Gun fondlers are contemptible. Smug sexist men are despicable. But the intersection of gun fanatics and misogynists is the worst.
Ever since the Sandy Hook massacre, a small but vocal faction of the gun rights movement has been targeting women who speak up on the issue—whether to propose tighter regulations, educate about the dangers to children, or simply to sell guns with innovative security features. The vicious and often sexually degrading attacks have evolved far beyond online trolling, culminating in severe bullying, harassment, invasion of privacy, and physical aggression. Though vitriol flows from both sides in the gun debate, these menacing tactics have begun to alarm even some entrenched pro-gun conservatives.
The article in Mother Jones is a depressing litany of all that is awful about our second amendment lunatics. Just one example: Jennifer Longdon is an advocate for responsible gun ownership — she wants more background checks, registration, and gun safety. She’s also a victim of gun violence herself, paralyzed in an attack. This is how the gun fondlers react to such people:
After a fundraiser one night during the program [a gun buy-back program], Longdon returned home around 10 p.m., parked her ramp-equipped van and began unloading herself. As she wheeled up to her house, a man stepped out of the shadows. He was dressed in black and had a rifle, "like something out of a commando movie," Longdon told me. He took aim at her and pulled the trigger. Longdon was hit with a stream of water. "Don’t you wish you had a gun now, bitch?" he scoffed before taking off.
"It was like a mock execution," Longdon says, recalling the intense surge of adrenaline and how the incident triggered her PTSD from the 2004 attack that nearly killed her and her fiancé. She called the police, but they were unable to track down the perpetrator. By the following Saturday, Longdon was back at her post helping run the buyback.
Jebus. Those people are sick and fucked-up.
That is screwed up.
Jesus fuck… there are no words.
Yup, that thug sure showed why he’s a responsible gun owner.
I guess the point he was trying to make is she should have a gun, so she could have defended herself. But in the described situation it seems unlikely she could have retrieved a gun in time to defend herself if he’d been a killer rather than just an asshole.
But just imagine if she did have a gun, and managed to shoot the creep! He’d die with a smile on his face, content that justice was served.
Considering Longdon advocates responsible gun ownership, how did the guy know she didn’t have a gun? That was extremely dangerous as well as stupid. (And *god* is he stupid… if a real attack hadn’t converted Longdon into a gun fondler…)
The likely explanation for that is there seems to be a strong false dichotomy among the “pro-gun rights” crowd. It matters little if the policies you advocate for would still allow people to purchase and use guns with little problem, if you support even the scantiest of regulation or restrictions in regards to firearms, no matter how rational they are, you want to outlaw guns in totality. Given that frame of mind, it would have been inconceivable to him that she would have a gun.
Well, and as the article points out, she IS a gun owner.
She just doesn’t feel the need to wave them around in public. Funny, that.
Also, your country grows more stupidly dangerous by the hour. Between the increasingly fascist government and the increasingly disconnected-from-the-world gun-fondlers, I want to go into the US less and less. And it’s about two hundred km from here. Yeep.
Not to mention, if she had a gun on her and a willingness to use it, he’d be totally dead for that stunt.
Talk about a failure to engage the brain.
Jebus. Those people are sick and fucked-up.
Sick, fucked-up and a good Christian more than likely.
Aww. Look at the gun fetishist playing with their toy gun! Responsible gun owner! Reasonable debate! Just proof of how many Gunz Everywhere Propentists are Teh Good Guys, just wielding their gunz entirely just so they can mind their own business and cause no harm!
This kind of crap is why I’m no longer an NRA member. After LaPierre and his bunch took it over they pretty much abandoned the whole point of the organization which used to be to teach marksmanship and gun safety. Once they went off the rails I quit. I’m not the only one either. I really hope they catch nuts like that and convict them of domestic terrorism.
So many of these gun fondlers seem to think a gun is a magic wand. A good guy with a gun will triumph over a bad guy with a gun. If more people were armed, we’d all be safer. All that’s needed to be safe forever is to have a gun (though more guns are better). Once you become a gun owner, you’ll never be a victim.
