That Conversation They Allegedly Want to Have?

So fresh from the Brady Facebook page it is still dripping with the juices of irony:

CSGV Lie 1Jesse beat everybody to the punch. Yes, a wee bit of a smartaleck indeed. Lisa retorts with Standard Line #37. Next we have a sleigh of hand by Lisa:
CSGV Lie 2-3Next is the “How dare You?” indignation followed by “Insert Stupid Statement And Pass It As His.”
CSGV Lie 4aI am a bit confused about Damon’s comment: Does he mean that his Son In Law bought a gun from a Felon or that his Son In Law was a felon and bought a gun illegally from a Private Seller?  Next: The less than artful but always pleasing “Leave Britney Alone!”:
CSGV Lie 5Sandra’s comment is revealing: Gun Control Advocates are indeed a bunch of depressed people. Sheesh! Next comes Jesse’s response to the bully accusation and a dose of Unicorn Farts:
CSGV Lie 6“No one should be a Victim.” Noble thought but Reality has a way to bite you in the butt if you have your head in the magical multicolored cloud. Nobody can guarantee you 100% that you will die painless in bed of advanced old age.
Next we have the : “GO AWAY! LALALALALA!” technique and the mandatory Redneck Reference:
CSGV Lie 7Yep… nothing but elevated dialogue here.
Next is the “Go away, Go Away you are hurting my feelings” pleas:
CSGV Lie 8Immediately followed by…(insert drum roll here) … The Disappearing Comments!
CSGV Lie 9aYep, no more Jesse. Deleted and banished from “The Conversation.”

And that is the way they play. Conversation means for them we do not get our say. We are inconveniently armed with facts and common sense which are dangerous things if you are trying to win a war based on emotions and lies.

Sad, pathetic bunch.

12 Replies to “That Conversation They Allegedly Want to Have?”

  1. Wow, the pity party they throw themselves is simply epic. Their idea is that you can’t argue with them because they are immunized from facts and logic and the realities of this world because they FEEL, they HURT, and they lost someone. Well, there are also plenty of people out there murdered who could not defend themselves because they did not have the tools to do so. Often times due to silly and capricious gun laws. Gun Free Zones at schools are one example of unintended consequences that are predictable.

    Guess what? I do not want to join their ranks and so my firearms are there to end criminal treats against me or my family.

    Regarding the suicide argument. Suicides are always tragic, and difficult to prevent. However, the multitude of ways which are as easily effective just makes their focus on firearms silly. Tall buildings and bridges come immediately to mind.

    So, why the focus of their question on gun violence? What is the rationale for having people wallow around in their misery of loss? The question is framed this way to only highlight the cost of firearms in our society. They do not want to discuss the positives, the benefits of firearm ownership. [Hint: the positives VASTLY outweigh the negatives].

    Now, if all I did was talk about the dangers of drug-drug interactions, overdoses, adverse events and other real issues with medications, everyone would want to stop taking them and then receive no benefit as the disease in question is left untreated. That is just silly. You can do this with any issue, any item that has pros and cons. Thus the parameters of their argument is invalid.

    1. Regarding suicides, I generally start by noting that suicide rates are largely independent of method, and that where guns are harder to come by, other methods are preferred.

      Then I note that of all the popular methods (guns, jumping off tall objects, asphyxiation, drug overdose, self-immolation, etc.) that firearms are the fastest and most sure method.

      Then I frame it as a humanitarian issue: People are going to commit suicide no matter what we do, so while it’s tragic, we should focus on suicide prevention as a social and mental health issue instead of blaming it on the tools used to accomplish it.

      I generally conclude by expressing that I find suicide to be tragic, but that I’d rather it require the minimum amount of suffering.

    1. Leftism, please.

      Liberalism is the idea of maximizing liberty at the individual level, thus why both liberal and liberty draw on the same root word.

      Generally speaking, the political left-right spectrum is best defined by defining various positions based on the respective power of the state and the individual: a the far left of the spectrum is the all-powerful state, and at the far right is the all-powerful individual (Anarchy).

      Clearly, liberals, being that they believe in individual liberty, are on the far right of the spectrum, whereas statists (which is what our modern “liberals” really are) are on the far left of the spectrum.

      Also, I would contend that leftism isn’t a mental disorder per-se: The people seeking to control a leftist state may be megalomaniacal (or similar) but the vast majority of people supporting leftist agendas are just ill-informed. There’s a reason why our schools perform so poorly….

  2. It’s one of three things: Ignorance, which can be addressed with education (e.g., see Jesse’s efforts above); Hoplophobia, which, though an extraordinarily difficult mental illness to treat, can be addressed with desensitization; or Neo-Bolshevism, which can be addressed with force, when the hypocrites show up to “Come And Take It.”

  3. I don’t use Facebook that much, so I won’t do this, but I think it would be nice if someone hunted down that thread, and say something like “This didn’t happen to me, but it’s congressional testimony of someone who lost her parents to gun violence”, and then link a video of Suzanna Hupp testifying why we should have concealed carry permits.

    We would do well to remember that gun-grabbers aren’t the ones affected by gun violence!

    1. CSGV and Brady are not into the “free flow of ideas.” The delete and ban posts from us all the time. That “conversation about guns” they want to have? It does not include contrary views.

      1. I’m fully aware of that; even so, I’d like to think that we could get a link or two to “sneak under the radar”, if it’s worded right. But we’d have to get a volunteer to do it, and it would probably have to be someone who the Brady Campaign isn’t familiar with (at least, not yet)…

      2. Ok, I have finally done it. Let’s wait and see if it will become a victim of Reasoned Discorse(TM) and National Dialogue(TM). I kindof hope it doesn’t…although if it doesn’t, it will likely be due to the combination of my attempts to keep it low-key (I even removed the preview) and the fact that the post itself is a little “stale”.

        Even though the Brady Campaign likes to delete comments, it’s good to see that they don’t delete all of them. (Or perhaps they just don’t get around to it.) One commenter described how she lost her mother, and the police did nothing about the restraining order against her ex-boyfriend, and she wished she had been there with her boyfriend, to defend her mother’s life.

        Oh, how I wanted to refute some of the things I saw there! I did not, though, because I’m trying to be as stealth as possible…

Comments are closed.