Wow! I easily found eight links (those below) that totally agree with my claim that women are just as, if not more so, likely to refer to other women/girls as "sluts" (or "whores") as are men. I would say it's more likely, given that women/girls do it more openly, and with malice as they use the words to attack other women/girls for one reason or another. Men, on the other hand, should they use the words at all, are more likely to do so as a descriptor...to identify a particular type of woman/girl and distinguish that type from another, more virtuous type. That's not to say men never use the words to tarnish a reputation, but men are more likely to use other words, in my opinion, to disparage a woman. "Bitch" comes to mind as a typical choice, though some use it as a synonym to "slut" or "whore" (check out most hip-hop references to women).
I'm going to quickly go through these links. While I read each one from beginning to end, my summarizing might still be less than perfectly accurate. The main point, however, will remain that Dan's charge that the words I used to accurately and factually refer to the character of two Trump accusers are not the sole weapons of "rapists", "rapey guys" or "sexual predators". And while none of these following links refer to the notion, I fully doubt that Dan could possibly find any "study" or "research" that proves the notion at all. It's merely Dan working feverishly to defend his unChristian hatred of Donald Trump, so anything goes. In any case, here we go:
https://globalnews.ca/news/1373537/study-examines-why-girls-call-each-other-sluts-its-not-about-sex/
https://graziadaily.co.uk/life/opinion/enough-now-thing-slut/
The above two links refer to the same study dealing with a particular university. It speaks specifically to the use of the words by chicks against other chicks. As is true of all the links, the words still have a sexual connotation to their use, even when sexual activity of the victim is not the issue. As one of the last links offers, the words are used to make the sexual behavior of the harasser seem to her to be less wicked. That is, "yeah, I sleep around a bit, but THAT bitch is a SLUT!"
It seems pretty obvious that if one really finds a word objectionable, that is the word one would use to attack someone perceived to be some kind of threat, or to demean that person.
https://time.com/107228/women-misogyny-twitter-study-demos/
The above link refers to misogynistic attacks on women being perpetrated by women at very similar rates as by men. But how can that be when Dan insists that such attacks are solely the acts of sexually predatory men? The answer is that Dan doesn't know what he pretends to know. It's what he wants to be true in order to strengthen his hateful attacks on Donald Trump.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1093011/Women-far-promiscuous-men-says-shock-new-study.html
I added the above link because of what it says in not so many words, which is that women are not the put upon innocents that Dan needs them to be in order to assert that every charge against Donald Trump is credible and therefor his grace-embracing hate of Donald Trump is justified. He also seems to want to believe that my reference to two whores and sluts as "whores" and "sluts" puts me in league with those who give male whores and sluts a pass for being whores and/or sluts themselves. The only basis for this notion is that it serves to stifle opposing arguments. Dan wishes to shame anyone as defenders of sexual predators those who would lend any support of any kind to Trump. Said another way, Dan's lying again.
https://www.redbookmag.com/love-sex/sex/a47424/why-women-like-rough-sex/
The above link is interesting for its implications. That is, that some women like being abused and treated like whores and sluts.
https://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/news/a36095/leora-tanenbaum-slut-shaming/
https://feministsatlarge.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/lets-stop-calling-women-sluts/
The above two links provide insights into the radical feminist notions girly-boys like Dan find so compelling and worthy of serious consideration.
Opinions are like buttholes, and those of the radical feminists and the girly-male sheep, like Dan, are particularly foul smelling. They are largely based on the desire to be as immoral as they perceive men to be. Sure, many men are immoral, but it takes a self-loathing, "male-guilt" goof like Dan to indict the whole of mankind to defend his grace-embracing hatred of Donald Trump.
Whether intended or not, the above two links imply rather loudly that women don't mind being whores and sluts. They just don't want to be called whores and sluts. These links clearly assert the belief that there's nothing wrong with women having sex as often and in any way a woman might desire. But this is no more moral than men believing the same thing, and it doesn't matter how many centuries have passed where men have maintained they have that right. It was never moral and isn't now, nor is it for women. For them to engage in sex outside of marriage is an impediment to their salvation. I believe using the strongest terms to describe immoral behavior is a good thing given the consequences those behaviors may bring about. What hurts more...being called a whore or a slut, or never seeing inside the Golden Gates?
Shaming? Damned right. The women writing the above articles absolutely assert a woman should not feel ashamed at being promiscuous. And Dan seems very much to agree, showing once again that he is an enabler, if not a promoter, of sexual immorality. With champions like that, who needs oppressors?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-new-teen-age/201210/why-girls-call-each-other-sluts
The above link simply reiterates my point...that women and girls are more likely to call other women and girls whores and sluts than the "sexual predators" and "rapists" Dan thinks own the terms.
