The Opposition

Alex Jones and Matt Drudge are two peas in a pod today.

I welcome this sort of unhinged comparison because it only makes the opposition to responsible gun control look that much more ridiculous.

As long as Wayne LaPierre, Drudge, Jones, and the maniacal Ted Nugent are the face of guns, we have a better chance of changing things. And it’s ironic because I’m sure that’s not their intention.

Print Friendly
This entry was posted in Guns and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • Draxiar

    They want so badly to believe that President Obama will take away their guns…all guns, every gun…from BB Guns to Peter Gunn. They NEED to believe this I think because it gives them some sense of identity in their pathetic and squishy life. It will also allow them to project (as it is clearly in the picture above) on to Obama who they think he ‘really’ is. Won’t they be disappointed when he defies their projected expectation.

    What a sorry ass way to live your life…always in fear.
    Interesting they feature a Communist and Fascist in the same picture, eh?

    • BD

      The characters are used to exemplify tyrants.
      Both Communism and Fascism are forms of socialism. They just have different ways of implementing their form of socialism, but in the end millions are starved, murdered or indoctrinated to perform such acts while those funding (banking cartels) and those ruling get to dictate to you what is right and what is wrong.
      And the way such power is achieved eventually comes down to who is armed and who is not. Those who are not either flee or become victims of democide. Hence, tyrannical governments (redundant term) always seek to disarm their populace. The trick is to do it slow enough that the populace doesn’t realize it (soft tyranny).

      • villemar

        Since any form of government whatsoever=socialism, when will you be moving to Mogadishu to finally be free of it’s horrible jackbooted yoke?

      • Draxiar

        I understand the point of showing both. However, neither apply to the current situation…at all.
        In addition to that I was gently poking fun at folks that so often label someone (ex. POTUS) as both “Hitler and Stalin” not realizing they’re on opposite ends of the political spectrum.

  • mrbrink

    They’re all in the same leaking life raft paddling toward the shores of Lord Of The Flies Island. Ted Nugent is already their Secretary of Conch Shell Management.

    If their idea for doing something about school shootings is to blame video games, and mentally unstable people, and moral decay, or the moral decay of mentally unstable people playing video games and armed guards in public schools it’s like they’re telling us that,

    1) Mentally ill people are a blight on their cultural and heritage and greatly diluting the purity of their community.

    2) There’s not enough God and fear in public schools, and society in general.

    3) Moral decay can be restored if we just eliminate, or cleanse liberals, gays, women’s rights, union rights, and freedom from religion from their ideal society.

    4) A military police state presence in public schools is nothing at all like something a bat shit crazy authoritarian regime would do.

    5) Freedom is always preserved at the end of a gun, and civilian mass shootings are just another day at the freedom factory.

  • BD

    And yet so little is ever said about the innocent children murdered by our President and his drone strikes. It is governments which murder tens of millions of people, not peaceful armed citizens. When the people of nations are systematically disarmed by their rulers, mass genocide follows.
    Everyone wants to make villains out of gun owners as if THEY killed these children, when in reality it was a criminal thief who murdered these children.
    Assholes like Morgan have wackjob misinformation agents on o discredit an ideal of liberty. But liberty can not and will not exist if individuals are robbed of their right to defend themselves against anyone and any number of aggressors.
    Morgan also neglects to reveal the surge in crime after confiscation laws happened in Britain and conveniently gives an isolated statistic for gun related murder. What about violent crime in general, what about the women raped and/or murdered because they were forbidden to defend themselves? There is no mention of Switzerland which has the lowest crime rate in Europe, and is second in the world, with the entire population (households) armed.
    What these propagandists do is push their agenda through demagoguery. What about the children? They want to let our children be murdered.
    In reality, nearly every mass shooting occurs in gun-free zones. But, this does not fit the script of the medias agenda and therefore has little to no mentioning.

    • http://www.politicalruminations.com/ nicole

      Oh, please….you act as if the gun owners in this country, the whackaloons who insist on their right to bear arms as if they really don’t fucking understand that the 2nd Amendment was intended to create a militia, and was not created to arm every moron in the country that thinks it makes him more manly to buy an arsenal.

      STFU, already! More people are murdered in this country on an annual basis than people that are killed by U.S. drones. And that number of the victims of gun violence in the good old US of A includes CHILDREN, and those children are who your shriveled little backwater heart should be bleeding for.

      Gun control is coming. Get used to the idea, and if you don’t like it, leave the country.

