Sorry, but it is about politics, not guns

| June 16, 2017 | 149 Comments

Peter Dreier writes at Prospect.org that “The Virginia Shooting Isn’t About Bernie. It’s About the Right’s Embrace of Guns.” He tries to convince us that James Hodgkinson’s shooting rampage had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with lax gun laws. Yeah, well, Jeremy Joseph Christian, another Sanders supporter in Portland, Oregon, killed more people in his attack late last month and he used a knife, not a gun. And then there was Eric Clanton a community college professor who assaulted a Trump supporter in San Francisco – not with a gun but with a padlock in sock.

And, oh, by the way, there’s James Devine, a Democrat in New Jersey who is calling for an open season on Republicans.

A longtime Democratic operative from Union County has responded to the Wednesday shooting of a congressman by calling for a “hunt” of Republicans.

James Devine posted several messages on Facebook and Twitter following the Alexandra, Virginia, shooting of U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise and several others by a gunman with a history of violence and of making online rantings against Republican officials and their policies.

That might not turn out the way he imagines.

Dreier scribbles;

the Trump administration has taken steps to make it easier for both fugitives and the mentally ill to buy guns. Congressional Republicans have introduced a bill to allow people without permits or training to carry firearms across state lines (which they call “concealed carry reciprocity”).

Yeah, no. The Trump administration swept away a policy that took guns away from veterans without due process if they didn’t have the mental capacity to manage their finances. Name another right that it’s perfectly acceptable for the government to ignore without a legal reason to do so.

Dreier might like concealed carry reciprocity, since it provides another layer of background checks which even the Virginia governor can appreciate.

Dreier blames the AR-style rifle for the shooting (you know, even though the rifle isn’t a AR style rifle);

Hodgkinson apparently had a permit for the AR-15 assault rifle he used on Wednesday. According to the NRA, the AR-15 is America’s most popular rifle, with an estimated nine million in circulation in this country. The NRA claims that they are used safely by millions of people for sport. But it is also the weapon used in many mass shootings. It accommodates high-capacity magazines that can fire off 100 rounds or more within minutes. That’s clearly a quasi-military weapon, not a recreational tool. These kind of assault rifles were banned from 1994 to 2004 under federal law, before the NRA used its political clout to allow the ban to expire.

In contrast to NRA claims, most gun-related deaths are committed by people who purchase their weapons legally.

Most gun-related deaths are suicides, too, did you forget that, Pete?

I haven’t heard any Republicans calling for a preemptive strike on Democrats, but Democrats seem more than eager for another civil war. It has everything to do with politics and the fact that they want more gun control only reinforces the reason that there is a Second Amendment.

Category: Dumbass Bullshit

Comments (149)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. ChipNASA says:

    What a liberal asshole.

  2. AW1Ed says:

    “Most gun-related deaths are suicides, too, did you forget that, Pete?”

    The facts, while interesting, get in the way of the narrative and are therefor not relevant.

  3. 26Limabeans says:

    Well, it was time to send the NRA another hundred bucks anyway so I’ll do it in this guys name this time.
    What the hell, buy him a membership. I’m sure he will enjoy the magazine.

    • Old 1SG, US Army (retired) says:

      LMFAO…

      Buy him a membership and make sure to use his work address if you can find it. He can start receiving all the magazines and flyers… great idea!

      It would be fun to watch this asshat explain his new found interest in the NRA!

      • UpNorth says:

        Peter Dreier
        Occidental College
        1600 Campus Road
        Los Angeles, CA 90041.
        Just FYI

        • 26Limabeans says:

          Thanks UpNorth.
          A contribution to the ILA arm of the NRA will get him up to date info on current legislation efforts that he can better research and write about.
          Their monthly contribution requests can be discarded or fullfilled at his pleasure.
          I just want to help the poor guy.

  4. 1610desig says:

    Peter = Dick

  5. Combat Historian says:

    “…These kind of assault rifles were banned from 1994 to 2004 under federal law…”

    Umm, no…they were made to look physically ugly with fat sporter stocks and with the flash suppressors chopped off, but they did exactly the same thing as pre-1994 rifles. And the SKS used by the liberal loon wasn’t even affected by the 1994 ban.

    So fuck off and jerk off, petey…

  6. IDC SARC says:

    From Wiki:

    Peter Dreier

    “In November 2016, he was one of 200 professors added to the Professor Watchlist which works to expose and document college professors who discriminate against conservative students.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Dreier

  7. Deckie says:

    He’s got a real, “Didn’t think I could get that all the way down my throat, did you?” look on his face.

  8. 2banana says:

    This fool thinks it is about guns.

    Comedians think showing a beheaded head of Trump is art.

    Shakespeare in the NYC Park shows Trump being assassinated.

    Progressive/liberals rioting and conducting organized violence at Trump and conservative gatherings.

    Democrats leaders calling Trump a Nazi and the people who voted for him fascists.

    And we are surprised liberals/progressives wants to kill Republicans?

    And Hitler never personally gassed a Jew.

    But the hate and venom of democrat leaders are leading this country to violence.

    And it is not going to end well.

    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

      I don’t remember things like that going down when Clinton and Obama were in office… if they did, the MSM would have been going ape shit crazy over it.

