The blame game gets even more crazy

Post Reply New Topic

If it makes you feel any better, Jesse Kelly is a neocon and an idiot. Him posing as a Tea Partier is a joke. Sarah Palin's act isn't much better. It's unlikely he had any effect on Loughner at all however.

Yes, but it has on others.

The escalation is a problem for both sides and the partisanship only makes it worse. An unwillingness to criticize those on your wing of politics isn't strength or unity; it's a weakness of character.

Slightest law that might pertain to guns huh? Slippery slope? Incrementalism? Do these words ring a bell? And yeah, political scapegoating isn't so when I do it . No one's playing victim, the right wing is being accused of being responsible for the murders and it's not playing victim to refuse to be held responsible for something you weren't directly involved in.

Funny how you're telling him to shut the f**k up when you've quoted that same article a million times. Conservative is political for "ret*d"? Then why do so many liberals believe in such ridiculous Hollywood myths about guns? Not that I think they're all ret*d, but if you're gonna sling s**t, understand that s**t goes both ways.

Pistol grips make it easier to empty clips from hips! They also make em easier to hold one handed so it gives double the firepower! Yeeeaahhh those crazy bastards will worry more about black hands than black helicopters once we remove barrel shrouds! I think big scary muzzle suppressors hide muzzle flashes at night, yet I can easily spot the flare of a dollar store flashlight!

Guns not only give people a means to defend themselves from crooks and foreign invaders, they also give em the means to overthrow the government should the government become tyrannical. And no, that doesn't mean rising up in arms just because you disagree, but doing when it becomes tyrannical to the extent of dictatorship. Outlawing guns completely is seen as an incremental step to that. A lot of people think the part about overthrowing the government is crazy since the government's got tanks, bombs, planes, etc. First off, bombing its own population would be impractical since the government would be destroying part of the infrastructure of society, which means they can't keep tabs on people, they lose means of intel, and they lose the means of transportation as well as having to waste money cleaning up that mess.

Also, tyrants are usually about keeping people subservient than trying to kill every last one of em. Secondly, they must become tyrannical incrementally, not just right off the bat. They must set it up first, eliminate the checks and balances, and then go in for the power grab.

They're not gonna have s**t storm troopers and tanks on the streets telling everyone to bow down or die, they're gonna politely go door to door after they get the laws enacted and ask you to hand your guns over. To get tanks and soldiers on the streets abruptly isn't gonna happen if the system has too many checks and balances. So the first priority would be to eliminate those checks and balances first.

Also, not everyone in the military or law enforcement is gonna blindly obey the government. So as long as everyone else has guns, there's a means to other types of weapons as well. If there's a will there's a way.

No s**t you don't see the left pushing for gun rights, cuz THEY'RE AGAINST EM. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. I'm sure the left would start pushing for social programs if there's the slightest laws that might pertain to em. The association of guns with political change has to do with maintaining the checks and balances within the government rather than killing everyone they disagree with.

btw, I've caught a left wing bias in it that isn't so apparent in the article. Whenever a far left winger starts shooting people up, it's cuz of an indignant response to vile right wing rhetoric, a poor middle class resident that loses his home or pension, or someone who's child died from some evil insurance company . The only thing that's really fair is the part about the radical environmentalist.

But wait, whenever a far right winger does it, it's cuz they're doing the bidding of right wing news outlets and pushing 2nd amendment activism . I can't believe I didn't catch this slant earlier. Oh, and I love how the article says ".308 rifle with armour piercing bullets". Typical left wing fear mongering. All f*****g rifle rounds can penetrate kevlar, so if you're gonna say "armour piercing", then prove that the perp used black tipped bullets. They're pointless against kevlar since a regular FMJ can get the job done.

PS: I know it's a long ass post, so I bolded for convenience. Unlike you, I don't insult people's reading comprehension abilities cuz I understand that no one likes reading long posts. Plus dissecting a long post too much means you miss the forest for the trees, and that's what further complicates it.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 17 Jan 2011, 1:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Well I'm not from Tuscon so I can't really comment but I find it unlikely Jesse Kelly has influenced anyone to violence. From what I understand, that supposed "gun rally" never actually happened and that it was more of a fundraiser where you paid $60 bucks and you could shoot a M16(he's marine or something I guess) with him.

Cute picture, but that describes you a lot better than it does me.





Actually, I would think people would have more to worry about you having access to firearms than myself. I have a clear distinction of right and wrong and don't see people that happen to be successful as being evil. Further, using guns in the manner you seem to think I would would be playing into the far-left's narrative of conservatives.

With your little immature behavior, you have proven why the American People are throwing leftists out of office using the ballot box. I expect more of the loony left to be thrown out of office in 2012.

