Showing posts with label Fuck the NRA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fuck the NRA. Show all posts

Monday, August 19, 2019

A compelling argument

So, after yet a few more mass gun slaughters in Gilroy, Dayton and El Paso, some people had started getting the radical idea that hey, maybe allowing every nut, racist, and incel to buy any type of military-grade weaponry they want might not be the best idea after all! And talk has begun to circulate that maybe it isn't a coincidence that large gun massacres weren't a regular occurrence during the ten years that we had an assault weapons ban in place. And maybe we oughta think about maybe not having a bunch of assholes strutting around the aisles of Wal*Mart with sub-machine guns strapped to their backs? Even thought it might hurt their feelings?


Naturally, there are counter-arguments, as you would expect. For instance:

Image result for Marion Hammer
TALLAHASSEE — Florida National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer warned state economists Friday that a proposed assault rifle ban would be devastating to gun manufacturers lured to the state over the last eight years.


Image result for oh, no!


Wow! See, now, that's something I hadn't considered. I mean, just because your business model relies on your ability to sell weapons of mass murder to unstable angry white men is no reason that you should not stay in business, is it?



Image result for newscaster earpiece


Okay, I'm being told that. . . yes. Yes it is a good reason you should not stay in business.




You know, there's always unintended consequences. Like if we have a crackdown on heroin, just think of the deleterious effect on the drug cartels!

Hammer, speaking for the first time since back-to-back gun-related massacres in El Paso and Dayton two weeks ago, denounced the controversial amendment meant to address gun violence in Florida.
The amendment would ban the future sale of assault rifles in the Sunshine State and force current owners to either register them with the state or give them up.



Well, I guess I see why this law would be controversial.I mean, since the law would mandate seizing everyone's guns and criminalizing gun-owners, and. . . wait. . . what? You'd just have to register your AK? You'd still get to keep your massacre gun, you'd just have to register it? Like you should have to for every gun? That's it?


But Hammer said the proposed amendment doesn’t protect the more than 150 major gun manufacturers in the state, of which many produce weapons that would be outlawed by the ban.


Image result for oh, no!


Sure, I mean, it might do something to protect children in schools. And Wal*Mart shoppers. And moviegoers. And concert attendees. And nightclub custoimers. But it does nothing -- NOTHING -- to protect the truly vulnerable. The poor, defenseless death merchants!



Those companies would be forced to move because they couldn’t possess any new assault weapons, she said. “If I were the owner of one of these firearm manufacturing companies, I wouldn’t wait to see what voters do,” she said. “If this were allowed to go on the ballot, I’d say, ‘I’m outta here.’”

And, were I a Florida resident, I would say "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!"



So, that's a pretty compelling argument for why we should take no steps at all to try and reduce the number of massacres that occur regularly in this dumbass country. But this next argument may be even more persuasive:


The NRA's top lobbyist in Florida argued against a proposed assault weapons ban, complaining that if the law passes, young children might not get rifles for their birthdays.
"How do you tell a 10-year-old little girl who got a Ruger 10/22 with a pink stock for her birthday that her rifle is an assault weapon and she has to turn it over to government or be arrested for felony possession?" asked Marion Hammer 


Wait, Marion Hammer?

Image result for Marion Hammer


This is the same lady?
Holy crap, this woman is prolific! She should really be teaching dialectics at some Ivy League institution.

But, my fanboi-ing aside, let's look at her critical question here.

"How do you tell a 10-year-old little girl who got a Ruger 10/22 with a pink stock for her birthday that her rifle is an assault weapon and she has to turn it over to government or be arrested for felony possession?


Yeah, how do you tell her that?
I guess you could have her new foster parents explain it to her after she is removed from the home for her own safety?

I guess they could say something like "I know you think this is a neato toy, but your parents are complete psychotics and what they gave you for your birthday is actually a weapon of mass death. You know how there are soldiers who fight the bad guys. right? Well, honey, this is what those soldiers use to mow down dozens of bad guys in just a few seconds. Yes, that's right, sweetie. this machine creates dead people. Lots and lots of dead people. And it kills people whether those people are the evil terrorists, or whether they are children just like you who are just trying to go to school.
This might be a big grownup word, honey, but do you know what a  "psychopath" is? Yes, it's like a crazy person. A crazy person who likes to hurt people. That's very good. Well, only a psychopath would ever have a gun like this when he wasn't in a war zone. You understand, don't you, kiddo?"

