Subscribe via RSS Feed

Worst. Defense. Of. Gun. Control. Ever.

[ 115 ] February 20, 2013 |

There’s a reason that Bob Beckel’s job is to represent “liberals” on Fox News. On the off-chance that he stumbles onto a progressive position you can be sure he’ll defend it so incompetently Roger Ailes will be very happy he’s nominally not on his side.

Comments (115)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. elm says:

    Give Beckel this, he managed to get four conservatives to agree that date rape is rape and that it is a real problem and that it is the man’s fault and not that the woman provoked it or was asking for it. That’s quite the accomplishment!

    • Djur says:

      That’s what amused me. Eric Bolling? Really?

    • sharculese says:

      Seriously, my first thought when I saw that was ‘isn’t that a thing conservatives generally agree with?’

    • I don’t think I’d be able to handle it if the monkeys at Twitchy went after Beckel for this.

    • Speak Truth says:

      I understand rape happens.

      I also understand the need to defend oneself.

      What I don’t understand is the liberal position that women shouldn’t have the right to defend themselves.

      • Malaclypse says:

        Agreed. All women should have the right to take off and nuke men from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

        • Speak Truth says:

          Hey, if you can’t answer the question, why don’t you give someone else a try?

          Anyone got a real answer?

          • Malaclypse says:

            Keep fucking that chicken, Jennie dearest.

          • Auguste says:

            Why should we answer a begged question?

          • cpinva says:

            strawman:

            “What I don’t understand is the liberal position that women shouldn’t have the right to defend themselves.”

            of course, no one said any such thing, so no response is required. now, go back to your cave, and finish those lovely pancakes, before they get cold.

            • Speak Truth says:

              Suggestions for defense against rape?

              Got any?

              • Richard says:

                Listen, you fucking piece of shit, if you were interested in anything other than trolling you could answer your own question. My daughter has taken classes in self-defense and has taught those classes. If a would be rapist gets near her, she knows the techniques to kick them in the groin and then shove their nose cartilage back into their head. Despite this, there is no guaranty that she would not be overwhelmed by a rapist. And the same would hold true even if she had a gun since she is not going to be holding the gun in front of her, aimed and ready, at every time she could be accosted.

                A few days before the Super Bowl, one of her best friends was walking from her car to her house in the Garden District. Three teenagers seized her from behind, abducted her, rode around New Orleans raping her several times, forcing her to withdraw money at an ATM and then stealing her car when they dropped her back. It made all the news outlets in New Orleans and the perpetrators have been arrested. Having a gun wouldn’t have helped her at all. The three guys could have easily overwhelmed her before she had the chance to pull it from her purse and pull the safety. Arming more people isn’t going to stop crimes like this.

                But you obviously don’t give a rat’s ass about victims of crime. You just want to make your stupid points about “liberals”. Let me say it again – fuck you and your kind.

                • Speak Truth says:

                  Seems like you’re still wanting to make that decision for her instead of allowing her to make her own decisions.

                  If she doesn’t want to carry a gun, then GREAT! I just want to see the women have the choice.

                  You’re anti-choice.

                • Djur says:

                  You’re objectively pro-rape unless you grant women the unrestricted right to shoot anyone they see at any time, as a preemptive defense. It’s the only way to be sure.

                • sharculese says:

                  Yeah, cupcake, this is why everyone can tell you’re not actually serious about rape prevention.

                • William Berry says:

                  “And the same would hold true even if she had a gun since she is not going to be holding the gun in front of her, aimed and ready, at every time she could be accosted.”

                  Exactly. Excepting cases of date-rape in which the victim might be intoxicated or otherwise drugged, rape is almost always a sudden, brutal surprise. A rape victim with a gun on her person is just more likely to be shot by the rapist— with her own gun.

                  WRT to the resident super-troll, it seems fairly obvious that he/she/it (say it fast and it sounds just like what he regularly does all over this blog!) is just a right-wing nutbag. But he is so good (and I mean just in the sense of paradigmatic) at what he does, I have come up with a new theory. He is actually a decent liberal fellow who posts to make everyone here, with their sense of humor and liberal intelligence (is there any other kind?), look good by comparison.

              • Jon H says:

                A liberal application of pancakes.

              • Liam says:

                Pepper spray.

