More gun nut bullshit:
1. Alex Jones is totally not the nut!
Lindaman posts this link:
http://www.infowars.com/veiled-threat-piers-morgan-guest-says-shoot-alex-jones/
Lindman then says "Really?"
Yep, really. Their point was that semi-autos have no use, such as at a boxing match, which is what the sports guy was talking about.
That being said: The day after the Morgan interview, Alex Jones claimed Mayor Bloomberg had sent squads of undercover cops and Mafia to assassinate him. He's also a Truther and, if I understood him correctly, claims the Sandy Hook shooting was probably a "hoax." He also thinks people that attend Bilderberg meetings eat human fetuses.
What's great is Alex Jones is now the face of the Second Amendment. Good luck with all of that.
2. Cattle prods... more dangerous than guns!
Lindaman posts this link:
http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/20547465/police-fla-clerks-gun-beats-thiefs-cattle-prod#axzz2HX1lOhtw
Today's cattle prod probably resembles ye olde musket more than modern assault rifle does in terms of general effectiveness and thus is arguably more deserving of 2nd amendment protections as far as the intention of the authors of the US Constitution is concerned (South Park-esque debate about such intentions aside).
Bring on the National Cattle Prod Association. lol
3. Ed Schultz was totally lying about that fact!
Lindaman posts this link:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/ed-schultz-makes-bold-claim-that-u-s-has-never-had-a-civilian-stop-a-shooting/
Well, it depends if by "civilian" he meant the common colloquial term of having no professional police or military training.
In every single example The Blaze used where the person(s) that stopped the shooters can be verified, the shooter was stopped either by a soldier or a police officer.
1. Theater - Shooter stopped by Trained Police Officer
2. Oregon Mall Shooting - No shot was fired, no evidence the gun stopped the shooter
3. Player's Club Shooting - Was he a civilian? Article doesn't reveal that.
4. Appalachian School Shooting - Stopped by Sherriff's Deputy and Police Officer
5. Santee, Calif 2001 - Shooter stopped by Police Officer
6. Pearl High School - Shooter stopped by Trained Soldier
7. Matthew Murray - Shooter stopped by Trained Police Officer
So again, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Then Lindaman says: "And people say watching Fox News makes you dumb?"
They don't just say it, Lindaman. It's a repeatedly proven fact that Fox News Viewers are dumber:
http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid
Sowwy!
4. David Gregory
Lindaman posts this link:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2013/01/11/david-gregory-will-not-be-prosecuted-gun-violation
Then Lindaman says: "So, a gun law in DC can be broken if it's done for the purpose of promoting gun control?"
NBC asked the federal government if it was legal, and the ATF told them it was.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/us/washington-police-investigating-nbc-over-gun-device.html
Metro PD is claiming they told NBC it wasn't okay.
But what isn't being posted on right-wing facebooks, is that the ATF also contacted somebody in the DC police, who told them it would be okay. ATF then gave the go-ahead to NBC. But, while the federal laws were in indeed correct, the police information from the local district to the ATF was wrong.
The head of Metro PD sheepishly admitted there was wrong information initially given to NBC was wrong, but left it vague. Gee, I wonder why?
Metro PD was trying to say it was an auto-mail response from some program. Riiiight.
Regardless: Police are not lawyers, they are not trained in law, and in general are very ignorant of the law.
The DA wisely decides not to pursue charges. OMG it's Benghazi all over again! When actually it's because the intent of the law was not aimed at what he did.
Why do those that support the 2nd Amendment to the extreme want this guy to go to jail for a misdemeanor?
Especially since David Gregory is a Republican.
Out of political partisanship, the right wingers are now clamoring for gun control to be heavily enforced? If this happens then they will have achieved complete Orwellian doublethink.
I find it very telling that you're more likely to get in trouble for showing an empty ammunition clip on a TV show while discussing gun control, than you are owning a small arsenal or weaponry and hundreds of rounds of ammunition in the presence of someone you know to have emotional or mental problems.
It's also telling that the very same kind of people that are saying it was okay for Zimmerman to ignore a police dispatcher (white right-wing rednecks) are the same people saying it wasn't okay for Gregory to ignore the police. lol
If it was anyone else, in spite of the "maximum" fines and penalties, in the real world, the worst that would have happened to someone like Gregory (who has no criminal record) is that the police would have just confiscated the clip.
I'll tell you why right-wingers wanted David in jail: They want to distract people from the actual gun control discussion, rather than having an adult conversation on gun regulation.
Next!
5. Waxman!
Lindaman posted this picture:
First, what does the Jefferson (mis)quote have to do with the Waxman quote? I'm waiting.
Second, it's funny that right-wingers had to pull up a Waxman quote from over a decade ago. lol
Third, Waxman said this right after that:
Rep. Waxman: “We aren’t trying to ban it. We just want to make sure that the kinds of people who buy it are going to have it and use it responsibly.”
