Associated Press/Susan Walsh - President Barack Obama looks at Nicole
Hockley and her husband Ian, right, after she introduced him at the
University of Hartford in Hartford, Conn., Monday, April 8, 2013. TheWith time running out on the chance to pass gun control legislation, President Barack Obama on Monday warned Congress not to use delaying tactics against tighter regulations and told families of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims that he's "determined as ever" to honor their children with tougher laws.As Jim Carrey said, only heartless motherfuckers like the gun-rights fanatics could respond with cynicism to this.
"If there's even one thing we can do to prevent a father from having to bury his child, isn't that worth fighting for?" Obama asked.
Obama's speech was interrupted repeatedly by standing ovations from the packed gymnasium. At one point, the room erupted with chants of "We want a vote!" Audience members, many wearing green ribbons in support of the victims, were stomping their feet on the bleachers and clapping their hands in unison with the chant.
"This is not about me. This is not about politics. This is about doing the right thing for all the families who are here who have been torn apart by gun violence," Obama said, his voice rising with emotion as he shook his finger in the air.
Go on, let's hear it, boys.
"Respond with cynicism?"
ReplyDeleteTo Obama doing exactly what Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D[of course]-NY[naturally]) wanted him to do--"exploit" (Nadler's term) dead children for the forcible citizen disarmament agenda?
You want to refer to us--the humans--as "motherfuckers"?
You. Fail.
As always.
The problem with your simplistic world view is that many of the mass shootings and much of the daily gun violence is done by law-abiding gun owners just like you. You keep pretending the line is clear and strong between good gun owners and bad ones. It's not, and you know it.
DeleteKurt, you've got to be just a tiny bit more polite if you want you comment to stand.
DeleteThe mass murderers and the daily killers who had previously never been disqualified for any reason have that in common with you. You are all technically lawful gun owners. You are indistinguishable, until one of you acts badly.
And you've got to be a whole hell of a lot more worthy of respect before you deserve "politeness." Being lectured about the need to be more "polite," by the same idiotic sack of contemptible subhumanity who says that mass murderers are "just like [me]" has got to be one of most deliciously ironic monuments to your stupidity I have ever seen.
DeleteIf the cost of calling 'em like I see 'em is that my comments don't "stand" against your censorship, I can live with that. I know you saw my contempt (as did anyone subscribed by email to this comment thread). That's plenty for me, and as I've said before, if your ability to impose that little bit of control over your pathetic little world is so important to you, then by all means enjoy your "power"--because that's about the limits of it.
You. Fail. Again.
I suppose it burns your ass that you do have certain things in common with some of the worst examples of gun owners.
DeleteYou really think I'm stupid, Kurt? I don't think so. I think you say that for the same reason you use so much colorful namecalling, because you disagree with me.
Try to be polite about it, please.
I suppose it burns your ass that you do have certain things in common with some of the worst examples of gun owners.
DeleteI have "certain things in common" with them? I suppose so. A similar number of kidneys, for one. The lack of an ability to fly, for another. Uh-oh. I just thought of something--you have "certain things in common" with them, too!
What I don't have in common with them is the only thing that matters in this context--I will never be a mass murderer, and never even try to be.
You really think I'm stupid, Kurt?
I think if you (somehow) became even less intelligent, your vegetarianism would also make you a cannibal.
"Polite" enough for you, herbivore?
Mike, You demand politeness, but you call us country bumpkins, racists, cold motherfuckers, etc. etc. etc. You tell us that we are personally responsible for massacres, etc. And then when we tell you that you are behaving like a tyrant for supporting laws that you know and admit are unjust, or we call you an asshole for the same, you delete our comments.
DeleteIf you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Politeness goes to those who deserve it. You broke down the politeness on this blog over the past few months. You can't complain if people respond to you in kind.
As for us having certain things in common with mass shooters, YOU have certain things in common with them too. EVERYONE does. We're all human. Commonalities doesn't transfer guilt, so stop with that line of bull.
Mikeb, remember when I was polite here? After a few months, I got tired of the constant personal attacks and gave up on civility. I still remember your message to me in an e-mail, and I don't forgive or forget.
DeleteActually Greg, I find you fairly polite. Kurt is in another whole category, the one which includes Linoge.
DeleteAs before, I am the sole judge of what's allowed on my blog.
Here's the thing, herbivore. If I pretended not to hold you in the same kind of contempt generally reserved for child rapists, I would be opening myself to charges of dishonesty. It's certainly no surprise that you prefer a comforting lie to the hard truth, but you're not going to get that lie from me.
DeleteWe've been arguing rationally, and many of us politely, not responding with cynicism. You need to figure out the English Language.
ReplyDeleteNone of us want to see these events repeated, but we know there are some truly evil people out there who will try to do such things again. We're seeking to protect our rights from one set of evil people while trying to come up with ways to stop the other evil group who would commit mass murder.
And no, I'm not calling all gun controllers evil. I'm just noting that there are some evil people who favor it because it makes other goals of theirs easier, whether those goals are crime, or tyranny.
