Jon Stewart Rips Right-Wingers A New One

    When Unarmed Blacks Are Killed By Cops

    No Wrongdoing With Benghazi

    Right-Wingers Fuel Racism And Paranoia

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Gun Nut Edition 3

And the gun nuts continue:

1. You can't have a gun in New York!

Lindaman posts this link:


Then Lindaman says: "Good thing NY has strict gun control laws to prevent this from happening! Oh wait..."

The beaten man could've bought a gun, remember?  As long as it's licensed and registered,that is.

Commenter JoAnn Parmer Hardy said: "There were onlookers?!! And someone made a video of the attack! What is wrong with people! And you do have the possibility of outrunning an attacker with a tire iron, you won't outrun a bullet shot from a gun."

Well, JoAnn, I'm sure that just slipped his mind.

2. With the maps and the Iraq...

Lindaman posts this link:


Then Lindaman says: "Hmmm...and some people think criminals will obey tougher gun laws?"

Yet again, Lindaman's comment has nothing to do with the actual article.

The theft had nothing to do with the map, according to the police.

Also, those guns sure didn't protect the gun owner's home from robbery, did it? lol

3. They'll totally arrest the cops!

Lindaman posts this link:


Then Lindaman says "So, until the law gets changed, police officers are going to be less protected.  Way to go, gun control supporters!"

Funny, now you like the police?  You've been on an anti-police rant for tons of posts!

According to the actual article, they aren't enforcing that law against police officers until they can modify the law.

Way to go, right-wing liars!

4. He didn't use an assault weapon... wait, he did??

Lindaman posts this right-wing link:


Then Lindaman says: "Wow! Puts a whole new twist on the need for an assault weapons ban because of the Sandy Hook shooting, doesn't it?"

Yep... the article Lindaman is kissing up to... is wrong (and typically right-wing paranoid). 

They used a Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle.  And yes, that's an assault weapon.


So again, nice try. 

You could've just waited until some actual evidence surfaced before spewing your gun-stroking bullshit.

Way to spectacularly fail on every damned level of simple researching, you right-wing losers.

What's funniest, is that even if the gun nut that wrote that false article was right, then you're accidentally arguing in favor of handgun bans. lol

We'll be waiting patiently for Lindaman's retraction.  Oh, wait... Lindaman has never, ever, admitted when he's wrong in print.  And that's why nobody should ever take what he says seriously. lol

5. Confidentially, right-wingers don't know about confidentiality.

Lindaman posts this picture:

Then Lindaman says "I guess doctor-patient confidentiality is one-way now?"

That right-wing picture has absolutely nothing to do with doctor-patient confidentiality.

Doctor-Patient Confidentiality is an ethics issue, not a law issue.

And it does not mean a doctor can't ask a patient a goddamned question if it endangers the patient and innocent civilians.

And no, a doctor can't ask why a woman wants an abortion.  It's none of the doctor's fucking business and has nothing to do with the patient's health or the lives of the people around the patient.

They can, however, ask a mentally disturbed/potential suicide patient if they have a gun, because it can protect the life of the patient and those around them.

But saving lives has never been a top priority of right-wingers, has it?

Sorry, you right-wingers fail on every level here.

6. Yep, Mr. Morgan is grandly correct.

Lindaman posts this link:


Then Lindaman says: "Don't you have to have delusions of adequacy before you can have delusions of grandeur, Mr. Morgan?"

Too bad for you guys that Mr. Morgan was right. Alex Jones's insanity proves what we already knew: Gun nuts are insane.

You will never find Mr. Morgan saying anything even remotely as insane as the whacko nonsense Jones spews.  Ever!


7. No Gun Control!  Except when a politician has one...

Lindaman posts this link:


Lindaman then states: "I can appreciate the use of visual aids to make a point, but this is dangerous. I don't own a gun, but even I remember one of the rules of gun ownership is you always assume the gun is loaded, even if you don't think it is.  This Democrat (and any politician for that matter) who brandishes a weapon in a public place so irresponsibly should not only be prosecuted, but rebuked."

He did treat the gun as if it were loaded.  He pointed it at the ceiling, away from people.

He also told Capitol Police about his plan in advance.

Members of the General Assembly, law enforcement personnel or anyone with a concealed weapon permit is allowed to bring a gun into the Capitol.

So again, what's your point?  Waiting!

