Sticking with the gun theme of the last two posts, here’s a good one from six months ago. My ever-so-eloquent ex-dance partner, Richard, had a problem with me calling out the NRA Executive VP for shitting out a pile of lies. And as we all know, guns are always right, so I’m the asshole.
When Wayne La Douchebag proclaims Obama has a secret plan to take away everyone’s guns if he’s re-elected based on the fact that he’s only relaxed gun laws, that is NOT fear-mongering. It is “the truth.”
Republicans seem to have a problem with the definition of certain words. Like ‘fact’ and ‘truth.’
¡Vete a la Chingada, los Republicanos! #27 in a series: Wayne LaPierre. You are a lying sack of extreme right-wing, gun-toting, fear-mongering, alarmist, over-reactionary, psychotic NRA shit.
And before anyone starts gettin' all up in my shit about the Second Amendment - fucking relax. I'm specifically talking about this asshole's moronic, extremist, conspiratorial lies. Because they're lies.
And if you believe him, then I'm sorry for your terribly under-used mind.
[As if summoned by an ancient curse, a terribly under-used mind appears.]
Well, when you only watch the few seconds of the entire speech, it doesn't make the same impact. The fact that Obama is known to be very anti-gun [There’s that confusing word, “fact” I warned you about.], was probably a factor in him lying low on the issue. [Or an issue completely made up by a right-wing gun nut.]
It is an issue that a lot of Liberal politicians find themselves in. Legal gun owners are upwards of 70 million Americans. That's a lot of people to potentially piss off on what has historically been a very touchy subject. [As opposed to the 243 million legal non-gun owners? I should have also warned you that math is not a Republican strong point as well.]
I think that Obama did decide to steer clear of that issue, as the backlash, when he already had an uphill battle with his Healthcare agenda and some other things he wanted to get done, was what he did. Was it a conspiracy? Maybe, in the fact that he and some others in his circle of advisors probably decided to leave the issue alone for political reasons. [Obama could have done nothing about gun laws and actually steer clear of the issue and wait for a second term, if he was as anti-gun as you claim, but he went out of his way to relax gun laws. Why would he do that? It only pisses off his liberal base. And makes your point seem rather silly. And let’s look at your last sentence, shall we? MAYBE it’s a FACT that he PROBABLY decided…? Translation: It’s a FACT that I’m making this up as I go along. Also, Wayne lied that Obama hatched this conspiracy even before he was elected, so uphill healthcare agenda battles and "some other things" that came later couldn't have had anything to do with it.]
He has been anti-gun historically, so I don't think that he suddenly had a change of heart the moment he was elected, do you? [Allowing people to now carry guns on AmTrack and in state parks would kind of COMPLETELY refute that opinion, don't you think? Oh, sorry, you already told me that you don't think. My fault for ignoring what you said. Please continue.]
And to be honest, I don't see any more rhetoric from Wayne's speech than I see in your posts on a daily basis, no offense. [My “rhetoric” is fact-based. Wayne’s rhetoric is fantasy-based. Sort of a difference there.]
Interesting. Not the point.
Explain LaPierre's conspiracy theory to me. Explain how Obama's going to take all your guns away by relaxing gun laws.
I don't think that is actually what he said. [It IS actually what he said. And you don't have to keep telling me that you don't think.] John Stewart, a comedian, took some of his comments from a speech, isolated them and presented them with his own conclusions. [I’ll get to this in a moment.]
I think that it was a conspiracy to let the issue drop, to lull gun owners into a false sense of security, because in the end, Obama is pretty anti-gun. [I wish you could hear how heartily I’m laughing at this utterly stupid notion.]
Obama has done nothing but relax gun laws. Explain how that translates into taking all your guns away. [I'm repeating myself. That won't stop him from never answering me.]
He signed a law that made a few modifications to existing laws about people who are licensed to carry a concealed handgun (like myself) in their state, could carry on land in their state that happens to be Federally owned. [i.e., He relaxed gun laws.]
He didn't take all our guns away, but Wayne never said that he did. [I never said he said he did. I said he said he would. Which is what he said.] Many think that Obama would love to, if he thought he could pull it off. [Only right-wing conspiracy nuts think this. Based on, oh, let’s call them, ‘anti-facts.’]
I think that were we to watch the entire speech, and not just John Stewart’s carefully selected 11 seconds of it, that what Wayne is saying might make more sense. I am trying to find the entire speech online now...
The National Rifle Association's Executive VP, Wayne LaPierre Addresses the Conservative Political Action Conference in Florida on 9/23/11
[The reason I had this clip of the entire speech on hand is, obviously, that I already watched it. As with every subject I first learn about, I research the crap out of it before I go shooting my mouth off. Jon Stewart first brought the story to my attention, but I didn’t just repeat what he told me. Unlike my conservative cohorts, who believe I only blindly regurgitate what I’m told by the left, that is precisely what they do regarding things they hear from FOX “News” and Rush “Obese Drug Addict” Limbaugh. And furthermore, I do not only watch liberal media. I have learned of (and debunked) bullshit I first heard from the right as well. And furtherfurthermore, as I have oft expressed, I am not a liberal. It’s just that if I don’t accept right-wing propaganda, that means I’m a tree-hugger to a conservative. There are no options in a closed, one-track mind. And furtherfurtherfurthermore, NONE of my rant was based on what Jon Stewart said. And having said all this, you should watch the 18 minute clip and draw your own conclusion.]
Yeah, watching it now, and when you see the quotes that Stewart took out, and continue watching and see the lengthy and detailed explanations of what he means when he says that. [I understand what Richard means even though it's an incomplete sentence, but Stewart did not change the meaning of what LaPierre said. He only condensed it to the meat of the matter.]
That is the problem with people like Stewart, whose job is to make people laugh, and if a little news gets in there that is a bonus. [Stewart is a satirist. Satirists use humorous ridicule to point out absurd realities.]
You never get the true meaning or intent or argument when you only show 11 seconds of a 19 minute speech. [Au contraire. A lie is still a lie no matter its length.]
eg, when Wayne says to use common sense, and Stewart and the audience laughs, because he cut it off right there before Wayne explained all the reasons, the things that have happened, the people Obama appointed to the US Supreme Court who had to lie about their feelings on the 2nd Amendment in order to get confirmed. Wayne gave specific examples and quotes.
So yeah, if you only saw "Use common sense" and then nothing else, it would seem to be a silly argument. But that is because Stewart edited out the next two minutes of details explanations and examples...
Watched the whole thing. Has your usual political rally rhetoric and tone, but the content itself isn't anything remotely like what Stewart implies. [Barring the fact that it is exactly like what Stewart explained. And I used the word ‘fact’ correctly.] But Stewart wouldn't get the laughs or ratings if he presented it truthfully, and you certainly would not have posted about it either. ;-)
Making up a whole bunch of shit that he says people were thinking and planning (of which he couldn't possibly know unless guns also make him clairvoyant) is only an example of insane, conspiratorial rhetoric.