And here again it's important to point out that Dan is trying to make a case against calling a whore/slut a whore/slut, as if using another term...or never speaking of a woman's slut behavior...changes the reality, the seriousness of that behavior and all the negative consequences that it brings. He has NOT in any way demonstrated that the use of the terms alone...the mere hearing of them uttered...brings about savage harm to women everywhere or anywhere (I frankly don't care if the radical feminist wishes to assert such buffoonery, either). He mocks my ongoing polling of women to find one who is so horribly affected (so far, not a one...the polling continues), while he provides nothing to show that they are. Let's be clear: I have no doubt that a virtuous woman would very much dislike being called a slut. Such a woman cherishes her reputation and rightly would hate to see it tarnished, just as anyone else would hate to be slandered or libeled. But if the terms were not directed toward her, it's absurd to suggest she'd somehow take it as a personal attack or even on an attack on womanhood. I'm sorry. "Absurd" doesn't really go far enough. "Lie" is more like it, because there is no "study" that suggests such a thing. My links above bear that out nicely. The only way use of the terms causes harm, aside from the example of the virtuous woman, is as an epithet or as it exposes the character of the non-virtuous woman who prefers to keep hidden the truth about herself.
Dan will simply have to find a more legitimate way to disparage Donald Trump. This tactic is ludicrous, fantasy and totally deceitful. A whore is a whore, and a slut is a slut and a rose by any other name...
More to come....
Friday, April 24, 2020
Sunday, April 12, 2020
Temporarily Interrupted
After the end of the week, I will be in a temporary living situation for about three weeks, due to our moving from our home of 31 years. It's a bitter-sweet change in our lives for sure. So many memories from that span of time!
Once that three weeks ends, we'll be in our new digs for the next two years or so, before hopefully moving to warmer climes. But during that period, my ability to access the internet will be restricted to only my phone. At least that's the way it appears at the moment. As such, this may likely be the last post until we get in the new place. I've no doubt some...well...actually just one person...will abuse this situation and I was in doubt as to whether or not I would actually announce this whole thing. However, I felt it might be a good idea for the normal, civil, actually Christian people to know why my engagement in discourse might be so minimal. I've been considering getting a laptop, which would make things easier, but with the current situation I'd only be able to order one through Amazon or some such, and with the temporary situation that might not work out so well anyway. So, I'll just wait it out and deal as best I can.
Until then, behave.
Once that three weeks ends, we'll be in our new digs for the next two years or so, before hopefully moving to warmer climes. But during that period, my ability to access the internet will be restricted to only my phone. At least that's the way it appears at the moment. As such, this may likely be the last post until we get in the new place. I've no doubt some...well...actually just one person...will abuse this situation and I was in doubt as to whether or not I would actually announce this whole thing. However, I felt it might be a good idea for the normal, civil, actually Christian people to know why my engagement in discourse might be so minimal. I've been considering getting a laptop, which would make things easier, but with the current situation I'd only be able to order one through Amazon or some such, and with the temporary situation that might not work out so well anyway. So, I'll just wait it out and deal as best I can.
Until then, behave.
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
It Is I!!! RAPEBOY!!!
"Marshal, you are a coward and a pig and a defender of rapists. You are
the enemy of women and shame on you, you low life rapeboy. You will NOT
comment here again until such time as you apologize to women for your
pathetic, misogynistic attacks on them and promise to never utter such
words again, at least here.
Do you kiss your mother/daughter with those filthy lips, you pig?"
So, apparently, to call a porn actress "a whore" is somehow misogynistic. To call women who, by their own admission, engaged in sex with a married man "sluts" makes me an enemy of women. Wow. I wonder what my disgust with the married man makes me? Is it OK to refer to them by words defined by their actions? Can I call them adulterers without having scorn heaped upon me?
Worse, these words I correctly apply to the women in question reflect a proven reality, while "rapist" is merely an accusation leveled by a fake against Donald Trump without any evidence whatsoever. That is, without proof, Dan Trabue accuses the president simply because Donald Trump won the election as a Republican and continues to do great things for the country. This is what really drives "progressives" like Danny-boy absolutely nuts. It's bad enough that the nation elected a rude, crude, socially unacceptable guy like Trump (after twice electing the racist, Marxist defender of abortion and sexual immorality who preceded him). It kills them that the dude is doing such a great job. Indeed, the more he succeeds, the more it infuriates them and thus, the more they inflate the egregious aspects of his character to levels satanic! Yeah, Danny-boy...we get it. He's a scumbag. But he's earned a second term and I intend to vote for him so that he gets it.
But I'm done defending my wise and righteous choice of Donny over Hillary and soon, Donny over whomever floats to the top of the Democratic cesspool of candidates. This post is about the idea that calling a whore a whore is somehow an attack on women...that it is somehow misogynistic to do so. And what is a whore? The word is a synonym of prostitute, though it is also used to describe any sexually promiscuous woman, as well as to simply disparage the character of a disliked female. I used it in reference to Stormy Daniels, who, after claiming to have had an affair with Trump while he was married, was paid a sum to shut up and go away rather than further disrupt Trump's campaign for president. Dan loves this woman. She provides him with another reason to blast Trump's character. He doesn't care about Daniels. He only cares about exploiting her story to further denigrate Trump, as if it matters now that he may have indeed had an affair with her, something he denies.
So why call her a whore? Simply because she is one. A whore takes money in exchange for sex, and that's how she made her living...by taking money to engage in sexual behavior in front of a camera to sell to those who love pornography. The same is true of Playboy model Karen McDougal, who by posing nude for money also earns the title.
