"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.
Wednesday, February 19, 2020
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.
Saturday, December 28, 2019
The List of Suggestions (That Ain't Worth Squat)
So, now we get into "the plan"...or the suggestions that won't make a difference. Let's begin:
1. Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys a gun.
I am unaware of any state that does not require this on all licensed gun dealers. One cannot buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. Some control freaks think they can somehow legislate that Frank can't sell his shotgun to brother Bob or best friend Phil without putting them through a background check. The problems with this have been discussed many times over the years. They include the obvious...that most criminals won't waste their time trying to buy a gun through licensed dealers...as well as the not so obvious. An example would be that while there have been attempts by criminals thwarted by background checks, there have also been law-abiding citizens denied due to similarities in their names or personal info to criminals, much in the way some have ended up unjustly on "no fly" lists, making them subject to having their right to bear infringed. Not good.
But again, I am unaware of any state or municipality in this country that does not have some form of background check in place.
2. Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors, including domestic assaults.
Are all "violent misdemeanors" and "domestic assaults" created equal? A bar fight is a violent misdemeanor. If feo's wife kicks his ass again, should she be denied? (I'm assuming he really does have a wife like he says he does...as doubtful as that sounds) These are vague terms indeed and require specific definition, without which they'd never stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. A fight of any kind...bar fight, smacking a spouse...does not equate to a murderous character, nor even that such a person totally lacks self-control. It's an idiotic suggestion without more detail as to how it would be defined and administered. It is a suggestion that simply seeks to ban firearms.
3. Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of
stalking another person
This too is problematic from a Constitutional perspective, and also requires distinct defining. It assumes all who are accused of "stalking" has murderous intent, or even any attempt to harm at all. To be accused of stalking does not guarantee that the accuser isn't seeking to cause trouble for the accused. That is, how do we guarantee that the accused is a true threat to the accuser? Better would be to allow the accuser the right to carry a weapon for personal protection as the Constitution is supposed to guarantee.
Most stalking laws consist of two main aspects: threat of harm, emotional distress of the stalked. But when laws that result in orders of protection, or restraining orders as they are often called, are not ignored by the accused, why should the accused be denied the ability to carry a weapon for personal protection? The real problem comes from denying the stalked to arm up.
4. Requiring all gun owners to possess a license for their firearm.
Licensing is simply a registry of people as opposed to their weapons. Only three states require a license to own any kind of firearm, while New York has one for handguns only. This is how a government knows who to fear should it choose to act against its people. Just deal with every licensed gun owner first. In the meantime, how does feo plan to license the criminal element for the weapons they carry? This would have no effect on the criminal use of weapons, and indeed would increase it, as normally law-abiding citizens would be breaking the law if they don't acquire a license to own.
5. Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys
ammunition.
The same foolishness as checks for gun buyers. It's a backdoor to further confound those that are law-abiding as if the criminal element will comply. Stupidity at its finest, but no effect on gun crime.
6. Banning the sale and ownership of all semi-automatic and automatic
firearms.
This would result in the elimination of about 80% or more of the most popular weapons on the market for no rational reason. Fully automatic weapons are next to impossible for the average person to buy regardless of their law-abiding record. But as it happens, this ban was implemented for the same nonsensical reasons that feo types want to banish all other weapons. There was NO legitimate argument for doing so, but as it was only one type of weapon, there was little resistance. But at the time, there was not many instances of automatic weapons being used in crime, despite what the Roaring 20's gangster movies would suggest.
Semi-auto weapons are nowhere near as cool as fully auto, but they are not so much more devastating as single action weapons, particularly in the hands of a practiced shooter. Those who wish to ban semi-automatic weapons are those who don't know squat about them. And if one is under threat by a criminal type, the ease of use of a semi-auto weapon is a life-saver. This is a total infringement on the right to bear and will do little to reduce "gun violence".
7. Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been reported as dangerous to law enforcement by a mental health provider.
Already in place pretty much everywhere, if not absolutely so.
8. Requiring all owners to report lost or stolen firearms.
The problem with this law should be obvious to normal people, but feo isn't one of them. He likely hasn't considered the consequences beyond the superficial benefit he thinks exists, or ignores those consequences in his bid to ban firearms altogether. The following fleshes out those problems:
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/06/02/problem-mandatory-reporting-missing-guns-laws/
It will solve nothing but feo's fear of law-abiding citizens.
9. Banning the sale and ownership of all ammunition magazines with a
capacity greater than 10 bullets.
This was covered in a video I posted in one of my previous posts dispelling feo's suggestions for the crap sandwiches they are. I'll add a link later, but one needn't travel back to far in time to find it. In short, it showed how little difference there was between using a 30 round magazine versus smaller sizes totaling the same amount of rounds. It demonstrated both an expert and a novice firing off various sizes for comparison, dropping empty mags and replacing with loaded mags and the difference was insignificant even for the novice shooter. It also staged a simulated attack by a potential victim who sought to subdue the shooter while changing mags. Also failed to convince. Magazine capacity is meaningless to one who seeks to do damage. This law would have no effect on gun violence, but would make self-defense more difficult.