And maybe you could show the little girl this Washington Post headline:


At least 265 people were accidentally shot by kids this year


I mean, if she's mature enough to handle a semi-automatic rifle, she ahould be mature enough to read the headline from a grownup newspaper, right?
And maybe you could explain to her that "you know, kiddo, if you were to accidentally shoot your brother with a bb gun, it would hurt. And he would probably cry. But he would be all right after we put a bandaid on it. But if you were to accidentally shoot your brother with an assault rifle, those bullets would tear through his flesh, shatter his bones, and leave gaping exit wounds that he probably wouldn't survive. You understand the difference, right?"


You know what, let me tell you a story. A few years back, a friend of mine bought his wife a set of multi-colored kitchen knives fro Christmas.

Image result for colorful kitchen knives 
He bought her nice things, too. He's not a dolt.


When he was wrapping up gifts for the family, he accidentally put his daughter's name on the to/from tag on the knife set. When his little daughter opened the box and saw all the pretty colored knives, she was thrilled. And my friend, not being stupid or insane, had to tell her "no, sweetie, you don't get to keep those. Those are for Mommy." I'm sure she was disappointed, but she fucking got over it. And last time I saw her, she still had all her fingers. Because that's what responsible parents do. They take dangerous things away from their children. So they don't hurt themselves or anyone else. Because they're children. And what kind of demented, unhinged psychotic gives a weapon of war to a ten-year-old?

This kind, I guess.

Image result for Marion Hammer




Monday, May 30, 2016

Charlie Daniels is a very silly man.

So Charlie Daniels has a message. A message for the EyeYa-Toll-Ah and the terrisits.





First of all, I love how this is presented as a message to the Ayatollah. I picture somewhere in Tehran, a harried aide rushing into the office
"your holiness, a message! From Charlie Daniels!"
"You mean that fiddle player who had a couple hits back in the Seventies? Assemble my advisors!"

And then he says "you may have met our fresh-faced, flower-child president and his weak-kneed Ivy-League friends." To which I assume the "terrisits" would respond "you mean the guy who sends drones to bomb the fuck out of  our people every day? The guy who sent the SEALS in to put a bullet in bin Laden's eye? That fresh-faced flower child?"

Also, why is "fresh-faced" an insult? Because the President washes his face and is clean-shaven, that's supposed to mean he's somehow deficient in some masculinity or something? Did you mean "baby-faced?" Also, why is "Ivy League" only an insult when it applies to Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, people who actually earned their way into our country's most prestigious Universities? Why isn't it an insult for Yale legacies?

http://a.espncdn.com/i/page2/photos/040830yale.jpg



"But you haven't met Amerrrrica! You haven't met the Heartland."
Oh, God. Here we go with the Sarah Palin "real America" bullshit.

"the people who will defend this nation with their bloody, calloused bare hands"

Yeah, okay. Let me just stop you there. That won't be neceessary. I don't know if you're aware of this, but we actually have an Army. And a Navy, and Air Force and a Marine Corps. Your bare-knuckle defenses will definitely not be needed.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e6/John_L._Sullivan_1898.jpg
Why I'll give that Ayatollah a sound thrashing!
I'll certainly give him what-for, eh?

And if Iran were to invade the United States, they would come with guns and bombs and what-not, so your bloody bare hands wouldn't stand much of a chance, but thanks anyway.


"You haven't met the steelworkers, or the hard-rock miners."

Do we still have steelworkers? Isn't all our steel production done overseas now?

Also, I don't know what you think "hard-rock mining" looks like, but nowadays, it looks a lot more like this:


http://www.slurryflo.com/images/Applications/HiRes/rock_mining.jpg?width=720&height=480&flashvars=clip_id=1084537&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1




. . .than this:

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgk093QW3NJ0C39oofJpOYojJaukGrf7byK1dTGqGgsIeISty3RHhy09nvLjM7-HDjx7oiWEuksM8BKOp0P8AVtfqwFwVQPzpULJQhCpGORNyegd1_CtHCkHF26VrWBMR1vU0iKjCrk61A/s1600/Prospector.jpg



"or the swamp folks in cajun country that can wrestle a full grown gator out of the water."