      From Make Levin: https://www.conservativereview.com/articles/levin-the-left-has-made-violence-mainstream

      • LC says:

        I think both sides focus on the stupid shit the other side does, and tend not to notice the stupid shit their side does. There were Obama effigies hung, burned, people beaten, threats against his life made, etc., etc. If you want some references, I can give you some, or you can just Google them.

        Are things worse now? I’m inclined to think so, yes, but I don’t think it’s a crystal clear thing. A lot of the anti-Obama stuff was racist stuff which, being racist stuff and thus generally unacceptable to society, is typically done in secret. The liberals who are being stupid -a very small subset of liberals, much like the subset of conservatives that were burning effigies of Obama- don’t have the history or sense to recognize that their antics aren’t acceptable, and thus it’s more visible. That’s bad, but I don’t think either side should have a ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude on post-election stupidity.

        As for the article, the author is a fool. This is clearly about politics. I don’t know why idiots need to shoehorn everything into their agenda – you can recognize this was about politics while also being against gun violence. It needn’t be one response to everything.

        • Fyrfighter says:

          One difference LC, is that the “small subset” of liberals (Antifa, BLM, etc) is given tacit, if not outright acceptance/approval but a much larger subset of liberals (MSM, Hollywood, etc), whereas the racist buffoons, and others encouraging violence on the right are, in general, immediately called out by the vast majority of those on the right.

          • LC says:

            I disagree with you on most of that – if you have any links showing acceptance/approval of violent protests, I’d love to see it. Maybe it’s out there, but to this day I haven’t seen anything positive about Antifa, and for good reason. BLM is a bit more nuanced, obviously, because some of their goals are good. It’s just that the stuff most often focused on is when the anti-cop, anti-white fanatics do something stupid – and that, like the Antifa nonsense, doesn’t get positive coverage either. Peaceful protests are fine – it doesn’t matter if it’s BLM, the NRA, a local Bronie convention, whatever.

            I think you’re right about the racist buffoons on the right because we all generally accept that being a racist asshole is unacceptable. But look at the recent issue with Gianforte and that reporter – many here condoned Gianforte’s actions, even though he was sentenced for assault. He wasn’t called out; he was excused. It doesn’t matter if the reporter was in his space, annoying, or whatnot – assaulting someone like that should be called out, and wasn’t, by the Right.

            And I’m not picking on the Right here; the Left makes its excuses, too, for its behavior. This shouldn’t be a Left or Right thing, this should be a basic principal of civil society – you don’t seek to do harm to fellow citizens who simply disagree with you politically. It applies to Antifa, BLM, the Tea Party, Republican Congressman and anyone else.

            • rgr769 says:

              Putting the Tea Party in the same category with BLM and Antifa is horseshit. But that is the principal component of your verbose blather. But then you never deviate far from the party line.

              • LC says:

                I also mentioned ‘Bronies’ above. I was trying to paint as wide a picture as possible. If you think Tea Partiers are somehow free from the capacity for violence, I’ll be glad to find an article that shows you otherwise.

                And I’m not a member of either party, so I don’t know what ‘line’ I’m holding.

                • Silentium Est Aureum says:

                  One whole article?

                  I give up.

                • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                  The Tea party organizations have not been violent. Not in any meaningful sense relative to lefty actual actions. Heck, they tend to leave parks clean, versus the trash-rests of lefty groups.

                  Stop equivilating “potential” violence with “actual”. Won’t fly anymore. And that is -exactly- what you just did.

                  Look up
                  #HuntRepublicans

                  Better hope someone stops that crap. It wont end well.

                  Ted Neugent just publicly said “I am dialing it back”. (My paraphrase)

                  Get your crazies under control. Publicly -berate- fools like the author of “#HuntRepublicans”. Do so without reguard to Who Dunnit First. Just freaking put a stop to it. Now.

                  Because the only way to stop this reasonably is if the reasonable people stop it.

                  “#HuntRepublicans” and “216 to go” are -indefensible-. Assasination fantasy porn in the public square is now -indefensible-.

                  Just stop the loons, and the demagogues who are -deliberately- encouraging them.

            • Fyrfighter says:

              I agree that it should be across the board, right is right, wrong is wrong… As for the acceptance, news coverage for the idiots in Seattle and Berkeley to name a few was much more positive than negative. And that idiot BLM clown telling the whites to get to the back of the parade wasn’t called out by any of the media that i saw..

              • LC says:

                I believe I did see people condemn the violence in Berkeley, and I can look it up if you like. The problem with the protests was that they were in large part peaceful, and in small part violent – and the violence is the most sensational part, so the news focuses on that. But I think it’s easy to conflate positive coverage of the mostly-peaceful protests with positive coverage of the violence that happened at the same time. But I don’t think anyone really was encouraging violence.

                As for BLM, it’s more difficult, obviously – and that sucks. A white anchor of a news program should be able to call out a BLM clown like that, but you just know it’s going to be an issue. We’ve got a long ways to go on that, and the Left is, in my opinion, part of the problem there with their focus on identity. But in so far as I’m considered a ‘leftie’ here, I absolutely agree that guy should’ve been called out. People like him are why, as I’ve said elsewhere, I can’t support BLM.

                • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                  The so-called “antifa” types are executing the classic “revolutionaries are the fishes and the people are the sea” strategy of Mao.

                  The thugs hide in the midst of the larger group. No protest is “peaceful” if the organizers and participants stand idly by when thugs run riot in their midst. Unopposed.

                  Are they yanking masks? Calling cops? Blocking escape of firebomb-throwing idiots?

                  No? => supporters and participants.

                  That means the standard is -actively- opposing riotous thugs in the midst of “peace”. “Knock it off fools! Get out now!”

                  No more blind eye and excuses. If they are not stopping it, they are not opposing it.

                  Show us.

                  or admit the support. Just like another block of “peaceful” folks with a lunatic fringe of violent idiots, where some of the “peaceful” are all too happy that some -other- braver souls bust the heads they like to see busted.

                  Yeah. No. Not gonna fly anymore.

            • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

              LC – I agree with you on your last paragraph. Both side have shown their ass, but when you have a POTUS and his advisers amping up the rhetoric with “punch back twice as hard” and “if they bring a knife, you bring a gun”, you’re part of the problem, not the solution.

              Leadership, not just the POTUS or members of Congress, but party leaders all the way down to the local level need to drop the rhetoric – people like you and I pay the price when the mob takes over. Both sides need to look at the groups they associate with and/or endorse and who the collect money from and make a conscious decision to cut ties from them permanently.

              You stated that the issues with Obama were mostly about race – some were, but some used the “race card” as a means of justifying people opposing him. IF Obama was Caucasian, the MSM and his supporters would have spun it into another hot button topic (sexual orientation, hair color, home of record, etc.).

              Until something happens, this isn’t going to go away anytime soon

              • LC says:

                I agree with pretty much everything here; I didn’t mean to say people only opposed Obama because of race, and the frequency with which the Left trots out the race card is a national embarrassment. (Or the ‘sexist’ card, for that matter.)

                The key, for all of us who care more about this country than just the political party most aligned with our interests, is to call the stupid shit out when it happens. On our own side. If we call out stuff on the other side, it just leads to an increase in rhetoric, but when the criticism comes from within, I think it has a chance to reduce tension.

                I disagree with most people here on countless things… but I’d sit down over a beer with anyone and laugh and chat about it, no problem. The other side isn’t ‘the devil’ we make it out to be.

                • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

                  I’d be more than happy to have a beer with you and talk. Maybe between you and I, we could “fix” all the problems going on right now.

                  • LC says:

                    I travel a fair bit, but if you’re ever out in Colorado the same time I am, let me know – we can head to a shooting range then grab beers and draft our plan for an HMCS(FMF)/LC 2020 election ticket. We’d do a lot better than the typical assholes we get, I think!

                    • Fyrfighter says:

                      Sounds like a party.. If that’s an open invite, I’m in Colorado as well..

                    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

                      Interesting????

                    • LC says:

                      Absolutely, Fyr – I’m in the Denver/Boulder area pretty often. If it’s just the three of us, we can take it offline. If there are more, maybe we can have an unofficial TAH gathering somewhere. Whereabouts in CO are you? And HMCS, are you out this way too?

                      Let’s find something that works for everyone and set up a date if you’re genuinely interested. I’m pretty tied up with work for the next few weeks, but there’s plenty of summer left too.

                    • Fyrfighter says:

                      I’m out east in Gods country, between Denver and Colorado Springs.. plenty of good places to grab a brew, or just bring some to my place, then the range is right here…And I’d be up for an unofficial gathering as well..

                    • HMCS(FMF) ret says:

                      I’m north of the People’s Republic of Portland… when the wind blows from the south, I’m close enough to smell it.

                      I’d have to make a road trip of it… I’d like to consider it sometime in the future.

                    • Fyrfighter says:

                      HMCS I’m planning on being kinda up your way in Sept. got friends in Pendelton, and plan on going up for Roundup

                    • LC says:

                      Fyr, I’ll drop a note in the weekend thread about a Colorado-based get-together later in the summer and see if any others are in this neck of the woods. I used to do the drive to the Springs pretty regularly and know your neck of the woods half-decently. Nice place to be for sure!

                      @HMCS- That’d be a hell of a road trip. Plenty to see along the way! Let’s see what happens; if you’re interested it’s an open invite from me, sure. We’ve got ’til 2020 for our election bid anyway!

                    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                      All hail the Beer Party ticket!

                      That is what I call Stout politics! Good for what Ale’s ya!

            • The Old Maj says:

              “I disagree with you on most of that – if you have any links showing acceptance/approval of violent protests, I’d love to see it. ”

              All too easy:

              http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/baltimore-unrest/mayor-stephanie-rawlings-blake-under-fire-giving-space-destroy-baltimore-n349656

              Of course she told a bunch of lies to try to explain her way out of it but the damage was already done. The violence continues to this day with fights over the drugs looted from all the pharmacies.

              Want more? That was just a biggie.

            • UpNorth says:

              “And I’m not picking on the Right here”. Sure seems that you are.
              It would seem that every time someone brings up something, your response is equivalent to “yeah, but”.