Kinda like claiming "Bush's war for oil" when to this day, we haven't taken a drop? LOL
It is clear that Obama has been anti-gun in his career. He puts two rabidly anti-gun judges on the USSC. [Rabidly? Fear-monger much? Or are you just repeating what Wayne told you?]
He was quoted with his "clinging to guns and religion" comment. [The full text of which is in my post, “Manufactured Outrage” from 28 February. Just scroll to the bottom. You will note the "clinging to guns and religion" comment has no bearing to this issue – or to any other issue Republicans twist for their use. Unless you deliberately take portions of it out of context for this purpose. Don’t take my word for it. Read and judge it for yourself. I would if I were you.]
Do you think his views have changed? Or is it more likely that he simply decided that the backlash of tens of millions of pissed off gun owners could cost him dearly, politically, so he decided to just shut up about it, let people get complacant, load up the USSC with anti-gun judges and "live to fight another day"?
I agree that the way it is presented as "conspiracy" is rhetoric, just like one would see in any political rally for any party, I don't deny that. [Keep this statement in mind when he later contradicts it, blaming it on Jon Stewart. And me.]
But if you take that flair away and examine the situation itself... if the shoe fits...
Taking away the flair... the situation is that he pisses of his base by relaxing gun laws so he can make happy the "tens of millions of pissed off gun owners" who will NEVER vote for him anyway? All that succeeds in doing is getting him less votes. Brilliant. Your shoe fits an illogical, right-wing extremist, fear-mongering, alarmist, bullshit-shoveling NRA foot.
And yes, his plan to install two judges who hate the 2nd Amendment is so clever because no one will ever figure it out. He'll trick those tens of millions of pissed off gun owners into voting for him yet! You'll see! Mwahaha! His secret plan is working! There is no other reason why he put them on the USSC. Eliminating the 2nd Amendment (as LaPierre put it because he reads minds) is obviously Obama's goal.
And I hate to break it to you, but American and British oil corporations have control over oil in Iraq (at least they did - I haven't been paying attention to that lately – they may have turned it back over to Iraq). You must not have heard of Bush's Executive Order 13303 regarding the Development Fund for Iraq. Your mistake is in thinking that it translates into cheaper gas at the pump in America. What are you, a socialist? Trying to spread corporate profits to the lazy, want-everything-for-free citizens of America who didn't earn it?
But he didn't really relax all that much, Bill. The law to expand existing carry laws to include state parks was passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate, and all he did was sign it. [To the right, Obama doing exactly what the NRA wants (easing gun restrictions) is another example of him 'not doing much' but if a Republican President did exactly what the NRA wanted, he would be hailed as a hero. Or am I just a delusional idiot?]
I am already allowed to carry everywhere in the state except for sporting events and government buildings. I can already carry in State Parks, all the law said was that now I can carry in a handful of federal parks. It isn't like he made any radical changes [No one ever said he did.], and as I said, it has a ton of support in the House and Senate, so risking pissing a lot of people off at a time when his job approval numbers are in the toilet, over legislation that doesn't really change all that much, was not something he wanted to deal with.
And his appointing two radically anti-gun judges into the very body that will shape future gun laws for decades to come, shows two things. That they mirror his own views, and that he wants those people in place because gun laws and things will come to the USSC and he wants the deck stacked in his party's favor. Just as a Republican President would do. [So, the complaint here is that he did what all Presidents do? The nerve of that asshole!]
He put them in place for the reasons that Wayne stated. They mirror his politics, and they will get to preside on future gun laws. Do you think that the gun ban in DC being ruled Unconstitutional would have happened if the USSC had more Liberal judges on it? [Do I think the United States Supreme Court Judges legislate according to Party ideals instead of actually upholding the intent of the Constitution? Yes.]
The USSC is in many ways more important to our future than any Presidency is. They are the ones that get to "interpret" the law and make broad sweeping changes with the stroke of a pen. [That is true. I still don't know what any of this has to do with relaxed gun restrictions equating to taking away guns.]
But he did relax gun laws. A little or a lot is irrelevant. Giving you more gun rights somehow takes away your gun rights? That's a helluva trick.
And what exactly is your argument on his USSC appointees? That he should have placed conservative judges? Or found liberal judges that have conservative gun-control views? What? You're basing Obama’s entire reason for appointing USSC Judges on the gun issue alone. That's ridiculous. I would guess gun opinions were not the top priority in his Judge nomination requirements. Or do you also think Republican Presidents should install liberal judges? You're looking for a conspiracy that is not there, or apparently applies to only one Party and sounds, frankly, crazy.
Bill, nobody claimed that he took our gun rights away. Ignore John Stewart's comedy skit and watch the actual video. [Yeah. Maybe some day I’ll get around to it. Asshat. And stop spelling 'Jon' wrong.]
Wayne points out that Obama is a threat to gun ownership. He didn't tackle it during his first term because of fear of backlash from tens of millions of voters over a very passionate topic. So he kept his mouth shut, even though he has always proven to be anti-gun in the past. He puts two judges in place that are VERY anti-gun, who will get to "interpret" cases for decades to come, even have the ability to rewrite and reshape the laws of the land. [And obviously, this is only a problem to you when liberals are appointed. Otherwise, this thing that happens every single time a Judge is nominated wouldn’t ruffle your feathers this particular time.]
That's a threat. [To fairness.] And all Wayne is saying is that the groundwork is in place, and when Obama no longer has to worry about getting re-elected, he predicts that Obama will take up the anti-gun history that he is known for [‘Known for?’ Yes. That’s exactly what he’s known for. To psychotic nut-jobs who want to believe that.] , and actually work towards it this time around.
Will all that come to pass? I don't know, [Yet, you keep claiming that you, for a fact, do.] but I know that those two anti-gun judges [They are not 'anti-gun.' Words have meaning.] will at some point make decisions that will effect me and my rights.
Christ. I did watch the video. I posted it, didn't I? I actually watched it before my original post. Stewart just summed up the bullshit conspiracy rhetoric quite nicely. And I didn't think anyone would sit through the original 18 minutes of psycho fear-mongering bullshit, so I posted the Stewart version. And even though LaPierre "explains" his 'totalitarian liberal regime fantasy' more clearly, there's actually a lot more stupid, made up lunacy than what Stewart shows, so his is actually the watered down version.
Wayne talked a bunch of mind-reading, conspiratorial nonsense - about Obama's plan to take away gun rights. You are obediently repeating it. And yet denying it. And then immediately repeating it again. But never explaining how it could be possible.
Let ME repeat... he pisses of his base by relaxing gun laws so he can make happy the "tens of millions of pissed off gun owners" who will NEVER vote for him anyway? All that succeeds in doing is getting him less votes.
That conspiracy is stupid. LaPierre is talking stupid. And you are repeating stupid.
