Saturday, September 14, 2013

RAND PAUL'S FAVORITE GUN GROUP SAYS, "FIREARMS ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE"

T-shirt promoted on the Facebook page of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR):





"Firearms Anywhere and Everywhere" -- taken literally, that would mean firearms in daycare centers, on international flights, even in your living room, whether or not you wanted them there. Because really, when you say "Firearms ... Everywhere," the literal meaning is that no one has the right to say, "Not on my property." And I know the gunners all claim to be good right-wingers who worship the notion of private property, but I'm not sure they're all willing to stand up for the right of a shopkeeper or bar owner or minister to say, "Not in my establishment," especially if the person in question is a dirty stinking liberal.

Rand Paul raises money for the NAGR, with ads like the one here, which claims that the UN Small Arms Treaty "would almost certainly FORCE the United States to ... Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION" (emphasis in original).

The executive vice president of NAGR is Dudley Brown, who's also the executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO). In April, after Colorado enacted new gun laws, Brown engaged in some eliminationist-sounding talk:
He's promising political payback in next year's election that could cost Colorado Democrats their majorities.

"I liken it to the proverbial hunting season," Brown says. "We tell gun owners, there's a time to hunt deer. And the next election is the time to hunt Democrats."
Of course, some gunners couldn't wait until the next election -- two Colorado state senators who voted for the gun laws were recalled this week. Dudley Brown's response was about as tasteful as you'd expect:





But, well, what do you expect from a guy who held a protest march at a memorial ceremony for Aurora shooting victims, because Mike Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns was one of the memorial's sponsors? (Brown, we're told "carried a .45-caliber pistol to the park" where the memorial took place, which was attended by Aurora and Sandy Hook survivors.)

Would it be irresponsible to speculate that this guy might be Rand Paul's pick to head the ATF? It would be irresponsible not to.

Then again, sometimes the propaganda put out by Brown's groups is just sad:





If that's what "family" means to you, Dudley, you have a very empty life.

21 comments:

Victor said...

Hey, Dudley "Do Wrong,"
If you need a gun everywhere you go, then you are a gutless fucking coward.

Probably one with a dick your Urologist needs a microscope to find.

REAL MEN, don't need weapons when going to the john, or when they're sleeping, or going to some fast food place.

Only cowards are so afraid, that they have to be armed wherever they go.

WHAT AN ASSHOLE!!!!!
And a cowardly one, at that.

Where are the 'rights' of people who don't want to feel threatened, because you're a fucking psychotic, with more mental issues than a feral hog has fleas?

Jayzoos, I am tired of these fucking cowardly loons!!!

Spare the rest of us your cowardice and psychiatric problems - save some money, and get a penis enhancer, you elbow-noodle-dicked wussy!!!!!

We need laws that state, unless you're a law enforcement officer, if you express even the tiniest desire to get a gun, you should be expressly forbidden from getting a gun.

Arming cowards should not be part of any normal society.

Sadly, America no longer has a normal society.

Leslie Galen said...

Victor, you can write those things on a blog that he won't read. But you can't say those things to him in person, because he might shoot you. So he wins. That's the whole point of his group.

Apparently, it doesn't matter how many people get shot, and the pols all saw the Colorado results. So we either keep our mouths shut and hope that we don't make them angry, or we get guns too.

Aunt Snow said...

But you can't say those things to him in person, because he might shoot you.

When I read stories about "accidental" shootings usually this sentiment is part of the root cause. Someone pulling out a gun to underscore their point in an argument. Someone showing off their gun to intimidate someone else. Someone showing off their gun to show someone else what a badass they are. There was even a gun accident when someone pulled out a gun because he was angry that a dog was barking (he shot through the wall to express his anger and the bullet happened to hit someone in the next apartment.)

Dumb people use guns not to defend themselves but to reinforce their own strength of position while in a competition or disagreement with someone else. And usually someone gets shot.

Victor said...

Leslie,
I'm at a point in my life where, quite frankly, I don't give a fucking shit anymore.

So, there's at least some possibility that if I met an asshole like this out in the street, or at a Mickey D's, I'd get in his face, and call him a gutless fucking cowardly punk for needing to go around all over place, carrying a gun - and then, I might just ask him how tiny his dick is, that he has to compensate for it by carrying weapons.

And yeah, I know that shooting my mouth off like that may very well lead to me getting my ass shot off, but I'm nearing a point where, I don't care anymore. *

And I'm not about to start carrying a gun - largely, because I'd be liable to shoot an asshole like this first, just for being an asshole, rather than wait and have to return the assholes fire.

And that recall result in CO, was because there was even lower turnout than mid-term elections. So, despite Mayor Bloomie's efforts, the people who DID turn out, were the cowardly gun-nuts like this chicken-shit moron in the photo.

*Note:
I can say all of that now, because it's not at all likely I'll run into one of the cowardly assholes in the street or Mickey D's - because I live in Upstate NY, where we have pretty strict gun laws, and don't have armed free-range morons walking around. :-)

I am just mortally sick of these people claiming THEIR right to arm themselves, and ignoring OUR right to live in a peaceful, unarmed, society.

