In this episode, we find out Philip Seymour Hoffman overdosing on heroin somehow proves that gun regulation doesn’t work.
Also, I’m getting really tired of people trying to convince me they didn’t say what they said.
For fuck’s sake.
See that, if they banned heroin it could save lives... wait... wasn't that already illegal? ... I think I'm confused... [Directly equating the banning of heroin not completely eradicating heroin with the banning of guns not being able to eradicate all guns. Not only is this a false argument, but no one wants to ban guns. This little fact is always ignored by gunfuckers. But how else could you pretend the left is trying to turn America into North Korea if you don’t lie about it?]
Aside from the fact that he did not want to "ban guns," exactly how many innocent people did he massacre when he went on a heroin spree?
[Rush and I must have posted at the same time. I didn’t see his comment until Megan commented and brought me back to the post. Otherwise, I would have addressed his amazingly intelligent comment.]
A talented person is dead and to gloat about it because he had a different political opinion than you is kinda fucked up. [That’s what I was thinking, too.]
Heroin is illegal but Philip Seymour Hoffman died from using heroin. That somehow means there should be no gun control laws since something illegal can still be circumvented. So, by that flawless logic, if a law isn't 100% effective, then it shouldn't be a law. By that flawless logic, there should be no laws against murder because people still murder; no laws against rape because people still rape; no laws against stealing because people still steal; no laws against jaywalking; speeding; rolling through stop signs; driving while intoxicated; assault; breaking and entering; carjacking; graffiti; trespassing; etc. Right? Or am I confused?
It's fucked up how hypocritical he is in preaching how to save lives. If he doesn't want to be judged on his political standpoints, he shouldn't give them. I think you're misusing the word "Gloat". [True, ‘gloat’ may not have been the most accurate word to describe that meme. She should have said something more like,” A person is dead and to use it as a vile prop to somehow connect it to your desire to fuck guns just because he had a different political opinion than you is kinda fucked up.]
How can you respect anyone who has three kids and overdoses on heroine? [He overdosed on a female hero?] [Heroin is an addiction. Owning guns is a choice. People addicted to heroin need help. People believing “good guys” with guns battling “bad guys” with guns in the middle of a mall shoot-out somehow saves lives need to wake the fuck up. I have incredibly more respect for addicts than I ever would gunfuckers.]
And Bill, stop complicating everything....you waste your time. [True, sort of. I waste my time on you, who will never listen to logic or facts that contradict your misinformed opinions. But there are people who might possibly read and even share my blog to use as an educational tool to expose the ludicrously ignorant stance of the mindless, corporate-protecting right-wingers whom I often debate.] All this post was about is "Hypocrisy" .... It just so happens to include the subject of banning guns, that was just an added bonus. ["Just because I brought up guns, it doesn’t mean I was talking about guns!"] He's just like all the other, "pay attention to me, I'm a celebrity, let me pick something to stand for even though I'm a hypocritical douchefuck that will end up taking my own life, with no regard to my own life, anyone I love, or my children, with a heroine needle sticking out of my arm, [Must have been an incredibly thin female hero to be able to poke her through his skin.] but the world should listen to me because I'm a good actor"......... Seriously???
[The ill-conceived argument that we should not listen to actors just because of their chosen profession can logically be extended to include anyone in any profession. I should never listen to stay-at-home moms, engineers, sports broadcasters, astrophysicists, carpenters, truck drivers, soldiers, ad infinitum. Except, apparently, when a corporate profit-protecting gun lobbyist is talking about limiting the sale of guns to only include law-abiding citizens and convicted felons, convicted rapists, convicted child molesters, those convicted of spousal abuse and those on terrorist watch lists. Well, anyone, really.]
And why the fuck are we, as a society, always putting actors and actresses on a pedestal? [Like Republicans do with Ronald Reagan? On a fucking colossally high pedestal that in no way represents the reality of his accomplishments? I think right-wingers are just jealous that famous creative people are generally more liberal-leaning, which is why they castigate them so badly, yet make that Reagan exception. And also consider confessed rapists who shit their pants to get out of Viet Nam and threaten the President and first lady with murder as their heroes just because they’re famous. And also famous backwoods hate-mongering bigots. Those would be Ted Nugent and the Duck Dynasty scumbags.] It's their job. That's what they do. They have to earn my respect, just like everyone else does. Last time I checked, they put their pants on one leg at a time like the rest of us low-life douchebags. [No one has ever said actors don’t need to earn respect. People who disagree with the things they say invent that notion in an attempt to discredit what they say. And no one is forcing you to listen to what they say – on or off the silver screen. I love Jon Voight as an actor. I couldn’t give a flying dog deuce what he has to say outside of the words the screenwriter gave him.]