        • 2banana says:

          Yes. I can remember republican leadership egging the few nutcases onto violence. With the entire MSM and Hollywood echoing that sentiment.

          Oh wait – that didn’t happen.

          And I can remember the riots, arson, beatdowns at democrat gatherings.

          Oh wait – that didn’t happen either.

          And I can remember republican groups calling for the deaths of democrats and republicans and their leadership celebrating.

          And that didn’t happen either.

          And I can remember plays, Broadway shows and late night TV thinking it was funny and art showing the president and top democrat leaders assassinated.

          And yes – that didn’t happen either.

          Maybe you should google that.

          • The Other Whitey says:

            I remember one thing that DID happen, though: any criticism whatsoever of Obama was answered with, “You’re racist!”

            • LC says:

              And that is one of my biggest frustrations with the Left right now. A friend who adopted multiple non-white kids and cared for them like her own was called racist by a neighbor because she voted for Trump. The Left is full of idiots who don’t think, no question about it. And they desperately need to get back to being a party of principles rather than a party that simply prides itself on having a diversity of ethnicities and sexualities while appeasing a vocal minority through talking about white, male oppression.

              Liberty and equality are good things every American can relate to, and things that matter immensely in our every day lives. That you’re a trans-sexual tri-racial hippy who is fighting against the ‘patriarchy’ is … nobody’s business but your own?

              • Fyrfighter says:

                LC, not to pick nits, but when exactly was the left the “party of principles”? They were the party of slavery, they were the party fighting against civil rights (the left consistently and conveniently forgets the tapes of LBJ pressuring other democrats to drop their opposition to civil rights legislation.) I can quote him if you’d like, but i’d bet you already know, or can find it if you want. Then in the 60’s, while espousing free love, the left were the ones rioting and burning and bombing..(Bill Ayres anyone?? I’m seeing a trend here) I’m not trying to suggest that you agree with these types, but you do need to be careful about the company you keep…

                • LC says:

                  Well, let me give a slightly complicated answer – I don’t know if the Democratic Party was ever a party of principles. But liberalism, as an idea, goes back to the notions of liberty and equality. And on some issues, I personally find their stance more principled – what someone does with their own body or in their own home is of no consequence to me, and making laws just against homosexuality (for example) just seems to be anti-liberty. On those issues, liberals are the party of freedom.

                  Obviously on others, they fall well short, and on a few things the conservatives do better. I’m not a party ‘liberal’, hell, I’m not even a liberal – I just lean liberal on social issues, and tend to be more evenly spread out when it comes to defense, economics, etc. (I just seem really liberal because most people on this board are pretty conservative!)

                  I do think, though, that modern political parties shift pretty rapidly, and calling today’s GOP or today’s Democrats the same as the parties that existed in decades past is pretty unfair. Do you really think the modern Democratic party shares the same mentality as it did when it opposed slavery and fought civil rights? We can argue about things like welfare and how, maybe, it’s akin to ‘economic slavery’, but that’s still a pretty big stretch, and hardly something that’s considered mainstream. Hell, look at the GOP right now – most people don’t know what to make of Trump, but generally agree he’s hardly a conventional conservative.

                  My (social) lean towards the liberals, and thus the Democrats, is no more an indictment of my beliefs than your being an American meant you automatically agreed with everything President Obama did when he was in charge. You can be a part of a broad group, and yet have strong disagreements with that group – it all depends on how the grouping is done in the first place.

                  • Fyrfighter says:

                    Good enough. I think we’d still disagree on some of those points, but from what I’ve seen, we’d do it respectfully, and with a reasoned discussion, something I can’t even manage with my siblings, as they’ve gone way too far off the cliff.. as an example, with the shooting in DC, their first comments were that they were glad it wasn’t a muslim that did it.. no mention of concern for the victims… And the recent attacks in UK.. they were more concerned about backlash against muslims than the dead kids…so you can see why i tend to have a knee jerk reaction against liberal apologists..

                    • LC says:

                      If I ever find anyone who agrees with me on everything, I’ll be in shock. Disagreement is normal; we all have different takes on what matters. Since BLM came up above, I remember a short while back I was arguing with a friend about how I can say I don’t support the ’cause’, and I asked them when the last time they helped kids with cancer was (one of my charitable interests), and they had to admit they don’t do that. For me, supporting kids with cancer has literally no downside, yet not everyone rallies to do it. Yet supporting BLM has some downsides and some upsides – and yet you expect I have to support it or I’m a bad person? Different focuses for different people is fine.

                      As for your siblings, I think the same applies there – look, if you have Muslim friends (I do) and witness the shit they put up with sometimes, it’s okay to immediately hope something isn’t going to cause them more animosity. It doesn’t mean you don’t also care about the victims, you’re just worried about the secondary effects over the already-finished first effects. There’s enough bad shit going down in the world that if any one of us worried about all of it, we’d be broken psychologically. The problem only happens when people say you NEED to care about MY thing over your thing.

                      That’s how I approach it, anyway. I’ve got family that drives me crazy too. Pretty sure that’s a universal thing.