That little stunt wouldn’t make me wish I had a gun. It would make me wish that he wasn’t allowed to have a gun.
Or maybe for a raincoat. A bulletproof raincoat.
So sad. Why can’t we all just get along?
caesar, there’s somebody in the thunderdome called diby whom you really ought to meet. The two of you should get on like a house on fire. You could have a jolly good old gigglingandsniggeringfest together, while leaving topics like this one to people with an ounce of sensibility (and sense).
No, no. She must be a gun grabber. Responsible gun owners clog the comment sections of blogs and articles on gun violence, assuring everyone that they’re super-duper responsible, before going on to talk about how much fun it is at the range and how liberals don’t know the difference between an M16 and an AR-15, plus rights and freedoms.
Fuck off, caesar.
Chris Hayes covered the new NRA show “NOIR” which is the NRA’s attempt to improve its image.
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/nra-targets-a-new-audience-257137219529
Chris Hayes covered the Mother Jones article referenced in PZ’s post, and he interviewed the author of the article. The segment shows video of gun enthusiasts shooting up posters for Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America and video of men shooting female mannequins. The mannequin is half naked as has on pants that are unzipped.
http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/gun-extremists-and-intimidation-257143363906
Shannon Watts of Moms Demand Action is also interviewed.
@17:
Well aren’t you just a ray of sunshine? What’s wrong? Did someone piss in your Cheerios this morning, or are you normally just an angry asshole?
Today is “Big Nutball Day” as Rachel Maddow described it last night.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/big-nutball-day-in-store-for-washington-dc-257183299809
Jon Ralston, host of “Ralston Reports,” talks with Rachel Maddow about the right wing extremists, akin to the militia members who rallied around Cliven Bundy, planning “Operation American Spring,” a rally of 10-30 million people in Washington, D.C.
Rachel points out that the last time these extremists tried to take over Washington D.C., the projected millions of protestors turned out to be a couple dozen people acting out a rightwing fantasy.
caesar, for one, it’s not morning where I am. Two, you are a smug fuck who consistently defends the worst right-wing ideologies and your “can’t we all just get along” smarm is fully consistent with that. Three, I am far nicer to you than you deserve.
Fantasies of Longdon shooting her assailant are misguided. She is a responsible gun owner, therefore she does not shoot people who spit on her. A concealed carry permit is not a permit to shoot people who spit on you.
Fine, you and your liberturd friends drop your arrogant attitudes first, and develop humility and empathy.
She wouldn’t have shot him for spitting on her. She would have shot him for pointing what looked like a real gun at her. Even if it later turned out to be a water gun, I wouldn’t fault her for shooting someone who snuck up on her and aimed a realistic weapon at her.
If he ambushed her, so that she had no time to reacht, no gun in the world would have saved her. If she had a gun and time to react, she would be justified to shoot this guy…. according to all those “self-defence” advocates.
This guy is really nuts. I hope he shat his pants, once he realized what could have happened to him.
I get the impression that the gun fondlers equate regulation of weapons with emasculation. Which, if true, speaks volumes about their underlying values and mindset.
U Frood @24, good point. The spitter also pointed what looked like a real gun at a woman in a wheelchair. I should not have overlooked that.
Daily Kos covers the Tea Partiers supposedly trying to take over the government today.
I’m not sure I would trust the “unarmed” claim.
When I was a boy in church listening to preacher as he aimed his scriptural promises at us, I recall the terror of the sure hellfire for unrepentant children. Nowadays it seems silly, just silly, but then I was pretty sure I was going to die. To ambush people (even when you fully believe it is for their own good and will teach them a valuable lesson) is just shallow thinking and even more shallow emotionally. Fucking asshole. And I wonder now if that preacher or this stupid water rifleman had a higher calling. The preacher got paid to do it but the ambush asshole did it from the gooooodness of his heart.