"Slut" is also an appropriate word to apply to women like these two. Setting aside Daniels' career choice, which alone makes her a slut, these women, if we're to believe their allegations, admit they had sex with a married man. And here's the thing: there's no way to look at these situations and regard these women as anything other than whores and/or sluts. It's not misogyny or an attack on women to tell it like it is. They don't get to claim victim status after having chosen to engage in the affair. They don't get to play the damsel in distress after accepting big bucks to keep their mouths shut about their alleged affairs that were consensual, which also cements their reputations as whores, considering they took money later.
To pretend that these women are victims is a true attack on good women everywhere. To defend their actions as if they did not engage in immoral behavior is insulting to women of virtue. Again, these women were not "exploited" if they chose to engage in the affairs they insist took place. Indeed, if there was any exploiting going on, it seems it was at best a two-way street, and at worst, a case of these women seeing Trump as a potential payday...which it became, even if not what they may have had in mind. They knew that Trump left one wife to marry another. It's not so hard to imagine that they saw the potential that he'd do it again with them being the new Mrs. Trump. There's simply no way to regard these women as worthy of defense.
Frankly, being accused by someone like Dan, for whom "embrace grace" is just lip service, doesn't at all compel to me to reassess my position on these women. I have no intention for apologizing for speaking factually about the situation and Dan, like his troll, want to believe that these women are somehow more worthy of their support than Trump. That somehow, their word is more trustworthy. They're blatantly sexually immoral, they broke a contract into which they entered and received money and now we're to believe their accusations against Trump rather than his denials of those allegations. Dan supports the ongoing murder of unborn females, as well as the harm suffered by so many women who have and will abort, and he dares suggest I'm the one about whom women should worry because I call a spade a spade and a whore a whore? That's laughable.
Do you kiss your mother/daughter with those filthy lips, you pig?"
So, apparently, to call a porn actress "a whore" is somehow misogynistic. To call women who, by their own admission, engaged in sex with a married man "sluts" makes me an enemy of women. Wow. I wonder what my disgust with the married man makes me? Is it OK to refer to them by words defined by their actions? Can I call them adulterers without having scorn heaped upon me?
Worse, these words I correctly apply to the women in question reflect a proven reality, while "rapist" is merely an accusation leveled by a fake against Donald Trump without any evidence whatsoever. That is, without proof, Dan Trabue accuses the president simply because Donald Trump won the election as a Republican and continues to do great things for the country. This is what really drives "progressives" like Danny-boy absolutely nuts. It's bad enough that the nation elected a rude, crude, socially unacceptable guy like Trump (after twice electing the racist, Marxist defender of abortion and sexual immorality who preceded him). It kills them that the dude is doing such a great job. Indeed, the more he succeeds, the more it infuriates them and thus, the more they inflate the egregious aspects of his character to levels satanic! Yeah, Danny-boy...we get it. He's a scumbag. But he's earned a second term and I intend to vote for him so that he gets it.
But I'm done defending my wise and righteous choice of Donny over Hillary and soon, Donny over whomever floats to the top of the Democratic cesspool of candidates. This post is about the idea that calling a whore a whore is somehow an attack on women...that it is somehow misogynistic to do so. And what is a whore? The word is a synonym of prostitute, though it is also used to describe any sexually promiscuous woman, as well as to simply disparage the character of a disliked female. I used it in reference to Stormy Daniels, who, after claiming to have had an affair with Trump while he was married, was paid a sum to shut up and go away rather than further disrupt Trump's campaign for president. Dan loves this woman. She provides him with another reason to blast Trump's character. He doesn't care about Daniels. He only cares about exploiting her story to further denigrate Trump, as if it matters now that he may have indeed had an affair with her, something he denies.
So why call her a whore? Simply because she is one. A whore takes money in exchange for sex, and that's how she made her living...by taking money to engage in sexual behavior in front of a camera to sell to those who love pornography. The same is true of Playboy model Karen McDougal, who by posing nude for money also earns the title.
"Slut" is also an appropriate word to apply to women like these two. Setting aside Daniels' career choice, which alone makes her a slut, these women, if we're to believe their allegations, admit they had sex with a married man. And here's the thing: there's no way to look at these situations and regard these women as anything other than whores and/or sluts. It's not misogyny or an attack on women to tell it like it is. They don't get to claim victim status after having chosen to engage in the affair. They don't get to play the damsel in distress after accepting big bucks to keep their mouths shut about their alleged affairs that were consensual, which also cements their reputations as whores, considering they took money later.
To pretend that these women are victims is a true attack on good women everywhere. To defend their actions as if they did not engage in immoral behavior is insulting to women of virtue. Again, these women were not "exploited" if they chose to engage in the affairs they insist took place. Indeed, if there was any exploiting going on, it seems it was at best a two-way street, and at worst, a case of these women seeing Trump as a potential payday...which it became, even if not what they may have had in mind. They knew that Trump left one wife to marry another. It's not so hard to imagine that they saw the potential that he'd do it again with them being the new Mrs. Trump. There's simply no way to regard these women as worthy of defense.
Frankly, being accused by someone like Dan, for whom "embrace grace" is just lip service, doesn't at all compel to me to reassess my position on these women. I have no intention for apologizing for speaking factually about the situation and Dan, like his troll, want to believe that these women are somehow more worthy of their support than Trump. That somehow, their word is more trustworthy. They're blatantly sexually immoral, they broke a contract into which they entered and received money and now we're to believe their accusations against Trump rather than his denials of those allegations. Dan supports the ongoing murder of unborn females, as well as the harm suffered by so many women who have and will abort, and he dares suggest I'm the one about whom women should worry because I call a spade a spade and a whore a whore? That's laughable.
