Home

Details

I just saw this comment on a FB forum about Starbucks:

"Went to Starbucks this morning. No guns.  So peaceful."

Dear utter fucking retard:

Below is the list of shootings that have taken place at Starbucks:

~~~

Now, there have been a few altercations, usually because retarded pussies like yourself insisted on threatening or attacking people who were obeying the law and happened to be armed.  This proves you really weren't afraid of them shooting you, or you'd have run screaming.  

So what you're saying is, "It was peaceful because I didn't throw a panty-shitting tantrum over my fellow citizens living their lives in a way I don't approve of."

How special for you.

Moving on--how do you KNOW there were no guns?  I keep mine concealed, and it's easy to confirm that I really know how to use it.  You'll never see it unless I actually need it.  But it's there.  And I was in my local Starbucks.  So there were, in fact guns in Starbucks.

I guess you think that little letter they sent out, that someone photographed, means something.  Let me explain the law to you:

A corporate policy letter has no legal weight on private citizens (and isn't your side the one that hates corporations telling people what to do?).

Unless there is a sign on the door, the policy doesn't exist, from a legal perspective.

Even IF there are signs on the door, that only matters in states that have such a law, which specify the size, wording, color, placement and height of said signage.

In most states, the sign STILL has no legal weight.  Unless and until the staff actually determine I'm armed, AND ask me to remove my weapon from the premises, I'm perfectly legal.

So there are going to be guns there EVERY DAY.

In fact, I'm going to make it a point to carry a gun into Starbuck's every day from now on.  Even if I just walk through and say hi and keep walking.

So there are guns in Starbuck's.

And you'll never know which customers have them. :*

Just as a final note--those signs and letters don't stop actual criminals.

So yes, it really comes down to, "I want to stop people from living a lifestyle I don't like."

Congratulations.  You and Fred Phelps are in good company with the Klan and the gay bashers. 

Details

These are so common they should be an FAQ.

"Nobody wants to take away your guns."

How you lie to yourselves:

This huge list of people http://thewriterinblack.blogspot.com/2014/09/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns.html want to take away our guns.  You can't claim it's only rhetoric. You can't claim it doesn't matter.  You can't claim it's a fabrication or "out of context."  They have stated so, repeatedly, in public.  Anyone repeating "no one wants to take away your guns" is deluding themselves into a false moral high ground.

If you are one of these people, knowing this, you have a couple of choices:  Contact all the above people and express your objections, or admit that you're okay with people taking away our guns.  In which case, you're lying to us, too.

~~~

"No right is absolute.  Nobody would claim the Second Amendment protects a right to own a nuclear bomb."

How you lie to us:

You aren't interested in nukes.  However, your next statement is going to be, "So of course we can reasonably draw the line at 'assault weapons'."  At which point you're conflating a common, self-loading rifle, which has been in existence for over a century, and fires bullets at people, with a nuclear device capable of destroying cities.  Sure, 1763 Joules is almost the same as  5,439,200,000,000,000,000 ( 5.4392X10^18 ) Joules.

No, not really.

If you are one of these people, you're lying.  We know you're lying.  You also have a ridiculous obsession with guns, if you can even pretend to compare them to nukes. (FYI, there's absolutely a valid claim that the Second Amendment protects the right to own nuclear bombs.)

~~~

"High capacity clips."

 By this, you mean any MAGAZINE, not clip, that holds "a lot."  You're counting on your toes and running out.

How you're lying to us:  

In fact, the AR15 and the military M16 started with 20 round magazines in 1959.  They moved to a 30 round magazine in 1967.  The AK-47 was first fielded in ...1947.  It has had a 30 round magazine as its standard all along.  That's 66 years.  So what makes it "high capacity" now?  That someone not in this field of expertise doesn't like it doesn't change the definitions.  You can't arrogate that authority to yourself.

You can't even decide what constitutes "high capacity."  It varies by jurisdiction from 30 to 20 to 15 to 12 to 10 to 7.

Based on what criteria?  And, if you get to define it as 10, then 7, as has happened, why not 5 (standard capacity in 1893)?  4 (standard in 1859)?  1 (standard back to the 1500s)?

This is very clearly an attempt to ban guns (oh, right--you don't actually want to ban guns. See above).  It's just a dishonest attempt.  But go ahead, tell me why X rounds is "enough," and what task it's enough for, and your credentials for making that statement.  You can't answer those questions, because you're lying.

What you mean is, "I want to find ways to make it tough for people to own guns."

And of course, the people it will be toughest for are poor, usually minorities. So you're hugely racist as well. It won't be rich, white, liberals of privilege in their gated communities and condos who can't get guns. It will be poor single mothers and families in the ghetto, who can't afford a license, a safe, excessively expensive "training," and sign-off by bureaucrats. Just the way you liked them in the post-bellum south.