@21:
It’s always morning when you’ve got Jimmy Dean Sausage.
Good Morning !
Nonsense! I’m just a red blooded American defending our freedoms who all enemies foreign and domestic. If it comes across as smug then GOOD! I have no regrets or apologies about the way I come across.
No, that was a legitimate feeling of frustration over the way these gun control debates devolve into threats of violence and nane calling. I would prefer a peaceful debate devoid of emotionalism, and threats, and instead simply focus on the facts.
Posted my “Operation American Spring” comments in the wrong thread. Apologies.
Do fuck off already caesar. You’ve got nothing to say and nothing to add to the discussion, because your bullshit libertarian talking points have been demolished every time you’ve brought them up. (Note that blithering about being a ‘red-blooded American’ is yet another tell).
PZ @4
No. Since he did not have an actual gun, but only a water gun, and since she is not a white man, she would most likely have been charged with manslaughter or murder.
Isn’t it strange, though, that almost all of the threats of violence come from the ones who claim that unlimited guns will make for a more civil society.
So what is the difference between ‘disingenuous’ and just plain fucking lying?
Let’s look at some facts in light of this claim. Your first comment in this thread was:
“So sad.” Doesn’t get more emotionalismic than that. I understand that you’re an incredibly stupid human being when you’re not lying, but even you should be able to see that your very first contribution was an emotional one. Oops! Looks like you’re the problem. So take your false hand-wringing and fuck off, dumbfuck.
(Oh, and the answer to “Why can’t we all get along?” is because you’re stupid, a liar, and inherently unlikable. You can’t be gotten along with. It’s not in your nature to be decent, congenial, or collaborative. You’re the problem.)
Damn, I actually thought PZ was talking about this story when I saw the headline: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/05/14/newtown-truther-steals-sign/
But no, sadly it was yet another reminder of why those who wish to own guns should have to undergo psychological evaluations.
The gun-fondler response to reasoned argument; attempt to intimidate and terrify a paraplegic woman (whose condition is the result of gun violence) by ambushing her and menancing her with what appeared to be a real firearm. That is utterly sick, and the arsehat involved cannot seriously think it will convince anyone of the ‘merits’ of the gun-fondler position. This was the straightforward use of intimidation in the attempt to silence a dissenting voice, the act of a dangerous idiot that is quite likely to escalate his harrassment now that this display has failed to have the desired effect. Worryingly, he might well bring a real firearm next time. It wouldn’t be the first time that gun advocates have answered the arguments for reasonable gun control with violence.
This kind of sadistic thuggery cannot be tolerated in any functional society.
Ogvorbis: Still failing at being human. @ 32;
Exactly, gun fondling violence or threats of violence is, in the vast majority of cases, simply another expression of White male privilege. Even with a clear justification for fearing for her life, if she had shot him you could be absolutely certain that the book would have been thrown at her. The gun-fondlers would never abide an ‘uppity’ woman using their favourite toy against one of their own number, no matter the circumstances.
I don’t have any liberturd friends so I dont knowhat you’re talking about. Also, I am not lacking in nor do I have a problem with empathy or humility. The problem with empathy is when it’s used to breed a sense of entitlement. It’s my humility which informs my belief that we are all ultimately responsible for ourselves. We aren’t inherently special, therefore nobody has any legitimate claim to share in someone’s wealth because you were born, or because of sone alleged moral responsibility. Now I understand that for the purposes of promoting a stable society, certain sacrifices have to be made, and freedoms have to be given up to a certain extent. I don’t have time to go into detail, but as a realist and as a person who heavily favors individuality over paternalism, I am willing to accept that the cost of freedom is that some people will suffer more than others, and I have no apologies for that.
Daililama@31:
Seeing as your name is Dalillama, why dont you run off to Tibet and leave us grownups to debate. And take anteprepro, and Nerd with you.
So sad. Why can’t we all get along?