It's obvious he had a drug addiction.... Let the man rest in peace. [Some people understand.]
Yes Bill, you're confused... Nobody even hinted at doing away with existing laws... It helps prosecute the bad guys... I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of someone who chooses to use his celebrity status to campaign for new laws that we should all follow while choosing to ignore laws already on the books... But I see your flawless logic of adding new laws for criminals to ignore while it only hurts law abiding citizens... [What’s with all the ellipses? A simple period will suffice with which to end your sentences, sir.]
The meme brought up guns, not me. The meme says he wanted to ban guns - that is a lie. The meme compared guns that can kill countless amounts of people with one gun control advocate actor who killed himself with drugs. That is not hypocrisy. Hypocrisy would be if he shot himself to death. [You’d think, being experts at hypocritical performances, that right-wingers would know how to present a simple example of hypocrisy. But when an example isn’t available, they rely on their fallback position – the straw man argument.]
Then, Rush made the direct connection between heroin being illegal and Hoffman still being able to get it. Let's not pretend that wasn't a direct jab at having gun control laws and criminals still being able to get guns. [If it wasn’t, then it would be the first recorded incident in history of gunfuckers NOT making that argument. I have heard it at least a dozen dozen times from them.]
My point is that no laws are 100% effective. [Notice I’m the one who brought up that fact. This is actually the second time I've made this point in this thread. The first time employing sarcasm.] They do, however, mitigate the problem. Gun control laws do, in statistical fact, result in lower gun violence and death. Just like speeding laws do, in fact, reduce the number of speeders.
And no, I'm not confused. I didn't suggest doing away with existing laws, Rush. You did when you said heroin was banned because it saves lives and Hoffman was still able to get it and kill himself with it. You were explicitly suggesting a law was useless since it did not work to 100% effectiveness. That's the illogical argument gun advocates use all the time. Your statement about my "flawless logic of adding new laws for criminals to ignore" points out clearly how you do not understand this fact.
And the fact that gun advocates keep lying and saying people are trying to ban guns suggests they have no real argument. Background checks have never stopped law-abiding citizens from getting guns. Just felons, the mentally unstable and terrorists.
I have complicated nothing. You are arguing in circles to blindly defend guns.
And Judy is correct. Being addicted to drugs or alcohol is not even remotely similar to wanting guns. This right-wing gun meme is ignorant all over the place and is using the death of Hoffman as a ghoulish prop. Oh, wait, I thought only Liberals used props?
Wow Bill... Again I never suggested getting rid of existing laws... [No, you just made a direct comparison to that end.] Yes, heroine is illegal [Female heroes are illegal?] because as you can clearly see it does kill and is highly addictive... which in the case of those without money to support their habit can lead to other crimes such as robbery or burglary. Now what you need to understand is that no law is 100% effective, [I really do need to understand that. It’s not like I’m the fucking one who said that or anything.] if they were there would be no crime... That doesn't mean they are useless or that we should get rid of them... [Well, gee, that’s not the diametric opposite of the point you were making at all. Remember when I said he was arguing in circles?] Suggesting that is illogical and an attempt to redirect the intention of my post... [“Now what you need to understand is that I didn’t say what I clearly said.”] I believe criminals and mentally unstable people prone to violence should not be able to legally obtain guns... Does that mean they can't get them? Absolutely not, they get them illegally. So I believe changing existing laws to make the capacity size smaller or ban certain rifles makes no sense. Does that somehow offend your senses Bill? And by the way, statistics show less violent crime in areas with more legally armed citizens.
Hoffman was a multimillionaire. I'm pretty sure illegal drugs don't target poor people. [No matter how badly you want to blame poor people for society’s ills, they are not the problem. But really rich corporate people pay moderately rich politicians and news people to convince middle class people to blame poor people.] In fact, as proven by that "shaming the poor" scheme in Florida to unconstitutionally drug test welfare recipients, their average drug use was lower than the national average.