New Addition
Introducing a new addition to my "Right Ones" blog roll, Rational Christian Discernment. Jesse's new to the blogosphere, jumping in recently in 2016. Give him a read.
Saturday, February 08, 2020
Trump2020
I continue to advocate for the re-election of Donald J. Trump, and with a plethora of great reasons, all of which make irrelevant the personal distaste most opponents of the right-wing have for his past personal history and ongoing style and manner.
(Who does the left think they're kidding? They don't care about his manner and they don't care about his horndog history. They hate that aforementioned plethora far more.)
So I just read the following while wasting time on FB (I've wasted a lot of hours today on the computer...I'm amazed I got anything productive done at all!) and felt it speaks well as to why that advocacy should spread amongst all on the right and among true Christians as well...maybe even primarily true Christians. It's a response to that distaste and does it well.
(Obviously, by "true" Christians, I'm clearly NOT referring to "progressive" "Christians". They clearly prefer the least moral candidates and policies as a matter of routine.)
Thus, I present the following piece from ChristianPost:
https://www.christianpost.com/voice/how-can-you-follow-jesus-and-support-donald-trump-234948/?fbclid=IwAR0x0oQEhhkzevla2B0RhzbU-WtilT_pynVesyVG8VVzfiKStIDfQZmh8oE
(Who does the left think they're kidding? They don't care about his manner and they don't care about his horndog history. They hate that aforementioned plethora far more.)
So I just read the following while wasting time on FB (I've wasted a lot of hours today on the computer...I'm amazed I got anything productive done at all!) and felt it speaks well as to why that advocacy should spread amongst all on the right and among true Christians as well...maybe even primarily true Christians. It's a response to that distaste and does it well.
(Obviously, by "true" Christians, I'm clearly NOT referring to "progressive" "Christians". They clearly prefer the least moral candidates and policies as a matter of routine.)
Thus, I present the following piece from ChristianPost:
https://www.christianpost.com/voice/how-can-you-follow-jesus-and-support-donald-trump-234948/?fbclid=IwAR0x0oQEhhkzevla2B0RhzbU-WtilT_pynVesyVG8VVzfiKStIDfQZmh8oE
Monday, January 20, 2020
Finishing Up
Just about there....only a few more to go....
21. Limiting the amount of ammunition you can purchase within a given time
period.
This is as absurd as the last one...limiting how many weapons one can buy in a given period of time. And just as with the last one, anyone wishing to engage in mass murder can simply wait until he can supply himself with whatever amount of ammo he believes will be required for the task. The saddest aspect of this proposal is without a parallel law requiring one must use up the ammo from one's last purchase, building up a stock of ammo is simply a longer process than it would be without the idiotic law that won't change a thing. And that's ignoring the fact that ammo can likely be had through illegal sources as can be weapons. No one selling weapons is worth a damn without also selling ammo. But again, even with legal purchasing, one simply waits the required time and buys more.
22. Requiring that all gun owners store their guns in a safe storage unit.
Even without "gun violence" considered, this law is idiotic. When dealing with a break-in, why force a potential victim to spend unnecessary time to arm up? How dare anyone demand how others protect themselves as if everyone exists in identical situations.
But how will this reduce "gun violence"? It won't. Who would bother with this restriction if they were among the criminal element? Who would be prevented from perpetuating violence simply because they have to get their gun from the "safe storage unit"?
Oh wait! This is about the kids, isn't it? But what responsible gun owner leaves his weapons lying about where idiot kids can access them? What irresponsible gun owner would bother with a safe?
It's absurd. And it's just another infringement that is completely anathema to the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, which is for the purpose of self-protection. This idiocy interferes with a person's ability to defend himself by making access to the person's weapon more difficult. Remember: any proposal that infringes on the right is unworthy of consideration. One must have the unrestricted freedom to exercise a right or it is not a right at all.
23. Banning firearms from all workplace settings nationally.
So, apparently to idiots, the right to protect one's place of business is for asshats to ignore. "Workplace settings" are mostly private properties. Only the owner of a property has the authority to dictate what is or isn't appropriate on the owner's property. And what is the owner supposed to do to prevent others from carrying a weapon into his place of business? Set up metal detectors at every point of entry? But hey, we can always use more target rich environments, can't we?
24. Requiring that gun buyers complete safety training and a test for their specific firearm.
How about requiring complete civics and current events training before one can exercise one's right to vote? While training with one's weapon is a good idea...without a doubt...forcing someone to take the time and money (not including the ammo necessary, which ain't free) is an infringement for which there is no data that suggests it would make anyone safer. And who would run the testing and who would determine what it takes to pass? How do we get the criminals and insane to submit to such a thing?
This idiocy assumes the typical, law-abiding gun owner isn't responsible enough to train on his own as he has the opportunity and financial wherewithal to do so. But lacking either or both, to deny one the ability to arm up as is his right simply because of an inability take or pass an arbitrary test is unconstitutional.
