Politics

Details
Any REAL liberal would recognize it as right wing, racist bullshit.
First you require transfers through people with licenses and complicated rules for transport.
Then that mfrs submit guns for destructive "testing."
You set standards for material and production that have nothing to do with safety or reliability (which is of no concern in stopping crime, really--who cares if guns jam, if you're trying to stop crime?), but everything to do with driving up production costs.
Then you require rules on storage and locks.
Insurance.
Licenses.
Taxes.
"Registration."
Sample bullets for "tracking," that every real expert can prove don't help track anything, just add additional labor to the production cost.
Pretty soon you can't get a gun for under $1000 with several hundred $ a year in legal maintenance.
Thus fucking everyone living in poverty from defending themselves, and ensuring that only rich white "liberal" cocksuckers can own them.

Any REAL liberal would recognize it as right wing, racist bullshit.

First you require transfers through people with licenses and complicated rules for transport.

Then that mfrs submit guns for destructive "testing."

You set standards for material and production that have nothing to do with safety or reliability (which is of no concern in stopping crime, really--who cares if guns jam, if you're trying to stop crime?), but everything to do with driving up production costs.

Then you require rules on storage and locks.

Insurance.

Licenses.

Taxes.

"Registration."

Sample bullets for "tracking," that every real expert can prove don't help track anything, just add additional labor to the production cost.

Pretty soon you can't get a gun for under $1000 with several hundred $ a year in legal maintenance.

Thus fucking everyone living in poverty from defending themselves, and ensuring that only rich white "liberal" cocksuckers can own them.

It is immoral, it is racist, it is statist, it is classist, it is indefensible, and we need to start calling people on it.

Details

Or, How I Learned To Stop Caring.

By way of introduction, I'd like to explain some of my former positions.  Please do not reply and tell me why I'm wrong.  That's not relevant to this post.  These WERE my positions, for right or wrong.

I used to believe women had a right to reproductive choice.  As a male, I will obviously never have an abortion.  I supported access because birth control is cheaper than abortions, abortions are cheaper than welfare, welfare is cheaper than jail.  And I don't believe the government is capable of legislating for every circumstance.  Most of the time, a woman and her doctor will make a decision that works for the situation, and until a baby is an independent organism, it's a parasite.  This was also important to me because my wife was warned that a further pregnancy could kill her.  That's been surgically remedied and is no longer a problem.

I used to believe gays were entitled to relate as they wished, including marriage.  What two people do together doesn't affect me unless I'm one of them.

I used to believe it was wrong to treat people differently based on their skin color.  Even if a few people fit a stereotype, millions of others do not.

I used to believe there should be a strong division between church and state, that any support of a religious entity using property of the state constituted endorsement and was wrong.

I used to believe people had a right to protest, campaign, rant and create non-violent incidents to express themselves and their positions.  I also believed they had a right to publish as they chose.  I believed they were entitled to burn the Flag in protest, to make a statement.

