“Calling for gun control while Hitler is in the White House makes you sound suicidal”
7 Things You Should Know Before Talking About Guns
If you’ve spent any time on the internet, you know that school shootings bring out the worst in people and in supposed constructive discourse.
If there’s any “at least” this time around, it’s that the conversation has largely passed up gun control advocates seeking to capitalize on tragedy and has shifted to “this is how we need to discuss these things with one another” and “this is how the system has failed our children.” The latter is more deserving of our time and attention, but the former is necessary if we’re ever to get to the point where we can rationally and earnestly discuss solutions.
A video published by comedian Lou Perez helps those confused about proper gun terminology. Perez answers important questions like:
- “Does the “AR” in an AR-15 stand for “assault rifle?” (I had no idea people actually thought this might be the case.)
- “What’s the difference between a gun and a penis?” (Because apparently there’s confusion here?)
- And, “if I’ve routinely referred to Trump as Hitler, should I be advocating for gun control?” (Intellectual consistency. It’s important.)
Perez isn’t trying to change the world, he’s just trying to help save a conversation, maybe two.
[H/T our dear friend Kira Davis]
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
There is greater peril in taking a train than going to a public school.
Especially Federal Government run AMTRAK?????
First thing he does is confuse “assault rifle” and “assault weapon” after telling us we need to know our gun terms.
Let the Capitol Building be secured like schools and maybe school security will become important. Last time I was in DC the Capitol tour started at the metal detector 300 meters out.
Excellent idea, but do you think Congress will agree?
Not the Capitol.
Sidwell Friends in Bethesda MD is where all DC Elites send their kids to school.
Send a real journalist there to video all the walls, checkpoints and armed security. Apparently, nothing is too good for their child’s protection.
Your own? Not so much.
We have some parents demanding a metal detector at our school. Of course when you ask them for the details of the program, they get hostile. they feel simply having it at the entrance is the cure.
Yet who would actually man it gets a blank stare.
How much earlier would the kids need to arrive to be able to start the classroom sessions at 8am…blank stare.
and on and on… Frustration is morphing into total cluelessness.
Yet when any questions as to when are the students and teachers going to be held responsible gets a blank stare…. Making all disciplinary records public information and available to the law enforcement authorities. Discipline for any violent conduct. A restriction of any right to privacy as to lockers or searches. Restriction of items such as cellphones and backpacks in school.
Now watch them get hostile. they are all for something as long as they or their kids aren’t affected. go after all those that have no connection.
meanwhile, 11,000 impared driver deaths and 56,000 drug deaths which have a more greater chance of affecting them. nothing. that’s always someone else’s problem.
Think about it. Nancy Pelosi manufactures a product that kills more than any rifle manufacturer.
it’s called the placebo effect, something that does nothing but makes you feel good
I would point out that correcting commentators on the precision of terms is futile … they don’t care.
The only thing better and more helpful than We, The People getting absolutely fed up and disgusted with the chicanery of career politician reprobates and political dynasties like the Rodham-Clinton’s is — the Left’s inherent violence-before-discourse and the inherent pathological lying when they actually do have discourse, and their always magnificent displays of colossally laughable histrionics as a means to an end.
Now, if only that vast swath of the mentally infirm and the degenerates who still support the inherently evil Left directly in spite of plain truths and unassailable righteousness would take themselves a long walk off a short pier over shark infested waters. . .
Love your avatar! That’s an awesomely loopy video for a perfectly f-d up song!
No. Fuck them. No ‘conversation’.
Liberals have proven over DECADES that they don’t understand guns and they don’t care to understand guns. Everything they do is with the goal of the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
I’m not interested in having a ‘conversation’ about assault weapons, because its a bullshit term you invented because some guns were ‘scary looking’.
I’m not interested in a ‘conversation’ about banning the AR-15 because its just a pointless model number and there are literally half a dozen other guns that are almost identical that people could use to do the exact same thing.
I’m not interested in having a ‘conversation’ about background checks when all firearms dealers are ALREADY required to conduct them, and when people who SHOULD fail background checks do not because the government is too incompetent to properly input and share information.
I’m not interested in a ‘conversation’ about people on the no-fly list not being allowed to buy guns because there is no actual written process for getting on it, and no actual process to get OFF it.
So screw off. There is no conversation about gun control because liberals are too ignorant to have one.
I’m going to make a proxy account just so I can upvote you again.
I upvoted you for the truth about dealing with libs, however…
Q. What jerk came up with the term assault rifle?
A. Adolf Hitler when he christened the MP44 (which is generally considered the first assault rifle) the Sturmgewehr (or literally storm rifle/assault rifle).
Assault rifle is a legitimate term with a defined meaning – namely a magazine-fed rifle capable of automatic fire.