      • BD

        “Oh, please….you act as if the gun owners in this country, the whackaloons who insist on their right to bear arms”
        A broad generalization of the character of a specific demographic. If the “wackaloons” are in fact mentally disturbed (as your descriptor indicates), and this generalization would be applied to the majority of gun owners, would there not be millions of these crimes committed (based on the tens of millions in ownership of firearms)? Your childish name calling towards those which believe that every man and women have the right to defend themselves against ANY enemy is disgustingly amoral.
        ” as if they really don’t fucking understand that the 2nd Amendment was intended to create a militia, and was not created to arm every moron in the country that thinks it makes him more manly to buy an arsenal.”
        A piece of paper written and authorized by a ruling elite hundreds of years ago does not, by any means, dictate to me as a free human being a moral, ethical or just society. Furthermore, the purpose to have armed individuals, as established by the revolutionary war, was to enable the capability of the inhabitants of a region to resist an oppressive force (typically a government). It seems that you believe that only the most vile and corrupt of society can own or employ firearms. That being the mafia entity known as government.
        “STFU, already! More people are murdered in this country on an annual basis than people that are killed by U.S. drones.”
        Firearm homicides; Number of deaths: 11,493; Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.7 [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm]
        So at a number of say, 12,000 murders by drones (or more congruent, >3.7% population), you would then NOT justify the murder of innocent people? What a fucking disgusting display of contempt for human life.
        “And that number of the victims of gun violence in the good old US of A includes CHILDREN, and those children are who your shriveled little backwater heart should be bleeding for.”
        Demagoguery. Now I understand your intellectual capacity.
        First, drone strikes murder innocent children as well. If you are not aware of this I suggest you explore alternative sources of international news. Second, you make a regional assumption with the “backwater” statement. But, those without intellectual abilities will result to such things. My position on your gun control agenda does not in any way diminish my emotional response to such a situation and its victims. To claim such would show your dishonesty in proper debate.
        “Gun control is coming. Get used to the idea, and if you don’t like it, leave the country.”
        Ahhhh. The tireless ‘if you don’t like it (tyranny/oppression/murder/theft) you can get the fuck out’. How “backwater” of you. How about a little project: look up those countries which throughout history invoked gun confiscation laws. Start here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north367.html).
        You might find a very high tendency towards genocide/democide.
        I suggest that you use actual substantial arguments in lieu of derogatory and generalized statements.
        You have yet to touch on any of my points, but rather use the typical liberal demagoguery of “what about the children” and the irrational association of gun owners as mentally ill “wackaloons”.

        • villemar

          “That being the mafia entity known as government.” Again, when will you be moving to Mogadishu? Or are you writing this from Mogadishu? How’s the cholera this time of year?

        • Victor_the_Crab

          All that typing, and you’re still a retard.

        • Treading_Water

          If you actually believe that this government is involved in tyranny/oppression/murder/theft and you’re response is only to become a keyboard guerrilla, then you’re just a feckless coward without the courage to act on your convictions. Why aren’t you actively opposing this tyranny? Where are the IED’s? Where is your principled stance in the real world? Bravely commanding the Keyboard Kommandos won’t cut it. We had an assault weapons and high capacity magazines ban in place for 10 years, and no one established any gulags or concentration camps, and the country didn’t descend into a post apocalyptic hellworld of gun free zones. As a society, we already accept that some weapons do not belong in the hands of citizens. That’s the price you pay for living in a democracy. We, the people, get to decide the laws that govern our society, and reasonable gun safety regulations have majority support.

          • BD

            “If you actually believe that this government is involved in tyranny/oppression/murder/theft and you’re response is only to become a keyboard guerrilla, then you’re just a feckless coward without the courage to act on your convictions.”

            Says the coward who would rather employ a mafia government force to take peoples earnings as opposed to having the integrity to steal from the victim directly and face to face. You must be completely blind to the actions of the state or a sociopathic apologist for its crimes. Please have the integrity to “act on your convictions” by walking down the street, knocking on a neighbors door and demand that you are there to collect a fee for existence and any resistance will result in my throwing you in cage or killing you with my armed agents. This is your stance on civility and I urge YOU to have “the courage to act on your convictions.”

            “Why aren’t you actively opposing this tyranny? Where are the IED’s? Where is your principled stance in the real world? Bravely commanding the Keyboard Kommandos won’t cut it.”

            I must assume from this statement that all your solutions rely upon force/coercion/aggression. Instead of having debate, discussion and ration thought practice, you claim that unless I am “actively opposing” my oppressors I have no principled stance (laughable). What is active opposition? Must I murder to meet your obligation or sit in a drum circle complaining? I wish to debate and have rational discussions based on the human element of reason. We can rid the nation of every scumbag politician but unless the individuals have an actual principled approach to civilization, the same scum will rise to the top. You support a system of force. I advocate a society based on voluntary association, but you seem to object to such a notion…sadly.

            “We had an assault weapons and high capacity magazines ban in place for 10 years, and no one established any gulags or concentration camps, and the country didn’t descend into a post apocalyptic hellworld of gun free zones.”

            So because this did not occur (and you might recognize that gun ownership was not eliminated), you will dismiss historical evidence. What happened to Japanese Americans during WW2? Ohhh, they were taken from their homes and placed in the euphemistically named “internment camps”. Really this was racial, false imprisonment…but such things are obviously permitted in your view of society and what you consider civilized.

            “As a society, we already accept that some weapons do not belong in the hands of citizens. That’s the price you pay for living in a democracy. We, the people, get to decide the laws that govern our society, and reasonable gun safety regulations have majority support.”

