From the edition The Onion published after 9/11.
Not Knowing What Else to do, Woman Bakes American Flag Cake
A lot of times, people don’t do shit because they don’t know what shit they can do.
Obviously. I’ve noticed your error of thinking snark is the same as a well conceived opinion before.
Waymore, did you ready my short linked article? Does that really seem like too much to give up?
Yes, I read it. Yes, I think that is too much to give up.
Count yourself among the active opposers of doing anything, those sickos who deserve nothing but contempt. Those who most desperately need to Shut The Fuck Up are you bad guys. Now shut the fuck up.
[qquote]If in the effort to stop all acts of terror, we trample our own rights
[/quote]
Yes, you don’t recognize that a right to *life *even exists, or matters. All else is irrelevant to your cherished right to your fetish. That right, to whatever degree you can imagine it exists, does need to be taken away from those, like you, who are incapable of understanding it.
But you can still shut the fuck up, you know. That would start to help.
The evidence is that he does. Not that you care, in your desperate need to avoid facing who you are and what that means.
Ask Officer Collier. It so happens I went by his memorial in Cambridge just yesterday.
You’re part of the problem. You have nothing to offer but your own psychosis and your own desperate need to excuse murder after murder itself in order to avoid facing your own moral hollowness. If you had anything to offer that would save any lives at all, you could, but you can only oppose and ridicule and demand that some basic rate of murder should be accepted. Well, damn. Just shut the fuck up, okay?
Already listed. Again, you have nothing, just a desire to let the killings continue, and to deride those who, unlike you, have a basic respect for the value of human life. Now shut the fuck up and go get help, you sick fuck.
And there’s an example of how you have nothing to offer. Nothing, just derision. There is no time at which you are capable of realizing that it would be better not to provide it.
Can you even consider the possibility that the “bad guys” include you? Do you even have a definition of the term you so love to use, one which of course excludes you, after all these years of asking? No, of course not. You’re one of the sick psychos who should never be allowed to touch a gun. And you don’t even realize it’s possible the problem could be you. But it is. And you’re not even going to try to pretend this latest batch of killings even matters - this whole thing about caring for other people mystifies and enrages you too deeply, doesn’t it?
I don’t like Trump supporters or people that try to imitate him going full circle including yourself. If you can’t see the irony of your own posts, it is your own failure.
When come back bring actual…solutions.
It’s already well-established that you too have nothing to propose but derision of those who do.
You yourself are one of the bad guys too, do you know that?
No they haven’t. They had, and have, the right to own guns; they have chosen to change the regulations on how that right work.
A lot of the “2nd amendment folks” seem to think that the US is the only country in the world where people have the right to own guns. In this thread, several people jump from “a country where you wouldn’t be allowed to CC” to “any country other than the US”; some are surprised that in countries that you think of as “gun control countries” it is perfectly possible for a visitor to obtain a license. You are the only country which has written down something which every other country takes for granted (actually, “granted” isn’t even the right word, as nobody grants it: it just is).
People can be angry at the system all they want about the gay nightclub shootings in Orlando all they want but it was virtually unpreventable once you face the facts. A licensed and well-trained security officer needs to have access to guns (just ask the numerous anti-gun celebrities that employ people just like him as bodyguards of their own).
Let’s face facts, the man was skilled and wanted to exploit an easy soft target. I can promise you there will be many more of them because there is no way to prevent it. Even gun hating France had a similar but even bigger incident. There is not a thing in the world anyone can do about that unless you want to live in a complete police state (and remember, the latest person in question trained as an officer before they kicked him out and he had to go into private security). I also hear that police themselves are a huge problem of their own in many places around the country and the world themselves.
In other words, this isn’t Disneyland we are talking about but overall crime and wars also happen to be at historical lows so keep everything in perspective no matter how bad individual events seem. It is a dangerous world and nobody makes it out alive.
Sometimes all you can do is hug your children or bake a remembrance cake. This isn’t WWII Russia levels of death and atrocities that we are witnessing. If some of you were as sensitive to death and suffering as you claim, you would’t be writing here. You would be knee deep in combating true atrocities ranging from slavery to genocide ranging all over the world right now. The fact that less than 50 Americans dying in one innocent is unthinkable shows how small the problem has become (I don’t mean to downplay their loss at all; I just mean it is often a whole lot worse with no media coverage or outside help at all).
No, I didn’t know that until now. Oh my goodness! How do I tell my Mom and kids? They are going to be so disappointed. It is hard to come out of the closet as a bad guy especially when I don’t even have the mustache for it yet.
