" that talk about "assholes, jerkoffs, what the fuck is this shit and what the fuck is that shit."

    Very professional, unbiased and nuetral, huh?

    If that's what you consider analysis, it's no wonder you think the Brady Campaign is the greatest resource for firearms info.

    Keep posting, man! You're doing great!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wait, don't you all say he would have gotten a gun anyway? How?

    I call 'em as I see 'em, and if you folks aren't going to come up with a way to prevent people like the Ft.Hood shooter from getting a gun. Well...

    WTF do you come up with the figure 80 Million Kave.....?

    Live with it, becuase you people are unindited coconspirators with all your talk about fighting tyranny.

    Well, the Fort Hood shooter was doing his bit against what he saw as tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Are you saying that there wasn't a conpiracy to attack Fort Hood?

    Are you saying that it isn't easy to purchase a firearm in the US?

    Why was the Fort Hood shooter able to acquire a gun?"

    #1. A conspiracy involves 2 or more people. All reports so far is that he acted alone.

    #2. Sure it's easy to buy a gun. It's what a free people do.

    #3. My God, he was IN THE MILITARY!!!

    Are you saying members of the military should not be able to buy a gun???

    Yes this guy threw up some red flags and the authorities looked into and declined to pursue any concrete action because they were afraid of being labled a racist, which is what the antis are all to quick to do when pro-gunners bring up the FACT that most gun violence are in the inner cities with large minority populations.

    Even the VPC aknowledges that black on black crime is a serious problem that the white community does not have an analog for.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I like that expression "unindicted conspirators." It sounds so much more sophisticated than my usual "you guys share in the guilt" line.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Live with it, becuase you people are unindited coconspirators with all your talk about fighting tyranny."

    If that's how you truly feel, then call the autorities and ask them to arrest me and charge me in the Ft Hood shooting.

    If you're not willing to do that, then you are equally complicit, no?

    checkmate.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "if you folks aren't going to come up with a way to prevent people like the Ft.Hood shooter from getting a gun."

    You're asking us to come up with a way to prevent military personnel from acquiring guns???

    Are you serious???

    As far as the 80 million people remark, you stated on your own blog that you wanted to kill all American gun owners.

    That's 80 million people.

    checkmate.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If anyone share's the guilt it's you and laci MikeB, since you both support "gun-free zones."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mike W. said, "If anyone share's the guilt it's you and laci MikeB, since you both support "gun-free zones.""

    Now that's a good argument. Does disarming the people cause more harm than good?

    I say if military personnel were armed, most or all of them on bases in the States, you'd have so many incidents of gun violence, including the occasional big one, that you'd be worse off than now.

    The general policy on bases is the right one. Perhaps the MPs and other security people need to be better prepared, but this is the best way as evidenced by the infrequency of shootings.

    ReplyDelete
  15. but this is the best way as evidenced by the infrequency of shootings

    Really, evidence? Then how do you explain other gun free zones where there are shootings daily? (see Washington DC, Chicago etc.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. The dumb dog says: "It is completely moronic to give terrorists the tools they need to accompllish [sic] their goals. Those who block any restrictions, especially if they do it in the name of "fighing [sic] tyranny" are complicit in this act."

    Who is giving anyone anything? The jihadist asshole paid for the pistol, and the only way to prevent his buying a gun would also infringe on that which shall not be infringed, and is thus off the table.

    By the way, Laci--like my profile pic ;-)?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Nice Pic, Zorro.

    Chinese Cresteds are ugly ass Dog, I don't know why anybody feeds them, let alone allows them in their home.

    If I was wandering in the woods and happened to see one of those putrid things I'd shoot it simply out of pity.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Zorro, That's some pic.

    In fact that picture is probably a good example of why your rights SHOULD be infringed.;-)

    ReplyDelete