            Good old majority rule! So glad that you subscribe to such tyrannical and oppressive tactics. If you don’t like the choices I make in life, you claim the rights to have a greater number of people decide my fate, and in doing so violate my free will. Thank you so much master. How about this one, let’s get a majority rule to proclaim that one man can own another based on skin color…oh, wait…

            Why must I pay the price for your majority rule?

            “The principle that the majority have a right to rule the minority, practically resolves all government into a mere contest between two bodies of men, as to which of them shall be masters, and which of them slaves.” –Lysander Spooner

    • villemar

      There’s nothing stopping you from moving to Waziristan or Mogadishu.

    • mrbrink

      A stun gun is less lethal and still delivers all your protection needs.

      Maybe a crossbow, or a really good samurai sword for hunting.

      The only thing preventing bands of thugs from taking what you have right now isn’t the gun in your holster. It’s Beldar’s Law, which states: “If I did not fear incarceration from human authority figures, I would terminate your life functions by applying sufficient pressure to your blunt skull so as to force its collapse!”

      Rule of law is like your silent Captain America deterring all would be marauders from ganking your shit and pissing in your face.

      You’re not a crime deterrent, nor is your gun the solution to government tyranny. The same government that you think you’re protecting yourself from is the same government that protects you.

      How’s that?

      • BD

        “A stun gun is less lethal and still delivers all your
        protection needs.”

        Wow. If this is true then there should be no resistance in the attempt to arm police officers with only stun guns, since it still delivers all the protection they need. After all they are encountering the criminals which act upon peaceful citizens, right? Think this one through genius, how many criminals can an individual ward-off with a single stun gun. Pretty ridiculous position and solution.

        “Maybe a crossbow, or a really good samurai sword for
        hunting.”

        The fact that you believe the right to bear arms is intended for hunting shows your lack of intelligence and your ability to be easily indoctrinated by your rulers and their propaganda. And yes, I understand that you are being facetious with this statement but the intent remains the same.

        The only thing preventing bands of thugs from taking what you have right now isn’t the gun in your holster. It’s Beldar’s Law, which states: “If I did not fear incarceration from human authority figures, I would terminate your life functions by applying sufficient pressure to your blunt skull so as to force its collapse!”

        Sad that you subscribe to the belief that the entire human race is inevitably evil. Furthermore, you believe that the evil must be guarded against by the very same evil element but with some sort of justification for one group of thugs over another. Government is force and there is no difference between that and another form of criminality…except for most criminals do not violate you and say it is for your own good.

        “Rule of law is like your silent Captain America deterring all would be marauders from ganking your shit and pissing in your face. You’re not a crime deterrent, nor is your gun the solution to government tyranny.”

        Rule of law is based on the individuals which make up society and right now the populace seems to be content with a ruling elite dictating to them what is right and what is wrong and how individuals which deviate from these rulings are punished (often referred to as justice). I do not need to be a deterent for crime, just allowed the ability to protect myself and those I love. You wish to eliminate this ability and that makes you a disgusting individual. Thoughts, ideas and reason are the solution to government tyranny, it is an armed populace which should guard against and deter it.

        “The same government that you think you’re protecting
        yourself from is the same government that protects you.”

        If you wish to believe in such a fallacy. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Warren v. the District of Columbia, where the ruling stated that no government official or employee is obligated to protect a citizen. So we’re obligated (through coercion) to fund a government which holds no obligation to protect us? Sounds like something you would support. IF the state is assumed to be legitimate (which it is not), then it must exist in a reciprocal relation, otherwise one group is a slave and the other a slave master. There is no reciprocity on their part as numerous judicial cases exemplify. You are a slave, but the best kind because you will oppose those which oppose your master…a useful idiot one might say.

        “How’s that?”

        That’s serfdom! And you love it…

        • villemar

          Is the rent reasonable in Mogadishu?

        • mrbrink

          “how many criminals can an individual ward-off with a single stun gun.”

          Go get em’, tiger! All those criminals lining up outside your door aren’t going to shoot themselves.

          “Sad that you subscribe to the belief that the entire human race is inevitably evil.”

          You’re too stupid to be taken seriously.

          I don’t need a gun exactly because I don’t believe the human race is “inherently evil.” Quite the contrary.

          You, on the other hand, see inherent evil everywhere.

          The evils in all of your government representatives, in your mooching neighbors, the police who actually confront criminals, the inherent evil of the constitution, the inherent evil of rule of law rule, and all the inherent evil in the eyes of all the killers and crooks you’re prepared to shoot down to justify your existence.

          I’m missing the Django Unchained thread for this shit.

          • BD

            “You, on the other hand, see inherent evil everywhere.”
            I see the evils of a manipulated society which forces children into government indoctrination centers so that they grow up to perpetuate the evils of the state. Five year old children understand that stealing and violence is wrong until the system you promote and defend uses state propaganda to make them believe that theft and murder is right if performed by your rulers. Teaching them that every relation in society is by choice except that of the government which is nothing more than force and coercion. You will not address these points and would rather watch your Hollywood indoctrination where the 1% can use gun violence to earn money and then have the audacity to lecture the American people about gun violence and the need for a “plan”.
            Fucking pathetic!

          • mrbrink

            So, just to be clear, you see inherent evils everywhere.

            Got it.