Sorry, if you check the box that says "I want to stockpile weapons to overthrow my government some day when they really piss me off" then you're a paranoid lunatic who should not have a weapon.
And your "my personal arsenal is a basic human right" argument doesn't hold up. You already live in a country that denies "basic human rights" to some of its citizens and you right-wingers are perfectly happy with that.
6. Beware Liberal Think Tanks!
Lindaman posts this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/sweeping-new-gun-laws-proposed-by-influential-liberal-think-tank/2013/01/12/65192d26-5c2a-11e2-9fa9-5fbdc9530eb9_print.html
Then Lindaman says: "So, nobody wants to take away people's guns, huh?"
Who said that absolutely nobody on planet earth wants to take away people's guns, you lying liar? Of course some people do. What's your damned point?
Now, let's take a look at the plans of this "liberal think tank" as the totally unbiased article calls it:
1. Requiring universal background checks
2. Banning military-grade assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines
3. Modernizing data systems to track gun sales
4. Enforce existing laws
Where does it say they're "taking away people's guns," asshole?
What in the hell is wrong with those four things?
Waiting.
7. Don't Ask!
Lindaman posts this link:
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/01/13/sen-schumer-asks-gun-retailers-to-stop-sales-as-congress-debates/
Misleading title, what a surprise! It was a request to temporarily stop assault weapon sales.
So now a person can't even gently ask anybody anything in the right-wing world? Really? Asking=Threatening?
And you guys wonder why most people on planet earth think right-wingers are backward-assed rednecks.
8. Shooting your family saves lives!
Lindaman writes:
"Whenever there's a gun control debate, there's a phrase that keeps coming up: 'If it saves even one life, it's worth it.' You know, I agree. In fact, let me take it a step further.
Let's say there's something that saves 20 lives for every 1 life saved by gun control. Wouldn't you jump at the chance to save more lives? Well, it's real. There is something in existence right now that saves 20 lives for every 1 gun-related death. You know what it is?
Gun ownership."
The NRA doesn't seem to back up your statement.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer
Paul Blackman, research coordinator for the N.R.A.:"I don't know of any criminological study that has tried to quantify the number of lives saved based on the number of guns that were successfully used for protection."
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,152446,00.html#ixzz2a0kjUV7T
Besides, as far as the "if even one" comment goes...
It's not possible to prevent every kid from dying prematurely, things like disease, neglect, abuse, and just plain old stupidity will see to that. However, as a society, we have a responsibility to try to prevent kids from dying prematurely, so we place strict regulations on food, provide health insurance and nutrition assistance to children, engineer strict building codes so kids don't fall off stuff or can't climb over it, and use PSAs as well as harsh punishments for child abuse. How does this relate to guns? Well, a few months ago, 20 kids were wiped out in an instant by a person with a particularly lethal firearm. One or two and we might write it off to a horrific accident, or a horrible murderer, but 20? That doesn't just happen. Therefore, it is understandable, responsible even to take steps that could prevent a similar scenario, just like we do in other aspects of society.
Good job from Rick Zettler calling him out on his idiotic bullshit bullshit bullshit logic, too.
If people are going to bring up the fact that totally more people die in car accidents, then I'm going to point out that we spend insane amounts of money on regulating car ownership, driving abilities, and roadway upkeep as compared to gun ownership, education, and upkeep of the populace.
Lindaman was also basically saying "Hey, hands and feet kill more than guns!"
Great, Lindaman. When hands and feet kill a bunch of school children, get back to us. Since hands and feet are so much deadlier than guns, why get mad about gun control? You don't need guns, because hands and feet work better. Remember? lol
There's something else that contradict your saving lives rhetoric: facts.
Fact: If you own a gun, it is more likely to cause your own death than any other individual.
Fact: Your spouse is the second most likely person to be killed with your firearm.
Fact: Your child(ren) are the next most likely person(s) to be killed by your own weapon.
But lest you think I would overlook your contribution to your community:
Fact: Your friends/neighbors and their children are right behind your own family when it comes to "most likely to be killed by your weapon."
So much for saving lives.
9. Executive Booga-Booga!
Lindaman posts this link:
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/16/obama-unveils-23-executive-actions-on-guns/
Salon exposed this hot air for the laughable nonsense that it is:
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/17/the_23_executive_orders_that_weren%E2%80%99t/
Still don't see where Obama is "taking guns away from American citizens", you right-wing dunderheads.
NRA argues we need to enforce the laws we already have first and foremost, learn more about gun violence, and educate the public.
Obama signs executive orders to enforce the laws we already have first and foremost, learn more about gun violence, and educate the public. This naturally created a right-wing shitstorm, y'all.
The NRA would never stand for any regulation which would slow the flow of guns to criminals. That would negatively impact gun manufacturers profits. Maximizing demand and sales of guns is their primary goal. Whether the end use is legal or illegal is immaterial as long as that goal is met.
Obama has issued fewer executive orders than any president in the last one hundred years.
Deal with it!