              • The Other Whitey says:

                I’ve been accused by some–including Lars Taylor on occasion–of being a white-supremacist for no particular reason other than my refusal to drink the proverbial koolaid. This in spite of the fact that my wife–who can shut me up with a sideways glance (Hell hath no fury like a skinny Asian chick cussing at me in Khmer)–is *not* white, or that we have three multiracial children (strictly speaking, German Saxons and Irish Celts are different races, and I’m both; Cambodians and Chinese are also two separate races, and Mrs. Whitey’s grandfather was Chinese). I didn’t accept Barry Obama as my personal Lord and Savior, thus I was automatically a Klan-hooded (even though I’m Catholic and those shitheads don’t like Catholics) white-supremacist, the burden was on me to prove otherwise, and it didn’t matter anyway because no proof would suffice for them. Disenfranchisement at its finest.

                • Fyrfighter says:

                  Yep, no doubt TOW.. and though my wife is a red-headed Irish lass, she has the same power.. I’m like you, got a bunch of Irish and German in the family tree.. when kid was in grade school, and they were working on lineage and such, he asked what that meant.. i told him” it means that i want to take over the world, but i’m generally too drunk to do it”… wife blew beer through her nose, and beat the hell out of me for it… I thought it was funny..

                  • The Other Whitey says:

                    Now THAT is a keeper right there!

                    My friends often say I have no right to claim either half, since I don’t drink or smoke. I say that I’ve got Irish guilt, Irish rage, and the occasional overpowering urge to kill somebody. That’s gotta count for something, right?

                    • Fyrfighter says:

                      yep, it sure does TOW, and feel free to steal the line any time it’s appropriate

                • LC says:

                  But your name has ‘Whitey’ in it – you’re clearly racist.

                  Honestly, I’m in complete agreement with you on this nonsense. I’ve been in the same boat. It’s the worst thing about the Left to me, and there’s a small but growing number of people pushing back against it. Nowhere near the number pushing for it, but we’ll see what happens over time…

                  • The Other Whitey says:

                    Yeah, “Whitey” is just my last name with a Y tacked on. It got applied to me on the first day of my first shift as a brand-new Firefighter-1 and has stayed. My wife even calls me “Whitey,” though usually in Khmer, which is “Sawh.”

                    When I first made Engineer, one of my firefighters was a black kid who thought it was hilarious to call me “White Power.” After two weeks of “Dude, not cool,” I gave up.

                  • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                    LC,

                    It is good to hear that -someone- is actually advocating for rational principles on their own team, and is open and proud of it. Good luck with that.

                    Likewise, I occasionally have to say “are you serious, dipstick?” to folks I -thought- were rational.

                    if Ted Freaking Neugent can say it’s time to chill out….

          • LC says:

            Yes. I can remember republican leadership egging the few nutcases onto violence. With the entire MSM and Hollywood echoing that sentiment.

            Where is the entire MSM and Hollywood egging liberals into violence? Peaceful protests are fine, but I don’t see anyone condoning violence.

            And I can remember the riots, arson, beatdowns at democrat gatherings.

            As I said above, I do think things have taken a turn for the worse – though I’m inclined to think that would’ve been the case regardless of who won. So, sure, in your narrowly-defined situation of riots, arsons or beatdowns at Democratic conventions,.. I don’t know of any. I also don’t think I know of many off the top of my head at Republican ones, though there were maybe a few – again, things have gotten worse. But I hope you’re not claiming the absurd notion that no conservatives have attacked Democrats in recent years…? Because I can give you plenty of examples where that has happened if your Google skills aren’t up to par.

            And I can remember republican groups calling for the deaths of democrats and republicans and their leadership celebrating.

            Which Democratic groups are calling for the deaths of Republicans? If you mean individuals, well, I remember Ted Nugent saying Obama could suck on his gun, which unless you bend over backwards in your explanations seems like a death threat.

            And I can remember plays, Broadway shows and late night TV thinking it was funny and art showing the president and top democrat leaders assassinated.

            This one is especially rich – I assume you’re talking about the Julius Caesar play, in which a Trump-like Caesar is assassinated? There was outrage over that, and rightly so. But what you probably missed was that they did the same with an Obama-like Caesar in 2012, and nobody blinked an eye. Similarly, while Kathy Griffin was justifiably scolded for her idiocy, and lost upcoming gigs due to it, Ted Nugent didn’t get his gigs canceled when he talked about having Obama suck his gun, and called Clinton a bitch.

            My Google skills are fine; if you want links for any of the above because you’re having trouble finding them, let me know. Again, if you think the Right is above all this, you’re sorely mistaken. That doesn’t justify the Left’s actions in the least, but the holier-than-thou attitude is laughable.

            • rgr769 says:

              And I can remember you are just a wordy version of Commissar Lars. Sort of a Lars-lite with a very slight veneer of reason.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              Personally, when someone in my proximity starts making “jokes” about the president that would “trigger” a Secret Service agent, I remind that person that a) such jokes are uncivil and thus unhelpful and b) That the folks who guard Presidents have their humor surgically removed in week three of the Academy.

              generally, when someone in ones presence advocates violent outburst, not in rational defense of self from -actual- imminent harm, then one should say “Knock it off”.

              It is most helpful when ones political fellows deliver the suggestion.

        • Yef says:

          Who the hell is this LC dude?