~~~

"At the time the Constititution was written, people only had muskets."

Why you're lying:

Actually, no.  There were repeating firearms even then.  But that's irrelevant.  In 1789, gays couldn't marry. Are you pushing for that?  "Free speech" meant wood type or standing in the city square.  What about that?  Things develop and improve over time.  Why don't you try being liberal, and embrace the 21st Century, rather than being stuck in 1789?

Wait, I know your response:  "Those don't kill people."

Why you're STILL lying:

Pedophiles make copious use of the internet to share files that exploit, hurt, and kill kids.  Please justify why you need internet in your home?  What's wrong with reasonable regulation?  Background checks?  Why can't you access the internet from a library, where your browser history can be monitored?

You're lying.  Stop wasting your time.

BTW, gay marriage aside, AIDS spread by gay men kills as many people as guns.  Are you pushing for mandatory blood tests and condom usage to save lives?

If not, you're lying. It's not about saving life.  It's about you having an irrational fear of guns.

~~~~

"I have guns, and all mine are properly registered."

How you're lying:

Almost no state or local jurisdiction in the US actually registers firearms.  So unless you happen to live in one of those, you're either fabricating entirely to try to don the cloak of credibility, or, you don't actually know anything about the law.  So perhaps you shouldn't be expressing an opinion on a subject you don't understand.  Either way, lies and ignorance are poor tactics for debate.

~~~ 

"We are advocates for safe gun use."

How you're lying:

Would you care what a "car safety advocate" said if he wasn't a car designer, engineer, builder, or even had a driver's license?  Guess what?  Since you know nothing technically about the subject, you're not an advocate for safety, you're an advocate for fear and ignorance.   There's no reason we should listen to you.

~~~

"Guns are only made to do one thing:  Kill people."

 Why you're wrong:

A lot of Olympic target shooters will be surprised to hear that.  So will hunters.  So will 90,000,000 Americans who didn't kill anyone last year.  Statistically, guns are significantly less lethal than a great many other devices.

~~~ 

"We just want to save children's lives."

Why you're lying:

If it was about children's lives, booze and incidents involving booze kill more people than in incidents involving guns, A LOT more children than are killed in incidents involving guns, and there are zero non-medical reasons a person "needs" booze.  How many of you voice anything about further restrictions on booze?  You're quite likely part of the "booze culture" yourself.  So you have no credibility.

What you are refusing to admit is that the only purpose of alcohol is to hinder and impair your judgment and motor skills.  But you didn't INTEND to run anyone down, so negligence is okay.

No, it's not.

But try this to prove your position:  Go to the morgue, find the body of a child hit by a drunk, and tell the parents, "Be glad they weren't shot. That would be worse."

Really.  Do it.

If you won't, you know your position is dishonest.  So what it comes down to is, "My vices are okay, but yours aren't, and I'm willing to lie to get what I want."

You're not interested in saving children's lives. In fact, you'll gleefully dance on their graves if you think you'll gain political leverage, while you continue with acts that kill a lot more kids.