First of all, is that even true? I mean, I know there are guys who wrassle gators. But they do it on dry land. I wouldn't think you could get a gator out of the water, he's going to be much more agile in the wtaer than a person. But either way, your gator-rasslin' skills will not really be relevant if there is either an invasion or a terrorist attack. No one was looking at the carnage at Ground Zero thinking "if only someone from swamp country had been here to rassle those planes away."

 "you haven't met the farmers, the cowboys, the loggers, the truck drivers"

The truck drivers? I work with truck drivers every day and they are not an intimidating lot. Half of them can barely reach the steering wheel over their third-trimester beer bellies. These are guys and gals who make a living sitting down. They can barely walk from the cab to the receiving door without getting winded. Truck drivers! Please.

Also, are there still cowboys? Are there still cattle drives going on in this country?


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a5/56/ed/a556ed1ba849fb48db2c18cd8178fb10.jpg
Doesn't count.


"you don't know the mountain men who live off the land."

Is that still a thing? Are there still wild men living off the land up in the mountains? I mean, Eric Rudolph did it for a while, but I assume the terrorists do know him, being in the same line of work and all. Or maybe Charlie thinks that the Revenant took place in modern times?

http://s3.foxmovies.com/foxmovies/production/films/96/images/gallery/revenant-gallery-20-gallery-image.jpg
Wait, so DiCaprio didn't really fight a bear?

"or the brave cops who fight the good fight in the urban war zones."

Okay, the less said about that the better, but Charlie, we all know what you mean when you say "Urban."  Dog whistles really ought to be a bit more subtle.

You know, when this started, I figured Charlie was still stuck in the Seventies, still mad at the Ayatollah. But now I think maybe he is in an eralier century all togetenr.






Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Why are there no consequences for this?

How many Republican Presidential hopefuls were at this meeting?

According to Right Wing Watch: "Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rick Perry and others."

Yes, the NRA, the only organization with more blood on its hands than the PNAC, held a meeting and these men who would be President attended. And spoke.
At a meeting where this occurred:

VIDEO: At NRA Annual Meeting, Ted Nugent Talked About Shooting Sen. Harry Reid


http://mediamatters.org/embed/static/clips/2015/04/14/39539/nraaanualmeeting-nraannualmeeting-20150412-nugentreidvid

 Nugent called Reid a "lying prick," but described him as a necessary evil, stating, "If your child is dying and there is only one way to get to the doctor, would you get on Harry Reid's boat to get there? ... I'd get on the boat, get there, and then I'd shoot him."



And this happened:

NRA's Wayne LaPierre On Clinton And Obama: "Eight Years Of One Demographically Symbolic President Is Enough"


And of course, there will be no repercussions for their participation in this hate-and-fear-fest.

Imagine if a bunch of Democratic candidates had attended, um. . . well, there is no equivalent group on the Left. Nothing even close to an organization as disgusting and evil as the NRA.
But for the sake of argument, let's use the ACLU. I have a great deal of respect for the ACLU and I am NOT trying to equate them to the NRA. But to many on the Right, the ACLU represents pretty much all that is evil in the world.

Remember the way they hung the ACLU around Mike Dukakis's neck like an albatross? When Bush 1 was running against Dukakis, I, through sheer dumb luck, was handed a ticket to go in to the auditorium at Cal State Fullerton to see Ronald Reagan stump for Bush. I went in with a group of Dukakis supporters and booed him, don't worry. Anyway, one of the things that Reagan had to say about Dukakis was that he was a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" an organization which he claimed wanted to make it legal for our little brothers and sisters to be used in child pornography.

Obviously, this was total bullshit, but the Bush campaign repeted the "card-carrying member" trope over and over til election day.

So what are the odds that any Denmocratic candidate, or any surrogate, or member of the media will call out Cruz, Bush, Rubio, et al for their love of an organization that helps to make thousands of gun deaths possible each year? I'm guessing the odds are about zero. Maybe Alan Grayson might say something, but I can't imagine anyone else would.