25. Implementing a national “buy-back” program for all banned firearms and magazines, where the government pays people to turn in illegal guns.
Like socialism, this has never worked anywhere it has been tried. It's impact on "gun violence" is indistinguishable and there is no data that gives anything close to a clear picture as to whether it makes a difference or not. Indeed, it's really easy to see that it doesn't. Among the many problems with this idiotic notion:
a) Most weapons turned in are old, dysfunctional and not of the type commonly used in crimes.
b) Weapons turned in account for an incredibly tiny percentage of weapons believed to exist in a given area where the program is focused.
c) These programs often promise a "no questions asked" offer, which allows for criminals to turn in weapons used in crimes, thereby severely lessening the ability to solve them. In other words, it's like destroying evidence.
d) Any money offered can be used by criminals to buy weapons. Kinda self-defeating.
26. Banning firearms from schools and college campuses nationally.
This is a great example of "Hey! I'm a complete moron!", and anyone who thinks this is a good idea after the many deaths at these very types of locations needs to be institutionalized. Now, I know that the idiot who made up this list thinks that schools will be safe if ALL these nonsensical and impotent ideas are enacted. That's delusional thinking. Adding another stupid idea doesn't make other stupid ideas more effective. It's just compounds the stupidity and innocent, law-abiding people would then be at greater risk from all those who ignore laws in the first place. Better than banning weapons would be instituting ideas that actually make students and staff safer, and those which were laid out in this post and those that preceded it.
27. Requiring that all gun owners store their guns with childproof locks.
"Well, I got the gun out of the safe, and while I was fumbling with the key to remove the trigger lock, the asshole shot my wife and kids." Yeah. Really great idea only a moron could love.
So, as can easily be seen, there is nothing to which anyone can point and insist lives would be saved, violence would be reduced or any good could come from any of the points listed (except where indicated...and those were "iffy"). As we've seen in countries where gun laws are tighter than here, such as the UK, knives have become the weapon of choice and idiots in Great Britain have taken to banning and restricting those as well. Yet, the real problems are never addressed...problems with character. The weapon of choice matters little to the low character individual intent on doing harm and murdering as many as possible. There's no way to eliminate every possible means which such a person might utilize. "Where there's a will, there's a way" works for assholes, too. Disarming the public, infringing on the right and ability to protect ones' self makes no one safer. Worse, it puts the law-abiding not only at the mercy of the criminal and insane, but of a government gone bad, which is why we have the restriction on government which is the 2nd Amendment. Like all of the Constitution, this Amendment doesn't convey a right upon us. It denies the government the ability to take it away...unless too many leftists take office.
21. Limiting the amount of ammunition you can purchase within a given time
period.
This is as absurd as the last one...limiting how many weapons one can buy in a given period of time. And just as with the last one, anyone wishing to engage in mass murder can simply wait until he can supply himself with whatever amount of ammo he believes will be required for the task. The saddest aspect of this proposal is without a parallel law requiring one must use up the ammo from one's last purchase, building up a stock of ammo is simply a longer process than it would be without the idiotic law that won't change a thing. And that's ignoring the fact that ammo can likely be had through illegal sources as can be weapons. No one selling weapons is worth a damn without also selling ammo. But again, even with legal purchasing, one simply waits the required time and buys more.
22. Requiring that all gun owners store their guns in a safe storage unit.
Even without "gun violence" considered, this law is idiotic. When dealing with a break-in, why force a potential victim to spend unnecessary time to arm up? How dare anyone demand how others protect themselves as if everyone exists in identical situations.
But how will this reduce "gun violence"? It won't. Who would bother with this restriction if they were among the criminal element? Who would be prevented from perpetuating violence simply because they have to get their gun from the "safe storage unit"?
Oh wait! This is about the kids, isn't it? But what responsible gun owner leaves his weapons lying about where idiot kids can access them? What irresponsible gun owner would bother with a safe?
It's absurd. And it's just another infringement that is completely anathema to the spirit of the 2nd Amendment, which is for the purpose of self-protection. This idiocy interferes with a person's ability to defend himself by making access to the person's weapon more difficult. Remember: any proposal that infringes on the right is unworthy of consideration. One must have the unrestricted freedom to exercise a right or it is not a right at all.
23. Banning firearms from all workplace settings nationally.
So, apparently to idiots, the right to protect one's place of business is for asshats to ignore. "Workplace settings" are mostly private properties. Only the owner of a property has the authority to dictate what is or isn't appropriate on the owner's property. And what is the owner supposed to do to prevent others from carrying a weapon into his place of business? Set up metal detectors at every point of entry? But hey, we can always use more target rich environments, can't we?
24. Requiring that gun buyers complete safety training and a test for their specific firearm.
How about requiring complete civics and current events training before one can exercise one's right to vote? While training with one's weapon is a good idea...without a doubt...forcing someone to take the time and money (not including the ammo necessary, which ain't free) is an infringement for which there is no data that suggests it would make anyone safer. And who would run the testing and who would determine what it takes to pass? How do we get the criminals and insane to submit to such a thing?
This idiocy assumes the typical, law-abiding gun owner isn't responsible enough to train on his own as he has the opportunity and financial wherewithal to do so. But lacking either or both, to deny one the ability to arm up as is his right simply because of an inability take or pass an arbitrary test is unconstitutional.
