For cryin' out loud, why is anyone allowed to carry a firearm in this country? And don't give me any crap about responsible gun owners. You can't tell them from the nuts, delusional angry idiots and out-and-out psychos.
Never mind the irony. You can't use the term "racist" properly, then turn right around and slather at least half the country with terms that would indeed be racist if used in an analogous context.
I found a better link. I'm not sure why the first one didn't work.
I followed your link. I assume you think it depicts responsible gun owners. But there is no way to tell how they would react in a parking lot, is there?
Missed that point by a country mile. You used an isolated instance to tar an entire group of people. If it works with gun nuts, it works with blacks. After all, you cannot be born a knock-out nut, and knock-out nuts get kill innocent people. By design.
And you manage it without a hint of irony. Amazing,
Urban myth, so you can't use that. You really should stop watching Fox or pretty soon you'll start believing Jesus was blond.
However, I'll reconsider as soon as you explain how I can tell responsible gun owners from the nuts. Before you start, recall that you thought Zimmerman's carrying was responsible and his use was justified; but we know now he is violent, aggressive, truculent and delusional, lacking common sense or any sense of proportion. So until you show me how we should have known not to let that nut go armed, I am sticking with "nut" as the default status.
Bollocks. Utter bollocks. And epic point missing. You grab an incident so statistically unlikely as to equal nearly zero, and tar an entire group of people with it. I grab incident equally statistically unlikely, and tar an entire group of people with it.
You ask how you can tell responsible bun owners from the nuts. Fine. How can I tell responsible blacks from the knockout-gamers?
Pot, meet kettle.
Before you start, recall that you thought Zimmerman's carrying was responsible and his use was justified; but we know now he is violent, aggressive, truculent and delusional, lacking common sense or any sense of proportion.
Bollocks. Utter bollocks. Zimmerman's carrying was legal. He was on his back getting his face pounded; therefore, his use was justified. NB: based on subsequent information, it seems likely that Martin profiled Zimmerman as a cruising gay. As for whether Z-man is otherwise aggressive, truculent, etc, that is pure ad hominem attack. Even taking those things as read, they still don't change the facts of the event.
So until you can show me how I can know a group of black males aren't going to pound me into the pavement, I will stick with "nut" as the default status.
If there is ever a group of people who are utterly, and ironically, resistant to about the only thing Marx ever said* that makes sense, it has to be the MSM.
* ... history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce ...
Statistically unlikely? Pulling guns over parking spaces? Happens every day.
Ad hominem? We have Zimmerman on tape. We know what a violent hothead he is.
The question is not whether his carrying was legal -- it's a bad law -- but whether it was responsible. Everybody knows it wasn't. Citizens Patrol are encouraged not to go armed. For excellent reasons.
The rightwing will stop at nothing to traduce Martin whose behavior -- in contrast to Zimmerman's -- was responsible. Rightwingers are not scoring points for responsibility by their smears.
You are referring to the "crazy ass cracker" remark to Martin's girlfriend. In a Big Lie worthy of McCarthy this was spun as "crazy ass-cracker," although "ass-cracker" is an unknown locution.
"Crazy-ass" is a common adjective in Southron, so what Martin meant was that he was being stalked by a (gun) nut (though he didn't know about the gun) who looked like a cracker (white rustic)
Cracker, though it identifies a white person, is not primarily a racial term, it is a class divisor. It is equivalent to redneck, and when used by a cracker is prideful. The Atlanta baseball team was the Crackers. It is commonly used in Florida, you see it in real estate ads.
Statistically unlikely? Pulling guns over parking spaces? Happens every day.
As non-answers go, that is priceless. Divide the number of parking lots there are by the number in which pulling guns happens per day. You don't need to be real precise about the answer; just tell me how far to the right of the decimal point you have to go before you get to the first non-zero number.
The rightwing will stop at nothing to traduce Martin whose behavior -- in contrast to Zimmerman's -- was responsible.
As precisely as possible, please describe what Martin was doing during the 45 seconds prior to his shooting.
The question is not whether his carrying was legal -- it's a bad law -- but whether it was responsible. Everybody knows it wasn't.
Because, as we all know, it is far better to get your head slammed into the pavement.
It is both astonishing and appalling how relentlessly progressives deny the obvious facts of the case. It is religious in a way: any atrocity is justified so long as it is for the greater glory of the Narrative.
In a Big Lie worthy of McCarthy this was spun as "crazy ass-cracker," although "ass-cracker" is an unknown locution.
Unknown to you doesn't mean universally unknown. It certainly wasn't unknown to Martin's girlfriend -- she was the one who explained it.
---
I take it you are reconsidering your "urban legend" accusation.
And you are assuming a point not in evidence, that firearms are useful tools. Certainly for the uses claimed by the gun nuts -- self- and national defense -- the evidence is vanishingly thin.