              • calling all toasters says:

                As long as you’re hear, perhaps you could explain the conservative position that rape creates jobs.

              • Darkrose says:

                Yes:

                Men should stop raping people.

          • efgoldman says:

            Let pancakes go stale, then you can weaponize them.

            • Bill Murray says:

              you just need to sharpen the edges like the Flaming Carrot did with pizza (or perhaps a pizza box, it’s been a couple years and I’m officially old)

      • spencer says:

        Yeah, because owning guns sure helped Nancy Lanza defend herself. Why, without her guns, she might not be alive today.

      • What I don’t understand is the conservative belief that rapists should be armed.

      • elm says:

        Everyone should (and does) have the right to defend themselves. Your problem is your belief that having more guns in society would make it easier for people to defend themselves, rather than it making no difference (or maybe even making it harder) in the aggregate while increasing other negative outcomes, like accidents or collateral damage.

        • Speak Truth says:

          Well, SHIT. The police have it all wrong, then!!

          What a bunch of dumbasses! They should have checked with you first.

          • cpinva says:

            not really,

            “Well, SHIT. The police have it all wrong, then!!”

            no police dept. that i’m aware of has ever suggested that women, either on college campuses, or elsewhere, arm themselves with guns, for self-protection. the exact opposite: they suggest mace, a loud whistle, walking in pairs, being aware of your surroundings, self-defense courses (judo, karate, etc) etc. the reason they don’t suggest guns, is because the odds are great that they’ll be taken and used against you, assuming you haven’t shot yourself first.

            my wife attended a predominently female school, in an urban environment, in the early 80′s. she lived on campus, but the campus wasn’t secured, anyone could drive or walk in. the advice above is what she, and all the students were given, by both the city & campus police. we still live in the city, and that advice hasn’t changed, in the nearly 30 years since she graduated.

            • sharculese says:

              It is worth noting that many police departments are exceptionally wrong about what college students should do to protect themselves against rape, but not for any of the reasons that Jenny is pretending to care about.

          • The police don’t carry guns for self-defense. They carry them to allow them to subdue, disarm, or shoot others in the process of enforcing the law and keeping the peace, not merely protecting themselves.

            Since police get shot and otherwise assaulted all the bloody time, looking to their habits to minimize one’s chances of being harmed by an assailant is really, really stupid.

        • efgoldman says:

          Your problem is your belief…

          I don’t think it has any genuine beliefs, except maybe it doesn’t like pancakes.

      • Gepap says:

        So a woman (or any person) can only defend herself with a gun? That is news to me.

      • sharculese says:

        The more pressing question is why you can’t accept any solution where you don’t get to play desperate sadsack vigilante.

        • Speak Truth says:

          The more pressing question is why you can’t accept any solution where you don’t get to play desperate sadsack vigilante.

          What solution are you proposing?

      • sharculese says:

        I understand rape happens.

        Also, no. Rape doesn’t ‘happen’. Rape is perpetrated. By rapists. This statement indicates that you don’t actually understand, you’re just pretending to because you suddenly find it rhetorically convenient.

        • Speak Truth says:

          No, I’m with you.

          Bad people. Very bad people exist and will hurt you.

          I’m with you on this.

          • sharculese says:

            Nope. Framing everything in toddler-esque bogey man terms makes it clear that not only do you not understand, you have no interest in understanding.

            • Speak Truth says:

              Still haven’t offered up a better defense to rape.

              I’m listening and wanting to hear your suggestion(s)…

              • sharculese says:

                Not understanding the discussion doesn’t mean you get to change the subject, no matter how frustrated and insecure you might feel about your laziness and ignorance.

                • Speak Truth says:

                  shorter sharculese; “I have no real answer.”

                  I was just raggin’ ya’. Havin’ some fun at your expense.

                  There’s really no good alternative to firearms. If there were, professionals such as military and police would be using them instead.

                • sharculese says:

                  Not taking you seriously is not the same as not having an answer, kiddo.

                  But just to be clear, you are saying peace officers are perfectly analogous to civilians? Because that is a new depth of stupid, even for you.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Because that is a new depth of stupid, even for you.

                  I must disagree. Jennie is often even more stupid than that. Really, that was just about average for him.

                • spencer says:

                  There’s really no good alternative to firearms

                  … except for the many good alternatives that have been offered in this very thread.

