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.’
Enjoy…
10/6/11
Bill Mancuso
¡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.]
Richard
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.]
Bill Mancuso
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.
Richard
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.]
Bill Mancuso
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.]
Richard
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...
Bill Mancuso
[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.]
Richard
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...
Richard
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. ;-)
Bill Mancuso
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.
Richard
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...
Bill Mancuso
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?
Richard
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.]
Bill Mancuso
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.
Richard
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.
Bill Mancuso
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.
Richard
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.
Bill Mancuso
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!]
Richard
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.]
Nope.
Wayne spent 18 minutes laying out in detail, why he thinks
the way he does.
What are yours based on?
Bill Mancuso
Mind-reading does not count as 'laying out details.' It
counts as lying. That is what my thoughts about Wayne LaPierre are based on.
Richard
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.]
Bill Mancuso
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.
LaPierre said:
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.
Richard
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?]
Bill Mancuso
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.
Richard
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.
Bill Mancuso
100% off-topic.
Richard
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.]
Bill Mancuso
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*
*percentage approximated
Richard
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.]
Fascinating.
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.
Mark
lol!
Bill Mancuso
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.
Richard
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.
Bill Mancuso
“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?
Richard
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?
Bill Mancuso
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.
Richard
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...
Bill Mancuso
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?
Richard
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?]
Bill Mancuso
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?
Richard
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...
Bill Mancuso
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.
To recap:
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
No comments:
Post a Comment