Just an Earth-Bound Misfit: The Rantings of an Aging, Armed, Pinko Chick

Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

“The Mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” -- The TOFF *

"Foreign Relations Boil Down to Two Things: Talking With People or Killing Them." -- Unknown

“Speed is a poor substitute for accuracy.” -- Real, no-shit, fortune from a fortune cookie

"Thou Shalt Get Sidetracked by Bullshit, Every Goddamned Time." -- The Ghoul

"If you believe that you are talking to G-d, you can justify anything.” — my Dad

"Colt .45s; putting bad guys in the ground since 1873." -- Unknown

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"The Dildo of Karma rarely comes lubed." -- Unknown

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

* "TOFF" = Treasonous Orange Fat Fuck,
"FOFF" = Felonious Old Fat Fuck,
"COFF" = Convicted Old Felonious Fool,
A/K/A Commandante (or Cadet) Bone Spurs,
A/K/A El Caudillo de Mar-a-Lago, A/K/A the Asset,
A/K/A P01135809, A/K/A Dementia Donnie, A/K/A Felon^34,
A/K/A Dolt-45, A/K/A Don Snoreleone

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Toljaso

I have said, over and over again, my friend, that the Democrats' love of gun control would cost them.

10 comments:

Borepatch said...: Al Gore probably would have been President except for gun control. That cost him his home state.; 11/09/2016 3:20 PM
Iron City said...: What is 30+K dead and don't recall how many injured each year against getting elected? Yes, lots of the dead are suicides that would use a sword, knife or axe to do it anyway, but still. We can not be made totally safe without wrapping all of us in cotton and making sure we don't hurt our poor little selves, but what we have with gun control is very different concepts of risk and how much risk should be mitigated and to what level. Should have a conversation about that sometime instead of yelling past each other.; 11/09/2016 5:09 PM
Old NFO said...: As you sow, so shall you reap.; 11/09/2016 7:29 PM
3383 said...: What kind of conversation? We have been fighting a rear guard action for decades, trying to preserve a constitutionally guaranteed right. Gun control advocates want to disarm the law abiding populace, I don't want them to.

I keep hearing about "common sense" gun control, but it all sounds like making firearm ownership impossible in practice.; 11/09/2016 9:22 PM
CenterPuke88 said...: Actually, Comrade and I exchanged a couple of posts on this subject a while ago. We found a couple of areas where both sides could probably find room to maneuver after only a couple of exchanges. By the same token, there were also clear area that would take a lot of work to find a middle ground on.

Gun Control is not the boogie man that we're making it here, until you take either the banner or the total freedom side. Does it cost a few votes, yea, probably. But it's also an area that a majority of the population share some agreement on. However, the agreement is clearly NOT banning guns, it is more along the line of reasonable and prudent precautions and controls.

But, to close this baby down, I wouldn't crow too loud, cause Der Donald will turn on guns in an instant if he feels threatened.; 11/09/2016 10:15 PM
Comrade Misfit said...: I wouldn't crow too loud, cause Der Donald will turn on guns in an instant if he feels threatened.

True, that. He was for renewing the Brady Bill before he was against it.; 11/10/2016 7:48 AM
CenterPuke88 said...: Remember Donald's comment about taking away Hillary's Secret Service agents guns...anything that threatens him is something or someone to be squashed. And now he can read anyone's FBI file?! Anyone, does anyone believe that tRump will prove immune to temptation?; 11/10/2016 7:57 AM
Iron City said...: The collective "we", citizens of the country have been yelling past each other a lot except sometimes some adults figure out how to really have a discussion.
If the idea is to reduce the risk, that is, reduce the probability of someone using a gun for mayhem and reduce the seriousness of the mayhem if it does occur (Risk Management 101, it's why you wear seat belts). If that is the idea then it can be discussed. If the idea is not coming up with an agreed acceptable societal risk then there may be little point talking. So you reduce the number of guns available to people with the greatest probability of shooting people criminally (reduce odds of something bad happening) and/or reduce the seriousness of the mayhem when the mayhem does occur, because it will.

In a civilized society no right will be or deserve to be completely unfettered if it has a significant chance of killing other members of that society. Everybody in the society should have a voice in the risks and behavioral norms of that society.; 11/10/2016 2:38 PM
3383 said...: Iron City, quit blathering your vague fluff and tell us how you would like the nation to determine who gets to have one of their constitutional rights reduced.; 11/10/2016 11:54 PM
Joe said...: 3383, the procedure is well established. Like the way anti-communism reduced the 1st Amendment, and the War on Drugs reduced the 4th, and counter-terrorism reduced the 5th...; 11/11/2016 9:15 AM