This is a fairy strange argument to make..

Rhetoric has had completely measurable effects on political violence. You know muslim radicals, right? The after-shocks of the French revolution. Hey, even I can name two examples in a couple of seconds. I do not think it makes sense to pretend that rhetoric cannoy cause violence and it is always just crazy people at fault.

Of course, banning violent rhetoric goes against free speech and all. That does not mean, we should not exert our own free speech to fully criticize such rhetoric. In fact, I think that it is really necessary to make sure that people like Palin understand that their actions and rhetoric have consequences. I for one would not like this rhetoric to get banned, but people who were so irresponsible, deserve their political images to get damaged for it.

@ Vexcalibur

The problem with your argument is that the term "violent rhetoric" is commonly used by people on the left to try to silence people on the right.

Yeah it might seem strange, but this is what I supported that statement with:



So that means pretty anything can set a mentally ill person off and we shouldn't have a false sense of security in the fact that rhetoric is the only thing that can fill the void where checks and balances are supposed to be.

Yeah I know about Muslim radicals, and the biggest reason for their countries being ruled by terrorists imposing Sharia law was cuz after the Soviets left, it left a void that the extremists filled. When you invade a country, you always wanna make sure its system has enough checks and balances before you leave. Come to think of it, this whole situation in the middle east and individual insanity are good metaphors for each other.

I'm not for silencing people who want to speak out against em, but I will use the same right to express my disgust at people who want to hold people directly responsible for the shootings when they weren't.



@ Inuyasha: I'm not surprised he's smearing you like that. Guns are some of the most myth ridden topics out there and it's one of the biggest reflections of whether or not a left winger is bullshitting to me. Matter of fact, it was the phrase ".308 rifle with armour piercing bullets" that raised an eyebrow for me in that article when they didn't even bother to prove that the bullets were marked with a black tip.

Kinda like the fear mongering about .50 calibre sniper rifles when those aren't even practical for criminal purposes. What kind of stupid f**k puts a 40 pound rifle in the trunk which lowers the suspension on the rear tires big time, drawing attention from the cops when a .308 or a .338 can get the job done just fine without making it look like you have kilos of coke in the trunk?

And yeah, I'm tired of the same old bull that it's all smooth sailing for the rich and that they all got rich through unethical means. Careers like entrepreneurship have low job security and don't have salaries or wages so there's a catch to having a potentially high return. They don't have a steady and fixed income, so they can't have their cake and eat it too.

Selfishness exists among all classes, so to project it exclusively on one class is very one-sided.

@ Ace Of Spades

I wasn't particularly surprised either, I actually found it kinda hysterical that he couldn't have been more original.

Anyways, it is the left's typical tactic of trying to smear people when they can't win an argument or demonize a group of people to distract the populace from their bad policies.

Violent rhetoric is merely a symptom of a greater sickness

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLAESY4EDLs[/youtube]

If taking away the violent rhetoric leaves you silent then you must not have anything of value to say.

Your definition of violent rhetoric would be whenever someone says something you disagree with.

Face it, you have lost all credibility. The funny thing is, in your rants you've actually proven Glenn Beck to be right. The more you spam and spew off at this point the more and more you vindicate Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Sarah Palin.

Your lamestream media went too far when they started accusing people before the victims were even in the hospital. They were so blatent and transparent in their attempts to politicize the shootings in Arizona that many people that thought Fox News wasn't trustworthy are taking a second look at Fox, because if the mainstream media was trying to smear people and accuse them as being accessories to murder, what else have they been lieing about.

Listen, I'm not opposed to using force against a government that is actually tyrannical. The problem I have is when people like Glenn Beck who would like to insinuate that the current administration is tyrannical because of health care reform. Yet, when polled, around 50% of the US population is actually supportive of health care reform. Therefore when right-wingers bring up the rhetoric of revolt against a tyrannical government in the context of the current health care legislation, they sound mighty belligerent. Might not the people who supported healthcare reform not also have guns? Might these people not appreciate thier little right wing insurrection? Or do these people want a civil war on their hands?

This is ironic.

As are most of his comments. Inuyasha appears to be among the most severely irony-impaired Aspies on this subforum.

It would be mildly amusing to create a poll of PPR comparing the credibility of Inuyasha against any one of the posters he has claimed has "no credibility." You, me, or marshall are the first three that come to mind as people who according to Inuyasha have been proven to have "no credibility." Such a poll might be skirting the limits of the ToS, though, since it could be perceived as a personal attack on Inuyasha.

I don't really care. I'm more concerned that one day one of these guys are gonna be the Byron Williams figure we find out about on the news or internet. What does one do, if anything with people who are so out of touch that you know merely from online interaction that they're out of touch.