And I am stupid for entertaining this stupidity for so long.
He didn't really relax gun laws. And he didn't really piss off his base. [And you simply stating these falsehoods just magically made them come true. And the magic works better when you repeat the same thing over and over.]
Those are just Stewarts quips that you are parroting. [Here’s the classic “Weakness Transfer” tactic often employed by Republicans. He is blatantly repeating LaPierre’s conspiracy, so to hide that fact, he proclaims I am just repeating Stewart, which I am not. Like in 2004 when Bush, who never went to war, said that Kerry, who did in fact go to war, didn’t really go to war. They flip their weaknesses onto their opponents. If you follow politics, you will see Republicans doing this all the time. Pay attention to what Romney says about Obama. Republicans introduced 916 anti-woman bills in the last 13 months, yet Romney claims Obama and the Democrats, who have introduced no anti-women bills and have fought for women’s rights, are actually the ones who exhibit disdain toward women.]
He pissed off his base because a lot of people bought into hope and change. And what has he accomplished? We didn't pull out of Iraq. [Yeah, we did. Of course, not at the time this was originally posted.] The economy got worse. [No, it didn’t. It got better. That didn’t stop Romney from continually saying Obama made it worse, though.] He bailed out all the fat cats on Wall Street [That was Bush before Obama was even elected.], the same people being protested by the wannabe hippies this past weekend. [That’s true. He’s referring to the Occupy movement.] The job market has gotten worse [You are incorrect, sir. It started to get better the moment his policies kicked in.], etc...
|Red: Bush job loss increases. Blue: Obama job loss levels off, decreases, then more jobs are gained than lost - monthly chart|
He started out his Presidency with lots of promises, and he had a Democrat House and Senate on his side to make sure he got what he wanted.
And other than passing Obamacare, he failed at most everything. [You mean Republicans filibustered everything. Literally. Right?]
If his base is pissed at him, it is because he has been a failure, not because he let some people who already have concealed carry permits, carry in some parks. [It's not about his base ALREADY being pissed at him for other things. Stop being an idiot. It's about his base GETTING pissed at him specifically for relaxing gun laws alone. This is about gun laws, not any other irrelevant shit you keep introducing to the topic.]
You keep harping on the word "Conspiracy", likely because it evokes an image of something Oliver Stone would make a movie about. His point is that Obama's actions on gun control have been very calculated so as not to cost him votes or re-election issues. [I thought you didn't deny this 'conspiracy' rhetoric?]
For someone who always accuses the opposition of "repeating things", all you seem to be doing is repeating what a second-rate comic said on his show to get some laughs as if it was the Word of God or something. [Remember this proclamation.]
Political rallies are typically rhetoric, catch-phrases, slogans and rally cries. If he wants to draw some conclusions based on what Obama has done in the past, and since taking office, what others close to him have been quoted as saying, etc... who are you to say he is wrong? Fact is, you don't know what Obama plans to do, if anything.
You're wrong. He did relax gun laws.
You're wrong. Relaxing gun laws angers the liberal base regardless of what Jon Stewart says.
You're wrong. Wayne LaPierre did concoct a stupid conspiracy theory no matter what I call it.
As for the rest- people who have no point or any facts to work from will often completely change the subject in order to make it seem as if they have something to say.
And did you really just say, "Fact is, you don't know what Obama plans to do, if anything," while simultaneously arguing that LaPierre is a mystical magical mind-reader and DOES know what Obama plans to do?
L fucking O fucking L
[I only use text shorthand sarcastically. I hate text shorthand. And sideways faces - but not as much as text shorthand. Text shorthand is the murder of civilization. And based on the amount of its usage, civilization is doomed. Full books are written in text shorthand. Doomed, I say. DOOMED!]
My point was that Wayne has an opinion based on Obama's history, who he has appointed to the USSC, the fact that they lied to the Senate about their stance on guns, and things that people close to Obama have said about him... [I thought your point was that I don’t know what Obama is going to do but you and Wayne do?]
Does Wayne KNOW that it what Obama will do? No, I guess he doesn't KNOW. It's an educated guess.
But do you KNOW that Obama WON’T? [Hah. Good one.]
Wayne spent 18 minutes laying out in detail, why he thinks the way he does.
What are yours based on?
Mind-reading does not count as 'laying out details.' It counts as lying. That is what my thoughts about Wayne LaPierre are based on.
He gave specific examples on many counts. On a couple, he may have "drawn his own conclusions" or whatnot...
Point is, Obama is anti-gun, always has been even if he toned it down this term for fear of a backlash. Bottom line is that the people that support him, are not going to stop because he signed a POPULAR bill into law that said that people who already have carry permits, can now carry in certain parks. He is not going to lose many votes over that, lets be honest. [True. If you intentionally ignore all the left-wingers that became irate that he relaxed gun laws. And exclude the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence giving Obama an “F,” calling his continued concessions to the gun lobby a “guns anywhere” mentality. And ignore the Brady Campaign also citing his 'lack of leadership for common-sense gun laws' as another reason for the “F.” But these facts don’t fit the conspiracy theory, so they must be ignored.]
LaPierre is allowed to draw his own conclusions, but I'm not? Is it because you agree with his opinion but disagree with mine? That's not hypocritical at all.
However, yes. You're right. LaPierre did mix in a few facts between all his lies. Good, experienced liars do that.
1.) "The President will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he's actually been good for the Second Amendment. But it's a big, fat, stinking lie. Just like all the other lies that have come out of this corrupt administration. It's all part, it's ALL part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment in our country."
That sounded like mind-reading to me. Now with 20% more adjectives!
2.) "I'm going to give it to you straight here this morning. Before the President was even sworn into office, they met and they hatched a conspiracy of public deception to try to guarantee his re-election in 2012."
Who are "they?" Was Wayne at this meeting? Why would they invite him? Or did he have listening devices planted? I'm going to give it to you straight - that was unmitigated bullshit.
3.) "Their strategy was clear: When pressed by someone on the issue of gun control, offer a few platitudes on the issue to hunters and shooters without making any real commitments one way or the other. Hide, shroud, cloak any and all desires whatever you do, to attack the Second Amendment."
Wow. It's amazing how LaPierre got a hold of all Obama's strategy meeting notes. Coincidentally, I have one of LaPierre's notes and his strategy is clear: lie like a stinky dog turd on a hot, summer sidewalk.
4.) "That was a pure political calculation, a conspiracy aimed at getting re-elected in 2012."
LaPierre uses the word "conspiracy" when describing his mystical prescience of Obama's plans more than I do when describing the drivel leaking out of LaPierre's pie-hole. And here you thought I was quoting Jon Stewart and trying to evoke an Oliver Stone-type movie image. Wrong again. And for the record, Stewart NEVER said the word "conspiracy." Just me ‘n’ Li’l Wayne. Go ahead, play the clip again.
5.) "Obama himself is no fool. So, when he got elected, they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue, lull gun-owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012."