          I am getting rapidly tired of his blah blah blah.

          After reading a few of his post, my conclusion is he either is a sockpuppet of Lars the Commissar, or he is getting his news from the MSM and therefore has a vision of reality in which Liberals and Democrats are not the bloodthirsty criminals they are in real life.

          Just my observation.

          • Ex-PH2 says:

            LC is a garrulous rambler.

          • 11B-Mailclerk says:

            LC writes pretty rationally. He starts from different premises, so naturally he reaches different conclusions.

            I do not get the impression, at all, that LC opposes just to oppose.

            Would you not agree LC is very, very restrained on things like name-calling, relative to Commissar? Less prone to temper-driven invective? Even when folks clearly fire the first poo-fling?

  9. Graybeard says:

    …and anyone hoping for some rational discourse has their illusions shattered again.

    Peter Dreier cannot get his facts straight.
    Peter Dreier is not interested in truth.
    Peter Dreier is a delusional shill.
    Peter Dreier is either too ignorant to be writing for public consumption or intentionally deceiving his readers.
    Peter Dreier encourages illegal behavior.
    Peter Dreier is willfully blind to the violence of the left.
    Peter Dreier believes the Chicago and Boston are model cities.
    Peter Dreier is complicit in the continuing deaths of those caught in the cesspools of Democrat-run cities.

  10. IDC SARC says:

    Hmmm…

    I’m wondering if some of these A-holes are actually trying to get free speech advocates to swallow this rhetoric in an attempt to gain a foothold to actually censor free speech and start shoving it up our asses, like in the UK and Canada.It’s a slippery slope.

    Cheap reverse psychology.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Well, many Lefties wave the bloody shirt to get gun bans passed, most especially when it was an idiot Lefty spilling the blood. ‘Awwww… See what you made us do, comrade…”

      I was truly shocked by the thug that responded to the ballpark assassination attempt with “#HuntRepublicans”.

      Way to “coexist” dude. “Peace”, right?

      He is a Brownshirt, just waiting for the uniforms to be issued, and jackboots fitted.

  11. The Other Whitey says:

    Just about every one of these incidents has been perpetrated by a liberal. How about we compromise and ban liberals from having guns, knives, or motor vehicles? Attack the problem at its source.

  12. Fyrfighter says:

    Leftists should be banned from having anything other that a binky, baa-baa, and blanky… anything more than that, and thy’re likely to hurt themselves, or someone else…

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      There are a number of folks on the Left that seem to believe that inanimate objects cause otherwise-peaceful folks to become raging killers.

      So perhaps a test? Issue those folks each one poncho liner, to use as their own personal Woobie, to be kept at hand 24×7. Do they suddenly become steely-eyed defenders of America? Swillers of Coffee by day and Beer by night? A bit more…. self control?

      Nah…. Would never happen. Too many of them would assume it -would- work, and say “Its a Trap!”

  13. David says:

    It has always truly been about controlling people, not guns.

    Anything past that is just window dressing.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We don’t allow our enemies to have guns. Why would we allow them ideas?”

      “Political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.”

      Two quotes from Mao Tse-Tung/Zedong (however the hell they’re spelling it this week), Chinese communist dictator, mass-murder, pedophile, and Japanese-collaborator.

  14. FatCircles0311 says:

    Gun grabbers never change.

  15. Ex-PH2 says:

    Please, Astronomers, please find a planet that we can send them to!
    Please, before they start telling you that the Earth is flat and everything rotates around it.
    Please, I beg you, hurry up and find it!

  16. A Proud Infidel®™ says:

    Yet another marshmallow-headed thumbsucking candyassed booger-eating pecker-puffing meat gazer who proves yet again that LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.

  17. Skippy says:

    Well shouldn’t we just ban democrats from buying firearms since
    They seem to be responsible for 98 percent of these mass shooting,
    Also do we have any history buffs here because it looks like the period
    Right before our last civil war, the opposition (aka) Republicans
    Are going out of there way to accommodate the Democrats
    (aka) Mcfain from Arizona and others, the media is turned on its head
    And many other similarities
    Just curious

    • Fyrfighter says:

      Not just mass shootings Skippy, if you look at all the cities with the bulk of shootings, most of the perps fit the preferred democrat demographic perfectly…

    • The Old Maj says:

      Not just mass shootings. Practically all murders too. Last I checked based upon demographics Democrats can claim most of the murders too.

      Unless you believe that the people that kill people in 85-98% Democratic districts in the US are all Republicans.

      It is no wonder their pols want gun control, their constituency scares the shit out of them.

  18. Old Trooper says:

    I ignore these stupid bastards that wouldn’t know an “assault rifle” from a caulking gun. They talk as though they are resident experts on everything firearm related, yet they can’t get the basics right to save they dumb ass.

  19. 11B-mailclerk says:

    If the rational folks on the Left fail to get control of their violent fellows, they may soon find that no one -else- will play by civil society rules.

    Shrieking about disarmament to the victims of assasination is -insane-. Doing so while a sizable percentage of the left are saying things like “216 to go” and “Hunt republicans” is -insane-.

    Hmm. “Trust those who excuse or minimize your tormentors, those who murder you, to decide you do not need the means for self defense.”