Unlike Anonymous, I call gun control freaks evil. Your side either wants to sacrifice rights for the illusion of safety or wants to assert control over your fellow human beings. This makes you snivelling cowards or would-be tyrants. Either way, that's evil.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe gun control people simply want to control. For the most part they want just what they say they want, to reduce violence. You disagree with their proposals, and when you see you can't win the debate straight-up, you resort to a made-up, bullshit disparagement of their true motives. And, of course, you use all the superlative and exaggerated terms you can find to describe them.
DeleteYour argument is bogus, Greg and Kurt.
Mikeb, you are full of pooppy caca. You never ever talk about ending criminal violence, because you couldn't care less, all you care about is taking guns away, which is only a small part of the violence in the world. You are on the dark side.
Deleteorlin sellers
Your argument is bogus, Greg and Kurt.
DeleteNow that's a devastating rebuttal--you certainly have made an unassailable case for the "bogus" nature of our arguments.
Mikeb, we've discussed the value of your beliefs before. Beliefs without evidence are worth the paper they're printed on. A rational look at the evidence on this question shows the following:
Delete1. If all guns (or effectively all guns) can be removed from a society, gun violence drops significantly.
2. Other forms of violence remain unaffected. Europe has lower rates of violence in general because it's a more peaceful society. People who came to America wanted to get away from that settled order. But violence does still occur in Europe. It's just without guns, for the most part.
3. Suicide rates remain unaffected. Japan's rate is much higher than ours. That's because of their culture. But Canada and Ireland have the same rate as the United States, and their cultures are essentially the same as ours.
What we see here is that you don't care that people are dying or suffering from violence. Your only concern is that guns are not involved.
Second line of reasoning:
1. There are 300,000,000+ guns in this country.
2. We have long and porous borders. Lots of contraband and illegal aliens cross daily.
You may believe that most Americans would turn in their guns or register their guns or whatever other act of compliance you propose, but you fail to understand to things:
1. We are a rebellious people--and proud of it.
2. When something in demand is made illegal, the demand for it rises. All those guns and magazines become far more valuable if they are banned or heavily restricted--and don't even bother saying that you only want minor inconveniences. The vast majority of guns and all magazines without serial numbers are unregistered.
What I've shown you here is that gun control doesn't do what you claim it does and can't work in this country. I can win this debate on the merits. Of course, since your side doesn't stay on the merits, we have to deal with you on multiple fronts.
It's simple. Most murders are done with guns. Therefore, better gun control would reduce the number of murders, not just gun murders but overall murders. It wouldn't be a one for one reduction, some of the violent ones would use a knife or bat, but not all of 'em.
DeleteOf course, you biased and passionate gun fanatics would never agree to such simple logic. But if you think the fence-sitters don't you're sadly mistaken. In fact the more you deny such simple and obvious truths, the more you help our side. Carry on, fellas.
Way to go Mike! Ignored what Greg said; skipped arguing against his points; and instead responded with a bare assertion backed up only by insinuations that we're too biased or stupid to agree with you!
DeleteYour logic is so strong! You've convinced me!
MikeB wrote, "It wouldn't be a one for one reduction, some of the violent ones would use a knife or bat [instead of a gun to attack citizens], but not all of 'em."
DeleteYour statement MikeB is nothing more than a flawed hypothesis. It is flawed because it fails to account for the primary factor in criminal behavior: opportunity/probability of success.
When criminals know that all citizens are unarmed, criminals are much more confident in their ability to successfully attack a citizen. That means criminals will attack citizens much more frequently -- which would radically increase the number of violent injuries and murders.
Thus fully implemented gun control will increase the number of violent injuries and deaths over what we see now.
If you wish to reject this argument, please explain why we never see rapes and armed robberies in police stations.
- TruthBeTold
Who's talking about "all citizens being unarmed?"
DeleteActually, police stations have been the site of many crimes. You can't say "never" about that one.
MikeB,
ReplyDeletePlease explain why you endorse gun control given the following FACTS:
Virtually all police officers (96%) believe magazine capacity restrictions will NOT reduce violent crime.
Almost all police officers (92%) believe a ban on semi-automatic rifles (incorrectly called "assault weapons") will NOT reduce violent crime.
The numbers I listed above come from a poll of over 15,000 active and retired police officers. You can see the specifics here:
http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/
Note: the second fact I listed above is from "Q5" at the link I referenced. It is the sum of the 71% of police who said a semi-automatic rifle ban would do nothing to decrease violent crime and the 20.5% who said a semi-automatic rifle ban would actually increase violent crime.
- TruthBeTold
Didn't you see my other response to you. I don't believe the PoliceOne numbers. They are so obviously wrong only biased fanatics could possibly believe their veracity.
DeleteThat's it, herbivore--when you don't like facts (which appears to be the vast majority of the time), just deny them ;-).
DeleteSo obviously wrong? But then you and Dog Gone tell us that we fail at critical thinking when we're not uncritically impressed with the studies that you bring up.
Delete