‘Assault weapon’ is a bullshit term the liberals invented in the 90’s so they could ban them. And their definition was based on COSMETIC FEATURES on a weapon that had nothing to do with its actual performance as a firearm.
‘Assault weapon’ is a bullshit term the liberals invented in the 90’s so they could ban them.
The “assault” part is all they needed for that. But “assault rifle” wouldn’t help them go after handguns, which are the real gun control prize. And even the stupidest voter knows that a handgun isn’t a rifle. Hence—voilà!—the fictional “assault weapon”. Now they can whip up hysteria about rifles and pistols.
Paint’em pink to support breast cancer awareness. Then they won’t be so skirrey.
I posted this to a couple of items over at Breitbart today:
Liberals require bloodshed to advance their anti-gun agenda. Any solution that stops the bloodshed will also stop the furtherance of their agenda, so those solutions simply can’t be permitted. Liberals aren’t looking for a solution, they’re looking for more gun control. They are not the same things.
Hence the popularity of the “gun-free zone”, which practically guarantees a steady supply of victims.
I posted this about but it applies to your post. “it’s called the placebo effect, something that does nothing but makes you feel good”
Take this quote from gun haterJosh Sugarman;
“Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.”
-Josh Sugarmann, Assault Weapons and Accessories in America, 1988
Add to that hints that “sniper rifles” are next. Also, discussing of optics and banning of rifle scopes. The final outcome is a right so restricted and diluted as to be useless for anything. I am reminded of Lavoisier, the French scientist aristocrat, who discovered oxygen. He was condemned to death during the Reign of Terror and despite worldwide pleading, including Ben Franklin, he was killed. “The Republic does not need scientists”, was the excuse. Flash forward to today….”The Republic doesn’t need The Bill of Rights”. How far will the Left go??? Venezuela is a handy reference.
Every state in the Union has mandatory school attendance laws. Why go up stream aways and decriminalize truancy, or legalize school non-attendance? The victims were there to comply with state law, they were in contact with a mentally unstable person, who was also there to comply with state law. Both are being exposed to socialist-marxist-progressive stupidity.
No one wants to be ignorant. There are many resources for learning on the Internet, and the Internet is on every smart phone.
Pushing back against ComInternists like Lou Perez will likely land you in the social media kangaroo court system. Summary character assassinations and joblessness ensue.
The left does not understand the consequences of people losing their gun rights. The U.S. Is involved in a constant war. This war is hardly controled. It is a war between law abiding citizens and a criminal element that is present in all urban areas. As a doctor you see the results in the ER. Cops are constantly fighting this war and having difficulty maintaining any security. This outlaw element is kept controlled to an extent by the knowledge that a target may be able to defend themselves. Take away guns, or make their purchase more difficult will result in many more deaths.
Deny individual dignity, embrace diversity. Deny lives deemed unworthy, embrace selective-child.
Deny self-defense, self-preservation, and welcome to the abortion chamber, where Planning takes place under a veil of privacy.
Oh, wait, this is about gun control. Most gun-related deaths are suicides and crime-related. There are more, in fact, an unprecedented number of human lives lost under a scalpel, vacuum, etc., in the course of Planning.
That said, this cases seems to be a trans-social orientation combined with a psychotropic disconnect a la abortion rites.
We are not having a “conversation” on gun control.
The Marxists only cars about “the children” as a prop to use to disarm us so they can take power.
You are not getting the guns. Period. Force the issue and we will kill every last one of you mother fuckers.
Liberals: “We need to have a national conversation on ______”
Conservatives: “Ok. let have a conversa…”
Liberals: “SHUT UP!!!”
Your conservative triggered your liberal. It’s a good thing too, because otherwise the conservative would have said something “hate speechy.”
Orwell wrote (I believe in “The Road to Wigan Pier”) that socialists claim to want to help the poor. Very few do. Most socialists could give a rat’s ass about the poor, they just hate the rich.
By the same token, gun grabbers don’t care about children. They just hate guns.
I think we are going to see some changes.
http://i.magaimg.net/img/2ovu.png
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/19/columbine-survivor-bill-concealed-carry-schools/
https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/04/legal-journal-says-antidepressants-can-cause-violence-and-suicide/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM&app=desktop
Malignant narcissists like this a-hole (and terrorists) will just find another target, like a store, etc.
The idea is to arm good Americans to stop this.
The idea for the left is to disarm Americans to be helpless against the onslaught of leftist thuggery doing the left’s intimidation work. Just ask saddam hussein obama. Or George Soros. Or black live matters. Or lois lerner. Or Antifa. Or Seth Rich. Or….