These shithead need to go to Somalia and fire their weapons.

But they won't, because they're afraid they're liable to get their nuts blown off when they meet another armed person, instead of an unarmed parent walking with his children, or an unarmed person going into a fast food place because they're hungry.

These gutless fucking punks can act like they're the BMOC when they're walking around, packing. Let's see them take that act to a country without any gun restrictions.
These cowardly assholes would never leave their fucking homes.

The first rule of gun purchasing should be, 'If you feel the need to have a gun, prove why that need supersedes the rights of others to live in an unarmed society.'
And if you can't make that case, but still want one, you go on a "NO GUN 4 U LIST!'

Daniel Jones said...

"The first rule of gun purchasing should be, 'If you feel the need to have a gun, prove why that need supersedes the rights of others to live in an unarmed society.'And if you can't make that case, but still want one, you go on a "NO GUN 4 U LIST!'"

You only have the right to control your own property, you dont have the right to control any of your neghbors property. no one persons property rights supersedes anothers because all propery rights are equal. So how does one have the right to control whether they live in an unarmed society or not without first declared for themselves that they have the power to control with force how other people control and use their own property when they have not initiated the use of force or violence to infringed on anyone elses property rights? In this scenario, the only one using force and violence to control another persons body or property is the non-gun owner, not the gun owner.

Infringing on other peoples property rights is the definition of a crime, and the initiationg of the use of force and violence to control another person and their property is always immoral and should never be accepted in society no matter what the reason.

Victor said...

"You only have the right to control your own property, you dont have the right to control any of your neghbors property (sic)."

Really?
Ever live in a new housing development?
A co-op?
Or condo?
Or an apartment?

Get a grip, dude.
That happens every feckin' day.
All feckin' day long.
All over this feckin' country.

Our government controls ALL sorts of yours, and mine, and your neighbor's, property.
Don't pay your taxes?
Bye-bye, property...

That's what the Libertarian nuts whine about each and every feckin' day!
And just like everyone else, they like SOME of the controls - they hate others.

Having said that, you do happen to have a point.
It's just that THAT, wasn't it.

Ten Bears said...

Uhhmmm, Vic, reread what the man said.

No fear.

Daniel Jones said...

" Really?Ever live in a new housing development?A co-op?Or condo?Or an apartment?"

They dont use force or democracy to claim for themselves the power to control you or your property, instead you voluntarily contract with them to give up certain property rights before you move in.

This is entirely different than say, a bunch of your neighbors that you didnt voluntarily contract with forming together and taking control of you or your property and using force against you to do what they command of you or they'll take all of your stuff and lock you in a steel cage and beat you if you resist. Yes, the condo analogy is totally different than this reality.

" Our government controls ALL sorts of yours, and mine, and your neighbor's, property.Don't pay your taxes?Bye-bye, property..."

Yes, and its horrible and immoral and they have no right to do this. Arguing that the government does it doesnt prove that it's moral. If any person on the street was to do what the government does (use force and violence to take peoples property or make them do things) they would be committing criminal acts. If anything, property rights should be enforced by the government, instead they've given themselves the power toonly infringe on property rights.

Government has no right to anyones property, whether it is incomes, eminent domains, people, etc...

Also, changing the argument to whether governments have a right to the individuals property doesnt make the case that you have the right to control your neighbors property when that neighbor hasnt voluntarily contracted with you to give you that right like in a condo complex.

Therefor, you didnt make any valid argument against anything i said, you didnt prove that you do have the right to control your neighbors body and property without his voluntary consent, you need to prove that you have that right or you have no argument.

Daniel Jones said...

Victor, civilized and peaceful people respect other peoples right to control their own body and property. Civilized and peaceful people don't claim that right for themself and then advocate using force or violence to prevent other peoples from using the right to their own body or property and doing things or owning things that you don't like.

The only time that it is morally ok to use force or violence against someone else is if they initiate the use of force or violence against you first. So if somebody owns a gun, sorry, you dont have the right to use force against them if that person or their property (gun) isnt infringing on your own right to property.

Taking preemptive action and using force because of what somebody might or could possibly do is immoral and flat out wrong.

Jimmi the Grey said...

I agree about the gun part, but wouldn't the imminent threat that bullets would be an instance of violent force to infringe upon the right to use their body and or property as they will? Cant very well play backyard badminton with rounds flying to and fro.

Daniel Jones said...

Not an imminent threat.

No one has the right to initiate the use of force or violence against someone else. If they do this they are committing a crime, it doesnt matter if it is a bullet or any other property. Just owning something doesnt create an 'imminent' threat, or even a threat at all. It's only a threat if say they point the gun at you or your property, then that would be initiating the threat of force against you.

I think the best way to combat violence in society isnt with legislation that a) claims that the majority (or government) has a right to control other peoples bodies and property, and b) requires the initiation of the use of force and violence or the threat of both to make people give up their right to their own body or property involuntarily.

Force and violence in society can't be used to solve force and violence. That's like saying that i have to be immoral because someone else is immoral. Enforcing and respecting individual property rights is the best and most peaceful remedy to these problems, not violating property rights and using force and violence against our neighbors.