To which list Bret could have added swimming pools. Almost all the drownings are accidents, and kill more kids under the age of 14 than guns. No one in their right mind would suggest outlawing swimming pools. Why not?
Or alcohol, which kills and maims far more people than guns. So why not outlaw alcohol? Two reasons: won't work, and progressives like alcohol. The only difference between alcohol and guns is that progressives don't like guns.
After all, the Sentinel considered only survivors, and as the gun nuts always say, the vast majority of gunshot wounds are suicides, with a survival rate under 10%.
Your implicit, and preposterous, assumption is that if guns were somehow to magically disappear, those suicides wouldn’t have happened. The test is to compare the US against similar countries with stringent gun laws like, oh, the UK and Japan. Or New Zealand and Australia. Or, for that matter, take a look at the UK before and after it passed its confiscatory gun laws.
You might as well outlaw rope and cars.
Net positive utility to A firearm, perhaps. To ALL 300 million? No way. Millions of innocents done to death. Number of innocents saved, maybe a few hundred.
Is innumeracy a pre-requisite to being a progressive? You relate an instantaneous quantity to a sum taken over a century, and then include the suicides you can’t demonstrate wouldn’t have happened.
But those flights of illogic are nothing compared to what Lt Col Bateman perpetrated in his essay, which the NRA quite reasonably fisked. (http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/12/army-officer-insults-supreme-court-for-heller-decision-calls-for-gun-bans,-turn-ins,-and-more.aspx)
To which Bateman responded Personally, I think a little bit less of an organization like the NRA, which incites their members to threaten rape and murder and the abduction of babies. But perhaps, if you are an NRA member, you may approve of some of the messages above.
I am an NRA member, and I have nothing but contempt for bald faced liars such as Bateman. (Or, for that matter, officers so appallingly ignorant of the UCMJ.)
Is the knock out game an urban legend? (http://restatingtheobviousmaui.blogspot.hk/2013/12/why-we-call-them-gun-nuts-chapter-xxxvii.html)
Which makes one wonder, yet again, at how progressives can call themselves the reality based community.
(For some reason, it is suddenly impossible to embed links.)
Your link is delusional.
ReplyDeleteNever mind the irony. You can't use the term "racist" properly, then turn right around and slather at least half the country with terms that would indeed be racist if used in an analogous context.
Besides, you are wrong.
I found a better link. I'm not sure why the first one didn't work.
ReplyDeleteI followed your link. I assume you think it depicts responsible gun owners. But there is no way to tell how they would react in a parking lot, is there?
Let's rewrite your post by changing just one word, using the same attitude, but a different subject:
ReplyDelete... And don't give me any crap about responsible blacks. You can't tell them from the nuts, delusional angry idiots and out-and-out psychos.
Without doubt, that would be obnoxiously racist.
So please explain to me why what you wrote is any less obnoxious.
Because you cannot be born a gun nut? Because gun nuts are pushing an agenda that gets innocent kids killed?
ReplyDeleteI could go on.
Missed that point by a country mile. You used an isolated instance to tar an entire group of people. If it works with gun nuts, it works with blacks. After all, you cannot be born a knock-out nut, and knock-out nuts get kill innocent people. By design.
ReplyDeleteAnd you manage it without a hint of irony. Amazing,
Urban myth, so you can't use that. You really should stop watching Fox or pretty soon you'll start believing Jesus was blond.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'll reconsider as soon as you explain how I can tell responsible gun owners from the nuts. Before you start, recall that you thought Zimmerman's carrying was responsible and his use was justified; but we know now he is violent, aggressive, truculent and delusional, lacking common sense or any sense of proportion. So until you show me how we should have known not to let that nut go armed, I am sticking with "nut" as the default status.
He had 5 guns during his last assault.
Urban myth, so you can't use that.
ReplyDeleteBollocks. Utter bollocks. And epic point missing. You grab an incident so statistically unlikely as to equal nearly zero, and tar an entire group of people with it. I grab incident equally statistically unlikely, and tar an entire group of people with it.
You ask how you can tell responsible bun owners from the nuts. Fine. How can I tell responsible blacks from the knockout-gamers?
Pot, meet kettle.
Before you start, recall that you thought Zimmerman's carrying was responsible and his use was justified; but we know now he is violent, aggressive, truculent and delusional, lacking common sense or any sense of proportion.
Bollocks. Utter bollocks. Zimmerman's carrying was legal. He was on his back getting his face pounded; therefore, his use was justified. NB: based on subsequent information, it seems likely that Martin profiled Zimmerman as a cruising gay. As for whether Z-man is otherwise aggressive, truculent, etc, that is pure ad hominem attack. Even taking those things as read, they still don't change the facts of the event.
So until you can show me how I can know a group of black males aren't going to pound me into the pavement, I will stick with "nut" as the default status.
BTW, here is the MSM at its completely typical.
If there is ever a group of people who are utterly, and ironically, resistant to about the only thing Marx ever said* that makes sense, it has to be the MSM.