                  Other than that, great point!

              • avoidswork says:

                Better F*cking Parenting, maybe?

                Real, genuine long-term prison sentences for those who commit the crimes. (And don’t get me started on people who harm children)

                Universities/Militaries/sports-centric institutions NOT covering it up and going to balls to the wall with punishment as though the victim was their own daughter/wife/sister.

              • Major Kong says:

                Just be sure to file the front sight off so it doesn’t hurt as bad when the perp takes it from you and shoves it….

          • Liam says:

            You know when you said

            There’s really no good alternative to firearms. If there were, professionals such as military and police would be using them instead.

            ?

            Pepper spray, which btw also burns the human junk when applied topically. Pretty hard to rape with burning junk. Obviously you retract all your related statments in light of this glaringly obvious answer, right?

            • Speak Truth says:

              Cops someitmes carry pepper spray, but it’s not effective on everyone. They also may carry a baton.
              But they haven’t substituted any of these for firearms.

              It must be irritating to you to have to take one position on how horrible rape is and how bad a crime against persons it truly is (which I also believe) and then take the position that you should restrict women from choosing the most effective and proven defense available.

              I don’t have that problem. I want women to have choice. I’m not trying to restrict anyone’s choice.

              you are

              • sharculese says:

                It is frustrating that we can’t solve problems by stuttering ‘gun’ mindlessly at them, I’ll give you that.

                The alternate reality you live in seems a lot simpler.

      • JL says:

        While there are certainly people who think that nobody should be able to have any sort of gun at all, that is not the mainstream liberal position. The mainstream liberal position does worry abut the rapist having easy access to guns too, though. The mainstream liberal position, AFAIK, is also okay with women having mace or taking self-defense classes.

        The thing is, though, most rapes, aren’t by strangers in the bushes (speaking both from data and from my experience as a rape crisis counselor here). They’re by people that the victims thought loved them or thought were their friends. They’re by family members. They’re by people who drug the victims’ drinks, or deliberately get them drunk so they won’t resist. They’re by people who gained your trust. They’re by people in a position of power over you who might have more social credibility than you – your coach, your teacher, your priest, your therapist, your father. A gun doesn’t do any good for someone who is drugged, and it would be pretty hard for a lot of people to use lethal force on someone who they’d cared about until then, who might be a family member, even in a rape situation. And of course, if the rapist manages to get the gun, you’re in an even worse situation than you were to start with.

        • Speak Truth says:

          Access to guns are a civil right as recently reaffirmed by SCOTUS.

          A right is not really up for grabs. It doesn’t have to be justified. That’s what makes it a right.

          Deal with it.

          If a woman wants to carry a gun and she’s otherwise qualified (not crazy or felon), then I want *her* to make that decisions for herself as a free person and not have those who think they know what’s best for her foisting their ideology on her. It’s called freedom and rights.

          Don’t wanna carry a gun? Don’t

          • sharculese says:

            The same opinions affirm the constitutionality of reasonable restrictions on gun argument, and yet here you are throwing a panicky tantrum about exactly that.

            It helps to know what you’re talking about before you start screeching about SCOTUS, kiddo.

            • Speak Truth says:

              I’m all for reasonable restrictions…and we have reasonable restrictions already.

              We restrict lawful ownership to those who are not crazy or with criminal backgrounds.
              We restrict machineguns and destructive devices only to certain individuals that qualify for them.

              That being said, I don’t see the reasonableness of restricting an otherwise qualified person the right to bear arms arbitrarily in one public place, but not others simply because others don’t approve of her exercising her civil rights…

          • Malaclypse says:

            Access to guns are a civil right as recently reaffirmed by SCOTUS.

            Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. – Antonin Scalia

            Man, cracker is one dumb-ass cracker.

          • redwoods says:

            Interesting. You read none of that reply.

            • njorl says:

              It’s not surprising. The whole “pancakes” business is because of this behavior.

              He was repeatedly made the fool, but would ignore the arguments made against him. He would then make the same arguments again in another thread, knowing full well that he had already been refuted. He is fundamentally dishonest and unworthy of dialog.

              The pancakes bit is very good. It’s tempting, when he says something repugnant and easily refutable to engage him, but it does no good.

              Just give him pancakes until he creates yet another pseudonym which will gain the benefit of the doubt until we recognize him again for what he is.