LaPierre is no fool. He's playing that right-wing audience like a fiddle. How would the audience know he has no fucking idea what "they" concocted? It's not like conservatives ever question what they're told. Like you when you repeated these lines almost exactly.
6.) "We see the President's strategy crystal clear: get re-elected and with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and exorcize it from the US Constitution. That's their agenda."
How many dog-whistle terms can fit into one lie? Well, at least five, going by this one.
7.) "They're already setting the stage for gutting the Second Amendment right now, quietly and behind the scenes."
I wonder why Obama keeps inviting LaPirerre to all his secret meetings? You'd think he wouldn't want to reveal the details to the NRA of his clever plan to erase the Second Amendment.
If Kagan and Sotomayor were lying, and the Republicans knew it, why did they confirm them? That must be one stupid bunch of Republicans - or LaPierre is fucking lying again. Or both. Or, they were always going to be confirmed no matter what, which happens to be the truth and LaPierre was making much ado about nothing just to pander to his audience of lemmings.
8.) The largely edited, intentionally obfuscated quote LaPierre gives, "I can find nothing in the Second Amendment that could warrant characterizing it as fundamental," was part of a dissent regarding the overturn of Chicago's gun ban actually written by Justice Stephen G. Breyer and signed on by Ginsburg & Sotomayor. The dissent then went on to point out their disagreement that the Constitution gives the Federal Government regulatory authority over the private uses of firearms over states' rights. They were upholding States’ rights over Federal interference. Hardly the epic battle against guns LaPierre claims Sotomayor was waging. But hey, he was on a roll with the lies. Why stop there? And it supports right-wing nonsense, so why should you care if it’s complete bullshit? And this tactic works - you've blindly repeated a half a dozen times the lie that she's 'rabidly anti-gun.'
9.) "If Obama wins re-election, he will likely appoint one, and probably three more Supreme Court Justices."
Based on what? Oh, yeah. Lies. Or does he now have the power to remove Judges as well? Either way, a Republican President would appoint conservative Judges. But there’s only a problem when a liberal Judge appointed? I now refer back to the word “hypocrisy.”
10.) "A second Obama term will mark the end of the Second Amendment as we know it. That is a fact."
A fact? LaPierre looked into his crystal ball. He saw the Second Amendment in the basement of the Alamo. Right next to Pee Wee's bike.
Of course you can draw them. I am just pointing out that yours are not any more valid than his. [I thought you said only you and Wayne knew what Obama was doing and I didn’t. Oh, right, you changed what you said after I called out your bullshit. Silly me.] In fact, he at least gives more examples as to why he feels the way he does, whereas you have, "he's a Republican, gun-toting, lying scumbag, etc..." [What’s with ‘etc’ on the end of everything? Is that some sort of method of padding out your examples when you don’t really have any more?]
Lying, Richard. That he's a liar is my example.
His conclusions are a fallacy because they are lies that he made up to support his preconceived narrative.
That is not 'giving examples.' That is lying.
Exaggerating would be saying something is 50% when it’s really 35%. Not saying Obama will end the Second Amendment if re-elected. That’s a lie.
So then you will agree that the following statements are lies?
1) They want to throw senior citizens out of their homes in order to give tax cuts to the wealthiest 1% of Americans.
2) He launched an illegal war for oil.
3) This has no merit, it is all part of a vast Right-Wing Conspiracy to hurt my husband.
I am just saying, you seem to get all fired up when someone as part of a political rally, uses rhetoric to express their beliefs...
You seem to claim they are lies if the person is a Republican, but I am pretty sure you never apply the same standard to your Democrats.
Whether he used your typical "campaign rally" rhetoric mode of speech, or drew some conclusions that may or may not be exactly accurate, I didn't see his speech as any different than ANY speech, regardless of party.
His point that Obama is extremely bad for gun owners, is accurate however. [By relaxing gun laws?] That part is fact. [Your definition of ‘fact’ being…?] Obama is anti-gun, always has been. He appointed two incredibly anti-gun judges to the USSC. So even if he let some people who already had permits carry in a park, the damage he did to the 2nd Amendment by putting those two judges in place will be huge. Fact. [I’m still having trouble with your use of the word ‘fact.’ And intentionally switching out ‘gun control’ for ‘anti-gun.’ They still have different meanings.]
You have a problem with Democrats? Go write your own rant. [He did. Then I would show up. Then he removed me from his Facebook Friends list so I couldn't show up anymore.].
And since you're fond of repetition... His conclusions are a fallacy because they are lies that he completely made up to support his preconceived narrative. That is not drawing a conclusion. That is not 'typical campaign rally rhetoric.' That is lying. A standard you seem to never apply to Republicans.
And how are you pretty sure I don't apply the same standards to Democrats? Do you ask LaPierre to read my mind for you? Or do you have this ability also?
And why are they my Democrats?
"...the damage he did to the 2nd Amendment by putting those two judges in place will be huge. Fact." How can you possibly claim something to be a 'fact' when it has not happened? Oh, shit. You CAN see the future!
And if you're curious about your non sequitur topics...
1) 40% true - issue is more complicated*
2) 80% true - issue is more complicated*
3) 80% true - issue is more complicated*
So Obama is not anti-gun? [If relaxing gun laws means 'anti-gun' then yes, he is anti-gun.]
He didn't put two rabidly anti-gun judges into the USSC, that will get to interpret future gun cases that come his way? [Rabid. That explains the foam and gnashing of teeth and growling. Someone should help these judges.]
I don't know why the Catholic Church doesn't just go ahead and automatically grant sainthood to anyone with a (D) after their name. [What?]
Let me just sum up this conversation for those that don't want to spend 18 minutes watching the video. [Get ready. This is fun.]
Wayne points out how bad Obama is for gun control. He reminds us that he has been anti-gun throughout his career. He points out that he appointed two of the most rabidly anti-gun USSC's ever [EVER!] to sit on the bench. He concludes that Obama did that, while keeping pretty quiet about gun control himself, because he knew it could cost him votes as there are currently 90 million gun owners in the US. [Wow. That’s 20 million more since the beginning of this conversation. At this rate, it’s approximately 180 million more every hour.]
What Bill is upset about is that Wayne used words like "conspiracy" and other colorful terms, to describe the FACTS that Obama is anti-gun, and appointed those anti-gun judges and is a threat to gun owners if re-elected. [I wonder if putting it in all caps helps?]
Bill knows that those key points are accurate, but like most liberals [I guess now I’m a liberal. FACT. Despite continually pointing out that I'm not.] cannot really argue them, because they are true. So he will do what John Stewart does, and take an 18 minute speech, edit it down to 2 or 3 comments spanning 16 seconds at most, and try to invalidate the entire premise of the discussion because of the vocabulary used.