25. Implementing a national “buy-back” program for all banned firearms and magazines, where the government pays people to turn in illegal guns.
Like socialism, this has never worked anywhere it has been tried. It's impact on "gun violence" is indistinguishable and there is no data that gives anything close to a clear picture as to whether it makes a difference or not. Indeed, it's really easy to see that it doesn't. Among the many problems with this idiotic notion:
a) Most weapons turned in are old, dysfunctional and not of the type commonly used in crimes.
b) Weapons turned in account for an incredibly tiny percentage of weapons believed to exist in a given area where the program is focused.
c) These programs often promise a "no questions asked" offer, which allows for criminals to turn in weapons used in crimes, thereby severely lessening the ability to solve them. In other words, it's like destroying evidence.
d) Any money offered can be used by criminals to buy weapons. Kinda self-defeating.
26. Banning firearms from schools and college campuses nationally.
This is a great example of "Hey! I'm a complete moron!", and anyone who thinks this is a good idea after the many deaths at these very types of locations needs to be institutionalized. Now, I know that the idiot who made up this list thinks that schools will be safe if ALL these nonsensical and impotent ideas are enacted. That's delusional thinking. Adding another stupid idea doesn't make other stupid ideas more effective. It's just compounds the stupidity and innocent, law-abiding people would then be at greater risk from all those who ignore laws in the first place. Better than banning weapons would be instituting ideas that actually make students and staff safer, and those which were laid out in this post and those that preceded it.
27. Requiring that all gun owners store their guns with childproof locks.
"Well, I got the gun out of the safe, and while I was fumbling with the key to remove the trigger lock, the asshole shot my wife and kids." Yeah. Really great idea only a moron could love.
So, as can easily be seen, there is nothing to which anyone can point and insist lives would be saved, violence would be reduced or any good could come from any of the points listed (except where indicated...and those were "iffy"). As we've seen in countries where gun laws are tighter than here, such as the UK, knives have become the weapon of choice and idiots in Great Britain have taken to banning and restricting those as well. Yet, the real problems are never addressed...problems with character. The weapon of choice matters little to the low character individual intent on doing harm and murdering as many as possible. There's no way to eliminate every possible means which such a person might utilize. "Where there's a will, there's a way" works for assholes, too. Disarming the public, infringing on the right and ability to protect ones' self makes no one safer. Worse, it puts the law-abiding not only at the mercy of the criminal and insane, but of a government gone bad, which is why we have the restriction on government which is the 2nd Amendment. Like all of the Constitution, this Amendment doesn't convey a right upon us. It denies the government the ability to take it away...unless too many leftists take office.
Thursday, January 02, 2020
More Suggestions Of No Consequence
Before moving on, I would remind that most of these "suggestions" (they're nothing more) were shown to be useless in previous posts here and here. (Wow! It's been a year and a half since feo first presented his worthless and ineffective suggestions, and he still thinks they'd do anything! What an idiot!!) One can refer to them for details on why they're worthless, as I will only be skimming those points here. Let's begin again:
11. Expanding screening and treatment for the mentally ill.
Far more important is simply adding the names of the most dangerous to the only national registry that would make a difference (the mentally ill and criminal). The idea is keeping guns out of their hands. Treatment for mental illnesses that might lead to violent outcomes is a different issue. Until they are "cured", they're a danger and can't be allowed to arm up. Now, in yet another post of mine on the subject, which had actual effective proposals, I spoke of the need for those so tasked to be diligent in reporting to the proper authorities those who are a danger, and for those who receive the reports to also do their jobs in seeing to it the dangerous and their personal, identifying info are inputted into the system to which all gun dealers would have access. Both the Parkland, FL case and the Sutherland Springs, TX shootings were both the result of alleged professionals not doing their jobs.
It must also be considered that involuntary commitment should likely be a part of any treatment where a patient is considered a potential danger. Are the gun control freaks up for that?
12. Requiring that all gun buyers demonstrate a a ”genuine need” for a gun, such as a law enforcement job or hunting.
Aside from being incredibly subjective and by definition, a clear infringement of one's Constitutional right to bear arms, who gets to decide the criteria to determine "genuine need"? An asshat like feo? God help us!! Possession of any weapon is insurance against a possibility that hopefully will never arise. Clearly feo has no genuine need for a gun, though he certainly has one for psychological counseling. He could use a slap, too!
13. Requiring all guns to microstamp each bullet with a mark that uniquely matches the gun and bullet.
Aside from the fact that the tech for such is pretty much non-existent in that it just doesn't work like idiots such as feo believes they do, it's so easy to get around. A crook can even easily frame an innocent gun owner by sweeping up spent casings at gun ranges and such. This wouldn't reduce "gun violence" one iota, either by itself or added to any number of these other stupid ideas.
14. Increasing minimum penalties for people found possessing firearms illegally.
Assuming what constitutes illegal possession focuses only on convicted criminals and certifiable mental patients, this is an "after the fact" proposal. If one of these types of people are found to illegally possess a firearm after committing a crime...like shooting someone...it hardly prevented anything. What's more, it would only prevent "gun violence" for the duration of whatever penalty is imposed...assuming that penalty includes incarceration.
