Words of Advice:

"We have it totally under control. It's one person coming from China. It's going to be just fine." -- Donald Trump, 1/22/2020

“We will not see diseases like the coronavirus come here..and isn't it refreshing when contrasting it with the awful presidency of President Obama."
-- Trump Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, 2/25/20

"I don't take responsibility for anything." --Donald Trump, 3/13/20

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

"Flying the Airplane is More Important than Radioing Your Plight to a Person on the Ground Who is Incapable of Understanding or Doing Anything About It." -- Unknown

"There seems to be almost no problem that Congress cannot, by diligent efforts and careful legislative drafting, make ten times worse." -- Me

"What the hell is an `Aluminum Falcon'?" -- Emperor Palpatine

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

Tuesday, June 4, 2019

Two Reasons to Own Guns

This guy:
The mayor of an Alabama town reportedly called for "killing out" gay people in a since-deleted Facebook comment.

Mark Chambers lumped "homosexuals" and "transvestites" together with "baby killers" and "socialists" in the post, according to TV station WBRC.
And this guy:
A Flordia politician has ignited criticism in his response to the idea that gay people should be legally executed in America.
I'm pretty sure that both men are card-carrying members of the Christian Taliban.

The first jerk said that he only meant to spew his hateful bile in a private message. As though that makes it any better.


CenterPuke88 said...

So, Comrade, a question. Should either or both of the two gentlemen above be allowed to own and possess a firearm? I don’t seek a yes/no, but simply ask if these sorts of statements should be enough to constrain an individuals rights...and if not, why not...and if so, for how long? This is the inherent issue with a powerful tool like a firearm and individual bias.

Comrade Misfit said...

I can't see terminating a person's rights because of speech, not unless we're going to throw away the First Amendment.

Now if they made a move to act on their beliefs that others should be killed because they don't like them, well, that's different. In that event, retaining the possession of their weapons would be the least of their problems.

CenterPuke88 said...

Fair enough, but the worrisome thing is some percentage of those that propose such actions will follow through...

We have the concept of fighting words, and the limitation regarding yelling fire in a crowded theatre, how does this play here?

0_0 said...

If either or both of these gentlemen, and any who might agree with them, were aware that their targets had a fair chance of being armed, I am sure they woul be much less likely to act on their beliefs.

Something like Ida B. Wells' advice to Black families to keep a Winchester rifle displayed as a deterrent to lynch mobs.

CenterPuke88 said...

0_0, however, the presence of the forearm in the house does constitute a threat to those in residence too...which is why it is dismaying that we have to consider that action as a “necessary” one.

0_0 said...

CP88, it is dismaying that there are those in the world who wish us harm.
I don't expect that to ever change.