“Through individual weakness we have community safety; through individual helplessness we have community security”
“Calling for gun control while Hitler is in the White House makes you sound suicidal”
So who’s stopping him?
obama, Lois Lerner, james comey, hillary klinton and ted kennedy did more damage to our nation than any armed Americans ever could.
Everyone who voted for Hillary nearly did more damage to this country than the Japanese and the Germans combined in WW II.
I look at it this way – A man with a gun can kill a lot of people in a short period of time. But in the larger scheme of things, his actions affect a very few people. OTOH, the voter who tips a ballot to a candidate who will do serious injury to the country can have a major effect a millions of people. That’s the person who needs to be stopped!
If the Left really cared about “the children” the would have discussed gun control in good faith over the last 20 years.
Instead, the lied and distorted the truth and demonized anyone who disagreed with them.
They poisoned the well. Now no one trusts a damn thing they say about guns.
For example, I once thought restrictions on the mentally ill were reasonable. Until the Left started churning out “psychology” studies claiming conservatives are mentally ill. Yah nope. Not playing that game.
All of this is mental masturbation. Under the Constitution of the United States of America, no governmental entity can regulate the ownership or possession of firearms and other personal weapons.
When the Founding fathers proposed the 2nd Amendment, it was to do one thing, make it impossible for the new federal government to ban the ownership and possession of weapons by anyone. And, until the 1930s no one questioned that prohibition. Why? Because the states, and their political subdivisions, could legal regulate weapons to their heart’s content. But, in order to get around the 2nd Amendment, at the federal level, and apply it to what is strictly a personal weapon, the courts came up with this bogus “military weapon” classification and applied it to a short barreled shotgun. However, sawed-off, double barreled shotguns were virtually unknown in military service. It was all a scam.
Then, in 1868, the ratification of the 14th Amendment applied the entire bill of rights to the states, including the 2nd Amendment. For the next 140 years everyone either did not realize this, or ignored it, as the states, counties and municipalities continued to churn out laws regulating the ownership and possession of weapons. Now, we arrive at Heller and McDonald. It is very important to understand these cases as Heller was decided, as it was, because the SCOTUS knew that McDonald was in the wings.
Heller established two very important points. The first was that the 2nd Amendment was a person right, as well as a collective right. The second was that the court rewrote the 2nd Amendment to add exceptions which allowed the government to regulate the ownership and possession of firearms. And, these “exeptions” were based upon some vague “public safety” idea. These “exceptions” were carried over into McDonald, when the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment applied the 2nd Amendment to the states. Rather than simply ruling that the 2nd Amendment meant exactly what it said and prohibited the government from regulating the ownership and possession of firearms, it went on for page after page after page to provide cover for the strict constructionists to ignore the language of the Amendment and slip in “exceptions” to that wording which simply do not exist in the document in question. If the people of the United States wish to allow the governments of the nation to restrict the ownership and possession of firearms, then they should amend the constitution to allow for that.
Bottom line? There can be NO Conversation on regulating firearms as long as the 2nd and 14th Amendment exist in their current forms. If the government violates the written covenant it has with the people, then the people can renegotiate that compact using any tools that they wish. That is why the 2nd Amendment was originally ratified, to provide those tools to the American people.
Oops. Sorry, meant to hit reply and hit down twinkles instead. Consider yourself at 2 to 2 at the moment.
But, in order to get around the 2nd Amendment, at the federal level, and apply it to what is strictly a personal weapon, the courts came up with this bogus “military weapon” classification and applied it to a short barreled shotgun. However, sawed-off, double barreled shotguns were virtually unknown in military service. It was all a scam.
The above was US v Miller or Miller v US. Miller never showed for the SC hearing nor did his attorney.
Even you can see that “banning” and “regulating” are two VERY different things.
NONE of our rights under the Bill Of Rights are “license”, allowing unfettered expression and without conditions.
They are essential rights, each with exceptions, and were always seen that way.
All this absolutism is odd from a guy who denies any such thing as “natural rights”, and asserts the Founders just ginned them up to cover their inclinations.
They aren’t different when Regulation is just a sideways attempt at Banning.
6 years ago your mind was too precise to even consider such a disingenuous remark. What the hell happened to you?
In that case, stupid, people with brains see the subterfuge. The difference isn’t there.
When it IS there, banning something and regulating a right are quite different.
You were never very sharp.
Rag: ” In that case – ”
No. In THIS case.
Sure, in general terms, there is an obvious difference between regulation and banning.
But specifically, in THIS case (ie firearms), regulation has simply been banning under another name.
But you already knew that. You’re just being intellectually dishonest because your ego needs to score a few cheap shots to prop up your self-esteem.
Well, no again, you lying moron.
Has a background check (regulation) led to you being banned from owning firearms or buying them?
No. In no instance under Federal law.
Now, in Kulhlifornia, it HAS been effectively used that way.
