Subscribe via RSS Feed

Today in “Wingnuts Reading Tweets”

[ 51 ] December 19, 2012 |

I’m just going to have to assume that in ordinary, grammatically complex conversations with actual human beings, these folks are simply unable to carry on for longer than five minutes without pissing themselves with rage.

So summarize:

  1. Joyce Carol Oates wonders NRA members might become outraged enough to support new gun laws if — using “if” in a first conditional clause —”sizable numbers” of them had their heads mounted on sticks experienced gun violence in their own lives.
  2. Marg Helgenberger notes — using the auxiliary modal “can” when she clearly meant to use the related auxiliary modal “could” — that we could “only hope” that if such unforeseen horrors were to actually transpire, experience might prove a tonic to ideology. As Adorno wrote once, “The splinter in your eye is the best microscope magnifying glass.”*
  3. HOLY SHIT INCIVILITY AND CALLS FOR VIOLENCE I MESSED MY PANTS AGAIN MOMMA!

 

* Note: I am TOTALLY NOT calling for everyone to immediately begin stabbing NRA members in the eye.**

** OK, maybe I am just a little.***

***JUST KIDDING, MOTHERFUCKERS.

[Added: And I neglected to mention that in Helgenberger’s tweet, she specifically concluded that NRA gang-bangers would be unswayed by experience. Thus, even if someone were to line them up, offer them a handful of cornmeal, and shoot them like old country mules, they would still advocate for unrestricted gun rights. So far from inciting violence, we have someone glumly noting that it would nevertheless serve no useful pedagogical aim. If, that is, someone were actually to demand blood. Which would, of course, be completely rude and irresponsible.]

Share with Sociable

Comments (51)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. actor212 says:

    I posted on Facebook, and repeating it here, that I would be interested to see what would happen if at the next general plenary of the NRA, the auditorium was locked, smoke canisters tossed in, and a single firecracker lit.

    The experiment would be to see if, at long last, they get it.

    But of course, that’s completely hypothetical and should in no way be construed as endorsing such actions on anyone’s part. I am, at heart, a pacifist.

  2. ecurb says:

    What’s wrong with you?

  3. ploeg says:

    Who is to say that they haven’t been shot before? It probably was their own damn fault that they got shot too.

  4. AcademicLurker says:

    Will these irresponsible calls for genocide by the LGM bloggers never end?

  5. Malaclypse says:

    “The splinter in your eye is the best microscope.”

    Except he said magnifying-glass. And what does one use a magnifying glass for? Why, setting fires, of course! And I, for one, am outraged at Noon’s clear directive that all NRA members be burned alive!

    • DrDick says:

      Sounds like a winner to me. You get the stakes and rope and I will find some firewood and kerosene.

      • Malaclypse says:

        kerosene

        See, that’s why I like you. I still remember being a wee lad, and asking my dad, who solved many, nay most, of life’s difficulties with either chainsaws or explosions, why he never used gasoline to start fires, but always kerosene. “Amateurs use gasoline,” he said, “gasoline burns off too quick. For a good fire, you need something less volatile like kerosene.”

        Those are the childhood memories you never forget.

  6. Speak Truth says:

    Gun control has never been a winning issue for Democrats. I don’t think they have the stomach for it even now.

    And the Columbine shootings happened during this ban.

    There is not one life that you can point to that was saved by the assault weapons ban.

    It politics

  7. Ed Marshall says:

    I am sort of disposed to the arguments: You can’t actually ban semi-autos without getting rid of most modern hunting rifles. They just look “scary” (this isn’t really true, but it’s close enough).

    At a certain point though, you have to start getting the empirical fact that although he might have been doing just as well with a Remington 750, crazy people aren’t making rational calculations about their armament.

    Maybe they would, but it’s worth an experiment to find out rather than err on the side of dorks of who want to feel like Rambo because they have an AR-15.

    • Manta says:

      I think there is space for a compromise here: those who want to feel like Rambo can use a crossbow
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_WMpDDVOcR8#!

    • BigHank53 says:

      Shove ‘em all into Class III. Move the full-auto stuff into a new class IV with even more stringent requirements if you like. People don’t like getting fingerprinted and signing over their 4th Amendment rights?* Then bury things in the backyard and wait for the Rapture–I won’t give a shit as long as they’re out of reach.

      Everyone gets to keep what they have, we start tracking it a lot better as soon as it’s sold or transferred, and we tighten up the restrictions on gun ownership, all in accordance with existing laws that everyone knows how to follow.

      *They can’t take the guns away, but they can demand to inspect them at any time, to make sure you haven’t sold them without paying the transfer tax.

  8. Bob says:

    For rugged, macho warrior types they sure can be delicate little flowers when “threatened” by a 74 year old woman.

  9. cpinva says:

    your first mistake:

    I’m just going to have to assume

    don’t, ever. always err on the side of gross stupidity, the lowest common denominator. it will save all those brain cells, that would otherwise be lost, when you realize just how stupid the average person, and especially the average rightwingnut, is.

    i went to the twitchy site, a mass of seething, nutless, rightwing rage, at pretty much everything. those guys really need to relocate from their mother’s basements, get some fresh air. a pretty sad and pathetic lot, really.

  10. Matt says:

    I’ve found the whole situation, with wingnuts flipping out over a well-understood (by everybody but them, apparently) rhetorical device.

    And if *that’s* to be construed as “advocating violence”, just what in the merry FUCK is this supposed to be:

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/12/17/1349981/gun-lobbyist-americans-should-be-prepared-to-take-on-elected-officials-with-guns/

  11. Njorl says:

    HOLY SHIT INCIVILITY AND CALLS FOR VIOLENCE I MESSED MY PANTS AGAIN MOMMA!

    Your modern conservative has to eat a fiber rich diet to crap on demand when the need arises. Or maybe they just use Visine.

  12. Lacking Moral Fiber aka Useless Muthfucka frmly Nemesis says:

    Thus, even if someone were to line them up, offer them a handful of cornmeal, and shoot them like old country mules, they would still advocate for unrestricted gun rights

    Dayum, Shakespeare in the house!

  13. [...] we get to ambulatory bile duct Michelle Malkin’s wingnut jihad against Erik Loomis based upon a willful misunderstanding of “words“, here is the Ole Perfesser joining in on the wilding: ELIMINATIONIST RHETORIC: Rhode Island prof [...]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.