Today in “Wingnuts Reading Tweets”

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.”*


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

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


[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.]

51 comments on this post.
  1. actor212:

    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:

    What’s wrong with you?

  3. ploeg:

    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:

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

  5. Scott S.:

    Most likely result: One guy left alive, declares himself Greatest American Ever, shoots genitals off while sticking gun in his waistband, declares himself Greatest Victim Ever, whines about Obama

  6. actor212:

    It would eliminate a significant sector of the Tea Party.

  7. Malaclypse:

    “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!

  8. Major Kong:

    Could we throw in a large sack of live squirrels just to make it interesting?

  9. Snarki, child of Loki:

    I was about to say “why do you hate squirrels so much?”, but then realized that you would be presenting them with a room chock full ‘o’nuts.

    Carry one.

  10. Snarki, child of Loki:

    Carry ON, dammit

  11. Speak Truth:

    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

  12. actor212:

    Snarki, that was brilliant.

  13. actor212:

    Nor can you point to a single life saved by a civilian confronting a mass killer with a gun.

    Meanwhile, 61 mass shootings since the assault weapons ban lapsed is more than sufficient justification for imposing the ban again.

    End of discussion

  14. Philip:

    Point to a single life saved when the US did not use nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Since you seem to want specific lives rather than numbers, I demand you tell me the specific people saved, or I will not believe you.

  15. Malaclypse:

    Gun control has never been a winning issue for Democrats.

    Romney already hitting it out of the park. Stick a fork in Obama, he’s done.

    Looks like we’ll be up very late on election night. The race is tight.

    STILL panicked over Ryan? You guys are absolutely desperate. It doesn’t matter what Bitme and TOTUS does tonight–it is all overshadowed by tomorrow’s dismal jobs report. No bounce for you.

    A NEVER BEFORE SEEN Obama RACE SPEECH video is going to come on tonight, at the Daily Caller and Fox News, 9 PM E.T., contains an accent he never adopts in public, shout-outs to Rev. Wright, anti-white sentiment, portrays America as a zero-sum racist society, insults the poor! This is THE October surprise!

    Watching Obama giving his concession speech will be funny. Good thing I don’t live near the city, because urban riots will inevitably follow, especially with Democrats pre-emptively inflaming the blacks with tales of “Voter supression.”

    That’s some prognostification, Jennie dearest.

  16. zombie rotten mcdonald:

    Didn’t he also predict urban riots if Obama WON?

  17. SEK:

    As was this whole sub-thread. Good show, good show!

  18. actor212:

    No one ever accused her of being the sharpest crayon in the chandelier.

  19. Scott S.:

    Eventually, the real world has to catch up to Jenny’s fevered, masturbatory imagination…

  20. Malaclypse:

    The urbans are always rioting on his world, I imagine.

  21. Anonymous:

    damn, you forgot all the “When Chief Justice Roberts strike down Obamacare….” predictions

  22. Malaclypse:

    I had to edit.

  23. zombie rotten mcdonald:

    How would one even go about proving that? You can’t prove a negative.

    I could just point to someone, anyone, alive during the Assault weapons ban and claim that it saved their lives. It prevented someone from getting an assault weapon, so they had time to calm down, reflect that they might have a problem, and they sought help.

  24. Ed Marshall:

    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.

  25. olexicon:

    Ah the classics of internet pontification

  26. Joel:

    Yes, in wingnut world, the guy with birdshot embedded in his cheeks has to apologize to the world for carelessly pointing his face at the barrel of a gun.

  27. Major Kong:

    “There’s something climbin’ up mah leg!!!”



  28. Manta:

    I think there is space for a compromise here: those who want to feel like Rambo can use a crossbow!

  29. Bob:

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

  30. DrDick:

    Harrumph, Sir, harrumph!

  31. DrDick:

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

  32. ruviana:

    I still fondly think of UNLIMITED CORPORATE CASH!

  33. Malaclypse:


    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.

  34. cpinva:

    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.

  35. Matt:

    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:

  36. efgoldman:

    Speaking of which: Where the fuck is Loomis? He just got called out by our local (Providence RI) ABC affiliate. They also quoted the URI Preswident, himself quoting from The Weasel’s Textbook: Useful Quotations for Every Fraught Situation.

  37. DrDick:

    I wouldn’t count on it. The delusion is strong in this one. I think an encounter with the real world would cause his head to explode.

  38. Pestilence:

    Are you saying Dr Dick is your father figure?

  39. Pestilence:

    well, we can hope

  40. Malaclypse:

    I’m just offering respect to people who problem-solve with combustibles.

  41. Njorl:

    Studies show that 82% of all urban people are killed each day.

  42. Njorl:

    There’s me. A guy walked up to me holding nothing and saying, “blam blam blam blam blam!”. If not for the ban he’d have gunned be down for sure.

  43. Njorl:


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

  44. BigHank53:

    Alphabetically, chronologically, or in order of magnitude?

  45. BigHank53:

    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.

  46. Quaker in a Basement:

    Hmm. Squirrels.

    I LIKE it! Forget the smoke, the firecracker, and all the rest. The squirrels by themselves should provide enough entertainment.

  47. expatchad:


  48. expatchad:

    42% more than once…

  49. Lacking Moral Fiber aka Useless Muthfucka frmly Nemesis:

    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!

  50. Sink To The Bottom With You | BirchIndigo:

    [...] 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 [...]

  51. The Kenosha Kid:

    Stick a fork in Obama, he’s done.

    Is this ADVOCATING CANNIBALISM?!! Call Michelle Malkin and the ole perfesser!!!

Leave a comment

You must be