I find this Hi-larious.
Follow up post here.
The NRA has apparently gone insane. I’m not sure if this is just basic stupidity or a crippling inability to listen to what you say, but damn.
First up is blaming a ‘culture of violence‘ via the media, music, and video games. Now, I do think that plastering Lanza and what he did all over the TV and web is going to push other nutters to try to one up him. However, if you view a body count as some sort of high score to be topped you have problems at the get go.
The main problem is the simple fact that the NRA is acting exactly like emotion driven liberals. ‘We, the NRA agree with gun control proponents that inanimate objects are the cause of violence. We simply are at odds as to what the specific object or objects happens to be.’
I enjoy action (read:violent) movies. I play violent video games and by this point have personally killed more Nazi soldiers than the entire Allied war machine. Blaming stuff I like is probably not the way to get my support any more than these fruits are going to convince me why I shouldn’t have a right to life. And yet… that wasn’t as bad as number two: Armed guards at public schools. Anyone remember the TSA? Bang up job right there, huh? Do we have any takers on how well TSA: Elementary Edition would do? I sort of like the idea of armed teachers. They stay in the damn classroom. Even guards would take a minute or two to get on the scene. (For those question how a psycho gets past the guards in the first place, remember: If someone wants to do something badly enough, they will.) Back to the packing teachers: Give them CCW classes. If they don’t pass or refuse to take them? FIRED! The background check might also weed out the pedophiles.
Of course the simplest and most beneficial course is to simply shutdown, sell, and or privatize the schools. Public schools are practically magnets for this shit. Meanwhile home schooled kids are safer by simple virtue of not being corralled in a handy shooting gallery. Plus the ever present threat of parents not taking kindly to a home intruder.
Merry Christmas ya filthy animals. And a Happy New Year.
In a location where the carrying of weapons for defense was prohibited tragedy has struck.
The modern church, or at least the more conservative part of it, has taken a principled stand against homosexuality. God forbids it and they won’t sit by while secular culture attempts to corrupt their institutions and the Word of God itself.
You duplicitous, hypocritical rat bastards! You sackless little bitches! You not only did nothing when the feminists came among you. You were actively helping in your own destruction! I look at the church and see nothing but simpering children trying to join the cool kids. You not only allow, but support women engaging in unrestrained hypergamy. And when they need it, you stand by with a kind word, assurances they have done no wrong, and church approval for tearing apart a family. You stand with unrepentant whores and congratulate yourselves when you help them destroy a man. Destroy him spiritually and financially.
The current Christian divorce rate is at about 38% compared to the roughly 50% of society at large. Do those numbers sound in line to the Biblical permissible reasons for divorce? Has every Church sanctioned divorce been due to adultery or a non-believer leaving a Christian? No. If that were the case we might see a divorce rate more in line with the Amish (2%).
Beyond just encouraging the baser natures of women, you raise them up as nigh living saints. Born with a tendency towards purity and worthy of a pedestal. You idolatrous traitors! What part of ‘Thou shalt have no gods before Me’ has you baffled? You contort and twist the words of Ephesians chapter 5. Statements so simple and presented so plainly in black and white that they wouldn’t be misunderstood on a short bus!
And so, why should anyone take this moral pose seriously. If you are willing to so casually cast aside one command from God Himself, why wouldn’t you do it again? And you will. Some of you already have. Make no mistake, you have bent your knees to the whims of capricious and vacuous fools and you will do it again. Next will be homosexuality. Then…who knows? Polygamy, necrophilia, pedophilia, incest, bestiality. One by one you would stand and watch and smile. You will do nothing. And then be amazed, oh slack jawed fools, when times change and you find yourselves cast out into the darkness.
Woe to you, iniquitous snakes. It may not happen often, but when the House of God is cleaned it tends to be scrubbed raw.
At the gas station I noticed a sign that read:
Buying tobacco and alcohol for minors isn’t just wrong, it’s illegal.
Being me, I looked at it logically. Is there anything inherently morally wrong with someone under 18 smoking or drinking. If so, most of humanity for the greater part of our history have been constantly and consistently immoral. And in many countries still are. Especially in regard to the drinking bit.
Yes, yes. I know it really is nit-picky. It’s just a dumb sign in a mini mart, but the thinking behind it, rampant these days, is important. The sign, in a roundabout way, says the state is the arbiter of morality. Furthermore, that which is illegal is worse than the simply immoral. This is a problem these days. Something being illegal has no bearing on whether or not it is wrong. Certainly we hope the two meet regularly, but moral laws and the laws of man are not one and the same.
Cars are pretty damn dangerous, but we let kids go at 16 in that case. I’ve heard the argument for putting the drinking age under the driving age on a simple basis. Let people get used to, and understand the effects of alcohol, before we put them behind the wheel of a two ton vehicle capable of slamming through the walls of a house.
See, this is the sort of thinking that happens when you read the classics. And we can’t have that sort of anti-authoritarian extremism, now can we?
1. Mexico does not allow private ownership of guns. Switzerland all but requires it. An interested party might look into the history of the two places and draw conclusions.
2. Read part 2. I feel I should note: even if private ownership of weapons resulted in the type of citizen on citizen violence the cretins claim should happen, (which it doesn’t, as violent crimes go down in states that stop using the law to prevent individuals from defending themselves) it would not change the view of any logical right thinking person. There are some threats that warrant certain risks. The threat of a government is one.
Although the title is correct in general terms, what brought it to my mind was the Denver theater shooting. I’ll split it into two parts, plus have another post up at Path to Patriarchy to explore a different, albeit related, topic.
My first point will be what I tend to think of as ‘Bully Progression’. The idea that if a bully finds his tactics have high efficacy he is not only unlikely to stop, but will increase his bullying in both frequency and intensity. To put it simply, if violence is an effective means to some end in middle school, our hypothetical bully won’t magically stop in high school. Now, this is a pivotal point. Not every asshole will become a thug, we would have far too much to consider. Socio-economics, demographics of the city, school and neighborhood, the race of the individual… and so on and so forth. But none of that is the point of this post.
A bully is best served by being shown that his actions have consequences. It could be a talk with a parent or teacher or at the other extreme it might be getting an ass kicking from a potential victim that doesn’t take shit. Either way the child is learning that certain actions have extreme consequences. However, if this particular lesson isn’t learned there is a chance of future thuggery. And at some point it is entirely possible, especially in a country with something like 250 mil privately owned firearms, that this theoretical thug will make the mistake of a accosting an individual willing and capable of resisting with lethal force.
Now then, we have those who suggest making private ownership of firearms illegal to reduce the incidence of violence against the innocent. Laughable, as many items are illegal and yet still attainable with minimal effort. Look at the ‘war on drugs’. Not only are drugs easy to get, money is being sent to drug cartels. Not exactly the sort we want to be making rich.
Why would making guns ownership a crime do any good. The cartels already have weapons, they would just start selling some of them to increase profits on a new front.
Of course, reading the news after the theater shooting has shown that rather large number of the populace seems to be aware of the fact that restricting guns was one of the problems. They couldn’t shoot back. Even someone who had a gun with them (illegally) would have to consider the cost of saving strangers being potential jail time.
I know, this has been something of a rambling post, but I think that it can be seen that I have demonstrated two particular ways that liberal socialism is responsible for treating instigators of violence with a light hand and disarming potential victims. Next comes a much more important topic.