10. Requiring that all firearms be recorded in a national registry.
Despotic governments LOVE this one. Only a complete idiot would suggest such a plan and feo is just the complete idiot to do so. What a buffoon!
That's all we have time for today, kids. I'll pick up where I left off later, and feo will just have to bite it until I'm finished before he'll have a chance to prove he's unworthy of being allowed to comment here. (He claims he's finished with me, but I doubt it.)
1. Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys a gun.
I am unaware of any state that does not require this on all licensed gun dealers. One cannot buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. Some control freaks think they can somehow legislate that Frank can't sell his shotgun to brother Bob or best friend Phil without putting them through a background check. The problems with this have been discussed many times over the years. They include the obvious...that most criminals won't waste their time trying to buy a gun through licensed dealers...as well as the not so obvious. An example would be that while there have been attempts by criminals thwarted by background checks, there have also been law-abiding citizens denied due to similarities in their names or personal info to criminals, much in the way some have ended up unjustly on "no fly" lists, making them subject to having their right to bear infringed. Not good.
But again, I am unaware of any state or municipality in this country that does not have some form of background check in place.
2. Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors, including domestic assaults.
Are all "violent misdemeanors" and "domestic assaults" created equal? A bar fight is a violent misdemeanor. If feo's wife kicks his ass again, should she be denied? (I'm assuming he really does have a wife like he says he does...as doubtful as that sounds) These are vague terms indeed and require specific definition, without which they'd never stand up to Constitutional scrutiny. A fight of any kind...bar fight, smacking a spouse...does not equate to a murderous character, nor even that such a person totally lacks self-control. It's an idiotic suggestion without more detail as to how it would be defined and administered. It is a suggestion that simply seeks to ban firearms.
3. Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of
stalking another person
This too is problematic from a Constitutional perspective, and also requires distinct defining. It assumes all who are accused of "stalking" has murderous intent, or even any attempt to harm at all. To be accused of stalking does not guarantee that the accuser isn't seeking to cause trouble for the accused. That is, how do we guarantee that the accused is a true threat to the accuser? Better would be to allow the accuser the right to carry a weapon for personal protection as the Constitution is supposed to guarantee.
Most stalking laws consist of two main aspects: threat of harm, emotional distress of the stalked. But when laws that result in orders of protection, or restraining orders as they are often called, are not ignored by the accused, why should the accused be denied the ability to carry a weapon for personal protection? The real problem comes from denying the stalked to arm up.
4. Requiring all gun owners to possess a license for their firearm.
Licensing is simply a registry of people as opposed to their weapons. Only three states require a license to own any kind of firearm, while New York has one for handguns only. This is how a government knows who to fear should it choose to act against its people. Just deal with every licensed gun owner first. In the meantime, how does feo plan to license the criminal element for the weapons they carry? This would have no effect on the criminal use of weapons, and indeed would increase it, as normally law-abiding citizens would be breaking the law if they don't acquire a license to own.
5. Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys
ammunition.
The same foolishness as checks for gun buyers. It's a backdoor to further confound those that are law-abiding as if the criminal element will comply. Stupidity at its finest, but no effect on gun crime.
6. Banning the sale and ownership of all semi-automatic and automatic
firearms.
This would result in the elimination of about 80% or more of the most popular weapons on the market for no rational reason. Fully automatic weapons are next to impossible for the average person to buy regardless of their law-abiding record. But as it happens, this ban was implemented for the same nonsensical reasons that feo types want to banish all other weapons. There was NO legitimate argument for doing so, but as it was only one type of weapon, there was little resistance. But at the time, there was not many instances of automatic weapons being used in crime, despite what the Roaring 20's gangster movies would suggest.
Semi-auto weapons are nowhere near as cool as fully auto, but they are not so much more devastating as single action weapons, particularly in the hands of a practiced shooter. Those who wish to ban semi-automatic weapons are those who don't know squat about them. And if one is under threat by a criminal type, the ease of use of a semi-auto weapon is a life-saver. This is a total infringement on the right to bear and will do little to reduce "gun violence".
7. Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been reported as dangerous to law enforcement by a mental health provider.
Already in place pretty much everywhere, if not absolutely so.
8. Requiring all owners to report lost or stolen firearms.
The problem with this law should be obvious to normal people, but feo isn't one of them. He likely hasn't considered the consequences beyond the superficial benefit he thinks exists, or ignores those consequences in his bid to ban firearms altogether. The following fleshes out those problems:
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/06/02/problem-mandatory-reporting-missing-guns-laws/
It will solve nothing but feo's fear of law-abiding citizens.
9. Banning the sale and ownership of all ammunition magazines with a
capacity greater than 10 bullets.
