For help on how to follow a comic title,
“but it’s something that should only be indulged in private away from the public gaze.”
Like in a vaping lounge that isn’t a dead drop? This is the problem. When it comes to things I would rather people do away from me, a “hint” like that is only going to cause them to do it in my immediate presence.
Many people don’t realize they are ignorant because they believe what others have told them to believe.
While I am not wholly against a single-payer system, what happens when the government denies you treatment, says you can’t pay for it yourself either, and basically tells you to die?
“Now Zom is doubling down, tripling down, spinning around and repeating himself.”
So is DD Wiz.
“A poll earlier THIS MONTH showed 91% of Americans support universal background checks”
Was the poll conducted in the same manner as the ones claiming Trump had no chance of being elected, with the polling companies protesting the charge of bias? I’m not saying that 91 percent of people can’t support a bad idea, particularly with media companies pushing the idea and glossing over the disastrous consequences. But I don’t exactly trust you.
“IT IS THE GUNS.
“We can enact common-sense gun safety protocols that PROTECT THE RIGHT OF REASONABLE GUN ACCESS (like Canada, Switzerland and Australia) while also ending the reign of gun violence terror.”
Well, if you think “it is the guns,” as you said, you don’t think there is any reasonable gun access. Your Freudian slip is showing.
My opposition to gun control is based on one major factor: I don’t trust the government. Background checks result in a huge database of all gun owners together with what types of guns and how many they have for easy confiscation. The records from these checks are never deleted, even though theoretically they are supposed to be.
Further, as soon as you get one restriction on gun ownership, you just start pushing for the next. It is quite clear at this time that the end goal is a total ban on civilian gun ownership. You squawk that no one is openly proposing that as legislation, bringing to mind the story of the boiling frog.
“knock off the baloney. "
You’re the one producing it. You are the one who will have to knock it off.
“You got caught lying (or mindlessly repeating a lie you heard from Ted Cruz,”
Another blatant lie from yourself. But I should expect as much from someone claiming that the Second Amendment was only meant to apply to single-shot muskets.
“According to you, ‘freedom’ means…”
Don’t try to speak for me. You suck at it.
“Those “beer-bellied rednecks parading around in red MAGA hats, playing soldier and trying to compensate for their obvious inadequacies” are NOT my fellow countrymen.”
I am not surprised to learn that your allegience is to a nation other than the US. You see, if you were a US citizen, those people would be your fellow countrymen — even if you might be ashamed to admit it.
“The Second Amendment is for a ‘well-regulated’ militia, in lieu of a standing army which we did not have in those days, NOT armed rebellion, as Washington proved when he crushed the Whiskey Rebellion.”
I see no such proof. I see only the fact that, once people get into power, they like to keep it. The militia is only mentioned in the clause that states the reasoning, not the independent clause that states the right. In more modern language, it would read: Because a well-regulated militia is needed to defend a free public (tyrannies use standing armies) the right of the people to own and carry weapons shall not be restricted.
“And the rednecks I am demeaning are, literally, carrying the Confederate battle flag — a flag that stands for open, traitorous ARMED REBELLION against the United States”
And the United States flag stands for open traitorous armed rebellion against the United Kingdom. Just say that you wish George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and the rest were captured and hanged already. It really does simplify things. And it follows from what you have said.
“don’t be a drama queen. "
You are in no position to judge.
“No one is proposing solutions that ‘accept a totalitarian state like China or the former Soviet Union.’”
You would remove the last remaining obstacle — “for the children.”
“NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS.
“NO ONE IS SUGGESTING INFRINGING ANY REASONABLE RIGHTS.”
Right, and no one is using all-caps either. You are suggesting infringing on reasonable rights.
“Your response is to have a totalitarian tyranny of crazed gun nuts.”
You seek to open the door to a totalitarian tyrrany. I just say that, if you want me to go along, if you are really serious about any of this, that you take a leader you don’t like. From where I stand, your proposal will lead to a totalitarian dictatorship. You clearly just want the dictator to have policies you like.
“She was clearly referring to, specifically, ASSAULT-RIFLES, not all guns.”
That is not a well-defined term. It can easily be taken as all guns.
“That basic right argument of yours is not valid.”
Did you even read what I wrote? You seem to be trying to address something I never said.
You seem to be asking how many shooting you need to stage and how many children you need to kill before freedom lovers will give in and accept a totalitarian state like China or the former Soviet Union. The answer is that you are wasting your time. We know you don’t give a rat’s tail about the children. If this were about the children, you would already have accepted the proposal to get your gun control and establish Trump as permanent leader.
If you want to do something “for the children,” stop staging the attacks. You are using children as pawns. And you are the one showing utter disregard for human life as you try to achieve power by removing people’s ability to resist tyranny.
“What part of ‘militia’ don’t they understand?
“What part of ‘well-regulated’ don’t they understand?
“What part of ‘people’ as a plural, collective term don’t they understand?
“What part of ‘original intent of the Founders’ don’t they understand if they think the Second Amendment, at most, protects anything more than lock and load single-shot, powder-primed flintlock muskets?”
They understand just fine. You do not. There is a running theme through the whole Bill of Rights. And that is that the government is not to be trusted. The people, the citizens need the power to be able to dispatch and replace the government at any time should it fail to act in the interests of the citizens.
But I will make a compromise with you. You can have the gun control you want. In exchange, elections are ended. Trump is president for life, and the title passes to his children on his death. Trump appoints all Senators and Representatives — no need for pesky elections. Trump also appoints all state governors and those governors appoint state-level representatives and municipal mayors. You get the gun control you want and the price is a government of, by, and for Trump. And if you have any objection to that deal, it is probably a piece of why I oppose gun control. I do not trust government. And once the final obstacle is removed, it will undoubtedly eliminate elections in a manner similar to the one I described.
So, don’t bother with the rhetoric of “children, not guns.” Just say you accept Trump as permanent ruler and primary appointer of members of government.
I know Wiley’s politics are otherwise, but Danae is the perfect representation of a feminist.