Friday, December 14, 2012

Pardon my language...

I just read the President's response to the shooting at the elementary school, where the President started dancing in the blood of those murdered to try to wipe his ass with the Constitution.  Again. 

It's about to get foul.


You FUCKING STUPID FUCKING COCK-BAITING RACE-BATING GUN-HATING FUCKNUGGET!  You CANNOT take "meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics" BECAUSE IT'S FUCKING ILLEGAL TO FUCKING TAKE ANY FUCKING KIND OF FUCKING MEANINGFUL FUCKING ACTION to FUCKING PREVENT CRAZY FUCKERS FROM FUCKING SHOOTING AT THE FUCKING LAW ABIDING.  And the only fucking stupid fucking solution that you can fucking come up with is to take the guns away from those who use them responsibly by not fucking shooting everybody around them, leaving only the criminals armed.

Fuck you, you fucking cowardly shit.

The ONLY fucking action that would absolutely prevent another incident of shooting fish in a barrel would be to fucking arm every-fucking-body, and you don't fucking want that because it would fucking enable the populace to resist being forced into slavery.

12 comments:

  1. And all the voices in my head said....AMEN....

    Damn.....testify...sista...testify!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am deeply disgusted by politicians dancing in the blood of the innocent, and it doesn't come more innocent than children.

      Delete
  2. Wow. That's a lot of f's....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was the only thing that would let me express the level of disgust and rage I feel. It's why I put it below a break.

      Delete
  3. Please list those mass attacks on people in the USA where a citizen carrying a gun shot and killed the attacker?

    We have to control violence in the USA and if that means tightening up who owns a gun, then so be it.

    I am one who had a weapons permit in California and TWICE came close to exercising 'my right'......the near incidents still scare the shit out of me.

    Even if the USA were stupid enough to ban guns, that would not be a solution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011)

    May yesterday's victims rest in peace......






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't keep the links, but they do happen. And there's more that don't get reported because all the person did to defend themselves was pull the gun, and the criminal made like a rabbit. Those don't often get reported (what criminal goes to the police and goes "I was gonna attack Joe Blow, but he pulled a gun on me! In public!!!"?).

      I do know somewhere you can see some news stories on self-defense: http://www.ma-rooned.com/search/label/Dead%20Goblin%20Count

      We don't need more gun control. We need more people willing to learn about guns, learn how to keep and carry guns safely, and willing to defend themselves and others. What we have is a race of Eloi and one of Morlocks.

      Delete
  4. Sorry......you missed the point of my comments.....

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://oldcatman-xxx.com/?p=11971

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ummmm... Did I miss something? I know my reading comprehension isn't as clear and precise as yours, but he only said anything about making political change in one sentence of that whole speech. And even that was in passing. He didn't say, "We're going to take actions to make sure every single gun is taken away from every responsible gun owner," did he? Did I miss that?

    Look, if it incenses you so, do something about it. Let your politician know that gun-rights are for licensed owners, and you take your responsibilities very seriously. Did you freak out when President Clinton signed that legislation that banned assault rifles and other guns? Did you freak out when other first-world countries placed restrictions and bans on very specific types of guns in their countries? People can still own guns, world-wide. People carry guns, all over the place. 400,000 armed civilians in Russia. All of them legal, licensed owners.

    You don't want your semi-automatics taken away, stop letting mental cases buy them at Wal-Mart. You don't want your scopes and high-powered rifles taken away, see the previous sentence. You don't want your right to load that clip-loaded semi-auto pistol with an oversized magazine, stop selling them on e-bay (or where ever) to anyone who wants one. Seriously. Put some regulations on that shit.

    People who aren't supposed to have guns have them. They are ruining the party for the rest of the responsible citizens out there. Half of the solution is to ban specific weapons, so that weapon doesn't get to that jerk. The other half, well that's a harder knot to saw through. Education, psyche evaluations, more stringent back-ground checks. Nothing's perfect and at some point another terrorist-nut-bassackwards-shithead is gonna shoot more people with whatever gun he has.

    You're somewhat right, though. Legislation isn't going to cut it. Civilian action is what will help. Education, training, licenses, whatever. Just, well, it doesn't have to be more guns per capita, is all.

    ReplyDelete
  7. He made a political statement in the midst of a speech about a tragedy. The pattern is that those who want to remove rights to use a tragedy to pass "sensible" restraints that slowly remove rights. Especially since none of the current laws have prevented any of the shootings. My other half has written a scenario of how a similar school shooting would go down in a nation where guns are outlawed: http://continuationofpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-school-shooting-scenario-in-post-rkba.html

    It wasn't just the statement, though, it was the placement. Slipping that statement into the sympathy speech gave the impression that he was trying to use the dead kids to get what he wants done. And that's just sick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well *shrugs* he's the President. It's expected he's going to involve politics in his speeches. I still don't think this was as blatant as you're taking it. If a school principal was talking about a tragedy under their watch, I'd expect they'd say something besides how grief stricken and drawn together everyone in the community was. I'm sure we could find some videos where they mix policy with commiserations.

      His sentence was purposefully ambiguous. If he said something stronger, like, "We're looking to take political action..." he would have had to deal with millions more hate letters from gun enthusiasts. If he hadn't said anything, he would have been reamed by the media, pundits, and outraged parents for only doing "lip service".

      I could just see it exploding in slow motion on Fox...

      You know, now that I think about it, he could have not said anything, and saved the politicking for later in the day. But at some point, he would have to mention all the tragedies, and correlate numbers with other data, and talk about other things. It can't be avoided. Any politician is going to use some sort of pathos to further their agenda.

      But there has to be a reason for the legislation in order for them to "take all the guns" away from everyone. Think of all the named Bills and Acts and Laws in place already and try to point to some that don't have a tragedy behind them.

      And of course there are the Acts that are truly an excuse for the government to use a heavy, unchecked hand for their own agenda. But it's not just the President who has the say in those things, it's our Congress as well. And those old fucks will turn any trick for an extra buck. Blame for bad legislation does not rest solely on one person.

      Delete