Given your massive personality disorder, SHOULD you be banned…???
This is simply another attempt to allow the courts to rewrite the Constitution as they like.
The 2nd Amendment is probably the most clearly written part of the US Constitution. It reads:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The operant portion is, the right of the people to keep [own] and bear [possess or carry] arms shall not be infringed. This means that the state can not prohibit
ANYONE from owning or carrying personal weapons. There are NO EXCEPTIONS within the Amendment. Even if one attempts to use the “intent” of the Founding Fathers to clarify this Amendment, it changes it in no material manner. The intent of the Founders was to prohibit the government, in this case the federal government, from denying individuals the right to own and carry weapons. And, the 14th Amendment applies that prohibition to the states.
As I have pointed out, the wording of the 14th Amendment created a classic case of unintended consequences. In 1868, no one expected the federal government to regulate personal weapons. All such regulation occurred at the state or local level. So, it slid by under the radar. And, for the next 140 years, nothing really changed. States and local government continued to crank out laws regulating the ownership and possession of firearms. Suddenly, we had Heller. And, the strict constructionists on the SCOTUS found themselves in a real pickle. The 2nd Amendment was clearly worded. There was no wy that they could rule that it did not allow personal ownership and carry of weapons. But, they7 wanted to retain some of the unconstitutional laws; federal, state and local; that existed. So, they attempted to apply the “public safety” exception to the 2nd Amendment. The problem there is exactly what constitutes a sufficiently great public safety factor to allow a person’s right to keep and bear arms to be infringed, by the government? We already seeing what can happen when we allow the courts to rewrite Constitutional Amendments. Now people are attempting to expand “public safety” consideration to anyone who has ever seen a psychologist or psychiatrist. It has been expanded to anyone who has ever been involved and a fist fight and been convicted of misdemeanor battery. Have a fight with your spouse or significant other and you lose your right to keep and bear arms for life.
The “public safety” exception to the 1st Amendment [freedom of speech] only apply to unprotected speech. Speech not related to political discourse. However, as the basis ownership and possession of weapons, under the 2nd Amendment, is protected, the government can not ban anyone from exercising these basic rights. It might be possible to restrict importation of weapons into some sensitive government facilities, as long as no blanket invitation to enter exists. But, it is unconstitutional to ban large groups of people from exercising their clearly enumerated ability to own and carry a weapon.
I am not arguing a “right: here. This is simple contract law. The Constitution is essentially a contract. It can only be amended in certain ways. And, it can not be unilaterally amended by any party, in this case the federal government, the state and and local governments and the citizens of the country. The 2nd Amendment clearly says that the government can not regulate the ownership and possession of personal weapons and there are no enumerated exceptions to this prohibition.
You may find the arguments in this support yours:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huldah/170710
Better recheck your points about “Miller”. The Supreme Court was to determine whether a sawed off shotgun was a weapon used in war and as such suitable for militia use and covered by 2ndA. Important info was never given to the Supremes that short barrels shotguns were used in combat… examples can be seen in Civil War and Trench shotguns in WWI. There are more parity of civilian and military before 1900’s… and especially since after WWII. The NFA passed in 1930’s skirted 2ndA using a “tax”… sound familiar?
and Trench shotguns in WWI.
WW2 and Vietnam as well. Still issued today. They were prominent in the photos of American sentries after the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983. When things got serious, the Marines ditched the M16A1 and toted “sawed-off” shotguns.
Short barrel shotguns had been used, by the citizenry, for protection since firearms were invented. They were nothing new. What had changed was that they were being used by criminals, along with fully automatic weapons. The court decided that because the short barrelled shotgun was not generally used by the military [longer barreled shotgun were regularly used] that it could be regulated or even banned because the word militia was used in the amendment. However, if this logic is applied to the whole of the firearms category, then many other sporting weapons would be suitable for banning or regulation, as they were not used by the military, on a regular basis. This was not done, however. Then the courts turn around and rule that fully automatic personal weapons are protected, because they are used by the military. However, they then regulate them by requiring a person to pay a tax to keep and bear these weapons [NFA – 1934]. So, what decisions like this create is a hodge-podge of contradictory regulations on the right to keep and bear arms. And, even worse, it allows the government to effectively ban the ownership and possession of a wide range of weapons through taxation and regulation.
I rather liked the argument that we should ban all car in order to cut down on drunk driving.
People actually thought that the AR stood for ‘assault rifle’?
How very foolish – everybody knows that the AR stands for Arkansas.
No no no. AR-15 is NRA played backwards.
If you squint real hard while standing on your left leg you can see the 15 as a N.
1 Corinthians 13:11 King Levon James version
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, the Left allowed me to keep on doing childish things.
“Lebron”