Why not? Why shouldn't these candidates have to wear a scarlet A and a scarlet N and R? Every campaign ad, every stump speech by any Democratic candidate should hammer on these sob's embrace of the gun-nut fringe. What are they afraid of? The NRA represents, what, about 2 percent of the population? they claim to have 4.5 million members, that's about 1 and a half percent. Assuming that number is accurate, and assuming there are folks who share their point of view but haven't joined, let's say that's 5 million out of a population of 300 million. And as the recent post-Sandy Hook disgrace showed, the NRA doesn't even represent the views of a majority of its members who agree that the gun-show loophole shopuld be closed, and other mild restrictions should be put in place. So why worry about offending the NRA? You weren't going to get the votes of any of the gun-felaters anyway.

It's about time that we call these psychos out, make membership in their sick organization something about which to be ashamed. It's past time that anyone who admits being a member or supporter of the NRA be treated as a pariah. Talking about your NRA membership should be like talking about your online pornography subscriptions.

The NRA is a profoundly evil organization. There have to be some consequences for embracing them.

Saturday, January 26, 2013

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?




Democrats may stand in Obama's way on gun measures



Of course, they will. Of course.

All eyes are on these dozen or so Democrats, some of whom face re-election in 2014. That includes Sens. Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas.


Of course it's Baucus. Of course it is.




 Somebody better primary that piece of shit blue-dog coward.
Anyone who places more importance on his re-election than on maybe saving some innocent lives does not deserve another term. Anyone who doesn't support gun-control measures had damn well better get primaried, whether their opposition stems from electoral cowardice or from a sincere love of guns.

What the hell is the point of getting elected if you're not going to do at least this simple, obvious right thing.


The political concerns of Democrats create problems for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has his own history with the NRA.

The powerful gun lobby endorsed him in previous elections, but stayed neutral in his most recent race, in 2010. Even before Obama announced the gun proposals this month, Reid told a Nevada PBS station that an assault weapons ban would have a hard time getting through Congress. That comment irked Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., author of such a ban. 


Is anyone not sick to death of Harry Reid?



How the fuck did this guy ever get to be in charge? 
He should have been bounced out of his leadership position when he rolled over during the health-care debate. Republicans whined that they needed time to go back and consult with their constituencies before voting and Reid seriously couldn't see through this? Seemingly, he really thought that they were going to go back to their constituents and listen to their input and then come back saying "well, the voters seem to like this idea, so I guess I'll vote yes!" Maybe he couldn't have foreseen the Republicans bussing in groups of Cro-Magnon morons to scream about death panels and tyranny and wanting their country back, but he had to know they were up to no good. At best, this was a stalling tactic. But Reid walked right into their little trap as if he had never met these assholes and thought they would bargain in good faith.

Oh, and great job with filibuster reform, Senator Reid!




I can't believe anyone in the House or Senate is still afraid of the NRA. You know they don't even represent their own membership, right? Most NRA members want universal background checks.


 Have you seen the polling? (LINK)

Q: Please tell me what kind of priority you think Obama and the Congress should give addressing gun violence? (Asked of half sample)



The highest priority     28%
High priority but not the highest    40%
Lower priority            30%
(VOL) No priority     1% 


That's 68% of those surveyed who think that adressing gun violence is a high priority.

Q: Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets?

Support   65%

Q: Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?

 Support   88%


 EIGHTY-EIGHT PERCENT! Eighty-eight percent support closing the gun-show loophole, but a handful of cowardly senators could prevent this.

71% support the creation of a federal database to track gun sales.  But because the Wayne LaPierres of this country will scream "tyranny!" we probably won't even get that.

58% support a total ban on assault weapons. But Harry Reid, that sniveling weakling, doesn't think he can get that through his caucus.

There is some hope, though. People are starting to get active.

Thousands rally in Washington for gun control



WASHINGTON — In the wake of several recent mass shootings, thousands of people gathered Saturday in front of the Capitol for a silent march urging Congress to act on legislation to control guns. Despite chilly temperatures and snow-covered ground, supporters came from around the country came to make their statement.


gty gun control march washington jt 130126 wblog Newtown Victims Families Join Gun Control Activists on DC March


 At some point, even the cowards in the Senate might have to come to the realization that, despite what the maniacs of the NRA leadership say, America wants and needs sensible gun laws.