Its typical Liberal tactics. Argue about "How did Wayne know Obama said that, was he in those secret meetings???", [????????!!!!!!!!!!!!?????????????! Now, THAT'S emphasis.] as if whether he was or not negates the fact that Obama is anti-gun, appointed the anti-gun USSC judges or is a threat to gun owners...
He did, and he is.
If you want to argue about how he should have worded a few of his phrases, I guess that is fine, but it doesn't change the thrust of his argument, and it doesn't change the above facts.
I will sum up each one of the paragraphs in your last post. Unlike you, who ignores all the things I say to which you have no valid counterpoint.
"Wayne points out..."
Based on the past, yes, Obama has been for gun control - or how you and all other extremists intentionally misrepresent it - anti-gun. ‘Gun control’ and ‘anti-gun’ are two vastly different things. Not that word definitions mean anything to you. However, since taking office, the only thing he has done is relax a few gun laws which earned him straight F's from the Brady campaign. The two "most rabidly anti-gun USSC's ever to sit on the bench" have also done nothing regarding guns. LaPierre's conclusions are not based on the facts of anything that has actually happened, but how he magically sees into the minds of people and also how he can foretell the future.
"What Bill is upset about..."
What upsets me is not colorful words like 'conspiracy' that LaPierre uses to describe facts. What upsets me is the blatant lies LaPierre makes up in his mind-reading fantasies and presents as fact then claims them to be "massive Obama conspiracies." (I've listed many of his lies earlier in this thread.) Claiming Obama has massive conspiracies of waiting quietly until re-elected and then pouncing and erasing the Second Amendment is a delusional, extremist, non-fact-based, dog whistle scenario. Seeing into the future cannot be claimed as a 'fact' as you and LaPierre keep doing.
"Bill knows that..."
Still calling me a Liberal, I see. It fits so conveniently into your Conservative bumper-sticker mentality. Yes, the key point that Obama and the two judges are for gun control is accurate. I was not arguing that. I was pointing out that LaPierre was making up mind-reading and future-telling fantasies and presenting them as fact. When in fact those are lies. I did not boil down an 18-minute speech into 'two or three' comments spanning 16 seconds and try to invalidate it on semantics. The ten (for those of us NOT using Republican math) quotes I used were from the first eleven minutes of the speech (before I got bored of listening to it) and all were lies. Taking into consideration the time it took so speak those ten lies, that's about 40% of the first eleven minutes dedicated to lies. And I only concentrated on the bigger lies, so a few lies were left out. Completely making something up that is untruthful is not about the vocabulary. You're the one who said "You keep harping on the word "Conspiracy", likely because it evokes an image of something Oliver Stone would make a movie about." I was quoting LaPierre. He is the one who kept lying about some "massive Obama conspiracy." Do you consider him to have been evoking Oliver Stone when falsely describing Obama's massive conspiracy? Or just me when quoting him? And when you completely ignore every time I point out LaPierre is a liar, it doesn't mean I "can't really argue" what he's saying. It means you ignore what you don't like in my answers.
"It's typical Liberal tactics."
I've already addressed the Liberal issue. Aside from that, if a 'typical liberal tactic' is to point out when someone is lying, then I'll be glad to be accused of using those tactics. Obama and Kagan and Sotomayor are for gun control. Most liberals are. The issue is, again, LaPierre's apparent mind-reading and clairvoyant, crystal ball, future-telling abilities presented as fact. Again, future events, someone's thoughts, and invented secret meetings cannot be presented as fact. And I only used one question mark, I didn't need to put an extreme emphasis on a simple, logical question. But thanks for bringing attention to it. It is a good question.
"He did, and he is."
Obama did appoint two USSC Judges that are for gun-control and he also is for gun-control. This is true. Having accepted this fact, the two judges have done NOTHING about guns and Obama has only RELAXED some gun laws. Those are the facts. However, none of them are "anti-gun." That is an extreme dog-whistle misrepresentation of the truth in order to fear-monger the right-wing base. It doesn't matter if you use 'anti-gun' 500 times, it will still be wrong. Exactly like when he said, "A second Obama term will mark the end of the Second Amendment as we know it. That is a fact." That is NOT a fact. That is an extremist, future-telling lie. I will defend the semantics on this issue. It is like anti-abortionists using the term 'pro-abortion.' Nobody is pro-abortion. People are pro-Choice. Pro-abortion makes it seem as if people want to force everyone to have an abortion all the time. That is a fear-mongering tactic. Also, semantically, "partial-birth abortion" isn't even a real thing. It's intended to conjure the image of a woman, in the middle of labor, having the baby terminated. Words have actual meanings. They are powerful. And semantics, although not always, are most often very important. Just ask Frank Luntz. [I wonder if Luntz is the one who told Republicans to use 'anti-gun' instead of 'gun control?']
"If you want to argue..."
Again, it is not about how he worded a few phrases. The thrust of his argument is based on things that have not happened and things he couldn't know if they will happen. Now, please ignore these facts and continue with your bullshit.
Being for gun control, is anti-gun.
By definition. [Ooh. Well that settles it, then. You said it, so it’s now true.] And the "Gun Control" [ZING!] crowd has often publically stated that their eventual goal is to see the Right for citizens to keep and bear arms taken down. [Not that I’ve ever heard. But I can’t rule out some left-wing fringe nutters that may have said that. If so, they’re of no real effect on policy. But I’m sure FOX “News” would latch on to them and represent them as the honest wishes and a major force driving the entire left-wing. Much in the same way that no one in a million years would ever have heard of the four weird guys in the hilarious “New Black Panthers” (renounced by the real Black Panthers) if FOX didn’t continually present them as America’s greatest threat to white America.]
You say he is lying because you don't like how he says it. Fine. The fact remains that Obama is anti-gun and a threat to gun ownership. Spin it any way you want. [Yes. The fact remains that I am the one spinning LaPierre’s ability to mind-read.] Write entire volumes and tomes on the subject. Nothing changes that underlying fact. [There’s that word ‘fact’ again. I wonder what word he actually means to use?]
Guns are controlled. Guns are the most regulated legal product on the US market, bar none.
We have gun control. We don't need any more.
At the risk of sounding cliche, "what part of 'Shall not be infringed' don't you understand"?
His appointments to the USSC, will have negative ramifications for gun owners. [You keep saying.] Not illegal gun owners and criminals, because they are not effected by any gun laws or regulations. They will have as many illegal guns as they have today, no law will ever change that.
What will change, is for people like me. My rights will be eroded, [By relaxed gun laws?] and Wayne's job, as the head of the NRA, is to lead the fight against that. Millions of gun owners joined the NRA, and essentially "elected" him to fight this fight on our behalf. He's doing his job.
If you don't like how he words things, great, I don't really give a shit at this point. But he is fighting a good fight, he is correct when he says that Obama and most Democrats are a threat to gun ownership, so I really don't care what colorful words he uses. If Obama and his advisors made an effort to be quiet about gun control and signed a very popular law that Congress passed in order to appease gun owners and not "rock the vote" [I think he meant 'rock the boat.'] with a very passionate and easily-energized voting demographic, if he wants to call it a "conspiracy", who cares? By definition, when more than 1 person agree to do something, it is a conspiracy.