8. It was totally not about slavery or something!

Lindaman writes:

"To all the people who think the Second Amendment was designed to protect whites from slave revolts, I bring you...proof of the contrary:



Hmmm...no reference to slavery in either one, but plenty of references to protecting ourselves against government tyranny...."

Gee, thanks for those two whole pieces there!

These right-wingers remind me of racists that continue to insist the Civil War was about "states rights" and not slavery. lol

But hey, since you're using the Federalist Papers as a source, do you agree with how the Federalist Papers defines a militia?



9. Fuck his kids (literally)!

Lindaman posts this picture:

Gotta love this "Obama's kids got teh sukurty, why are they impurtent and mye kids ain't" argument. You people do realize that the security of the President's family is also a matter of national security, don't you? If his wife, or one of his children were kidnapped you do realize that would most certainly compromise national security, don't you? You do realize that every President's family has had tons of security, for that very reason, don't you?

Yes, the security of the President's family is more important (to this nation that is) than the security of your family. The same went for the Bush daughters, and Chelsea Clinton before them, and so on.

I think some of these people fantasize about something terrible happening to his wife or one of his daughters. I also think some non-trivial subset of those people masturbate at the same time.

They insinuated that the children of the President of the United States shouldn't be protected, in direct opposition to federal law. Nobody was doing that to Jenna Bush or Chelsea Clinton or Amy Carter. Everybody understood why they got to have armed protection. But suddenly Sasha and Malia need to be left at the mercy of every whackjob that's just waiting for the opportunity to blackmail the President with his daughter's lives (and you know they're out there)?

It is an intentionally dense argument, made in an attempt to get the other side to argue against the idea, as though they hate children... or think some children are more important.  But, it is a great "gotcha!" point for the right-wingers, and it sidesteps any mature discussion on gun control... and lets be honest, that's what they actually want to do... sidestep it.

The NRA and its supporters think that having the right to bear arms automatically implies that there can be no responsibilities attached.  That's a standard we don't apply to any other right.

The NRA and its supporters are fanatics and liars. That's all there is to it.

Commenter Amy Friedman said: "Not true. Anyone can own a gun, as long as they pass a background check. Most states, even Missouri, have background check requirements in place already. Gun laws will prevent those who wish to procure guns illegally from arming. Not law-abiding citizens... But the poster was implying that no legal access will be available, which is incorrect."

Lindaman tries to lie his way out of this by saying: "Amy, Dianne Feinstein has said publicly her ultimate "wish" is...gun confiscation. This sentiment has been echoed by commentators on MSNBC and CNN. At this point, saying no one wants to take people's guns is a fallacy."

Lindaman posted in another comment that Feinstein wanted to ban "all guns."

But Lindaman is lying, as usual.  Dianne Feinstein said absolutely nothing about banning handguns, which is what the photograph was implying. 

Got it?

10. Assault weapons=ALL GUNS!

Lindaman posts this link:


Then Lindaman says: "So, nobody wants to take away people's guns?"

He wants assault rifles off the streets.  He says nothing about home defense or handguns.  What's your point?

Oh, that's right.  You right-wingers are hoping to fool rednecks into thinking the government is going to take away their deer rifles. lol

Lindaman posts this link:


Then Lindaman says: "So, nobody wants to take away people's guns?"

And where is the ban, liar?  That congresswoman wants to give people a tax credit for turning in assault weapons. Since when is that forced seizure?

Jesus, you guys lie so damned much. lol

Lindaman posts this link:


Then Lindaman says: "So, nobody wants to take away people's guns?"

And yet again, that's a video about assault weapons.

Lindaman is doing his usual schtick: Repeat the bullshit talking points enough and hope it will stick.

You still have yet to explain to anyone why owning an assault weapon is better than any other weapon.

Of course, we're dealing with little babies that think hammers are just as dangerous as assault weapons, so why bother expecting an adult answer from them?

George W. Bush opposed repeal of the 1994 assault weapon ban.
George W. Bush was in favor of banning imports of high-capacity ammunition clips.
George W. Bush was in favor of raising the minimum age for possessing a handgun from 18 to 21.
George W. Bush was in favor banning guns within 300 yards of a school.

Obama has signed into law two different pieces of legislation that expanded the rights of people to carry weapons on Amtrak and into National Parks.

What's that?  Nothing?  Thought so.