You know, those ones that post the overbearing, ignorant shit? Fuck a funny, clever intro, I’m full of rage and hate and I’m just gonna launch in.
Here’s a couple of the posts from my friends:
Oh and I’m going to respond to each goddamn one because this shit has gone on for too fucking long.
This is a good one to start off with. There’s a lot fucking wrong with this picture. Let’s do a step-by-step analysis here:
- One, it’s a car, not an assault vehicle. I don’t know where the original author is getting off saying its an “assault vehicle” but that’s definitely not an assault vehicle. In fact, if my guess is right, it’s a 2012 Dodge Challenger, which due to the new regulations on vehicles is designed to crumple in the front in the event of a head-on collision: not the specified design for assault vehicles like uhh.. the M1 Abrams, the AAV-7A1 or even the HMMWV. Oh yeah, this friend is an enlisted soldier, yet she willingly posts shit like this–she knows that the Challenger isn’t a fucking assault fucking vehicle. But whatever, this post supplements my ego/pathos so I’ll post it fucking whenever fucking whatever fuck you.
- “…was clearly designed to kill innocent people…” Oh! I see what you did there! That was so MOTHERFUCKING clever of you!!!!1!!1 If you didn’t get it, this intelligently written picture is sarcastically saying that cars were designed to kill people to make the point that this is how their creation is perceived by the uninformed, just like their beloved, misunderstood firearms. The problem here is that the guns the government is looking into–anti-personnel weapons like the M16A4, M4A1 carbine, etc–are actually designed to kill people. Ask any hunter who knows a fucking iota about guns and they’ll tell you the same thing: military grade weaponry blows at killing deer, elk, and game animals. But it’s the shit when it comes to murdering humans.
Oh and there’s also the tiny detail that CARS WERE NEVER FUCKING DESIGNED TO KILL PEOPLE SO THIS IS A SHIT METAPHOR YOU DUMB BASTARDCUNT. They were designed to drive people around and get from point A to point B. Then we found out after implementation, “oh shit: when people get blacked out they don’t know what they’re doing and they get into this death machine and it can murder the fuck out of people.”
So what did we do? We banned them!
No we fucking didn’t you ignorant shit. We regulated them. We put laws on the privilege to use them, age limits, more severe punishments for reckless endangerment and DUIs, registration requirements, and you didn’t hear a goddamn person shouting fire. Guns require a fuckload more responsibility as far as discipline, self-control, maintenance, respect, safety, proper handling, use, and ownership goes, yet we as Americans have this shitty idea in our heads that something like guns should be treated lightly with loose to no regulation, but not… cars.
BUT WHAT IF SOMEONE BREAKS INTO MY HOUSE I NEED TO DEFEND MYSELF AND MILITARY GRADE WEAPONS ARE THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT SO I NEED TO BUY ONE NOW ITS SELF DEFENSE THAT’S MY RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN. Actually, fucktard, that’s not true. If you know anything about guns, you don’t if you’re making this claim, then you know there’s an effective range–that is, the range at which a particular type of gun is your best choice. I personally don’t live in a house big enough to make optimal use out of a rifle–I certainly couldn’t raise it, press it to my shoulder, catch the fucker in my sights, and mow them down (semi-automatically) in the amount of time that they could lunge at me with a knife. Further, in a closed area I’d rather have a hand gun, and guess what? The government doesn’t give a fuck about those, why? Because the mass shootings have been making the most use out of assault rifles, not hand guns. A hand gun is involved, but it certainly doesn’t have the deadliness or body count as do military grade carbines/rifles.
In the end this comes down to the fact that ALL GUNS were designed to kill. Whether that’s game or people varies on the make, model, and type, but making the target stop the whole, living part, is the goal of a gun. Guns are made to facilitate murder–yes it’s still a person behind the trigger–but the gun offers an uncontested level of impersonality to murder. Compare this to the option of violently gutting another person, and the choice to use a gun is just too easy for rage-filled revenge/justice/whatthefuckever seekers to turn down.
- “Americans don’t need 470 HP. Ban them.” You know, we really don’t, but our laws and economic ecosystem are such that we can have it if we really really really really really want it. That’s what regulation does. It makes it so that it’s hard for any average Joe to walk down the street and buy one willy-nilly, but that they can have it if they decide they absolutely need it. It makes it so that multiple offenders, criminals, felons–people who have proven to society (that’s liberal-speak for “the people around you regionally, nationally, etc…”) that they can’t be trusted with said potentially-dangerous-item–so that they can’t have one.The dictionary defines “ban” as follows:
Officially or legally prohibit: “he was banned from driving for a year”.Noun
- An official or legal prohibition: “a ban on cigarette advertising”.
So if you don’t know what a prohibition is, it’s basically saying “no more of that shit, ever.” And I’m going to make a long story short, 0% of people are trying to create a gun prohibition. Why am I so confident about this, you may wonder? A few reasons:
- Policy efficiency: getting rid of guns, or even a certain type of gun, would be a very messy political process and would require changing our constitution. That’s something most politicians try to avoid at, well… any and all cost. In Washington, it’s no NO ONE’S best interest to try to ban guns altogether because that process would be a goddamn nightmare. Political propositions always start extreme and attenuate to a middle ground–if you haven’t figured that out yet, just stop watching the news.
