Or, just perhaps, she was making a principled statement. Lots of people do that, and for various reasons.
You wouldn’t likely make such comments about somebody who took a principled stand on the 1st or 4th Amendments, would you? Why is this so different that it requires the usual round of insults?
Just because they all happen to be listed in your constitution doesn’t make carrying a gun and public speaking similar, you know.
Because she got shot dead. And she had been celebrated as a true patriot ™.
If somebody took a principled stand on freedom of religion, and then died because the principled stand they took was they should be able to test their faith by sleeping with tigers or something, that could be hilarious.
What is the 4th amendment, anyway? Search/seizure without warrants? I’ll try to think of a funny way to die because of a principled stand about warrants.
Oh please. There’s nothing principled about walking around with a handgun strapped to your hip. It’s all about projecting a “don’t mess with me/I have truck balls” sentiment to the world around you. It’s hostile and anti-social and such people deserve to be shunned by polite society. It’d be no different if she had been walking around with a sword. Oh, and do you know why taking a principled stand on a 1st Amendment issue is different? Because such a stand doesn’t entail anyone giving menacing hillbilly looks at complete strangers, and you can’t blow someone’s brains out with words.
I’m so tired of gun assholes acting like some kind of oppressed minority. My family has many gun owners, including me, and none of us have ever felt compelled to strap one on and walk around in public like some kind of Jimmy Hardass.
Sure they do. But I’m allowed to think that “taking a gun to pee-wee soccer” is a stupid principle.
Hey, she chose the hill she wanted to die on, and then she did. I don’t understand why I’m supposed to cry for her. I feel bad that her kids had to see it, but I’m also hopeful that now maybe they’ll be raised by sane people.
Agree, somewhat, but in this instance there is irony, but no comedy. Those that find glee at this circumstance have never had to see it firsthand.
I’m more than a little sickened by the sentiment and people expressing it.
Beatten to it, but to rise to your challenge:
You are a sick fuck. I’m glad I don’t know you in real life.
It’s possible. If so the ‘maritial problems’ had been going on much longer than a week. The usual response in that case is to move out, get a restraining order, etc. but that doesn’t always happen, for understandable reasons. One would think something like that would have come out about a year ago when she first made the news.
Because unlike taking a principled stand on the 1st or 4th Amendments, strapping on a gun a child’s sports activity isn’t a principled stand. It is waving your dick around - “Hey, I have a gun and I can kill you” is the message people take away from that, despite your intentions of simply exercising your rights.
C’mon, a kids soccer game? You want to know a more dangerous place - the Courthouse- there are actually CRIMINALS there! Go ahead and try to strap on a gun and make your principled stand there.
Gun right advocates shouldn’t endorse their fringe elements in the same way Christians shouldn’t endorse the people who bomb abortion clinics. Taking guns to children’s activities is not what the 2nd ammendment is about, is it? Even if you think the 2nd allows it, it’s probably not where you want to make your arguement.
:rolleyes:Broad brush much? Still I’ll tackle that; Actually, the first amendment is about exactly that. I can look at you all sorts of ways and the 1st sees that as my freedom.
I’m missing the Doper outrage, irony is usually always funny.
Ok, fuck it, I’ll say it… Godamnit that was funny!
Live by the gun, die by the gun.
A tragedy for her, her husband, their kids.
Dark irony.
Preach it, brother! My boss, a natural foe of liberty, never stops haranguing me over my daily principled stand on the 21st, which I perform in the privacy of my own CUBICLE, no less…
Way to dumb down the definition of the protections the 1st Amendment provides, you leering hick.
And yet, I’ve not made that argument. Not once. Not when it happened, and not now. Describing something as a “principled stand” does not mean or even imply that I agree with her. Lots of people do things that I don’t agree with yet I can still understand their motivation for doing so.
But by all means, please continue to hurl insults. Please don’t let things like reason or dignity stop you.
You’re probably not a lot of fun at funerals, are you?
How is this irony?
In what way is her choice to open carry related to the fact that she was murdered by her husband? Is it just a matter of “ha ha, any gun owner who gets murdered is delicious irony!” or something?
Seriously - make the logical connection for me.
Right. The vast majority owning households eventually result in a murder-suicide, which is why 10 to 30 million people per year die in gun related deaths in the US, what with the 45 or so million gun owning households.
I’ve open carried before - I guess it’s inevitable that I will be murdered and I will deserve it, right?
That’s not an argument that anyone actually uses. That’s a retarded straw-man argument that gun control advocates attempt to put in our mouths.
Their logic is - “you only need to defend yourself with a gun against other people with guns, therefore if we banned guns then guns would all dissapear, and there would be no need for one to defend yourself with” - this is retarded on all sorts of levels.
Guns aren’t only useful for defending against other people with guns - they’re useful for defending yourself against anyone who has the means to cause you harm, whether it be because they’re bigger than you, or stronger, or ambush you, or catch you in a vulnerable position, or have any sort of weapons themselves, etc. There’s an implicit assumption in this stupid argument that the only reason a 120 pound woman would need a gun to defend herself against a 220 pound guy is if he also has a gun.
It’s easy to make your opposition look stupid when you create positions for them that are illogical.
This situation is no more “ironic” than if someone got hit by a car while crossing the street and we all said “haha! They owned a car and died by getting hit by a car - sweet irony!”.
Dipshits.
Data analyses indicate that the odds are greater that a gun in the home will be used against a household resident than someone else. While this incident is not an argument for that finding, it is an instance consistent with it, so I think “idiots” is a bit overblown.
Does your “analyses” include the thoroughly, repeatedly debunked Kellerman study, where rival drug dealers battling it out in the streets within a few miles of their homes counted as “killing someone in your own household” among dozens of other blatant intentional flaws?
If you must make a car analogy, the best one would be “woman who provoked community outrage by driving on sidewalks hit by car”.
The vast majority of gun owners don’t feel the need to carry a gun to kids soccer games as a “statement”. There’s a difference between gun owners and gun nuts. You do the former no favors by failing to differentiate them from the latter.