And another delivery of culture war hoohah splatters on the doorstep like a wet cow pie.

The 1% thanks you.

the first two are statements of fact.

"Quibble with every statistic cited, especially those presented without analysis or advocacy."-- So I'm supposed to take every bogus statistic at face value?

"Quibble with incorrect vocabulary, especially about technical terms and imprecisely defined names such as "assault weapon"." Actually yes, since it is a propaganda term designed to manipulate the unthinking.

I speak ill of all violence, and

Name a single fake Hitler quote? Oh wait, just like number two, just accept whatever what tell you.

This is the focused group "concentrate on emotions instead of getting bogged down in policy" created by intelligent PR people.
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf

Jay's version is the very dumbed down version.

both are meant to deceive and manipulate.

And follow the TOS of this group as ardently as you demand it be done in your playground.

I am open to your interpretationof how this fits ....

Did it make you throw up a little to even type out liberal gun owner? Do you actually believe we exist?

But then again, I guess you have to know the intellectual level of your audience and gun controllers seem to work best with short sentences and lots of cartoons.

Hell, Bansalot still has a guy defending Michael Bellisles of Arming America infamy as his hero, because in his opinion, he was mostly right even when he used imaginary records for his data.

Keep it simple, dumb it down and use lots of cartoons. That will work.

Pro-controllers arguing a point then being met with an opposing argument and then reasserting their original point along with a dose of grousing over the fact anyone had the temerity to offer a debate in the first place.

It bespeaks a troubling degree of self-anointed superiority.

How is this a point of contention? Those intent on rape, robbery, assault and murder will commit their acts regardless of the law and in fact do so in spite of the law.


It's true. The creator of this silly graphic is offering a complaint, not a refutation.


Gun controllers seem to be the antithesis of liberality.


Not one controller will engage in an effort to define the terms and how many childhood deaths constitute a sufficient threshold to legislate. The reason they will not, I honestly believe, is they know that if the standard were applied elsewhere it would be their on ox being gored.


No one has made this argument, ergo it is a straw man, i.e. a lie.

The party responsible for the bullet's behavior is the person in control of the gun at the time of firing.


Human rights should never be ceded no matter how many silly graphics are posted to the internet bemoaning the defense of such rights.

The author is also a tremendous hypocrite considering they have already resorted to insults and lies.

That the OP who deliberately uses sexist insults and bans people making genuine rebuttals is rather amazing in its blatancy.


1. The pro-Controllers seem adverse to finding statistics free of advocacy. That's why pro-RKBA'ers "quibble"

2. NOT analyzing data is the first step to not understanding an issue.



Well-constructed pun notwithstanding, when a party demands the power to regulate, fine, arrest, try and imprison with the power to exert deadly force against any who resist -- yeah, you should know what you're talking about and be absolutely precise in defining the terms under which such power will be employed.


Yet, the author seems to think the 2A is unambiguous in his favor and his interpretation is sacrosanct to the point he should be allowed to employ lethal force to confiscate, fine and imprison people.


Uh -- yeah. The Federalist Papers and other such documents are the single greatest collection of "Don't trust government" documents ever assembled. The entire Constitution is constructed to inhibit government power.

I can't decide who should be more embarrassed, the author or the OP.


Why are the people seeking to defend themselves from the violent in our society always targeted for these screeds but the actual criminals never bothered?

And I doubt the author -- or the OP -- have ever met a gun control law they never liked, including the idea of confiscation.


The entire graphic is riddled with fake quotes.

How did unarmed Jews fair? How could armed Jews have suffered any worse?


I think the term the author is looking for is "propaganda."

caused by the misuse of firearms by posting this document containing the anthropomorphized graphic of a pitcher of fruit flavered water?

By the way, the author of this document does not know the difference between 'insure' and 'ensure'.

These armed Jews saved 1200:

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007563

No one is suggesting that armed Jews could have "prevented the Holocaust." However, armed Jews had a chance at saving themselves and others. Unarmed Jews had none.