“How is this legal?”


Sometimes when you’re angry, you say exactly what you’re thinking.

From a blog post here titled: THESE are the terrorists:

How is this legal? How is this not considered to be hate speech?

How is that our national news tonight is full of Donald Trump’s latest nasty boy tweet toward a media person (Ho fucking hum) instead of looking at THIS.

I don’t even know what to do with the fear and rage that this piece brings out in me.

I hate the NRA. I hate them. I hold them personally responsible for ALL of the young people in this country who despair and kill themselves with guns. I hold them responsible for every baby and child who is killed because a gullible parent bought into the lie that owning a gun would keep the family safe.

I hate them.

I’m sympathetic to the idea that in these difficult times, people are not seeing the things that are there. The ad was not a call to arms — except a call to political action, to “fight this violence of lies with a “clenched fist of truth.” By the way, you can’t grip a gun with a clenched fist, so…

I commented on the original post:

MODERATION

Since I linked the post, the author will know I’m quoting her. I hope she visits, and that we can all have a great discussion about why speech should be free, even if you have a different view about guns. And maybe about the notion that “hating” someone for their beliefs is really a form of intolerance. 

I don’t hate the author, but she’s wrong.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in New Rights, Somebody is Wrong on the Internet, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to “How is this legal?”

  1. Grace says:

    “The ad calls for violent action on the part of gun owners toward an unnamed “Them.”

    It is urging NRA members to use guns against “them.”

    “They” are people who opposed Donald Trump.

    “They” include Barack Obama.

    “They” are me, and my sons, and my friends who attended the ENTIRELY PEACEFUL woman’s march. “They” are all who have used the word “resist.”

    The ad is a blatant call to arms. It is fanning the flames of division in this country. It is full of lies, full of hate, full of anger.”

    Speaking of: “full of lies, full of hate, full of anger.” 🙄

    There is NO “call to arms” in the NRA ad… blatant or otherwise. Delusional, much?

    Empty nest? More like empty head. Her *blatant* hysteria (of which I’d wager is courtesy of her blind hatred for all things guns) has rendered her non-thinking, and is preventing her from hearing the very clear message that is *actually* presented in that ad.

    I am sure she, too, cannot see through the fog of her own anger to see the irony and hypocrisy dripping from darn near every word of her unhinged blog post.

    Don’t hold your breath that she’ll visit The Artisan Craft Blog, Dave. She doesn’t strike me as the type who is much open for civil discussion and debate. It appears from her own writings that she is more in the, “Because I said so! Shut up, haters!” camp. *smdh*

    I added bolt to the quote, so folks could clearly see you were quoting the original post — Dave

    Liked by 1 person

    • Grace says:

      Thanks, Dave. It makes reading my comment much easier to follow.

      One of these days I’m going to take the time to learn all of the gobbledygook bracket this and bracket that nonsense for quoting, bolding, italics, etc.

      But, today is not that day. 😉

      Liked by 1 person

      • I ran into someone like that at a doctor’s office a few years back, though not quite as angry (at the time anyway). She was quite adamant that no one ever needed a gun, even to defend their home. I suggested to her that many people see owning a gun like having fire insurance, you hope you don’t ever need it, most of us never will need it, but we get it anyway. I live in Connecticut, and everyone around here knows about the Petits up in Chester. I asked her if she thought Dr. Petit wishes he’d had a gun. She said that was such a rare occurence it didn’t count and then just went on about how guns are only dangerous to their owners, even if the owner has taken the safety courses and practices regularly.

        Like

      • To Grace: I refuse to learn. WordPress gives me an edit button, and I use it. Reading your comment, I though you TOTALLY disagreed with me, until I recalled the post.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. onwyrdsdream says:

    I hate the NRA. I hate them. I hold them personally responsible for ALL of the young people in this country who despair and kill themselves with guns.

    What about all the people who despair and kill themselves with hanging, suffocation, poison, falls, cuts, electrocution, drowning, trains, cars, fires, etc. There was one guy who went to great trouble to build an elaborate machine in the woods to kill himself. I don’t even understand how that one was depressed, he seemed to have a lot more motivation than most of the people I know. Guns are a method. If you take them away, people aren’t going to be any less depressed, and the number of people who want to kill themselves won’t be less. That is because the motive isn’t “I want to kill myself with a gun.” The gun is just a means.

    Japan has a slightly higher suicide rate than the US, but the main means of doing it there is by hanging. Hanging is, by the way, the #2 most common means of suicide in the US. If the army came by tomorrow and removed every single gun in the country, the suicide rate would hardly change at all, but the number of people googling “how to tie a noose” would skyrocket. Would she then hate the rope industry? Isn’t blaming the means totally misplaced? The thing we must address is the motive.

    There are people who are accidentally killed by guns, it is true. And it is also true that there are people that are saved by the possession of a gun. The later is greater than the former. Every innocent death is a tragedy. But. Well. EVERY innocent death is a tragedy. Including the ones who could have been saved if the right people were armed.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. crawford421 says:

    Primary motivation for the campaign against Loesch’s video is to bury the very concept of “leftwing violence”.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. The comment I made is still in moderation. Well, I’m sure eventually…

    Liked by 1 person

    • Grace says:

      Heh. Glad to see you’re still not holding your breathe, my friend.

      I’d wager she hates and fears dissenting opinions probably as much as she hates and fears those skeery, black boomsticks. *eyeroll*

      A comment she left to her own blog post:

      “I’m just so sickened to see that no one with any authority is commenting on this!!!”

      Authority. The same “authority” who I am sure will be right there on the spot to protect her if a bad guy with a gun ever decides to use her empty head for target practice.

      These screeching leftist loons are always appealing to their big gubmint elected tormentors who truly don’t give a rat’s behind about them, their well-being, nor their safety and security. Idiots.

      Another comment courtesy of some Zorba geenyus:

      “Yes. And they refuse (the governmeng [sic] and the media), for the most part, to label the white, mostly Christian, terrorists who are already killing people, as terrorists.
      But they are, and this ad is an incitement to terrorism and murder.”

      I. Can’t. Even.

      The stupid… it downright buuuuurns.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s