Why would someone do that to another person?
I agree with Duth Olec @14 — this wouldn’t make me wish I had a gun, but it would make me wish that the asshole ambushing me in my own yard didn’t have any guns.
The trouble is, when you say “Why can’t we all just get along” you don’t actually mean “why can’t everyone be nice to everyone”. Since you certainly can’t do that. From our point of view you seem to mean “Why can’t everyone just agree with me?”
And mostly because you appear to be wrong. Those who are capable of looking after themselves? Sure, go for it. But there are others who because they are too young, too old, disabled, or just temporarily unable to support themselves for various reasons out of their control that to have a society that is not callous need to be taken care of while those reasons are still in place. Sometimes that’s financial help, sometimes it’s other forms of support. And if the reasons are temporary, later on they will give back to others. We haven’t survived as a species by being individuals, we’ve survived because we can do things in groups that we can’t do individually. It’s the balancing act between individualism and society. It’s not easy, but going too much one way or the other is equally bad.
caesar
bwahahhahhaahaha
@37 caesar
Does that include the claim of children to their parents’ wealth? Are you proposing a 100% inheritance tax? That certainly would reduce inequality and we could seriously reduce income tax.
@34:
Swing and a miss. 1. My post was actually intended to be taken as a humorous snark. Anteprepro was smart enough to see it. I guess you’re not as smart as you think. 2. By emotionalism, I was talking about appeals to people’s base emotions such as fear in order to get people to support policies based on emotion rather than logic. An example is Hitler’s speecches against the Jews for allegedly being the reason for Germany’s problems, and we all know how that turned out.
No, no, see, that is wealth they earned by being born into a well of family.
@ Everyone but Caesar, because damn:
It never ceases to amaze me how cavalier asshats like Caesar are about other people’s suffering. This sentence might be the best encapsulation of “I got mine, fuck off” I’ve ever seen. Which position, of course, turns into plaintive whining about oppression the moment they have to suffer even slightly.
I’m not even sure what to say about the “BUT HITLER” comment at 43. Mainly because I’m laughing too hard to come up with a coherent response to “BE LOGICAL OR HITLER WILL RISE AGAIN”.
@42:
No inheritance is different. Being given wealth from an inheritance is different from having it taken away because empathy, or moral responsibility. I say fuck all that shit.
And that’s an emotional appeal; a clear attempt to insult and anger me. Nice work. Need an ambulance for that gunshot wound to your foot?
Ah, okay. Everybody, don’t use emotional appeals in the specific ways caesar doesn’t want you to. Other ways are fine.
Of course it is, because reasons.
I’m jotting this down for handy reference.
“being given”…”different from”…”having it taken away” Got it.
Libertarian thinking at its finest.
FTFY :)
Thanks, although I think Taxes are Theft! is a good contender for the Libertarian emotionalism at its finest as well.
Anthony K
Well, it’s really just a restatement of Taxes are Theft, note the gibbering about ‘taking away’.
@46 caesar
Let me remind you: @42
But inheritance is wealth to which you are entitled, but for which you had no responsibility, because you are inherently special?
I see caesar is still showing us why he is a prime example of Heinlein’s “well meaning fool”. Whatever he claims, the opposite is how one should vote.
Trust funds aren’t a moral responsibility, so it’s okay.
Theft also contravenes moral responsibility, but fuck all that shit, so feel entirely free to track down caesar and take his stuff.
I started this debate heavily on the pro-gun side.
However, as more and more gun advocates chime in, I find myself growing closer and closer to the ‘fuck it, just take the guns away from everyone’ stance.
Honestly, letting the NRA represent ‘responsible gun owners’ is like letting Westboro Baptist represent ‘reasonable Christians’.
caesar really needs an editor!
A slight improvement.
caesar is a smarmy fuck and an utter waste of pixels, as usual. He should go and talk to diby in the thunderdome, they’d get on like a house on fire. Leave threads like this to people with an ounce of sensibility,
Moi? Snarking? Of course not. I am an unemotional robot; therefore all my positions are belong to the correctest.