“Being for gun control, is anti-gun."
No, it is not. Words have actual meaning. Way to believe the fear-mongering.
If I am for laws controlling the height of a child to ride a roller coaster, would that mean I'm anti-roller coaster? Or anti-child?
"You say he is lying because you don't like how he says it."
Nope. Again, I say he is lying because he is lying. It has NOTHING to do with HOW he reads minds and foretells the future and magically knows about secret meetings.
"Guns are the most regulated legal product on the US market, bar none."
The tobacco industry might differ with your copied verbatim statement from the right-wing blogosphere. [I wasn’t kidding. I put that exact phrase in Google Search and it popped up thousands of times in conservative blogs. Sure, they think for themselves.]
"...if he wants to call it a "conspiracy", who cares?"
When I call LaPierre's lies a conspiracy, I'm evoking "an image of something Oliver Stone would make a movie about." But when Wayne LaPierre is the one lying about "massive Obama conspiracies" - who cares? You are a hypocrite.
"By definition, when more than 1 person agree to do something, it is a conspiracy."
When more than one person agrees to do what? What is this conspiracy? The conspiracy to relax gun laws? LaPierre is making shit up and you blindly agree with the lies because it conforms to your preconceived right-wing narrative.
And don't claim -again- that Obama didn't really relax any gun laws. It's contradictory to you accepting that he did relax a few gun laws - which contradicts you claiming he's eroding your gun rights - which contradicts the fact that the only thing Obama did was relax gun laws. [Contradicting the contradictory contradictions. It was the same method used in writing the Bible, so I guess it's good enough for the NRA.]
If you "don't really give a shit at this point," why are you still here defending LaPierre's claim that he's able to mind-read?
1) You do not have a Right to ride a roller coaster. That is a profound difference with any analogy that you care to toss on the table. Driving a car, owning a home, riding a roller coaster, wearing a blue shirt... Those are all privilages. Free Speech and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is a Right and it is an entirely different animal.
2) We have thousands of firearms laws on the books. Today. We restrict guns more than we do pharmaceuticals. Exactly what "controls" do you propose?
1) Actually, the comparison was not about the gun issue. You profoundly missed the point. The comparison was about the semantics. If gun control means "anti-gun," then height control must similarly mean "anti-height." It was about fear-mongering and dog-whistle words and straw man terminology all being utilized to stir up support of an issue. People are too stupid to look up facts and just believe what members of their political "team" tells them. Like you are doing regarding LaPierre's comments (lies) right now. Words have actual meaning. I will give LaPierre credit that he is an effectual speaker and knows exactly how to rile up his ignorant base using semantics. It doesn't mean he's not lying. I've clearly shown that he is. Well, unless you believe in the ability to read minds.
2) Guns are more restricted than pharmaceuticals? Tobacco, too? Where is your proof? What are your sources? What are the statistics? How does one even gauge the restrictions on guns, drugs and tobacco? What is your statement based on? Should I blindly accept that statement? How about the FDA? Is it my RIGHT to eat? Or just a privilege? It's not in the Constitution. How many regulations does food have? Where does that fall on your 'regulated industries' list? Or clean air? Do I have a RIGHT to clean air? I do enjoy breathing, but is it my RIGHT?
I do not propose any controls. I do not have a problem with people owning guns.
My specific point to this was LaPierre's lies. He and people like him believe whenever a Democrat is in office, the government is going to storm your house and take away all your guns. That truth of that fucking idiocy is self-evident by the very fact that A) it has never happened and B) between the moment Obama took office and ONE week later, background checks shot up 49% and gun sales went through the roof. More than after 9/11. [Democrats are scarier than terrorist jihads to Republicans, apparently.] Many dealers reported an increase in sales between 50% and 300%. What has he done regarding gun laws again? The same thing happened after Clinton. It's really just a big ad campaign for gun dealers. They actually love when Democrats are elected.
Yes, he used words that would stir up the base. Like every single politician since politics began. Your point?
The fact is, despite how he worded it to enhance effect, the main points about Obama being anti-gun, appointing anti-gun judges, etc... was accurate. [etc…]
As for gun laws, yes, there are more agencies involved, more laws and paperwork, more Federal, state and even local ordinances restricting, regulating and "controlling" firearms. Look it up.
As for gun sales going up after he took office, so what? If an anti-gun person gets in office, wouldn't you maybe "buy some while you still can"? [I’m sure all those jackasses who stormed gun stores after Obama was elected looked deeply into his stance on guns and not just at the (D) next to his name.]
People did the same under Clinton, and you know what? Clinton banned a ton of weapons based on cosmetics. He banned guns that had a certain look to them. The Assault Weapons Ban had nothing to do with automatic weapons, rate of fire, power, range, etc... They were guns that "looked like military weapons", even though they were mechanically no different than any other rifle.
When he took office, people felt he would restrict guns so they started buying things like AR15's and AK's and stuff. And they were right, those did get restricted, and it drove the prices of the existing "pre-ban" guns up, etc... So the people that wanted them, got them before the ban was passed. [True. And Obama did the exact opposite by relaxing gun laws, so it’s all just a crapshoot, isn’t it? Not really based on past, present or future policy, but completely on Party affiliation.]
If you were really into something... I don't know, computer games... And someone took office that was known to be very anti violent games and you figured there was a good chance that they would be taken off the market... would you maybe buy some, "while you could"? [Republicans keep trying to restrict my ability to vote. And my ability to obtain affordable health care. How do I buy some of those while I can? And is voting a right or a privilege? I already know the Republican stance on health care is that it’s not a right. And what’s with the rampant overuse of the ellipsis (…)?]
Now maybe after the fact, they didn't ban them, but you don't have a crystal ball, so you figure you should buy some now because they either won't be available later, or if they are they may cost you a lot more if you wait.
I don't think that makes you crazy or paranoid. [Crazy and paranoid. Especially since all the people rushing out to buy more guns before Obama takes them away already own 500 guns. And still only have two hands.]
If Wayne was a Democrat, we wouldn't even be talking. This only "bothers" you because he is a Republican, speaking out to millions of Republican voters...
My point, again, for the 100th time, is that he's lying. Not 'using words.' Flat out lying.
It "bothers" me because he is lying. Not because he's a Republican.
If Wayne was a Democrat, his words would still be lies. You apparently ignore the times I bash Democrats, mostly Obama, because that doesn't fit with your notion that I can think for myself. Do I bash Republicans more? Oh, yes. Yes, I certainly do. Republicans and Democrats are not even remotely equal in their extremist bullshit.