    Wasn’t that the message of Democrats to Blacks after the Deomocrats had to give up their slaves? Hmm. Doesn’t sound so noble that way, does it. Not really “common sense”.

    Lefty keeps holding out that ball to kick, saying things will be different this time, and “please kick the ball again, trusting kid! ” Sooner or later, the trusting kid figures out that the humiliation and control game ends when kid is no longer trusting, and kicks his tormentor square in the ass, not the ball.

    Time is short folks.

    If the Loon-Left insists on continuing to howl hatred, while demanding restraint from the victims of it, acceptance of it, “you deserve it because (whatever)”, sooner or later the as-yet-unrestrained Loon-Left will pull out the Kristalnacht card and play it, thinking that they will do better this time. The Rational left will then be in no position to talk about restraint. No one will be talking anymore.

    That ends badly. Very, very badly.

    So the rational folks had best get their loons on a leash again. And “Well, they provoked it!” doesn’t fly. Not anymore.

    • LC says:

      Gun control is a weird issue for the political Left because the ideological Left, according to some polls I read a while back, is fine with guns. It’s a vocal minority, a sizable one, with an emotional issue that they beat on.. and I think the politicians on the Left are afraid of losing their vote. From a party standpoint, they know they’re not going to win people who are staunchly pro-gun with their ‘uh, it’s your right, we got no problem with it!’ approach, but they will lose the people who shriek about the ’93 million’ people killed every day. So it’s a political calculus.

      This is best seen from the yearly assurances that Obama was going to take away your guns.. and yet it never happened. The Left, as a whole, would fight against grabbing your guns if it came down to that, so the party won’t try. But at the same time, they need to hold on to those loud, few people who think everything will be sunshine and rainbows if only guns magically disappeared.

      The thing is, you’re way on the other side, so you don’t see the majority of the Left just fine with gun ownership. You see the crazy ones who jump up and down, and then start talking about ‘ending restraint’. That doesn’t help, in my opinion.

      • rgr769 says:

        Jonn, you need to restrict this asshole to 140 characters. Some of us
        don’t have enough time left to waste reading his protracted prose.

        • LC says:

          Feel free to skip it, rgr. No skin off my back. I’m wordy because I try to respond to all comments and give honest answers, as I see them, rather than just “LOL. U suck! Obama4life!”-type blathering.

          A civil discussion ain’t a bad thing.

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          Given some of my rather…. volumous posts, I really cannot throw any stones here.

          Nope.

          All of Sparta would be biting my thumb, I think…..

      • David says:

        The logical fallacy is that the left has openly stated that yes, they do want to take the guns (read the SAFE act, look at quotes from Feinstein et al) and it is only the constant vigilance of the Right and the knowledge that every move they make will be met with strong resistance that keeps them from trying to finish the job. Look at the back-door maneuvers like taking gun rights away from SS or Veteran’s benefits who have issues with math and money management. Or are bulimic, or anorexic. Or from anyone who has been secretly denounced to a do-not-fly list, or anyone who even has the same NAME as someone on the do-not-fly list. They’re trying, all right.

      • Ex-PH2 says:

        A – The ‘crazy’ ones who jump up and down are the loudest, LC, hence their repeated appearances in the media which fixates on sensationalism and bloodthirst.

        B – Try editing your copy down to fewer explanatories and use a vocabulary that has more impact and higher insight.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        I actually coexist with a bunch of lefty gun owners, quite peacefully. We have epic debates that end in dramatic non-violence.

        Apparently at least some of us can all get along. Huh. So much for stereotypes all around.

        What strains the brain are the ones that utterly fail to see the need to reign in their colleagues that truly do want to ban/confiscate/etc. Some really do not see that “it is a good first step”, endlessly repeated, is rather accurately understood as “and there will be many many more steps”. Becasue there is -always- a “next step”.

        Privilege =/= Right

  20. Toasty Coastie says:

    I rolled my eyes so hard after reading this, that I am now looking out of my ears.

  21. Silentium Est Aureum says:

    Again, it ain’t the tool, it’s the tool wielding it. Take away the guns, and these douchebags will just use something else, as Jonn has mentioned.

    • Ex-RM says:

      Exactly. The individual resided in my State and made a decision to travel to Virgina for whatever reason to “work on Tax issues” according to his Wife. Instead, he chose a tool to complete a heinous act. If it wasn’t a firearm – he’d have found another way.

      Rhetoric on both sides is rising, me thinks a lot of these “sound bites” will end up as Re-Election fundraising or speech stumping quotes.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      They cant even take away the guns, effectively like they say they will.. France and Germany are not exactly “permissive” environments for modern sporting arms.

      France especially seems awash in bootleg Kalashnikovs.

      And the ban in New York has a compliance rate of what, ten percent? Aussies seem to have “misplaced” a great number of banned items. I guess they are as lousy about tipping canoes as folks elsewhere.

      No black man carrying a repeating rifle and ammunition was ever lynched. No Jew armed and willing ever walked into a gas chamber.

  22. Perry Gaskill says:

    It’s apparent Dreiser is weak on the subject. Two of the clearest errors are the reference to the AR-15 instead of the SKS, and an additional reference, complete with a non sequitur reference to climate deniers, that the only opponents to stricter gun control are a small fanatic faction within the NRA.