Pretty sure I already made the point that laws aren't 100% effective.
I did not attempt to redirect the intent of your post. You said banning heroin could save lives, then pointed out that it didn't work. That suggests you think there should be no laws if they don't work 100% of the time. Or were you suggesting there should be more laws? Maybe I did misunderstand your point after all.
Yeah. It's not easy to obtain guns illegally, so let's give up on perpetuating that myth.
[I’ll give you three guesses as to which link is going to be completely ignored since it contradicts a right-wing, gunfucker’s talking point. And the first two guesses don’t count.]
Yes, statistics show less violent crime in areas with more legally armed citizens - if you believe the debunked bullcrap by John R. Lott Jr, and cherry-picked statistics from a congressional study, as reported all over right-wing media like Breitbart.com, FOX and Infowars, et al. Which, I see that you do.
[Three more guesses. First two also don’t count.]
No. My senses are not offended, Rush. Are you suggesting I'm basing what I say on my emotions?
[The funny thing is, I immediately saw his post and wrote my response, but I waited to post it. I happened to be on Facebook at the time, but didn’t want to make it seem like I was sitting around waiting for him by responding right away. When I came back to it a little later, he had at some point went back and added the Breitbart.com article to “prove” his point. I thought that was hilarious. So I added, “Which, I see that you do.” They’re so easy to predict. It’s sad, really. But hey, at least he tried. Most times, there’s no attempt on their part to back up their claims. Even at that, it’s not like he’ll believe or even accept the facts. I know he didn’t read the article I posted. That makes it easier to ignore.]
Bill, I'm not sure why you keep saying that... I've already pointed out that no law is 100% effective [No, you freaking didn’t. I did. You stole it from me like Jay Leno steals jokes. Nyah!] and that does NOT mean I think there should be no laws... And no, i don't suggest more laws are necessary either... I do however suggest that the current laws should be followed. [They are. No background checks are mandatory at most gun shows and online sales. That's the problem. Dipshit. But since the NRA keeps repeating 'current laws should be followed,' you just accept and repeat it like the dipshit you are.] And yes, I'm suggesting that parts of your posts are based on your emotions... Otherwise you wouldn't be so hurtful as to suggest that I'm a right wing guy... I just have my opinion on gun control [based on emotions contrary to fact] that they happen to agree with... [So hurtful…? Aww. I did not suggest he was a right-wing guy. I said the gun meme is right-wing and I said he believes debunked lies that right-wing media keeps repeating. I’ll say it now, though – I suggest that Rush is a right-wing guy.]
***** ***** *****
I gave up. I was tired of talking in circles. Tired of the “I didn’t say what I said” crap. Tired of everything indefensible being ignored. Tired of sticking to hollow talking points. Tired of people who do nothing but repeat debunked right-wing bullshit and claim to not be right-wingers.
Tired of straw men.
More Guns Is Safer, Right? Missouri Has The Answer
Republicans love to accuse Liberals (I just go with the assumption that everyone believes I’m a Liberal.) of legislating with their emotions. The fact is, it’s the other way around. Republicans don’t like poor people, so they cut their welfare – ignoring the fact that providing poor people with food stamps boosts the economy. That is legislating by emotion. Same goes for their emotional stance on abortion, the post office, minimum wage, unions, voting rights, social security, health care, etc. Liberals generally legislate based on fact, like the fact that providing poor people with welfare is, in reality, fiscally responsible. To illustrate this point, Walmart just lowered their quarterly expectations, specifically citing that the Republicans’ cut to welfare would reduce the amount of money poor people will be able to spend at their stores. (I'm not going to get into the fair pay argument right now, but fuck Walmart.)
Gun regulation does save lives. For a statistically proven fact. It doesn’t matter if people ignore that fact. It’s still a fact. Go find the dozen+ blogs I’ve done about guns. All the information is there. I don’t feel like doing the research again for the 70th time right now. This mindless gunfuck mentality is getting goddamn fucking tiresome.
Mary has since scrubbed this thread from her Facebook page.
Sometimes, I really am surprised she hasn’t de-friended me by now.
And no, that’s not her real name. None of the names ever are. Except for maybe mine.
Jonathan's Cochlear Implant Activation 8 mo., Rt Ear cont'd