As for gun laws, there are less agencies involved, less laws and paperwork, less Federal, state and even local ordinances restricting, regulating and "controlling" firearms. Look it up. There. I just said the opposite of what you said so now the burden of proof is on you. Seriously though, YOU claimed something and want ME to prove its veracity? Did you have trouble finding it yourself?
Clinton only banned future purchases of semi-automatic assault weapons like AR-15s and AK-47s. You could still keep the ones you had. And you weren't prevented from buying any other type of gun. Or from protecting your home.
Do I think the ban was stupid? Yeah, pretty much. If it had an effect on crime it was negligible if at all. If it banned full-auto weapons only, I could have understood its purpose. Nobody except military and law enforcement needs that for anything.
Aside from all that, gun people need to relax. I'm all for gun ownership myself. I get that it's a "right" and all, unlike healthcare and clean air and water for some reason, but what the fuck? Nobody is ever going to come to your house and take your guns away. Seriously, chill the fuck out with the extremist apocalyptic doomsday scenarios every fucking second of every fucking day. Speaking of which...
...anyone that believes citizens need guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government is fucking delusional and belongs up in the woods with the other delusional psychotic militia nuts. I propose they get their own government-free island to live on.
And it doesn't really matter what rights you think you have because George W. Bush's Patriot Act LITERALLY strips every right from the Constitution. It is pure, 100%, unmitigated totalitarianism. No President before has or President after can top that, as far as taking away your rights. Because as of October 26, 2001, you have had no rights.
But tell me, as suppressed and regulated as the gun industry is, what about guns do you wish you could do that laws prevent you from doing right now?
Full auto's were all but banned in 1935, so the Clinton ban had nothing to do with them. [So, the Clinton ban didn’t really ban anything, then? You’re upset because you couldn’t buy ‘pretty’ guns anymore? Or is it the 5-day waiting period and background check that upsets you? Or is it 10-round magazines causing you to cry a river? None of which are in effect anymore anyway.]
If the Patriot Act is so evil, why didn't Obama get rid of it? I mean, he had the White House, he had a Democratically controlled House and Senate... How could your fellow Saintly Democrats allow such a travesty of humanity to continue when they controlled the White House and both houses of Congress? Hmmmm? [Why did ‘Hmmmm?’ just make me crack up?]
"I'm all for gun ownership myself. I get that it's a "right" and all, unlike healthcare and clean air and water for some reason, "
Why would anyone have a right to force someone else to perform a procedure on them, and then force someone else to pay for it?
That's the problem with any issue I discuss with you. That Liberal mentality that everything is an entitlement.
Show me where in the Constitution it says that one citizens has the Right to force another citizen to pay for what he wants? Can you show me which of the Bill of Rights secures that right for him?
"...anyone that believes citizens need guns to protect themselves from a tyrannical government is fucking delusional and belongs up in the woods with the other delusional psychotic militia nuts."
Those nuts that believed that, were the people who wrote the Constitution and set up our entire system of government that made our country even possible. Those whacky guys, so silly of them...
As for the rest of us, I don't carry a gun so that I can take over the government, and that is what many people don't understand. The Right was originally put into place so that if you needed to, the people had a means of organized self defense, which would otherwise be impossible if the people wishing to control the government had to go to that government and ask for guns first. LOL ["...people wishing to control the government..."?]
It's about self defense. Society is full of scumbags and predators, and a gun on your hip is good protection. Simple as that, and I resent some douche politician who sits behind 3 layers of armed bodyguards claiming otherwise [What? Are you arguing against the use of the Secret Service? Are you arguing that being the President doesn’t make you a high-profile target for mentally unbalanced, tiny-dicked assholes with gun fetishes? Are you arguing against protecting Presidents from people like Booth or Guiteau or Czolgosz or Schrank or Oswald or Hinkley? Or are you just jealous that you’re not important enough to sit behind 3 layers of armed bodyguards?]
Again with the 'my fellow Democrats.' Do you EVER listen?
Saintly? Did you miss the part where I said I also criticize Democrats? Because you seem to have ignored that. Do you EVER listen? Yes, Obama and the other Democrats are assholes for not getting rid of the Patriot Act. They wouldn't want to let that kind of ultimate power go. No administration will ever get rid of this new power. Ever. It will forever be a part of American policy. Will you ignore what I just said and criticize me for unconditionally supporting Democrats again?
"Why would anyone have a right to force someone else to perform a procedure on them, and then force someone else to pay for it?"
What the hell does that even mean? Who is forcing what upon whom? How does taking care of people WHO PAY FOR THEIR HEALTH CARE translate into forced medical procedures and forcing other people to pay for it? If healthcare either had a public option or was socialized, it would cost a fuckload LESS for everyone than what they're paying now - including you. The only thing that would suffer would be corporate profits. Corporate profit-protecting Conservative politicians don't like that. And blind Conservative followers such as yourself seem to like paying more for healthcare. There are actual models of this to research. (I almost said 'theory,' but it's not a theory since it is actual working fact - Romney’s Massachusetts one that the healthcare bill is based on, for example.) And not the lies that all right-wing media tell you about socialized medicine in their unconditional defense of corporate profits above the well-being of people. Remember Sara Palin, your hero, said she and Todd and the kids used to go across the border into Canada to get their health care cheaper? Oh, but that doesn’t count in your equation, does it?
YOU say Liberals think everything is an entitlement because that's what Rush tells you to think. That is not what Liberals think.
And yet again, I AM NOT A LIBERAL. I realize free thought is a difficult concept for you to accept. But please. DO try.
Those whacky guys lived 235 years ago. Somehow, I don't think they conceived of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast and National Guards, nuclear weapons, air craft carriers, jets, drones and other various materiel in the hands of the government today.
Tell me, Richard, how would you stop the government if it wanted you? That IS fucking delusional. [There will be a future rant on this topic entitled '2nd Amendment Ludicrocity' that goes into detail about this notion of needing guns in the event we need to overthrow the tyrannical government.]
The Constitution is not an unchangeable bible. You ever hear of Amendments? One of them is the Second. The Right to Bear Arms isn’t even in the original Constitution. It was the second thing to be added on later in something called 'The Bill of Rights'. I know people like you like to repeat 'it's in the Constitution,' 'it's in the Constitution,' 'it's in the Constitution' all the time. You're also the ones who quickest want to change the parts you don't like (and use made-up fear-mongering - though hilarious - phrases like 'terror babies' to try and scare people into changing the 14th Amendment). Hey, remember when the Constitution allowed slavery, banned women from voting and made alcohol illegal then legal again in the US? The Constitution is not an unchangeable, carved-in-stone document.
As for the rest... OK. Don't remember arguing against that. Kinda supported it, now didn't I?
Just food for thought: If an armed criminal was going to rob a store and saw you standing there with a gun, do you think you'd hear the gunshot before your brain exploded?
And since you apparently missed it... what about guns do you wish you could do that laws prevent you from doing right now?
I do listen. But I read your bias not just in what you say, but in how you say it, and oftentimes more importantly, in what you don't say. [Hmmmm?]
