This is a country that fought it's revolution over being taxed without representation. It isn't shocking that some would be angry over a violation of their Constitutionally afforded rights through a unilateral executive order.
No one faults gun rights advocates for caring fetishistically about their guns. I mean, that's a problem - maybe we can solve it by improving mental health treatment, like the gun rights advocates (not at all concern-trollingly) themselves advocate - but the OP isn't taking issue with their peculiar focus.
What the OP is criticizing, and I think rightly, is the notion that a bad gun control bill could even plausibly be taken as cause for armed insurrection. I mean, look - we still have a largely functioning democratic process. It is through that process that we come to a consensus on what policies we implement. If someone loses in that process, the answer is and always should be to work through that process to try to change the result. If your representative votes for a bill you don't like, then vote against them. If that's not sufficient, you can advocate amongst your community to try to sway minds toward your position. If that doesn't work, there are still other options
( ... )
But, again - nothing about current circumstances suggests that this is the case.
I would disagree in very few very specific circumstances. The irony, though, is that these circumstances are largely supported by the fetishistic gun community.
What the OP is criticizing, and I think rightly, is the notion that a bad gun control bill could even plausibly be taken as cause for armed insurrection.
The problem being that these people are not upset about a bad gun control bill, but they are upset over the threat of an executive order to restrict their rights.
Those secure in their manhood would have no problem. The color only matters in camo situations (that is, how many like to, er, head to the White Swallow while concealing their wife and family at home).
Maybe we should reconsider building the Death Star that's been petitioned. After all, isn't the Second Amendment all about "My weapon is bigger than your weapon"?
Comments 576
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
What the OP is criticizing, and I think rightly, is the notion that a bad gun control bill could even plausibly be taken as cause for armed insurrection. I mean, look - we still have a largely functioning democratic process. It is through that process that we come to a consensus on what policies we implement. If someone loses in that process, the answer is and always should be to work through that process to try to change the result. If your representative votes for a bill you don't like, then vote against them. If that's not sufficient, you can advocate amongst your community to try to sway minds toward your position. If that doesn't work, there are still other options ( ... )
Reply
I would disagree in very few very specific circumstances. The irony, though, is that these circumstances are largely supported by the fetishistic gun community.
Reply
The problem being that these people are not upset about a bad gun control bill, but they are upset over the threat of an executive order to restrict their rights.
Reply
( ... )
Reply
I suppose i'd be ok with that.
Reply
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Didn't think so.
Reply
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Reply
Sorry that's so confusing for you.
Reply
You need a Death Star for self defense? I guess we can tell who signed that petition.
Reply
Leave a comment