I will say, however, I have absolutely no problem increasing penalties for convicted criminals who do anything their convictions deny them doing. They're criminals, after all.
15. Requiring gun dealers to keep, retain and report all gun records and sales to the Federal government.
This is a registry and only a complete and utter moron would suggest that the very entity the 2nd Amendment restricts from infringing upon our rights should know who has weapons and how many. The stupidity of this boy is incredible! And of course, all the convicted criminals and other scumbags will be quick to purchase all their weapons from these gun dealers just so they can inform the authorities they're armed with weapons they're prohibited from owning.
16. Banning the sale and ownership of assault rifles or similar firearms.
Stupid people use the term "assault rifle" as if it means anything. Dishonest people use the term to make stupid people scared by using that term as if it means anything. They wish to pretend that common semi-automatic rifles are somehow military grade...on a scale of fully automatic "machine guns"...simply because cosmetic accessories make them look scary. Most murders are not the result of murderers using such weapons. They account for a smaller amount of murders than blunt instruments and hands and feet used as weapons. Liars love this idea.
17. Requiring all gun owners to register their fingerprints.
There are situations unrelated to guns or crime that require fingerprinting, mostly having to do with employment. I've had to submit to fingerprinting several times in my life for employment purposes. I didn't much care for being required as I regard it as an invasion of privacy. However, though I'd have preferred not to, I'm not manic about it, needed the jobs at the time, so I submitted.
Of course, obviously, law-breaking results in the requirement and that's a good thing. Thus, this is one idea that has some merit for the purpose of denying guns to bad guys.
Here's the problem: How can we be guaranteed that any submission to fingerprinting won't result in one's gun purchase being recorded by government? If fingerprinting does no more than demonstrate a buyer has no criminal record that prohibits gun purchases, I see no problem in fingerprinting gun owners only at the point of purchase and then trashing the prints after confirmation that purchasing is legal. There must be no storing of info related to the purchase after that confirmation is made, because then a registry of gun ownership is made. That's dangerous and won't prevent gun violence.
18. Preventing sales of all firearms and ammunition to anyone considered to be a “known or suspected terrorist” by the F.B.I.
This is two different suggestions here. Preventing sales to a "known" terrorist is redundant. We're already denying sales to criminals, and what is a terrorist but a criminal.
But a "suspected" terrorist can be anybody to whom a government wishes to prohibit gun ownership. In other words, a "suspected" terrorist is an innocent person not found guilty of having committed a terrorist act. "Suspected terrorist" is a term that needs clear definition. Of course, if feo is suspected, I'm cool with him being denied.
19. Requiring a mandatory waiting period of three days after gun is purchased before it can be taken home.
People, mostly women, have died while awaiting approval to exercise their Constitutional right. There is no solid data that proves waiting periods alter murder/suicide rates. But if infringing upon anyone's right to bear arms, even for three days, results in being defenseless when the purchase was to protect against a real threat, it then increased the murder rate should the threat be realized. There is no way to determine if a waiting period of any duration will be long enough for every kook who wants to off himself. In the meantime, someone who needs to protect him/herself is put in greater jeopardy just to appease gun control freaks.
20. Limiting the number of guns that can be purchased to one per month.
An absolute infringement that will have no effect whatsoever. One weapon is all that's needed to murder. Having more than one is a luxury. Yet, if one wishes to be well stocked in order to kill as many as possibly, waiting however many months it takes to store up the necessary number will simply delay the kook's plan. It's idiotic. And what if someone wishes to buy two or three for gifts? As much a stretch as that might seem, the point of it is that such a suggestion means a buyer is presumed to be dangerous simply because of a multi-gun purchase. If the buyer has no criminal or mental health record, there is no legitimate reason to deny a multiple purchase. No one has to fear a law abiding person. Thus, no affect on crime by such an absurd restriction.
That's all for now. There's about seven left on feo's list, and no doubt they're each as stupid as those we've covered thus far. Now, this joker might not care about these posts, since he claims he's "done with me" after failing in another debate. Doesn't matter. I'm going to carry on until I've covered his (*snicker*) "plan". The rest should come more quickly now that the busy time at work has ended. Stay tuned.
11. Expanding screening and treatment for the mentally ill.
Far more important is simply adding the names of the most dangerous to the only national registry that would make a difference (the mentally ill and criminal). The idea is keeping guns out of their hands. Treatment for mental illnesses that might lead to violent outcomes is a different issue. Until they are "cured", they're a danger and can't be allowed to arm up. Now, in yet another post of mine on the subject, which had actual effective proposals, I spoke of the need for those so tasked to be diligent in reporting to the proper authorities those who are a danger, and for those who receive the reports to also do their jobs in seeing to it the dangerous and their personal, identifying info are inputted into the system to which all gun dealers would have access. Both the Parkland, FL case and the Sutherland Springs, TX shootings were both the result of alleged professionals not doing their jobs.
It must also be considered that involuntary commitment should likely be a part of any treatment where a patient is considered a potential danger. Are the gun control freaks up for that?
