Monday, October 19, 2015

"Want a gun? Take a bullet: Take this, gutless NRA cowards — you can have a gun, once you understand the pain of being shot."

How about instead we just shoot the tyrannical SOBs who want to take ours?


Unknown said...

Salon? I didn't think that garbage site still existed.

Steve said...

Want to be a member of the press? You have to get bashed over the head with a typewriter. Not a modern plastic one, mind you, but one of those old heavy steel ones.

Anonymous said...


Chiu ChunLing said...

You know, leaving aside the merits of this for a moment (I think it would also be a fine thing if only people who had been murdered by cops were allowed to make laws, after all) I'm struck by the naked hostility and fear which the writer had no shame of flaunting in lieu of a rational argument about the right of people to defend themselves.

I've been struck by motor vehicles a number of times (internationally, even), and I think we should also make it illegal for anyone that hasn't been run over to drive any vehicle. Falling tree limbs and chainsaws, death threats and internet access, being attacked with baseball bats and playing sports...I can think of all kinds of ways to use this principle to rewrite the laws so that most people aren't allowed to do things I can because they lack some relevant experience. Specifics of how to get those laws passed if we're relying on legislators who have been murdered by police are tricky, but I have some ideas.

But fundamentally, this sort of 'thinking' isn't very helpful. Because, like any other hyperbolic gun control suggestion (and most questions of government generally), it falls apart when you ask "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" In this particular case, we can translate that as, 'who shoots the cops?'

It is absolutely necessary to answer that question before the proposal that we actually start making being shot a requirement for bearing a firearm can be discussed in a rational, enforcible context. Until then, such a proposal is just an exercise in 'deniable' malediction. Because if you send disarmed cops to try and take guns from people actually willing to commit violent crimes against defenseless citizens, most of them won't go, and those who do won't survive.

Anonymous said...

See it?
Present the notion that a "license" to carry is absolutely legit, and present a foolhardy notion to argue about. This is how these pukes operate. They tender one thing and then something stupid to "lose" all the while "winning" the premise that "licenses" themselves are right and proper. Heck, some of those arguing will be conned into supporting the initial premise as they argue against the "getting shot" part.

Of course, this is stemming from the Tazer aspect, where each person carrying a tazer takes a zap as part of being tasked with carrying one.

How about this - each and every "gun free zone" journalist must be subjected to a gunman shooting up everyone in a gun free zone - then they can argue the merits of gun free zones. How about that?

The idiocy is rising as they still try to use the old gameplan of presenting a false and flawed premise and then present an even worse token to be "lost" intentionally.

I piss on your permission slips AND your "take a bullet to get a license" bovine excrement too. Both are pathetic attempts to infringe.

Got it "Salon"?

Unclezip said...

I'm wondering who this little snowflake has in mind to pull the trigger.

Anonymous said...

I want him to have to get stabbed if he wants to own a kitchen knife.

Sean said...

You first, snowflake.

Anonymous said...

The writer is wacky as they come! Some of the mags he has written for.
A who's who of lefty propaganda slop!

"Watkins is a columnist for Salon magazine and his work has been published in The New York Times, The Guardian, NPR, The Rolling Stone, The Huffington Post, Aeon, AlterNet, The City Paper and other magazines.

Watkins currently holds a Master’s in Education from Johns Hopkins University and an MFA in Creative Writing from the University of Baltimore. He is a professor at Goucher University and runs a creative writing workshop at the Baltimore Free School. Watkins’ lives in east Baltimore."

Watkins here is a requirement to use your 1st amendment right- try to engage your simple brain before spouting such nonsense!

Anonymous said...

Crazy Salon Writer Who Wanted Gun Owners Shot Wrote That He Possessed Guns

Anonymous said...

I'm willing to shoot a duel with every anti-gunner. I have to like my odds....

Anonymous said...

Yup, insane. So before your son ever plays baseball he needs to be beat senseless by a baseball bat so he can know what its like if he ever decides to beat someone else and it will grant him the right to play baseball. A young girl needs to be stripped and humiulated and dressed with random clothes that dont match before she can own dolls, you need your leg run over by a car before you can drive cars, your eye gouged out before you can put on safety glasses, etc., etc., etc.

This is such insane drival that it is self discrediting to all but the sub 60 IQ crowd.

Anonymous said...

NEWS FLASH from the White House

Obama will sign a executive order forcing all gun owners to be shot at least once.
Your family Dr. will document the shooting in your medical record.

This order will also cause every military member to be shot before going to war.
All police officers will be shot twice just for good measure!

The new program will start this weekend with the members of the Secret Service who
protect the President. Obama and his wife will shoot them each once!

All children who participate in a shooting club at school will be shot with a 22 just to make the point!

This is what we who support the 2nd amendment have to deal with everyday. Absolute craziness from the ant-gun zealots who will say anything or write anything to attack us!

Anonymous said...

As a fellow kidney stone vet, I can attest to the brutal nature of the pain that accompanies that particular situation. I haven't been shot, bit it seems to me that not a lot in the world can surpass kidney stones. I once thought tooth pain was top of the heap, it is pretty vicious in its own right. I was wrong, and found out I was wrong, when Mr and Mrs Kidney stones decided to go out and play.

No doubt getting shot hurts, I would suppose it would depend on location as well.

But lets step back a minute to see - this whole discussion is just spaghetti sliding down a wall. None of it sticks and was never going to stick, so why write it to start with?
Then it becomes clear.
The controllers are getting really scared, so scared, that they will come out with this foolishness for one reason and one reason alone. They want to talk about ANYTHING except substance that has merit. Why? They KNOW they are LOSING. simple as that. Their only "win" can be avoiding the merit of substance entirely.

AuricTech said...

I understand why my previous comment on this post didn't pass moderation (I'm pretty sure I know which amendment caused it not to pass muster), so I'll just sum it up.

I commented on the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights, imagining if similarly painful prerequisites were applied for those wanting to exercise said rights.

Anonymous said...

I was at a protest last night in my home state. Yes I still go because I've always believed it's best to try to reason things out before things get kinetic. This was a peaceful protest, the event had actually been rescheduled because the organizers (gun grabbers) didn't want to face any opposition. The manager of the public facility asked us to leave because we were "causing a disturbance" which was clearly untrue but we moved to the sidewalk instead. The look on her face was one of loathing and fear. She was clearly bothered by the idea that there are individuals who will stand for their rights. In the parking lot a woman asked me what was going on. When I explained to her that Oligarch Bloomburg is pushing for more legislation to regulate guns she exclaimed "My girls are hunters! I can't believe they are doing this.". One more soul awakened.