Oh, and there's a stated constitutional right to my "vice" and SCOTUS agrees.  So you're in the same "protect the children" crowd as the Klan protecting kids from blacks, the anti-gay crowd protecting kids from gays, and the anti-porn crusaders.

And that's exactly how we see you--a bunch of dishonest, loudmouthed, hypocritical bigots.  

Truth hurts, eh?

Details

Those people who see every mass shooting as some conspiracy on the part of 0bozo and company.

So, here's your theory:

A "shadow government" is able to keep its existence secret even from Edward Snowden, who would probably have had access to all its info.  Said group is able to identify, locate and recruit suicidal freaks, or persuade them to commit suicide as their patriotic duty.

To achieve this end, they're going to go ATTACK A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO MOSTLY VOTED FOR THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION.  None of them have shot up the NRA convention, a gun show, a Fox station, or tried to assassinate Sarah Palin or any number of beloved conservative politicians.  Kill some of them, and you might have a chance of swinging conservatives to your cause.  Killing liberals clearly isn't having the desired effect, and risks outrage when (not "if," because no actual conspiracy lasts long) you get exposed, which would completely undermine what you're attempting to do.

But wait!  Instead, each of these incidents causes the usual stupid masturbatory diarrhea (sorry for the mixed metaphor, but it works) from the INCOMPETUS and his cohorts, and SELLS MILLIONS OF FUCKING GUNS AND ENTIRE ARMIES' WORTH OF AMMO.

Clearly, they are not having the desired outcome, if they even existed, which logic and even basic morality says is impossible.

I even hear, "All the evidence is on base, so we'll never know the truth."  Hey, Shit For Brains:  I'm retired from the military.  If you think for a second that every member of it or any agency is a brainwashed robot incapable of independent thought, how the fuck do you think we actually fight wars?  Do you believe Dick Cheney has some master control computer he uses to move us around and make noises?  Who operates it for him, a bunch of gamers?  But how can THEY be trusted with the Big Secret?

You're a fucking retard.

Want to help America?  Kill yourself.  Without using a gun.

Details

From comments in another thread, regarding, "But the commanders know better than you, and don't want troops armed when they have no need of a weapon":

Retired military. My service is a matter of public record on my site, Wikipedia, and the dozens of people on Baen's Bar who've met me personally.

A rational person would observe that the military members at WNY did, in fact, need weapons this morning, and did not have them.

Will there be potential incidents if troops are armed all the time? Likely. Those have to be balanced against ongoing, increasing threats.

It seems unlikely there'd be more violence at a stateside base, than in the war zone where everyone is under severe stress. The number of incidents there is few. So we can expect there to be fewer here.

There could be some incidents of weapon loss or theft, but the cost/benefit analysis makes those really unimportant overall. They'd be less significant than losses from police evidence lockers.

Keep in mind all those troops and personnel are unarmed from home to duty and back again. A simple surveillance will provide all kinds of terror targets, as was done in Europe during the Cold War.

Also, it is impossible to secure against such threats. You cannot disassemble and cavity search every vehicle and person entering. Any response must contain a reactive component. A reactive component requires armed force in the immediate area to the hostile.

If only the military could find a large number of people trained with weapons to be on hand to respond...

"But Mike, we've kept making ourselves more and more helpless, and we're still getting attacked!  What can we do?"

"Stop being pussies."

Sarcasm aside, if you can't trust an officer or NCO with a sidearm, as every Barney Fife cop in America is trusted, then either we need better recruiting standards, or you need therapy. I'm betting on the latter.

If there were statistically an armed NCO in every duty section, there'd be a lot less of this, because the shooters don't want to die until AFTER the make their statement.

Consider also that anyone working on base, or living off base, is guaranteed to be defenseless from home to gate and back.  Easy pickings for some future terrorist (and this is an easy prediction, because it happened several times in Europe during the Cold War).

An "Armed Force" actually needs to be, you know, an ARMED FORCE. 

  1. False Arguments For Gun Control
  2. Conspiritards

Guns

Shirts

  • You are here:  
  • Home