If you believe that everyone has an individual right to their body and property than you must also disagree with democracy

Victor said...

A gun in public is the most undemocratic thing there is - if you don't also happen to have one.

Once more, I'm NOT against people having a hand or shot gun to protect their family, home, or property.

I'm NOT against people having a gun or rifle to hunt with.

What I AM against, is gun-slinging dickless wonders, walking around in any and every public place they feel they need to, because they are cowardly and insecure dickless wonders with psychiatric issues, who feel the need to strut and preen with a gun nearby.

Ya got a gun? Hoopdeefuckingdoo!!!
Any yahoo with some spare money lying around, can get one.
No special skills required.
No acumen.
No knowledge.
Just some money, a ton of insecurity and psychiatric issues, and some schmuck willing to sell a lethal weapon to a yahoo with some money, and a ton of insecurity and psychiatric issues.

Sorry, but THAT ain't MY idea of a fuckin' democracy.
That sounds a hell of a lot more like Authoritarianism - at least to me.

Why the fuck people (mostly men - hence, my DICKLESS references) feel the need to carry a gun wherever they go, is completely beyond me.

In a functional democracy, or a representative democracy, why would people even need a gun in public?
Answer me that one.

And don't tell me, "To keep the people in authority in line."

Not when the people in authority can vaporize your fucking sorry ass in a nanosecond with a drone, missile, or helicopter, strike - long before you could lock, or load.

That's fucking farcical.
FARCICAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry for the foul language, but I really hate guns - except those used for protection of a home, or to hunt with.

Guns in public, have NO PLACE in a functional democracy.

Now, if you want to argue whether or not we're still a functional representative democracy, I may be willing to listen.
Except that the party representing the people who want to, feel the compulsive need to, carry a gun in public, is the very one which is working its ass off to have less people have a voice in this representative democracy.

So, imo, that argument is moot.

The NRA doesn't give a shit about any other right, except the 2nd Amendment "Right."
They are the marketing arm for gun paraphernalia manufacturers.
And a goddamn effective one, at that!

And, there's nothing that kills the 'free speech' "GUARANTEED" by the 1st Amendment, more than having some yahoo waving his/her 2nd Amendment gun in public.

Capeesh?

If I see someone with a gun in public, I'll feel the need to ask, "And what organized militia are you with?"

But sadly, I won't have a gun to shoot the motherfucker, if his or her answer doesn't meet my rigid standards - something that I'm threatened with, every time I see some armed yahoo, walking around with a gun in a public place.

The rights of people who carry guns, should NOT supersede the rights of those who don't!!!!!!!

Also II, CAPEESH?!?!?!?!?!


Steve M. said...

Force and violence in society can't be used to solve force and violence.

So all armies and police forces should be disbanded?

Hell, I think, following this logic, we'd even have to disband -- oh, what's the phrase i'm looking for? -- a "well-regulated militia." Damn statist Framers!

Ten Bears said...

There are well regulated militias?

No fear.

Victor said...

Daniel,
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/dc-navy-yard-gunshots/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

So, this is just another completely rational person with no known mental or anger issues, reacting only after being grievously, but righteously, provoked.

Yeah.
No 'imminent danger,' here.

Nothing to see here folks.
Just another bunch of people killed and wounded by gunfire.
Move along.
MOVE ALONG, I said!
Or else my gun will do my talking!!!

Daniel Jones said...

No, that person commited a crime and had no right to use force or violence against somebody else. The gun is irrelivant, the human action is what was immoral and violated someone elses right.

Daniel Jones said...

" The rights of people who carry guns, should NOT supersede the rights of those who don't!!!!!!!"

No one's property rights supersede another persons property rights. The right of someone to own property doesnt infringe on your individual right to own, or not to own, property.

Just as your right not to own property, doesnt supersede someone elses right to own property.

Doesnt matter if it's a gun or another peice of property.

Democracy IS authoritarian. There is no difference philosophically. Democracy is only for some people to claim the right to control other peoples bodies and property, that's all democracy does.

Also, your right to free speech is a property right, as all rights are. And isn't, as you falsely stated, garunteed by the constitution. The government has no power, as the federalists argued, to legislate against free speech, guns, or other types of property with or without a bill of rights. The bill of rights is only a protection from the government infringing on rights, rights that dont exist because of the constitution, but that already existed before it.

You have no understanding of rights theory at all.

Victor said...

Regardless of my lack of expertise in the area of rights, I do know this:
The person with the gun, almost always gets the last word.

And that's the "right" a gun buys them.

Daniel Jones said...

No, they don't.

The other person has the right to disagree with them, the have no right to use force to prevent the other person from acting on their disagreement.

On the same point, If you go up to a gun owner and want him to get rid of his gun and he disagrees, he has the same right to dsagreement and act on his disagreement and you have no right to use force to prevent him from doing this. That is, as long as he is somewhere that he has the right to be, and has not already initiated the use of force.

There's no special right with a gun as there is with any other property.

Carl Powers said...

I work for a big bank. I dare any of these idiots to walk in armed. But let me know first, I want to watch the fun.

Victor said...

Daniel,
It must be nice to live in a Manichean world, where there are no shades of gray - only black, and white.