Friday, December 19, 2014

Godwin's Law for Gun Control - UPDATED -

After reading the entire [and asinine] complaint against Bushmaster, regarding the Sandy Hook shootings....I think it's high time we develop a companion to Godwin's Law [if you mention Adolf Hitler or Nazis within a discussion, you’ve automatically lost, and ended whatever discussion you were taking part in] for the debate over gun control v. gun rights.


"If you mention the NRA-as-a-boogeyman within a discussion thread, you’ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in"


Just need a catchy name now.....

- UPDATED -

I had to share the absurd asininity [yes, that's a bit repetitive, but remember who we're dealing with...] that the gun control cabal is capable of:

video

Gun control advocate and independent filmmaker Rejina Sincic has created what she calls a PSA aimed at “reducing gun violence in schools and communities.” 
The video depicts a teenage boy sneaking into his mother’s room, taking a gun out of her dresser drawer (who knows if it’s loaded or unloaded), putting it in his backpack and then taking it to school. After class, he waits for the other students to leave then puts the gun on the teacher’s desk and says, “Can you take this away? I don’t feel safe with a gun in my house.” 
Certainly nothing could go wrong in that scenario, right? 
Bearing Arms points out: 
In the real world, such an act would result in the boy facing numerous felony charges (exact charges depend on state laws) possibly including weapons theft, unlawful possession of a weapon by a minor, illegal concealed carry of a weapon, carrying a weapon onto school property, assault, and brandishing. 
There’s also the very real chance that someone could be hurt or killed by an accidental discharge of the gun. 
Imagine if teenagers really did follow Sincic’s advice en masse? We would have hundreds of guns showing up, potentially loaded, on school property. The students would face expulsion from school. 
If your goal as an activist is to create a cultural shift, encouraging children to steal their parents’ property, endanger themselves and others, and break multiple laws is not the way to do it.
Suddenly, since gun control loons are encouraging SS and STASI like behavior....Godwin's Law seems appropriate.

18 comments:

  1. OK. Off the top of my head...

    The LaPierre Snare

    The Heston Trigger

    Pulling a Barney Fife

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Their catchy.....but I'd rather use one of the gun control cabals clowns as the subject of the law...to drive the point home further.

      Maloney's baloney?

      Something with Bloomberg in it?

      My personal favorite is to use Activist mommies Demanding Attention......but that's a bit wordy.

      Delete
    2. How 'bout the "Cuomo Covet", after one of the nation's top left-wing politicians, who demanded that confiscation of firearms be considered?

      Delete
  2. "If you mention the NRA-as-a-boogeyman within a discussion thread, you’ve automatically ended whatever discussion you were taking part in"

    LOL! So, if you talk about gun regulation, you are not allowed to mention the powerful political organization that works against any and all gun regulation. I don't think the Godwin Rule was supposed to apply to the actual Nazis!

    Nice.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're predictably confused. I don't care that the NRA is brought up in relevant discussions. I'm talking about the "NRA-as-a-boogeyman" meme that gets trotted out by the gun control cabal as camouflage for their inability to construct a logical argument.

      While we're on the subject....I used to hear a lot of carping from the gun control crowd about "wanting compromise". Where has the compromise ever been from that side?

      Delete
    2. Jersey is confused, and it is because leftwing progs like him don't see it as a meme.

      Delete
    3. Also, the NRA has not worked against any and all gun legislation. It has supported massive amounts of legislation, page upon page of it.

      Delete
  3. What compromise do you want?

    Look, I know the NRA is bandied about on the Left like the Devil under a tent revival, and in some contexts it's reasonable, but in others it often sounds as though the arguer really doesn't understand a fundamental fact of our culture: American men love guns. Guns are right up there with sports, cars, and steak. The NRA is not some magic bogeyman creating and sustaining this love affair with the gun, and if anything the NRA has a benign impact in that sphere. Where the NRA causes problems is with it's other function - proxy lobby for the gun manufacturers. And there it is a nefarious actor.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How can it be a 'nefarious actor' when it's a member-driven organization that lobbies in regards to lawful/legal items?

      Delete
    2. It is the opposite of a "nefarious actor". It is a laudible defender of human rights. Made all the more so laudible when you look at Jersey's attacks, which are always baseless, show a bent toward fascist control over the people, and boil down to an "eww! Guns! Icky!" type of attitude.

      Jersey, if you don't like guns, don't own one. Problem entirely solved. And, to be honest, you are so ignorant about firearms, that I have my doubts that you would be a responsible gun owner.

      Delete
  4. If anything, the NRA's lobbying efforts probably hurt the cause of individual gun owners in the long run. It's efforts to remove any legal responsibility whatsoever from gun ownership, production, and distribution, will eventually lead to reactionary regulation far more constraining than anything the NRA find itself lobbying against today.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JMJ, You're constructing a false argument by asserting that the NRA is attempting to "remove any legal responsibility whatsoever from gun ownership, production, and distribution". I invite your sourcing for this position, but please remember the words you've previously chosen.

      Additionally, your statement appears to support the Sandy Hook v. Bushmaster suit, for which I would love to hear your argument in favor of holding the manufacturer and distributor of a lawful item, culpable for how an individual uses it in the commission of a crime.

      Delete
    2. CI: Actually, the only legal responsibility of gun owners is to obey the law. And the NRA is strongly in favor of this.

      The first claim I look at from JMJ is entirely false. I am guessing the rest fall into line that way.

      Delete
  5. No, I don't have a developed position on that lawsuit, and if you need "sourcing" to prove the NRA lobbies as a front from the gun manufacturers and sellers to get as many of there products out on the streets as possible, then there's no reasoning with you on this subject. You're just silly-headed on the matter.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wait, you don't have an opinion on the premise of holding the manufacturer of a lawful item responsible for what a multiple times removed end user doe with said legal item in the commission of a crime? Please don't let me down...I've been waiting for someone...anyone....to try and defend this absurdity.

      And I'll wait patiently if you would entertain us with how the member driven NRA is the front for gun manufacturers. I'll let you acquaint yourself with how the NRA membership and elected Board of Directors works first.

      Delete
    2. Jersey can't make a case at all. He is trying to blame innocent people for situations they have absolutely no role in causing.

      Delete
  6. CI: Your reasoning is sound. These entirely frivolous lawsuits harass innocent people. and attack a very basic human right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's better than I've come up with...I've been trying to use Bloomberg, but haven't been successful yet.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.