12. Requiring that all gun buyers demonstrate a a ”genuine need” for a gun, such as a law enforcement job or hunting.
Aside from being incredibly subjective and by definition, a clear infringement of one's Constitutional right to bear arms, who gets to decide the criteria to determine "genuine need"? An asshat like feo? God help us!! Possession of any weapon is insurance against a possibility that hopefully will never arise. Clearly feo has no genuine need for a gun, though he certainly has one for psychological counseling. He could use a slap, too!
13. Requiring all guns to microstamp each bullet with a mark that uniquely matches the gun and bullet.
Aside from the fact that the tech for such is pretty much non-existent in that it just doesn't work like idiots such as feo believes they do, it's so easy to get around. A crook can even easily frame an innocent gun owner by sweeping up spent casings at gun ranges and such. This wouldn't reduce "gun violence" one iota, either by itself or added to any number of these other stupid ideas.
14. Increasing minimum penalties for people found possessing firearms illegally.
Assuming what constitutes illegal possession focuses only on convicted criminals and certifiable mental patients, this is an "after the fact" proposal. If one of these types of people are found to illegally possess a firearm after committing a crime...like shooting someone...it hardly prevented anything. What's more, it would only prevent "gun violence" for the duration of whatever penalty is imposed...assuming that penalty includes incarceration.
I will say, however, I have absolutely no problem increasing penalties for convicted criminals who do anything their convictions deny them doing. They're criminals, after all.
15. Requiring gun dealers to keep, retain and report all gun records and sales to the Federal government.
This is a registry and only a complete and utter moron would suggest that the very entity the 2nd Amendment restricts from infringing upon our rights should know who has weapons and how many. The stupidity of this boy is incredible! And of course, all the convicted criminals and other scumbags will be quick to purchase all their weapons from these gun dealers just so they can inform the authorities they're armed with weapons they're prohibited from owning.
16. Banning the sale and ownership of assault rifles or similar firearms.
Stupid people use the term "assault rifle" as if it means anything. Dishonest people use the term to make stupid people scared by using that term as if it means anything. They wish to pretend that common semi-automatic rifles are somehow military grade...on a scale of fully automatic "machine guns"...simply because cosmetic accessories make them look scary. Most murders are not the result of murderers using such weapons. They account for a smaller amount of murders than blunt instruments and hands and feet used as weapons. Liars love this idea.
17. Requiring all gun owners to register their fingerprints.
There are situations unrelated to guns or crime that require fingerprinting, mostly having to do with employment. I've had to submit to fingerprinting several times in my life for employment purposes. I didn't much care for being required as I regard it as an invasion of privacy. However, though I'd have preferred not to, I'm not manic about it, needed the jobs at the time, so I submitted.
Of course, obviously, law-breaking results in the requirement and that's a good thing. Thus, this is one idea that has some merit for the purpose of denying guns to bad guys.
Here's the problem: How can we be guaranteed that any submission to fingerprinting won't result in one's gun purchase being recorded by government? If fingerprinting does no more than demonstrate a buyer has no criminal record that prohibits gun purchases, I see no problem in fingerprinting gun owners only at the point of purchase and then trashing the prints after confirmation that purchasing is legal. There must be no storing of info related to the purchase after that confirmation is made, because then a registry of gun ownership is made. That's dangerous and won't prevent gun violence.
18. Preventing sales of all firearms and ammunition to anyone considered to be a “known or suspected terrorist” by the F.B.I.
This is two different suggestions here. Preventing sales to a "known" terrorist is redundant. We're already denying sales to criminals, and what is a terrorist but a criminal.
But a "suspected" terrorist can be anybody to whom a government wishes to prohibit gun ownership. In other words, a "suspected" terrorist is an innocent person not found guilty of having committed a terrorist act. "Suspected terrorist" is a term that needs clear definition. Of course, if feo is suspected, I'm cool with him being denied.
19. Requiring a mandatory waiting period of three days after gun is purchased before it can be taken home.
People, mostly women, have died while awaiting approval to exercise their Constitutional right. There is no solid data that proves waiting periods alter murder/suicide rates. But if infringing upon anyone's right to bear arms, even for three days, results in being defenseless when the purchase was to protect against a real threat, it then increased the murder rate should the threat be realized. There is no way to determine if a waiting period of any duration will be long enough for every kook who wants to off himself. In the meantime, someone who needs to protect him/herself is put in greater jeopardy just to appease gun control freaks.
20. Limiting the number of guns that can be purchased to one per month.
An absolute infringement that will have no effect whatsoever. One weapon is all that's needed to murder. Having more than one is a luxury. Yet, if one wishes to be well stocked in order to kill as many as possibly, waiting however many months it takes to store up the necessary number will simply delay the kook's plan. It's idiotic. And what if someone wishes to buy two or three for gifts? As much a stretch as that might seem, the point of it is that such a suggestion means a buyer is presumed to be dangerous simply because of a multi-gun purchase. If the buyer has no criminal or mental health record, there is no legitimate reason to deny a multiple purchase. No one has to fear a law abiding person. Thus, no affect on crime by such an absurd restriction.
That's all for now. There's about seven left on feo's list, and no doubt they're each as stupid as those we've covered thus far. Now, this joker might not care about these posts, since he claims he's "done with me" after failing in another debate. Doesn't matter. I'm going to carry on until I've covered his (*snicker*) "plan". The rest should come more quickly now that the busy time at work has ended. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)