Fine. I know when I’m not wanted.
Au contraire, Anthony K, you are always wanted ;-)
@caesar – 16 May 2014 at 10:22 am (UTC -5)
You aren’t fooling anyone, asshole.
re OP quoted story:
I’m sure that Longdon’s squirter was a “responsible gun owner”, and being responsible was sure to have the tip of that squirt rifle painted orange to distinguish it as a non-gun. Let him explain why it wasn’t, and looked so realistic, he was able to reinstate Longdon’s PTSD from a previous gunshot. I can’t wait to he his twisted explanation, I can’t even try to make one up.
– “Just trying to show her how necessary gun’s are for self-defense, especially for wheelchair bound ladies.”
yes, that’ll get her to start carrying around her gun. Wat, in a wheelchair mounted holster? And if she DID have her gun handy and shot you first? Wat, would you then have the police haul her away for shooting someone was just playing with a toy?
————————————————————————————————————————–
ceasar, [slow applause] you’ve managed to derail this thread to be completely about you and your opinions. And slapped everyone here for being so nasty, and being unable to “just get along with everybody”. Do you barge into every room where people are talking (amongst themselves), to yell at them to not be so nasty?
Arizona Legislation (the water pistol incident happened in Phoenix):
The actual threat of force is not legally required, merely the perception of a threat, which this cockbag clearly presented – so basically she’d have been legally justified in shooting this fuckhead under Arizona’s “Stand Your Ground” law.
caesar @ 37;
Have you ever stopped to notice how it is always the same social groupings and types of people who suffer to a greater degree in the name of the ‘price of freedom’? Why is it rarely or never the privileged, cis/het middle class white men who do the suffering, and almost always women, gay people, trans* people, poor people and black people? Doesn’t that strike you as unfair, or at the very least as suspect? Far from being some benign side effect of a god-like invisible hand of the free market, isn’t it suggestive of a system that has been structurd to concentrate wealth, power and influence in the hands of the few at the direct expense of the many? Where the grandest dreams of avarice of a handful are realised by crushing the aspirations of millions? How is that equitable? How is that a recipe for a society that will even be stable in the long term, let alone prosperous?
@ 46;
Why? Why is a notional ‘sense of entitlement’ born from values of empathy so objectionable to you, but the belief that one is entitled to inherit the wealth of one’s parents – that comes with attendent social status and influence, and thus a measure of power, all of which is entirely unearned by the beneficiary – is just fine? When inheritance clealry functions as a means of continuing the concentration of wealth (and thus power) in the hands of a tiny minority from one generation to the next, thus creating dynasties of privilege that further undermine any notion that we live in some mythic meritocracy, why are you in favour of that form of entitlement? Especially when it so clearly gives the lie to the notion that the majority of people who are successful and powerful get there ‘through their own efforts’?
Your position doesn’t seem to be very consistent.
kyoseki:
It would also depend a great deal on the political leanings of the county sheriff and the district attorney. Women or people of colour are less likely to successfully use stand your ground laws than are white men.
The individual who “shot” Jennifer Longdon sounds like a horrible person. Merely to read of his action is incredibly infuriating. The “Sandy Hook Truthers” are not quite as horrible, but are also disturbing.
Those of us who are US-Americans really need to start rethinking the second amendment. Look, we know the founders weren’t perfect. Look at the 3/5 of a person thing. Let’s just admit that this was another one of their screwups, repeal the stupid thing, and move on. We don’t have to go with complete abolition of guns if people think they’re useful in some places. I can see, for example, allowing at least some hunting and shooting in firing ranges. And I’d be totally into a law that stated that any of the Mythbusters were allowed to carry firearms as long as they were a) in front of a camera and b) not pointing the gun at the cameraperson. But as to everyone having a gun….it’s just stupid. We have the hard data that says that having a gun makes you more likely to die of a homicide, suicide, or accident. I’m sure that there are some circumstances when a gun could save someone’s life. There are also cases where being thrown free of a vehicle in an accident will save someone’s life. But these examples are vastly outnumbered by the situations where having a gun and not wearing a seatbelt are dangerous or deadly.