              • Uncle Kvetch says:

                until he creates yet another pseudonym

                He/she/it uses multiple pseudonyms simultaneously, no matter how many times it’s pointed out. Just further evidence of what a pathetic little shitweasel we’re dealing with here.

          • actor212 says:

            A right is not really up for grabs. It doesn’t have to be justified. That’s what makes it a right.

            Please go yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater, and let us know

          • spencer says:

            A right is not really up for grabs. It doesn’t have to be justified. That’s what makes it a right.

            So you’ll shut the fuck up about abortion now, then?

      • actor212 says:

        What I don’t understand is the liberal position that women shouldn’t have the right to defend themselves.

        Which part of “A gun is ten times more likely to be used AGAINST a woman than in her defense” is unclear to you?

      • wengler says:

        I understand that if a woman doesn’t carry a gun, you will call her a willing victim.

  2. wengler says:

    Fox News hired Kucinich, right?

    Are they going to use him or just throw stuff at him when they are angry? All these other Colmes-type commentators are never heard of before they get hired or after they leave.

  3. Todd says:

    Gotta imagine the faces are melting at FoxNews today over the Domenici-Laxalt love child.

    • BigHank53 says:

      After the war crimes and constitutional violations they’ve managed to forget, a senator’s illegitimate child will be gone in less time than it takes for coffee and a donut.

    • William Berry says:

      I am actually vaguely optimistic about what is going on at Fox/ Newscorp. The Rupert is fading fast. There is, I believe, a power struggle going on behind the scenes involving the progeny and Wendy. Wendy is a liberal. Much depends on the old bastard’s will.

  4. Malaclypse says:

    Subtext remaining text, sweetest. You know, God loves you just the way you are, no matter what your daddy told you growing up.

  5. Jon H says:

    I can only suspect that he was thinking of “campus” as meaning “classrooms”, as opposed to thinking of it as meaning the entire spectrum of locations connected to a college, such as dorm rooms, team buses, frat houses, etc.

    Not that sex never happens in classrooms. (Or offices, right SEK?) And where sex can happen, rape can happen.

  6. Winchy says:

    !!!

    No Gun Registration! No Gun Gonfiscation!

    Why?

    Just remember this: On February 19th, 1942 FDR violated The Constitution, and ordered the rounding up of over 100,000 people who were sent into camps on American soil — more than half of ‘em were American Citizens.

    It. Happened. In. America.

    The federal government imprisoned its own citizens without trial, without suspicion, without due process of law and without evidence.

    The federal government also dispossessed them of every worldly thing they owned that was not carried in their hands at the time they were rounded up.

    Now you understand why so many Americans will stick to their guns.

    • Linnaeus says:

      And yet armed Americans didn’t intervene to stop it. Wonder why?

      • MAJeff says:

        Hold it, the armed conservative crackers on the West Coast didn’t stop a program they favored and pursued?!?!

        BE AFRAID OF OBAMA AND FEMA CAMPS! WHITE PEOPLE ARE NEXT!

    • wengler says:

      If only those Japanese-Americans on the West coast had been armed! Then no one would’ve messed with them! Especially not armed white people and the US Army.

    • Major Kong says:

      They don’t need gun registration. Soon they’ll just have a drone watching to see who comes out of the gun shops.

      Hey, if you’re not doing anything wrong you don’t have anything to worry about, right?

  7. N__B says:

    I love the Dadaism of reading responses to deleted trolling. It’s nearly perfect humor.

  8. Malaclypse says:

    Jennie, I’m never going to fuck you, no matter how interested you seem to be.

  9. GeoX says:

    Aw, is da wittle twoll angwy?

  10. sharculese says:

    You really thought this response was so clever you had to repost it after it got deleted.

    That is the perfect testament to your desperation.

  11. efgoldman says:

    Got up too late this morning, missed the pancake breakfast.

  12. Uncle Kvetch says:

    Got up too late this morning, missed the pancake breakfast.

    Apparently lil’ Jenny SpeakCarbon pitched a world-class hissy fit and threw her plate of pancakes against the wall when all the mean libruls refused to indulge her bottomless appetite for peek-a-boo.

    Again.

  13. Jeremy says:

    Any idea when tomorrow’s episode is scheduled?

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site