You made the comment that implied that you would buy that we have the right to own guns, but made some remark about healthcare. I simply want you to clarify that. I hear the "everyone has a right to healthcare" every single damned day. But do we? [In a civilized society, yes.] I mean, we have the freedom to go to the doctor, but healthcare isn't what they are reffering to, is it? They are saying that we have a right to FREE healthcare, as if that is a right. But it isn't. Nobody has the right to free healthcare. Or did you mean something else?
How would I stop the government? I don't think that I would have to. Couple things to consider... First, the armed forces would not accept an order to fire upon their own families. 90% of the military would defect if such an order were given. Second, I don't know about you, but having 1 out of 3 Americans owning guns is something that any government would be concerned with, I don't care who they are. What are they gonna do, nuke their own cities and infrastructure? No. Having 90 million or so legal gun owners is larger than any armed forces the world has ever seen, by a magnitude of what, 10? More?
To an extent, having such an armed populace is like having nukes. You don't have to use them for them to serve as a check and balance. Just the fact that you have them, is a deterrent.
The Bill of Rights never allowed slavery, that is another myth. It simply did not address it. It applied to all "men", and at that time, the definition of "Men" and "Citizens" didn't include slaves. The second the definition changed, the Constitution included them. But the Bill of Rights itself didn't change.
As for your question about a robber shooting me before I could draw my weapon, I don't know... Does a seat belt guarantee I will survive a car wreck? Does a fire extinguisher mean I will never have my house burn down? Does taking Flintstone vitamins mean I will never get cancer? LOL
That's another argument anti-gunners always make. You may not be anti-gun, so don't use their arguments lest you be labeled accordingly. The "a gun isn't always gonna save you"... So?
It helps even the odds, doesn't it? It helps level the playing field, doesn't it? There are few certainties in life. It's all chance, probabilities, etc... If I can help stack the numbers in my favor, I will do so. That means carrying a gun. Working out and staying in shape. Having a fire extinguisher handy. Wearing a seat belt, etc... ALl things that improve my chances in each of the given situations, which is about all one can hope to do in this world...
Paragraph by paragraph...
"I do listen."
You do listen? So you admit to intentionally ignoring most of what I say, then?
You see bias in what I say and how I say it (and what I don't say?) only because I don't agree with you.
"You made the comment..."
I "implied" that I "buy" that we have the right to own guns? No. I implied nothing. We have the right to own guns. We have the right to defend ourselves from criminals, but not a basic right to defend ourselves from sickness? Or have clean air or water as well? You believe the well-being of humans should be based on corporate profit? You enjoy paying more for healthcare than you should be simply because of corporate greed? Like I said, there is a health care system (several, in fact) proven to be cheaper and more efficient than the one that revolves entirely around corporate profit in America. And it is not free. You and most conservatives keep claiming people want FREE healthcare. That is an unmitigated fucking lie. You are fucking lying. Or you are blindly believing and repeating a lie because it makes you feel better about thinking the other side of the argument is dumb. Because it's easier that way. Paying for your healthcare is not free healthcare. In fact, there’s a thing called a ‘mandate’ in Obama’s health care reform (actually proposed by Republicans - now opposed by Republicans). The mandate mandates you to purchase health care to drive down the cost. Please explain how ‘paying’ for your health care equates to ‘free’ health care?
"How would I stop..."
That the armed forces would not fire on their own families is actually an argument against having guns to defend yourself from the government since they won't attack anyway. That argument aside, three out of three Americans could own guns and that would still not be able to stop the government. No nukes are needed. That's a silly extremist notion. You're fighting this war as if it were a combination of 1776 and 1944 tactics. [I shouldn't have been surprised. Republicans only look back. Never forward.] It's 2011. Drones, targeted airstrikes, long range missiles from battleships, etc - how would you, with your twenty AR-15s and assorted 30-round handguns, stop a high altitude bombing. You assume the government doesn't want to damage infrastructure. They worry about that during war now?
"To an extent..."
No. It is not a deterrent. See above. And at the end of the day, believing the US government is someday going to attack the citizenry is still a delusional, alarmist fantasy. They don't need firepower. They have laws. Look at the Republicans. They already took over Benton Harbor, Michigan and not a shot was fired. And they can take over cities in Wisconsin as well.
"The Bill of Rights..."
Missed the point again. The Bill of Rights did not prevent slavery specifically by not addressing it, since half of the founders owned slaves. But, like you said, the definition of "Men" and "Citizens" didn't include slaves but when the definition changed, the Constitution included them - i.e. - the Constitution changed. The Constitution not being an unchangeable bible was my point. It is a living document. Thanks for agreeing, even though it was in your disagreeing way.
"As for your question..."
Does a seatbelt make you more likely to be the target of car wrecks? Does a fire extinguisher make you more likely to be the target of house fire? Do Flintstone's vitamins make you more likely to get cancer? Your pointless analogies are fun.
"That's another argument..."
That was not an argument I was making. I did not say you shouldn't strap on a gun like a movie action hero. It was food for thought. And you dismissed the notion out of hand as if even thinking the possibility was absurd. I truly hope it does deter a potential crime. Because I would hate to be around if you had to use it in a tense situation. Having an 87% chance of being your innocent victim is not my idea of being defended. Unless your hit ratio is more accurate than a police officer's in a gunfight? [Hmmmm?]
"It helps even the odds..."
Maybe. It certainly is a possibility. Or wearing a gun could draw unwanted criminal attention. There's no way to determine it either way.
And since you apparently missed it again... what about guns do you wish you could do that laws prevent you from doing right now?
If the secret Democratic plan to take away everyone’s guns is to be veeewy quiet, let the issue drop, lull gun owners into a false sense of security, and POUNCE the second they’re re-elected, then why did Clinton sign the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban in his first term?
A fun thing for you to do when I post these ‘discussions’ would be for you to keep a notebook handy. Every time I ask a question or address an issue, you should write it down. Then put a check mark next to it when answered. At the end, tally up how many of them have checks. I wonder what would be the percentage of answered/ignored questions? Be fair though, and see how many I’ve answered as well.
Another fun thing would be to see how many times I’m told the exact same thing since it’s difficult for Conservative minds to come up with their own thoughts. Repeating only what Drug-Addict Limbaugh tells you does have its limits, you know.
6 months later, Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA did this…
And then there’s this tie-in to my last two posts…
And if anyone’s interested in facts (the proper usage of the word), in the United Kingdom in 2009, there were 0.07 intentional gun homicides committed for every 100,000 inhabitants. In Germany, the rate was 0.2. In the United States it was 3.0, about 43 times higher than the UK. Which is good, since it went down from 3.98 in 2001.
0.07 UK – Is considered to have some of the strictest firearms legislation in the world
0.20 Germany – Also has very strict firearms legislation
3.00 USA – Was given the right to bear arms by God