C’mon, dianne. Those 30,000 people killed by fire arms per year are dying for FREEDOM!!!1!!!1!!!!!1
ogvorbis
It wasn’t Florida, I’d be surprised if they pressed charges in this specific instance.
kyoseki:
I wonder what Arpaio would think in a case like that?
kyoseki:
In other words, your faith in local Arizona law enforcement is greater than mine.
@dianne – 16 May 2014 at 2:25 pm (UTC -5)
I agree with you, and suspect many of the folks posting here do too. But keep in mind that our position, reasonable though it might be, is pretty far from the US “mainstream”. I also suspect that a government in which a sizeable minority is fighting tooth and nail against minor changes to healthcare laws, is going to find an actual constitutional amendment to be a stretch.
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a troll as blatant and obvious as .
(Perhaps importantly, that doesn’t mean is only playing a sociopath on the Internet. Chances aren’t bad that he actually is one – that he doesn’t understand appeals to empathy because he doesn’t have any empathy.)
No doubt.
Also, no fair winning your own thread in comment 4.
I can envision one now:
“Bang! Bang!”
“What’s that, Gunny? Timmy fell down the well?”
“Bang! Bang!”
“C’mon boy, let’s go!”
Later…
“The well is too deep! However will we get him out?”
“Bang! Bang!”
“What’s that, Gunny? We can use your empty shell casings?”
“Bang! Bang!”
“Just like in the story of ‘The Pitcher and the Crow’?”
“Bang! Bang!”
“That you learned about in a classics course you’ve been taking at night from the community college?”
“Bang! Bang!”
“Because you want to augment your homeschooling education, so you can get a good job with a patriotic Christian company, like Hobby Lobby, or Chick-fil-A?”
“Bang! Bang!”
“Good for you, Gunny. I’m proud of you.”
“Bang! Bang!”
“Right. Timmy. So, what are we waiting for?”
Later…
“Timmy’s safe and sound, all thanks to the life-saving ability of guns.”
“Bang! Bang!”
“Ha-ha! Isn’t that the truth, Gunny!”
“Bang! Bang!”
“And I love you too, Gunny. And I know that Timmy does too!”
“Bang! Bang!”
“Thanks, Gunny. Where is Timmy, anyway? His dinner is getting cold.”
“Bang! Bang!”
“You shot him?”
“Bang! Bang!”
“Because he looked like a looter, all wet and bedraggled, like you saw on television after Hurricane Katrina?”
“Bang! Bang!”
“Oh, Gunny! Whatever are we going to do with you?”
“Bang! Bang!”
“That’s right, Gunny. Thanks to the NRA, their well-heeled manufacturer backers, and their tea-party supporters, we’re stuck with you. And I wouldn’t have it any other way.”
“Bang! Bang!”
“Ha-ha, go right ahead, Gunny. Timmy won’t be eating it.”
“Bang! Bang!”
Fade and credits
@ Anthony K, #74
Gunny’s solution has a problem with it. The Crow and the Pitcher story requires that the objects dropped in sink to the bottom of the container, thus displacing the fluid upwards.
Put another way, I’m pretty sure Timmy would be negatively buoyant in a well full of shell casings.
@7
@9
Basically think about this. Had she been armed there would have been a 10 second window she could have blown him away and gotten away with it by claiming she didn’t know it was a water gun. Even if she were lying through her teeth and fired after the soaking, no police or jury is going to doubt her.
These gun-nuts are freakin’ lucky that we do not think the same way they do.
I don’t know if she has a license to carry in public but being a gun owner it’s not in the least bit inconceivable. Okay, I don’t really think this, but a part of me kind of wants to pretend to wish she had blown the asshole away.