I have obviously been at odds with conservatives over these positions.  There have been loud arguments, heated discussions and occasional insults.

~~~ 

I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.  The Supreme Court agrees with me, which means that right is as valid as abortion, sexual privacy, protest and speech.

This should mean that  strict scrutiny applies, meaning the government needs to prove the fabric of society itself is at risk before limiting it.  Just as the Press has the right to broadcast troop movements it can see or acquire, regardless of casualties, I have the right to own weapons, regardless of how someone else may act.  "Someone might get hurt" is an invalid excuse for restriction.

In fact, it's easy enough to prove that freedom of the press HAS caused harm and even death to people, whether it's troop movements, or the address of a person of interest.

The rights of gays to relate as they wish brings the risk of AIDS (60% of all cases are from gay relations, not drugs or medical contamination.)

It's provable that if we required proof of need before awarding a driver's license, we'd have less car accidents.

So, the argument that "guns kill people" is null and irrelevant to the discussion.  Lots of things kill people.  That's not relevant to our civil rights.

Now, over this position, I've had at least 5 death threats (though of course, no "liberal" actually has the balls to attempt so). 

I've twice been reported to Family Services on the grounds that I have guns in the house, which means I'm a danger to my kids (which complaints were laughed at, here in Indiana). 

I've been accused of racism...because I own guns.

I've been accused of fascism…because I own guns.

I've been called a coward…no "real man" needs a gun to protect himself.  This is a surprise to me as a veteran, who carried guns regularly for the purpose of protecting myself and others, but what do I know?

I've been called a "Fat, Fox News watching, McDonald's munching, inbred, retarded, drooling redneck imbecile."

 I've been told I have a small penis.

I've been told I'm insane to "imagine fighting the government" by people with no military experience who also hate the government, sometimes for the same reasons.

I've had a date tell me I "seem so normal, for a gun nut."

I've been called a "rightwinger."  Indeed.  A gay/female/black/abortion/separation of church and state/free speech supporting rightwinger.

 I've been told this right doesn't exist, that if it exists I can't "pretend" it's more important than wage inequality for women, or gay marriage. 

When the Heller Decision was decided in favor of gun ownership, I was told "I hope you all shoot yourselves with guns, because I can't marry the man I love!" by an alleged friend. 

There's apparently a "Right to feel safe," and my owning a gun destroys it, because I might shoot someone.  However, if I say a gun makes me feel safe, I'm paranoid and insane.

I've been told I support "baby killers."

I've been threatened with having my Wikipedia page vandalized, by someone who claimed he was more of a man than me. 

I've been told I can't be trusted.  How can anyone know I won't go on a shooting spree, because I own an "assault rifle"?

So much for liberal tolerance.

I didn't realize I was so evil and hateful an individual I deserved to be treated in such fashion.

But when I look at the arguments, I think they may be correct:

"At the time the Constitution was written, the weapons in question were muskets."

You know what?  You're right.  And marriage was between one man and one woman.  So what's with gay marriage?  No longer will I offer any moral support, oppose any online statements attacking it, speak out for it.  They have the same right as anyone—to marry someone of the opposite gender.  And given that all gays support raping little boys (just like all gun owners support shooting school kids), I don't think I can support them.  We should do things just the way they were done 220 years ago.  That's the liberal way.

"The Heller Decision was by an activist court.  It doesn't count." 

Indeed.  Just like Roe v Wade was an activist decision.  It doesn't count.

"We're not trying to take your guns away, just have reasonable limits.  It's a compromise."

And some people want reasonable limits on abortion, like waiting periods, gestational time limits, ultrasound, etc.  It's a reasonable response to an activist court decision, and reasonable restrictions on a right, for public benefit.  Don't come whining about your right to murder babies, and I won't come to you whining about my right to shoot school kids.

And no one is saying you can't ride the bus.  You just have to sit where people think is reasonable.  No one is saying women can't work.  They just have to get paid what is reasonable for the work they do, allowing for the fact they're going to leave the workplace and raise a family.  It's a compromise.

"Assault weapons are an extreme interpretation." 

True.  And not allowing any religious emblems on government premises is an extreme interpretation.  As long as they're privately paid for, what's it to you?  No one is saying you can't belong to the Christian church of your choice, just not to extreme groups, like atheists or Muslims.  It would be paranoid to think anyone was trying to infringe on your legitimate right to be free from state religion, just like I'd be paranoid to think they wanted to take my guns.  Quite a few states had official churches well into the 1800s. This is not an infringement on your freedom of religion.

"Given Sandy Hook, you have to make reasonable compromises."

"We just want licensing and safe storage requirements so the wrong people don't get guns." 

"Publicizing the information lets people make informed choices about who they live near." 

Accepted.  In exchange, gay men should make reasonable compromises over Penn State.  They will simply have to accept being registered and kept a safe distance from children.  This isn't a violation of their rights.  It's just common sense.  The public has a right to know.

This should apply to protests, too.  No reasonable person would object to being identified.  They should welcome it—it means they can't be wrongly maligned.  All union members, blacks, gays and feminists should be signed in with ID before a march or gathering, just so we can track the real criminals to keep the rest safe.

"The country survived without assault weapons for 240 years." 

True (well, no, it was 135 years, depending on your definition of "assault weapon"). And it survived without women in combat even longer.  The infantry's trying to scare off women?  Serves them right.  Things were working just fine the way they were.

"This woman is being badly portrayed on the cover of a book." 

No, no, that's an accurate portrayal, just like all military contractors are sociopathic mercenaries who torture people, all gun owners are moral cowards with Walter Mitty complexes and all gun dealers exist to make money from gangbangers.  It's silly to suggest one group is singled out for inaccurate portrayals when we know the other portrayals are spot on.

Yup.  I'm taking you at your word.  Want money? Don't care.  Want a petition signed?  Call someone who who gives a shit.  Want a link spread?   Yawn.  Women or gays or blacks or Hispanics don't feel they're being treated nicely?  So what?

 ~~~

First they came for the blacks, and I spoke up because it was wrong, even though I'm not black.

Then they came for the gays, and I spoke up, even though I'm not gay.

Then they came for the Muslims, and I spoke up, because it was wrong, even though I'm an atheist.

When they came for illegal aliens, I spoke up, even though I'm a legal immigrant.

Then they came for the pornographers, rebels and dissenters and their speech and flag burning, and I spoke up, because rights are not only for the establishment.