This was covered in a video I posted in one of my previous posts dispelling feo's suggestions for the crap sandwiches they are. I'll add a link later, but one needn't travel back to far in time to find it. In short, it showed how little difference there was between using a 30 round magazine versus smaller sizes totaling the same amount of rounds. It demonstrated both an expert and a novice firing off various sizes for comparison, dropping empty mags and replacing with loaded mags and the difference was insignificant even for the novice shooter. It also staged a simulated attack by a potential victim who sought to subdue the shooter while changing mags. Also failed to convince. Magazine capacity is meaningless to one who seeks to do damage. This law would have no effect on gun violence, but would make self-defense more difficult.
10. Requiring that all firearms be recorded in a national registry.
Despotic governments LOVE this one. Only a complete idiot would suggest such a plan and feo is just the complete idiot to do so. What a buffoon!
That's all we have time for today, kids. I'll pick up where I left off later, and feo will just have to bite it until I'm finished before he'll have a chance to prove he's unworthy of being allowed to comment here. (He claims he's finished with me, but I doubt it.)
Friday, December 27, 2019
Sidebar
Before I get into the list of "suggestions", I just have to post this laugher from the troll with my commentary in italics:
"Marshal, I have no respect left for you whatsoever.(This from a guy who's never demonstrated the least bit of respect for other blog visitors since he first darkened the blogosphere by his presence!) Sheer pity is all I have left.(I'll have to seek professional help to get over it, I'm sure!) That you are this committed to bare faced lies reveals the abyss of corruption you have crossed away from whatever substance of christian faith you have ever had into a false and wicked and brutal abuse of your own conscience.(Yada, yada, yada!) I am aware that fear is the deepest fuel of your identity.(I'm all a tremble!) A very trivial example is how you have posted four times on your own site over the last year on my plan for major reduction of gun violence. And yet still cannot honor your word to stop screening comments.(My "word" is of recent expression. That is, two posts ago. Until then, I had no intention of ever allowing a comment from this putz ever again, nor had I suggested I might without him finally producing his "plan". Now, I have yet to get to that point wherein I stated I would allow him. I'll post my condition later.) Bizarrely you have not realized in all that time that blocking me has done nothing to keep me from affecting your ideas and anxious, porous defense of your posts. Bizarrely you have not realized in all that time that blocking me has done nothing to keep me from describing your brutalizing habits and bad dishonest biblical knowledge both here at Dan's or at Craig's.(I'm well aware that you bore others at their blogs with the same crap that winds up in my spam folder.)
You have only deepened your daily practice of diversions, dodges, denials, prevarications, lies, corrupt myths, and bad faith.(Sez you.)
As such, you are poison to the practice of the love of Christ.(Sez the defender of sexual immorality and the murder of innocents.) And I am done with you.(How will I live with this on my conscience?)
I wish for you in 2020 a conversion; that you take up the journey of following the living Christ(Wow! That's exactly the prayer I've prayed for you from our first meeting on these here blogs! Cosmic!)
So here is what I said with regard to allowing comments by feo:
" Once I'm finished, I will then disable Comment Moderation (because it's a pain in the ass), and feo will have the opportunity to engage in civil discourse."
Here's a little hint, sad troll: I ain't finished.
"Marshal, I have no respect left for you whatsoever.(This from a guy who's never demonstrated the least bit of respect for other blog visitors since he first darkened the blogosphere by his presence!) Sheer pity is all I have left.(I'll have to seek professional help to get over it, I'm sure!) That you are this committed to bare faced lies reveals the abyss of corruption you have crossed away from whatever substance of christian faith you have ever had into a false and wicked and brutal abuse of your own conscience.(Yada, yada, yada!) I am aware that fear is the deepest fuel of your identity.(I'm all a tremble!) A very trivial example is how you have posted four times on your own site over the last year on my plan for major reduction of gun violence. And yet still cannot honor your word to stop screening comments.(My "word" is of recent expression. That is, two posts ago. Until then, I had no intention of ever allowing a comment from this putz ever again, nor had I suggested I might without him finally producing his "plan". Now, I have yet to get to that point wherein I stated I would allow him. I'll post my condition later.) Bizarrely you have not realized in all that time that blocking me has done nothing to keep me from affecting your ideas and anxious, porous defense of your posts. Bizarrely you have not realized in all that time that blocking me has done nothing to keep me from describing your brutalizing habits and bad dishonest biblical knowledge both here at Dan's or at Craig's.(I'm well aware that you bore others at their blogs with the same crap that winds up in my spam folder.)
You have only deepened your daily practice of diversions, dodges, denials, prevarications, lies, corrupt myths, and bad faith.(Sez you.)
As such, you are poison to the practice of the love of Christ.(Sez the defender of sexual immorality and the murder of innocents.) And I am done with you.(How will I live with this on my conscience?)
I wish for you in 2020 a conversion; that you take up the journey of following the living Christ(Wow! That's exactly the prayer I've prayed for you from our first meeting on these here blogs! Cosmic!)
So here is what I said with regard to allowing comments by feo:
" Once I'm finished, I will then disable Comment Moderation (because it's a pain in the ass), and feo will have the opportunity to engage in civil discourse."
Here's a little hint, sad troll: I ain't finished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)