@6
Yeah. But it’s a really stupid thing to risk your life on. Which is part of why part of me kind of wants to pretend to wish. Imagine his last words upon being shot in self-defense being “but I thought you gun regulators all…”
Okay, it’s a revenge fantasy and revenge fantasies aren’t good for me but…
True, but I’m betting the target audience for “Gunny, The Life-Saving Talking Gun Who’s Also Best Friends With Jesus And Ronald Reagan” won’t be too hung up on the logic of the pilot. After all, they sent death threats to a gun dealer for suggesting ‘smart’ guns—which can’t be used by any but the registered owner—might be a good alternative for responsible citizens who’d like to exercise their gun range and castle doctrine freedoms but are put off by the data mentioned by dianne.
In episode 2, Gunny uses ‘gun-sense’ to uncover evidence that Trayvon Martin sold WMDs to Saddam Hussein, and used the proceeds to fund the 9/11 hijackers.
Well, that ‘gun-sense’ is just nonsense. The WMDs were sold to cover up Obama’s birth certificate so he could personally fly to Benghazi and attack the diplomatic compound. After all, I learned from Fox News Benghazi is IN KENYA!!! It all adds up!
Damn, this wingnut speak is harder than it looks. I should leave it to the professionals.
Well, I’m not sure if caesar is coming back to this thread.
But anyway, you’re focusing too much on logic and consistency. Try making your points while grabbing your finger as if you’re enumerating a list but can’t remember how cardinal numbers work. There’s a video tutorial halfway down this page.
Responsible gun owners should probably be considering whether their need and desire to own weapons is worth allowing people with this mentality to also own them.
I think that I would see my vow of non-violence disappear in a flash of un-thought if it were the second time I was seeing such vicious cowardice. If it were the first time, it wouldn’t register in toto and I could react rationally.
Cheese! I can’t even be clear, much less funny, about my feelings here. Only luck will prevent me from engaging in tragedy should I see something like this.
All voting Republicans, fuck off – YOU are behind this!
And what if a bad guy threatens their loved ones while they’re sitting around considering? How much time do you think it would take for Barry Soetoro to declare Sharia law? You wanna spend those precious seconds considering like an egghead, or do you wanna act, like a red blooded American patriot?
Holy shit, Anthony, that is hilarious!
That show needs to happen.
I can’t help it I too want to see some fool try this and get a surprising violent reaction instead sadly that rarely happens. That that stunt is clearly terrorism is beyond question and should be treated that way by law enforcement is obvious.
I wonder if having a service animal might be a good idea. I have a friend who has one and thinks it is one of the best dogs she ever had, but she has worked with dogs professionally in the past and her skills with animals is very good.
The thought of this bozo being chewed up while in the act of terrorizing a paraplegic person I find pleasing.
uncle frogy
Just to make it even more clear how fucked things are. There’s a town in Georgia, where it’s now easier to get a gun than a sex toy. Want to buy a sex toy? You need a doctor’s prescription, first! Want to buy a lethal weapon? No problem!
ck @85;
That is good old fashioned xian morality for you – there is nothing more repugnant and terrible than sex, especially if it is mutually enjoyable, but brutal violence is fine and dandy.
It takes work to get one’s ethical priorities that arse backwards.
You wouldn’t want to be the second guy to try that.
Here’s a tale of more less-than-stellar ideas being acted out by irresponsible gun owners.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/man-dies-bullet-misses-vest
Yes, But. “service dogs” are different than “guard dogs”, aren’t they? Service dogs are trained to help, not injure. To be ‘assertive’, not ‘aggressive’. Longdon needed a Guard Dog, in that situation; a Service Dog, more generally.
,
Maybe that SanDiego cat would have been useful. [the cat that bullied that dog that was attacking the little boy]
spam cleanup, aisle 6!
I just saw an article that called gun fondlers ‘ammosexuals.’ Another great name for them.