* ... history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce ...
BTW, urban legend, my ass.
ReplyDeleteStatistically unlikely? Pulling guns over parking spaces? Happens every day.
ReplyDeleteAd hominem? We have Zimmerman on tape. We know what a violent hothead he is.
The question is not whether his carrying was legal -- it's a bad law -- but whether it was responsible. Everybody knows it wasn't. Citizens Patrol are encouraged not to go armed. For excellent reasons.
The rightwing will stop at nothing to traduce Martin whose behavior -- in contrast to Zimmerman's -- was responsible. Rightwingers are not scoring points for responsibility by their smears.
You are referring to the "crazy ass cracker" remark to Martin's girlfriend. In a Big Lie worthy of McCarthy this was spun as "crazy ass-cracker," although "ass-cracker" is an unknown locution.
"Crazy-ass" is a common adjective in Southron, so what Martin meant was that he was being stalked by a (gun) nut (though he didn't know about the gun) who looked like a cracker (white rustic)
Cracker, though it identifies a white person, is not primarily a racial term, it is a class divisor. It is equivalent to redneck, and when used by a cracker is prideful. The Atlanta baseball team was the Crackers. It is commonly used in Florida, you see it in real estate ads.
Statistically unlikely? Pulling guns over parking spaces? Happens every day.
ReplyDeleteAs non-answers go, that is priceless. Divide the number of parking lots there are by the number in which pulling guns happens per day. You don't need to be real precise about the answer; just tell me how far to the right of the decimal point you have to go before you get to the first non-zero number.
The rightwing will stop at nothing to traduce Martin whose behavior -- in contrast to Zimmerman's -- was responsible.
As precisely as possible, please describe what Martin was doing during the 45 seconds prior to his shooting.
The question is not whether his carrying was legal -- it's a bad law -- but whether it was responsible. Everybody knows it wasn't.
Because, as we all know, it is far better to get your head slammed into the pavement.
It is both astonishing and appalling how relentlessly progressives deny the obvious facts of the case. It is religious in a way: any atrocity is justified so long as it is for the greater glory of the Narrative.
In a Big Lie worthy of McCarthy this was spun as "crazy ass-cracker," although "ass-cracker" is an unknown locution.
Unknown to you doesn't mean universally unknown. It certainly wasn't unknown to Martin's girlfriend -- she was the one who explained it.
---
I take it you are reconsidering your "urban legend" accusation.
And you are assuming a point not in evidence, that firearms are useful tools. Certainly for the uses claimed by the gun nuts -- self- and national defense -- the evidence is vanishingly thin.
ReplyDeleteTo which list Bret could have added swimming pools. Almost all the drownings are accidents, and kill more kids under the age of 14 than guns. No one in their right mind would suggest outlawing swimming pools. Why not?
Or alcohol, which kills and maims far more people than guns. So why not outlaw alcohol? Two reasons: won't work, and progressives like alcohol. The only difference between alcohol and guns is that progressives don't like guns.
After all, the Sentinel considered only survivors, and as the gun nuts always say, the vast majority of gunshot wounds are suicides, with a survival rate under 10%.
Your implicit, and preposterous, assumption is that if guns were somehow to magically disappear, those suicides wouldn’t have happened. The test is to compare the US against similar countries with stringent gun laws like, oh, the UK and Japan. Or New Zealand and Australia. Or, for that matter, take a look at the UK before and after it passed its confiscatory gun laws.
You might as well outlaw rope and cars.
Net positive utility to A firearm, perhaps. To ALL 300 million? No way. Millions of innocents done to death. Number of innocents saved, maybe a few hundred.
Is innumeracy a pre-requisite to being a progressive? You relate an instantaneous quantity to a sum taken over a century, and then include the suicides you can’t demonstrate wouldn’t have happened.
But those flights of illogic are nothing compared to what Lt Col Bateman perpetrated in his essay, which the NRA quite reasonably fisked. (http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/12/army-officer-insults-supreme-court-for-heller-decision-calls-for-gun-bans,-turn-ins,-and-more.aspx)
To which Bateman responded Personally, I think a little bit less of an organization like the NRA, which incites their members to threaten rape and murder and the abduction of babies. But perhaps, if you are an NRA member, you may approve of some of the messages above.
I am an NRA member, and I have nothing but contempt for bald faced liars such as Bateman. (Or, for that matter, officers so appallingly ignorant of the UCMJ.)
Is the knock out game an urban legend? (http://restatingtheobviousmaui.blogspot.hk/2013/12/why-we-call-them-gun-nuts-chapter-xxxvii.html)
Which makes one wonder, yet again, at how progressives can call themselves the reality based community.
(For some reason, it is suddenly impossible to embed links.)
The knockout game is no longer an urban legend. It's real now, but it isn't what you think:
ReplyDeletehttp://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/304430_Texas_Man_27_Charged_With_Fede