Then they came for the gun owners, and you liberal shitbags threw me under the bus, even though I'd done nothing wrong.  So when they come to put you on the train, you can fucking choke and die.

 ~~~

Or you can commit seppuku with a chainsaw.  I really don't care anymore.  This is the end of my support for any liberal cause, because liberals have become anything but.

AMFs.

UPDATE:  A friend of mine observes that he voted for legalized pot and gay marriage in his state, and now those same activists, with time and resources freed up, are attacking his right to keep and bear arms.

No, it really doesn't make sense to help them, they will only stab you in the back.  They're not "liberals" and they don't want "liberty."  They want liberty for them, but not for you.

Details

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-04/the-disgusting-consequences-of-liberal-plastic-bag-bans.html

At one time, we used brown paper bags for groceries.  We then drew on the brown paper, wrapped our school books in them, made masks of them, used them to wrap packages, to carry goodies and snacks, and occasionally burned them for fuel, or sent them to the landfill to produce valuable methane.

Then some "ecologically minded persons" came along and said paper bags were bad for the poor trees, which were grown specifically for the purpose of making bags.  This is like claiming steak is bad for the domestic cattle population.  Or that apple juice is bad for the apples.

So we switched to plastic.  

Now, occasionally a paper bag would tear.  But you could stack two dozen cans in them and they'd fit the shape for easy support while carrying.  Plastic bags are the wrong shape, too small, have to be carried in bundles each holding a couple of items.  And, they're not biodegradable, are harmful to animals, and none of the local resources will recycle the damned things.  Then we have the article above.

This is one of the thousands of reasons why whenever someone opens their mouth about the environment, if they are not an engineer, a scientist, or someone holding a sheet of figures, you smile, nod and ignore them.

Details

The following is a list, provided by the White House, of executive actions President Obama plans to take to address gun violence.

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system. 

 

Meaning "nothing."  This is supposed to already exist.  The mass of the bureaucracy makes it awkward, and adding more bureaucracy is not the answer.

 

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system. 

 

So, abolish HIPAA?  Because that's exactly what it does in this case.

 

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system. 

 

More nothing.

 

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks. 

 

In other words, tell him to do his job?  And would this include NOT selling guns to Mexican drug lords?

 

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun. 

 

This is already the case.

 

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers. 

 

I've never met an FFL who didn't know how to do that.  It's already in the "guidance."  You can even call ATF and they'll talk you through it.

 

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign. 

 

Ads about gun safety from idiots who don't know a fucking thing about guns.  Great.

 

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission). 

 

Because criminals are very concerned about keeping their weapons secure.

 

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations. 

 

You want to do what the NRA, GOA, CCRKBA and most conservatives have been asking the Feds to do for 30 years?  And people say you can't teach a pig to sing.  Will this actually happen, though?

 

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement. 

 

This might help, if it's actually a searchable database...and if local LEO actually use it...something the President has no control over.

 

11. Nominate an ATF director. 

 

Oh, right.  You haven't had one for several years. [Popeye voice]  How embarassking! /Popeye voice

 

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations. 

 

"You:  Curl up in a ball in the corner and kiss your ass goodbye.  You:  set up a command post and have press releases ready about how bad guns are."

 

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime. 

 

Will this involve a paradigm or actualization and implementation of core competencies?  Because it sounds like corporate board room bullshit.

 

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence. 

 

What about knife violence?  Domestic violence?  Drunken violence?  Maybe the cause is People?  Nah, that's too hard and would require real thinking.

 

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies. 

 

"Hey, head lawyer:  What do you know about mechanical engineering?  No?  DAMN!"  But let's look at that:  We should spend billions, most of our profits, to develop something that won't work, is easily disabled, that police and military will be exempt from using, and might get me sued if it fails and someone dies, or fails and lets a criminal shoot?  How about, "Go fuck yourself." Does that work for you?

 

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. 

 

So what?  What exactly does asking someone about guns in their homes do?  And as I read the 1st and 5th Amendments, I can tell the doctor to go fuck himself, or say nothing at all.

 

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities. 

 

Wow!  There are doctors who don't know that?

 

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers. 

 

So...exactly what the NRA proposed...hidden down around the end.  Sneaky, sneaky. I see what you did there.

 

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education. 

 

Assuming they all have the same floorplan, environment, local demographics and threats, that's brilliant.  Wait, what?

 

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover. 

 

I won't comment on this because it might actually be useful, but I have no idea what he actually said. 

 

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges. 

 

Ditto

 

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations. 

 

I'm withholding comment until I'm sure that doesn't mean "Waste more money, create a bunch of buzzwords not in DSM IV and outrage the mental health community."

 

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

"Mental health is a good thing.  We should definitely get some for Washington."

  1. Who Really Needs An AR15?
  2. WE NEED TO REGULATE CARS THE WAY WE REGULATE GUNS
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • Politics