Sunday, April 21, 2013

People In States Where Gun Violence is Lower Don't Give Two Craps About Doing Anything to Curb Gun Violence In States Where it is High

The most distressing aspect of the world into which you are going is its indifference to the basic issues, which now, as always, are moral issues ~ Robert Maynard Hutchins (1/17/1899 to 5/17/1977) an educational philosopher, dean of Yale Law School (1927–1929), and president (1929–1945) and chancellor (1945–1951) of the University of Chicago.

Why did the "sickos" who wanted to take advantage of the Newtown tragedy to pass a stronger background check law fail? Apparently it's because a-holes in states where gun violence is lower don't give two craps about the higher level of violence in states they don't live in. Apparently they do give one crap, just not two, as a blogger who is a defender of "basic human rights" explains...

Dennis Marks: ...there is a lot less disconnect between how Congress recently voted on gun control and the general public view. It especially shows the reticence and ambivalence of the public at large (4/21/2013 AT 6:42am).

Dennis Marks (blogger ID: "dmarks"), the individual who believes being able to purchase a gun sans background check is a "basic human right", was quoting a National Journal article titled, "How Democrats Got Gun Control Polling Wrong". While support for action addressing the problem is high (the article cites an 80 percent favorable polling figure), people in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont felt the proposed legislation was, "addressing a problem [not] in their community [but] somewhere far away".

Additionally the persons polled in those states "support [the legislation] and they think it's a good idea, but they don't feel super deeply about it".

OK, I get it. They're selfish bastards who couldn't care less about people who aren't them. They only said they thought the legislation was a "good idea", but they didn't mean FOR THEM. For themselves they are totally opposed. Oh, and don't forget the most important aspect of their support which isn't really support - they aren't sickos looking to exploit the massacre and confiscate all guns (as the right-wing extremist blogger Dennis Marks recently claimed).

It's a good thing the residents of states where citizens are being slaughtered at a higher rate have the National Journal to tell them why common sense gun regulation can't pass! That is, the small number of people affected by the gun violence that read it. Seems the National Journal is "mostly read by members of Congress, Capitol Hill staffers, the White House, Executive Branch agencies, the media, think tanks, corporations, associations and lobbyists".

In other words the purpose of this article was to tell the Republicans and Conservative Democrats who voted against the legislation why they were correct in doing so. In other words the article was a big slobbering wet kiss on the butt cheeks of the mag's financial supporters (people who pay to read it)... Congresspersons bought and paid for by the NRA, those who serve them, the corporate media, the corporate think tanks, the gun manufacturers, and the lobbyists of the gun manufacturers.

Are you TOTALLY SHOCKED that a publication serving groups opposed to common sense gun legislation concludes that "Democrats Got Gun Control Polling Wrong" (even though they got it right)?? I am being ironic, of course. Nobody is shocked, including the gun nut Dennis. That the Democrats sickos who sought to use the Newtown tragedy as an excuse to infringe on the citizens' "basic human rights" of buying a gun at a gun show and not having to endure the indignity of a background check were defeated makes perfect sense, as those who supported kind-of supported the legislation know.

Which explains why their support was high but "shallow". Deep down they knew nothing can be done to curb gun violence, and that the legislation played into the hands of the sickos whose agenda is to eventually confiscate all firearms.

Actually, only gun nuts like Dennis believe that last part. Everyone else whose support was "shallow" just said they supported it so the pollsters wouldn't throw the Newtown tragedy in their faces and make them feel like uncaring monsters... even if they actually didn't really care because the tragedy took place "far away".

And so the gun nuts and gun nut supporters cheer. Common sense legislation that may have prevented the next massacre was defeated due to the indifference of voters who live in states where gun violence is lower. Yeah! Certainly this can be viewed as a victory for our "basic human rights" as Dennis claims?

By the way, Dennis is correct that the Newtown shooter didn't buy the guns he used; his mother purchased them and she would have passed the expanded background check the Democrats proposed. That does not mean the legislation couldn't stop the next shooter. The guy who shot up the theater where the Batman movie was playing bought his own guns, and the expanded background check could have conceivably stopped him, so this "failed legislation" is not "more evidence that the tragedy is being used in order to push an agenda", you brain-dead moron!

Although one must realize that by "agenda" Dennis means gun confiscation, as opposed to an agenda of SAVING LIVES which is the actual moral issue being debated... a moral issue the gun nuts feel complete indifference toward. They will pay it lip service and nothing more, or, worse yet, call you a "sicko" for "pushing" your "agenda" of saving lives!

Make no mistake about it; these people - people like Dennis Marks - are the TRUE sickos! Sickos, and dupes for the NRA, whose only concern is making money selling guns. That is the REAL "basic human right" Dennis refers to - profit at any cost.

SWTD #135, dDel #5.


  1. I find it interesting. Conservatives say that guns are not the problem, moral decay is the problem. Yet, all they do is obstruct attempts to deal with the problems. Where are their solutions to the "moral decay" that doesn't restrict someone's freedom and increase government control?

    As usual, they don't have a clue of what to do. They can only bitch and moan.

  2. Nothing the conspiracy theorist idiot Dmarks says surprises me. What does surprise me is people like Shaw post and wait for the idiotic blathering of Dmarks, SF, and RN. These are the kind of hypocrite idiots like KP, that support ChickFlick's stand against same sex marriage and the millions it gives to elected officials that write anti gay legislation, and yet still claim they are not anti gay and even support same sex marriage. Go figure, lying wackos. Today Shaw(PE) has given KP the guest spot on her blog, showing how little she cares about supporting these kind of drooling idiots. Opposing viewpoints is one thing, the ravings of stupidity is another all together; and to support such crap shows a true lack of intelligence.

  3. I know who everyone you refer to using just initials is, except "KP". Who is KP and where did he support Chick-Fil-A's homophobia? On Shaw's blog? I like Shaw's blog and find it hard to believe she would allow such a thing without some push back. I just looked at the post you refer to, and found it non-offensive. You're absolutely right about all those other individuals though. All three are definitely blathering idiots.


Comment moderation has temporarily been suspended. Although I may be forced to reinstate it if the trolls take advantage.