A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ~ The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State.
Welcome to the 4th installment in a series chronicling the wacky statements of the most severely deluded Conservative I have ever encountered; a blogger whose name is Dennis Marks, but is known by his Blogger ID, which is dmarks.
In this numero cuatro post I ask the question - can a person who does not own a gun (or, says he does not own one) be a "gun nut"? I say yes. How could that be, you might ask? I say the term "gun nut" applies if said individual opposes reasonable legislation such as universal background checks like Mr. Marks. Check out this gun nuttery, for example...
| Dennis Marks: Remember, someone else recently winged it and carelessly made up their own definition of "gun nut" by saying it meant "having nutty views about guns". Using this, Andrew Cuomo is a gun nut, while someone with such moderate views as [Willis Hart] is not. Because Cuomo has mentioned favoring the truly nutty idea of confiscation. And only a real "gun nut" (again using this bogus definition) would call something an "assault weapon" just for having a decorative handle (2/19/2013 AT 1:17am). |
Huh? The Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo is a gun nut? Presumably because he signed a gun control bill passed by NY's state congress that CNN says, "...fortifies New York's existing assault weapons ban, limits the number of bullets allowed in magazines and strengthens rules that govern the mentally ill, which includes a requirement to report potentially harmful behavior". The article also notes that Cuomo is a GUN OWNER.
Hmm, I wonder what part of "well regulated" Dennis does not understand? I'm going to guess absolutely no part. Even though the amendment is quite short, it appears as though Dennis missed the "well regulated" wording completely, as evidenced by an unbelievably insane (even for Dennis) comment Mr. Marks made in response to a blog posting lamenting the failure of Congress to pass legislation mandating universal not quite universal background checks (the bill exempted "private" sales between individuals).
| Dennis Marks: Lacking in your [commentary] is any idea of human rights and protecting them. Those who voted against destroying basic human rights as protected in the Second Amendment weren't the best according to small-D "democracy". They ignored the will of an angry, ignorant, and hateful mob. But they did act to protect our basic rights. ...I am glad the sickos who were happy about the Newtown disaster, and cynically used it as an excuse to get rid of basic rights they always hated ended up losing in Congress (4/19/2013 AT 6:42am). |
Expanding background checks to cover gun shows is described by this wacko as "destroying basic human rights"? And people concerned about small children being blown away (and seeking some minor thing like expanding background checks to stop dangerous people from obtaining guns) are "sickos"?? What the hell is wrong with this person? Does he believe that instead of being "well regulated", the purchase of firearms should not be regulated at all? Given the gun show loophole (and the fact that it allows criminals to buy guns, thus completely nullifying the the purpose behind doing background checks) what else can one conclude?
Dennis, YOU are the sicko, as absolutely no one who is advocating for Congress to pass some common sense gun legislation is "happy" about small children being shot in the face. Also, one has to wonder if, seeing as some of those who are lobbying their Congresspersons for this legislation are the parents, is Dennis saying the Newtown mothers and fathers whose kids were blow away are included in the "sicko" category? Is he saying the parents are happy their children were murdered?
I'm guessing he would say no, but yet he failed to exempt them (the Newtown parents) in his loony comment condemning the people who think we can do more to protect the citizens of this nation from being massacred by the dangerously mentally ill with firearms. Dennis actually thinks we "smiled" after what happened at Newtown.
| Dennis Marks: These folks smiled when the massacre happened. Now they are frowning, and that is a good thing (4/20/2013 AT 12:42pm). |
Finally, in regards to "confiscation", no one Dennis disparagingly refers to as a "sicko" has ever suggested it. In declaring confiscation is an actual goal of the "sickos", Dennis identifies himself as one of those paranoid Rightwing fringe types who serve as dupes for the NRA (a terrorist organization that cares only about maximizing the profits of the gun manufactures, no matter the cost, and does not represent its actual members).
So, YES, Dennis is definitely a gun nut, whether or not he actually owns a gun, because his views on guns and gun legislation are undeniably nutty.
I do not understand how anyone can oppose background checks.
ReplyDeleteBackground checks are opposed by nutjobs like dmarks because they are an infringement on our "basic human rights". Other people located in states where gun violence is lower simply don't give two craps. Pretty sad, huh?
ReplyDelete