Utter bullshit. I can go to a gun show in more than half the states in the country and purchase a military-grade assault rifle with no questions asked. If can buy over the internet with virtually no regulation. This is your idea of “substantial legislation”? You honestly think that going a step further would be restricting people “too much”? Someone earlier brought up the asinine example of someone getting hit by a car… Yeah, guess what: it’s harder to buy and operate a car than it is to buy and operate an AR-15. And cars have a primary function that isn’t “murdering other human beings”.
Demanding universal background checks is “too much”? Keeping some information on the people that own guns is “too much”? Banning the sale of guns to people on the fucking no-fly list is “too much”?
Good common-sense regulation like they have in almost every fucking country in the world. So yes, “more government”, because right now, the problem is very much “not enough government”. When I can go to a gun show and, no questions asked, buy an M16, the problem is clearly “not enough government”.
And you still don’t. Nope, you’re not interested in saving any lives, only in deriding those who do and in keeping your fetish items, aren’t you?
You *could *keep on demonstrating that, but it would serve you much better for now to just Shut The Fuck Up.
Yes. I’ve been fingerprinted to buy guns. I’ve been subjected to background checks and waiting periods to get a carry permit. I jump through hoops to purchase guns that would boggle the mind considering I have nothing more serious than speeding tickets on my record. That is substantial legislation.
Guns have a primary function other than murdering people. Also, having the ability to shoot a person attempting to harm others is very worthwhile.
Yes
You’re “more government” zealotry is kosher, but my "more freedom zealotry isn’t. Pretty much sums it up,.
What is the point of regulation of guns if not to keep certain people from owning guns?
The right to own guns if the government says it’s okay is no right at all.
OK, so a right does not exist unless it’s absolute and limitless.
By that definition, there is no country in the world where people have the right to vote. And I’d call you an asshole, but I like my asshole a lot more than I like you.
So, I’ll ask again. What is the point of regulating guns if not to keep people from owning guns?
And with the exception of Thudlow, you and every other gun grabber in this thread have been sanctimonious, crude and quick to exclude middles and throw up strawman. Stay classy.
I also don’t think gay people should accept condolences or prayers from anti-gay rights activists who are also supposedly against violence against gays, like Glenn Beck claims to be.
This “love the sinner, hate the sin” bullshit has to end. Either you support the LBGT+ community all the way, or you don’t. Save your hypocrisy: you don’t get to be against gay people but support them only when violent atrocities are committed against them. Thats like saying, “I don’t support equal rights for black people, but don’t condone violence against them.”
Once you take one right from a group, its a slippery slope from there.
That’s a blatant false dilemma.
On gun control, as on most subjects, I tend to mostly agree with Sam Harris. Cliffs: he proposes making it roughly as difficult to get a gun as to get a pilot’s license; and he would be in favor of outlawing guns if a true, reliable, Star Trek-style “stun gun” is perfected that could offer the same level of protection without being lethal. (It occurs to me that it would be even better if public places had “stun grenades” behind glass, or just a switch you could pull, like a fire alarm, to make everyone in the joint get very sleepy very quickly–ideally with about a second or two of consciousness to allow people to control their collapse to the floor–and then alert the police to come and sort everything out.)
If I thought it were both politically and practically possible to confiscate all the guns and make it like Japan or Australia where they have managed to create, and maintain, a nearly gun-free society, I wouldn’t really be against that. But it’s not going to happen here.
Therefore, I have to wonder if it wouldn’t in fact be better, as many on the right suggest, to have *more *people be armed. Do we really think Omar Mateen would have been able to shoot over a hundred people in a country and western bar in Tallahassee, before getting shot himself?
In order to ask “again” you would have needed to ask. Instead you affirmed that the sole purpose of gun regulations is to keep “some people” or “people” from owning guns.
One of the purposes is to ensure that people are trained in their use. In order to get my license (bow, not gun), I needed to present a certificate from a teacher saying I knew which side of it goes in front. Another is that we (we as a society, in the persons of our elected representatives, not some “government” which has no relationship to The People) consider certain uses acceptable and others not, and certain weapons acceptable for some uses and others not, and the regulations spell out which weapons and uses are ok without a license, which others do require one. And yes, another is to restrain certain uses and certain people, but I don’t think the wifebeater and childbeater down in 1A should be able to own a gun: due to his police record he can’t obtain a license for any kind of weapon or buy legally a license-restricted weapon.
We have stricter limits on who is allowed to drive a vehicle (another item whose usage is regulated and which has both license-less types and license-requiring types, and different types of licenses for different usages and vehicles) than on who can own a weapon. My mother can’t drive a vehicle for medical reasons but she’d be able to obtain a weapon license should she so desire, once she’d passed the training and the medical exam (waived in my case because I already had a valid driver’s license, which as I said is more restrictive).