I object! Nugent did not merely piss in his pants, he defecated in them as well, for a full week.
According to the info I gather about Asses for Christ, it looks like their cause is building Presbyterian churches (you know, where white decent folk go, so there will be no shootings). Their revenue stream appears to be in the $1M range, which sounds to me like they build chautauqua tents or something – but, that is just me being overly cynical. They could merely be a good and proper innocent tax dodge for DD.
meanwhile,
Yeah, whatever, FYF
Oh, thoughts and prayers twice in three paragraphs. That ought to do the trick.
You know, a line from a Jamiroquai song keeps running through my head:
“There’s nothing left to do but pray
I think it’s time to find a new religion”
That reads to me more as an advertisement for their product than sincere condolences.
Yet Another mass shooting. Memorial Day festival in Taft Oklahoma. 40 shots fired, 1 dead, 7 others injured. Further details still sketchy.
Can I just generally rant about pro-gun excuses here? I didn’t see a more appropriate thread.
I’ve been battling all the standard excuses on social media for days, it never ends and it never changes.
The favorite is always the “What is an assault rifle” BS. They get such a hard-on knowing more about guns than some other person, rather than a good faith discussion on how we would define weapons that should have increased restrictions.
The only new one I saw was the meme of “I’m not going to be lectured on gun control by someone that left 300k guns in Afghanistan”.
Leaving behind weapons in war zones is something America has done over and over, and of course includes the exit from Syria during Trump’s term. So…it’s a problem as well, not some excuse not to talk about gun control domestically.
“Well, technically that’s not…”
“Oh, please, you know what I’m talking about!”
“But obviously you don’t. What about [compares guns functionally identical but one is configured all pseudo-tactical, and the other as traditional hunting piece]? Huh? When come back bring answer.”
Now, that latter question IS a valid question AND you can start a good faith discussion about it. But using it to just shut up and dismiss someone (as oppose to help everyone use the same accurate terms) is dickery.
(OTOH “come on you KNOW what I’m talking about” is itself not a great line of argument either, as it means the definitions of the terms of the debate are subject to what’s in everyone’s head and gut at the given moment.)
Agree on both. And while it’s likely I might have said something akin to “you know what I’m talking about” at some time in the past, I don’t do that now.
It’s more: “Clearly we agree that there are lines to be drawn between a BB gun and a Vulcan minigun. Perhaps you, as someone knowledgeable on guns, can suggest some of those lines”
Ban that MFer too, if it’s functionally identical. Seriously they want to play these games, AFAIC they can bundle together every single “semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazine” into one group and get rid of the lot.
16 minute video from the ubiquitous Beau of the Fifth Column explaining the long view of the assault weapons ban of the early 90’s.
His thesis, in short, is that the gun industry – exactly like the financial industry and the tax code for the wealthiest Americans – just needs to know what the rules are, and then they and their attorneys can find a path through those rules virtually unscathed.
They’re not negotiating in good faith. They won’t be persuaded by the Justice Potter “I know it when I see it” edict.
And they got us from an estimated 350M guns in about 2016 to an estimated 400M guns (in private ownership) now.
We are losing, and – with a heartfelt “Fuck You” to Don Rumsfeld and/or Tommy Franks – some of us DO do body counts.
Just be aware that there is a subset of the 2A folks who don’t draw a distinction. They are aware that the US military outguns them and feel the “watering tree of liberty” reading of the 2A means they should be able to have tanks, Predators, anti-aircraft missiles, etc.
I’d call them “fringe”, and they currently are, but we know that today’s crazy Republicans are tomorrow’s center of the party.;
I say ban the 5.56mm round entirely. As far as I can tell, it has no legal advantages for civilian users.
Same for the 7.62.
The correct response is ‘And I’m not going to be lectured on gun control by someone that doesn’t know the difference between a gun and a rifle’.
I mean, hunting? I suppose they’re useful for deer and stuff.
In the big picture argument, “assault weapons” are the gun equivalent of breed-specific dog bans. What’s an “assault weapon”? What’s a “pit bull”? These questions are important, and equally ambiguous.
If someone gets all bent out of shape over AR-15s but not Ruger Mini -14s,then they aren’t understanding weapons. But saying
is consistent and a sound position to argue for.
All gun control is tyranny. How am I supposed to protect my children when 30,000-40,000 feral hogs come into my yard without a Howitzer?
Is that a misplaced modifier or are there actual feral hogs who do have Howitzers ?
This could change my stance on gun rights.