Tuesday, April 8, 2014

Who Shot the Sign?

stopsign2
 
Answers

1. drug dealers
2. gang members
3. lawful gun owners

31 comments:

  1. Some red neck conservative patriot driving down the road drinking with his gun on a rack behind him just decided to shoot at it for fun. You know one of those gun loon rights guys who thinks it's ok to break the law just so he can have fun. The law doesn't matter to him, he sees no harm in breaking the law, because the law is stupid anyways and interferes with his right to express himself. He probably stopped to piss on the sign after he shot it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course! Couldn't be a red neck liberal anarchist; or a rebellious, spoiled youth from the suburbs from a liberal family but with no real political affiliation of his own; etc. etc.

      Delete
    2. No, it couldn't.

      Delete
    3. I certainly hope you're being facetious, Anonymous, because if not, that comment expresses terminal cluelessness.

      Delete
  2. Answer: A fucking idiot. Insufficient data for further specificity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As always, a gun rights supporter gets the right answer that Mikeb missed.

      Delete
    2. Of course as a gun owner that fucking idiot is from your side.

      Delete
  3. It certainly is possible that some inner-city gangstas drove out to this rural setting for target practice. But, I would imagine our first comment pretty well captured it.

    It's funny how none of our commenters ever admit to doing things like this. But, what was even funnier, one time a few years ago, Weird Beard told us he'd never even seen a sign with a bullet hole in it.

    You guys are more fun than a barrel full of monkeys.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I can tell, no one but you has mentioned "inner-city gangstas" as a possibility.

      On another note, you of course have more knowledge of the provenance of the photo than I do, but what indicator is there that it was taken in a "rural setting"? Is anywhere with trees "rural" now?

      Oh, and vandalizing public property is a crime, and is thus behavior off-limits to "lawful gun owners," so we can instantly eliminate choice #3, although it seems to me that choices #1 and #2 don't quite cover all the possibilities, either.

      Delete
    2. Mikeb, what's funny about not admitting to something that I've never done?

      Delete
    3. As Greg said, there's nothing funny about not admitting to doing something if you haven't done it.

      As for the notion of seeing this or not, I've seen it maybe once or twice--didn't really waste brain cells on cataloging the instances. What I have seen FAR more instances of are bumper stickers and spray paint. Either shooting signs around here is not TOO common, or the DOT get out and replace shot up signs faster than other vandalized signs.

      Delete
    4. And by the way, I find it funny that none of the gun control advocates here have told us when they stopped beating their wives.

      Delete
  4. By the way, now you've got me humming the title to this article to the tune of that Ace of Base song from the early 90s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I thought I was the only one.

      And it's a stupid damned song to have stuck in one's head, too.

      Delete
    2. Thanks guys, thanks a lot...

      Delete
    3. I am blithely unaware of this song, and so sitting here without an ear worm...at the moment...until something else triggers one that drives me nuts.

      Delete
    4. I am blithely unaware of this song, and so sitting here without an ear worm . . .

      Oh,. sure--rub it in, you lucky bastard ;-)

      Delete
    5. You mean they even made a song about it? The phenomenon is that common and recognizable, yet Simon has only seen it "once or twice."

      Delete
    6. Mikeb, given your taste in music, I expected you to know this one. It's called "The Sign." Look it up. It has nothing to do with shooting stop signs, but the title to your article fits right in to the rhythm of the original lyrics.

      Delete
    7. Oh, for shit's sake, no, Mikeb. The song was just "I Saw the Sign," and had nothing to do with shooting.

      Good Lord, you're desperate to distribute the blame for a few punks across scores of millions of people who have never once shot at a sign.

      Delete
    8. DAMMIT!!! I didn't even see Kurt's naming the song--Just Greg's comment about the rhythm and the damned song came bubbling up from the recesses of my mind.

      If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go blare some Sabaton until the ear worm goes away.

      Delete
    9. Mike,

      Yeah, I've seen it once or twice, maybe more, but I haven't kept count--why would I care to. First time I saw it, my dad commented on all the reasons the person who did it was a fucking idiot--I agreed--why waste brain power on counting the time's I've seen the results of idiocy? That storage space can be better used by horrible 90's music...

      Main point is, I'm in redneck central and I see plenty of spray paint and bumper stickers, but few shot signs, either because they're not shot often, or as I suggested above, DOT may be johnny on the spot at replacing them. Whatever the cause, Weerd lives in Massachusetts--I can believe that he hasn't seen a shot sign in person.

      Delete
    10. So Simon, now you admit you ignore the idiot and dangerous behavior your "side" commits, thanks. Your "side" being gun owners. See how silly using the "side" word is. GC uses it all the time and so do you.

      Delete
    11. Ah yes. Saying that I don't keep a running tally of how many times I've seen evidence of some act of idiocy by parties unknown is EXACTLY the same as ignoring and accepting the behavior of people you say are on "my side."

      I've tried to answer your comments with courtesy, and even apologized when I misread something and ran with it, but all I get back are non sequiturs like this, wild false accusations about lying about you--often when I'm not talking about you at all, etc.

      I believe you've safely revealed yourself as a troll. Possibly the same one that used to make vulgar comments about me and another commenter.

      Delete
    12. And all you do is vlie about me, apologies don't seem to change you lying about me. If you are going to choose "sides" then be defined by the "side" you choose. If you are going to lie about me, don't expect courtesy in return.

      Delete
    13. All of your accusations are mere projections of your own behavior. It's sad really.

      Delete
  5. Gee, I wonder where the stereotype described in the first comment comes from? Most stereotypes are based on truth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most stereotypes are based on truth? Do you say the same about stereotypes of race, sex, age, and so forth?

      Delete
    2. Yes, but some are based on projection or outright fabrication for political purposes.

      Delete