- Political air: yeah basically if you actually succeed and manage to ban guns, everyone’s going to hate you. Liberals can’t afford to lose their centrist voters, and conservatives certainly aren’t gonna turn their backs on their red backers. So again, it’s in no one’s best interest to ban guns for this reason as well. Plus, lobbyists and shit.
- If you know about game theory these two reasons above make sense, if you don’t, well, sorry.
Ban is a nice term that extreme conservatives/gun-boners/S&M fetishers like to use to describe what the ‘libs’ are up to in Washington. But if you just take the time to search “gun ban 2013” or “gun ban 2012” every news article you get (like the ones from official news sites) don’t mention anything about gun bans. The only list available for “Obama’s gun ban list” is on privately owned/run blogs, and they all content aggregate/copy/paste from one another, including the commentary afterward.
My problem with you, Facebook friend, is this: you’re willfully telling people things that aren’t true. You’re delivering one side of the picture, and its unfair because, well, people are fucking stupid. They’ll believe shit just because you are who you are–your word has a lot of sway over people and you’re literally shitting on that power. You’re preying on others’ ignorance, getting them on your side with scare tactics, and it needs to stop. Learn to admit you’re wrong and compromise, it’s this hypocritical behavior that everyone else in the world hates about the United States. Feeding information like this to your peers, false information that forwards your personal agenda, is called fascism.
Okay, no one has ever said this. No one. Zero. And more fucking importantly, no one ever said that this would be the criminals response! WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK. This is strawman at its finest. If you think that this is what happens inside a policy-maker’s head when s/he proposes gun law, you’re literally as brain dead as the dog shit my dog ate for breakfast you pustule fuck.
Your goddamn stupid fucking picture should read, “‘Let’s fight fire with fire, that’ll work!’ said no one ever.”
It’s a matter of simple economics. If you remember which one was the supply curve–you probably don’t because everyone’s always all like, “wahhh I don’t like economics it’s boring and hard and I’m never going to use it so fuckit it’s worthless”–then you know that when you move it to the left, quantity falls and price rises. This means a couple things for buyers and sellers
- It costs more to buy it, and there’s less of it to buy.
- It costs more to make it, and there’s less of it to sell.
The move means one thing for the majority of the market: buying that gun takes too much work now. That point where the two lines originally intersected? That’s where the majority of consumers what to buy, price/quantity-wise. Now that quantity is too low and price is too high, they’re not interested anymore. Only the really adamant consumers will continue to seek out guns.
But then you get this argument:
Which leads to fuckwads saying stuff like “they’ll get a gun anways”, or a sarcastic “you actually think they’ll buy it legally?” or whatever. And this is the strongest point I hear made in opposition to gun law, but even still–if the gun laws can save even one person, ONE person, from having their life taken away, then I want that law. Look, there’s just as many studies showing that gun law works as there are showing it doesn’t–it’s kind of an unknown. But for you to suppose aloud that “well it most likely won’t work anyways, so don’t take my guns away because I value the right to have them more than potentially increasing the probability of saving a life”, then you’re a goddamned monster. What do you constantly say to people say suppose aloud, “Well going to war probably won’t even help.” Or, “There’s no point in trying to help people who’s human rights are being violated.” As a soldier, don’t you understand that if there’s evil to fight, it’s always worth trying to fight? Why do you have this double standard for guns, this backass, redneck exception that because this steps on your toes, this evil isn’t worth fighting–that this is one worth just ignoring because “we can’t solve the problem anyways.” This is how living in a society works, you surrender some of your personal rights for welfare of everyone else. That’s the only way we’ve ever made progress in times like these. That’s America. And if you don’t like it… (Yeah I know I just got pathos as fuck, but the facts don’t undeniably support one side or another here).
Here’s the bottom line. I know because you’re a US citizen, that you really, really, REALLLLLY, like the option of being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want–freedom is a huge part of the list of American tenets–but c’mon: are you really going to buy an assault rifle? And if so, honestly: WHY? To say you have one? To “defend” yourself against the heroin-fiend home invader that, statistically, isn’t even there to threaten your pathetic life, but just steal something to pawn for some money? To defend yourself against the government? Do you really think a few assault rifles could stop them from black-bagging you and taking you away? Do you really think that, if you were deemed worth taking away, the government would find your guns to be any kind of an obstacle? Wow.
You know what I think? I think you really want to kill someone, but you want it to look like its in self-defense. I think you have blood lust, and you’re waiting for someone throw throw a wad of paper at you so you can throw a bomb back and scream, “IT’S MY RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN! STAND YOUR GROUND! SECOND AMENDMENT!!! SODOMY!” I think you’re riding that probabilistic unlikelihood, hoping, praying to your imaginary god that someone will put your life “in danger” so you can end theirs.
I’m a gun owner. But don’t think it’s my right to own one just because some old-ass piece of paper that was written during a time of national strife says it is. We need to shift our mentality to guns being a privilege. Not a right. If responsibility is required to drive a car, then you better be goddamn sure that it should be required, AND PROVEN, to own a gun.
I just want less people to die.
If that means losing the freedom do something I and most others were most likely not going to do anyways, I’m fine with that.