    Call it unfair, but every time I run across an academic of a certain age, one who takes a certain political tack, I can’t help but check their bio for ’60s credentials. In this instance, our Occidental College prof apparently had, no surprise, a student deferment while some of the rest of us were in the land of tall grasses and live rounds. Such things can make you wonder if Dreiser was a big fan of John Lennon back in the day, and still fantasizes about oiling up Yoko before having a frank, clothing-optional, discussion about world peace.

    Yet another problem with people like Dreiser is that what they often really want is the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, but are cowards, and won’t come out and say it.

    • rgr769 says:

      I never understood exactly why the Proggies do what they do or say until I read that article on the history of “Critical Theory.” Now it all makes sense. Everyone here should read it and then you will understand why Dreiser and his ilk do what they do.

    • Poetrooper says:

      Perry, one reason that the Left has no problem with guns being outlawed is that they have no problem with obtaining them criminally should the need arise. The Left has never considered criminality as out of bounds-Stalin robbed banks as a young revolutionary-when it is necessary to support their Glorious Revolution.

      Hard core communists know they would have a ready and steady supply of weaponry from both China and Russia should open hostilities break out in America.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        there is also the weird belief that the laws will only be applied to “those” people.

      • 11B-Mailclerk says:

        I find the whole “Commie Gun market in the USA” amusing.

        For -decades- various elements of, shall we say, “hostile foreign powers”, were all too eager to sell us arms by the shipload, anywhere from obsolete relics to reasonably modern and newly made stuff.

        I sometime wonder if they really thought they were arming “revolutionary/progressive elements” here, not realizing that the average AK/SKS/Moisin buyer was about a “Progressive” as Archie Bunker.

        “Comrade. I do not understand. We have armed the American masses to the teeth, and they just seem to be even more loyal to the regressive Bourgeois oppressors. It makes no sense! There should be revolution in the streets!”

  23. GDContractor says:

    Just one year ago, our own Lars Taylor was blaming a multiple fatality shooting on “a self-loathing homophobe”. Even HE understood it’s not about the guns.

  24. CPT11A says:

    “It accommodates high-capacity magazines that can fire off 100 rounds or more within minutes.”

    This is a really dumb sentence, especially leading into his statement that it is a quasi military gun. WTF is that? We’ve got 12 gauges and M9s in our arms rooms- should we ban those now too since they’re a bit more than quasi?

    Also, with prep, I could fire a 100 rounds out of my USP in minutes. Not an objective measure in any sense, but I think he realizes people are getting sick of conflating semi-autos and autos, so he’s finding a new way to make semis seem more dangerous than they actually are.

  25. The Old Maj says:

    “This is a really dumb sentence, especially leading into his statement that it is a quasi military gun. WTF is that? We’ve got 12 gauges and M9s in our arms rooms- should we ban those now too since they’re a bit more than quasi?”

    Seriously? Of course he is in favor of banning the military assault shotgun and the military assault pistol. Almost any dempol will tell you the same thing.

  26. bg2 says:

    It is all about politics, not guns, as the title of this post states. Here’s an interesting tidbit appearing to prove the point involving the uber-political Mark Kelly (Giffords’ husband): http://tucson.com/news/local/tucson-gun-store-owner-cancels-mark-kelly-s-ar-/article_65e90fa2-95a8-11e2-89fd-0019bb2963f4.html

  27. The Old Maj says:

    I am curious from the article what has been done to make it easier for fugitives to purchase guns? Although one of the questions is “Are you a fugitive from justice?” I don’t think that one ever got answered with a YES.

    • Fyrfighter says:

      And don’t forget, “unca” Joe Biden said the govt doesn’t have time to waste tracking down those who lie in the 4473 form

    • Jonn Lilyea says:

      I think he was referring to the attempt to use the no-fly list in NICS checks.

      • The Old Maj says:

        So, people on the no fly list are fugitives from justice? We need to get Tom Cruise and the pre-crime unit on it right away. They could have stopped Omar Mateen

        • 11B-Mailclerk says:

          The core idea, is to cast in stone the legislative principle that firearms are a highly restricted privilege subject to as much limitation as the least tolerant politician cares to allow.

          Once they separate “right” from “keep and bear arms”, then the see a clear path to achieving that total restrictive control.

          Privilege does not equal Right.

  28. Jonp says:

    My wife heard one reporterette say the gunman had an AR-15 and an “assault pistol”. She looked at me and I said maybe he had an Uzi or a 10in barreled ar. We looked at each other and laughed. Too much credit.

    I was rather miffed at Sen Paul who gave an interview and said the guy was “shooting at them with an AR-15”. I threw the flag immediately. In a high stress environment with the guy behind a fence there was no way he identified the firearm that guy had. At least it wasnt an AK-47 and a glock

  29. Jonn Lilyea says:

    Daily Caller is reporting that the FBI found a wishlist of targets on the body of the gunman. The targets, of course, were Republicans.

  30. Just An Old Dog says:

    Interestingly enough Bernie Sander’s wife ( correctly in my opinion) blamed the shooting on the media, who she says fans the flames of discord.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *