Efficient gun control that makes sense

[louixo]

In 1863 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States .
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States , who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States .
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States .
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States .
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US .
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis .
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school.
One could go on, but you get the point, even if the media does not. Clearly, there is a problem with Democrats and guns.



No NRA member, Tea Party member, or Republican conservatives are involved.



SOLUTION: It should be illegal for Democrats to own guns.



Best idea I've heard to date.

 

[hossman2011]

Actually this a double edged epiphany.... They had determined that there was mental illness in the recent shootings... I think that dems should not be allowed to have guns because they have a propensity towards mental illness...

 

[Turtle]

Propensity? PROPENSITY?!?!

The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, by Lyle Rossiter, Jr., MD

 

[cheri1122]

Actually this a double edged epiphany....

Epiphanies don't have any edges - just sayin...


They had determined that there was mental illness in the recent shootings... I think that dems should not be allowed to have guns because they have a propensity towards mental illness...

No idea who "they" is, but it's quite possible that having to deal with Republicans actually drove some people insane.
That makes as much sense as your explanation, I think.

 

[davekc]

Looking at it from another angle, it could give pause for some optimism.

 

[cheri1122]

Propensity? PROPENSITY?!?!

The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness, by Lyle Rossiter, Jr., MD

A fitting capstone to a career of selling professional opinion to whichever side [prosecution or defense] will pay for it. IOW: "If you're buyin, I'm lyin."

 

[Turtle]

You should probably read the book before making such comments. It certainly caused me to look at things a little differently.

 

[letzrockexpress]

The title of this book angers me. The term Liberal has been hijacked and been used to describe the statist agenda. The fact that most conservatives use this term to describe statists only goes to prove you don't know what a Liberal really is and you have fallen for the lie....

 

[Turtle]

The title of this book angers me.

If that's true, then whoo-wee you are too easily angered. Pick yer battles, dood. Get angry over things that actually matter.

The term Liberal has been hijacked and been used to describe the statist agenda.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but someone who has a track record of being exactly wrong about simple definitions isn't likely to be someone I'm going to take such factually stated comment on face value, especially since it's incorrect. The term has been hijacked to mean precisely what it always has in the context of politics, that of advocating measures of progressive political reform.

The fact that most conservatives use this term to describe statists only goes to prove you don't know what a Liberal really is and you have fallen for the lie....

Well, for one, it's not a fact, and for two, even if it were how in the world does conservatives using that word to mean anything pertain to me? The only way it possibly could wold be if I either (a) believed conservatives at face value, or (b) that I'm a conservative. Neither of which is true.

 

[cheri1122]

You should probably read the book before making such comments. It certainly caused me to look at things a little differently.

I don't need to read the book, the extensive excerpts I've read were enough. His claim that liberals want the people to be dependent on government from cradle to grave is pure fantasy, for starters. There's a whole list of "what liberals want & believe" that is not even remotely true.
One reviewer says he lifted portions straight from Ayn Rand, and that tells me he doesn't have his own head on straight, either.
Write a book, and if you tell people what they want to hear, it doesn't have to be true, you'll still make a fortune. Given his history of being a 'paid consultant/expert testifier' I have to think that had something to do with the decision to become an author.

 

[letzrockexpress]

If that's true, then whoo-wee you are too easily angered. Pick yer battles, dood. Get angry over things that actually matter.

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but someone who has a track record of being exactly wrong about simple definitions isn't likely to be someone I'm going to take such factually stated comment on face value, especially since it's incorrect. The term has been hijacked to mean precisely what it always has in the context of politics, that of advocating measures of progressive political reform.

Well, for one, it's not a fact, and for two, even if it were how in the world does conservatives using that word to mean anything pertain to me? The only way it possibly could wold be if I either (a) believed conservatives at face value, or (b) that I'm a conservative. Neither of which is true.

Yeah well I'm not THAT angry... I wasn't necessarily talking to "you". I meant what I said more figuratively than anything else... Your narcissism is bleeding through again. For the record I vehemently disagree with your characterizations.

 

[Humble2drive]

His claim that liberals want the people to be dependent on government from cradle to grave is pure fantasy, for starters. There's a whole list of "what liberals want & believe" that is not even remotely true.

I beg to differ. It is in fact remotely true.
Read the following and notice the word "radical"

From the back page of the book:

The radical left's politics and it's destructive effects on our basic freedoms have provoked many to speculate on what makes these people tick.
The Liberal Mind answers the question.

From Amazon:

The Liberal Mind is the first in-depth examination of the major political madness of our time: The radical left’s efforts to regulate the people from cradle to grave . . .

His assumptions regarding liberals seem to be taken from the rhetoric provided by the radical minority of liberals. It appears that he is applying those "radical" thoughts to the "Liberal agenda" in general in order to support his biased conclusions.
If this is the case then his claims are remotely true but do not necessarily apply to the majority of liberals that make up the democratic party.

It could truthfully be stated that the radical fringes of both liberals and conservatives could "have a propensity toward mental illness".

 

[Turtle]

I don't need to read the book, the extensive excerpts I've read were enough.

Enough for what? Enough to draw conclusions based on incomplete information? I would say so. Enough to draw accurate conclusions? Not even.

His claim that liberals want the people to be dependent on government from cradle to grave is pure fantasy, for starters.

And yet, thanks to liberal democrats, we now have in this country programs that provide precisely that, cradle to grave governmental dependency. You call it pure fantasy, yet it's pure reality. These programs actually exist, right now, today.

There's a whole list of "what liberals want & believe" that is not even remotely true.

Not even remotely? Are you sure about that? Not even remotely true would mean that not a single thing on the list is wanted or believed by a single liberal. Are you sure about that?

One reviewer says he lifted portions straight from Ayn Rand, and that tells me he doesn't have his own head on straight, either.

Just how well do you know this reviewer? Or, is the reviewer simply telling you what you want to hear? What is the reviewer is <gasp> wrong and is simply trying to discredit the author? OMG!

Write a book, and if you tell people what they want to hear, it doesn't have to be true, you'll still make a fortune. Given his history of being a 'paid consultant/expert testifier' I have to think that had something to do with the decision to become an author.

What does any of that have to do with the price of tea in logical fallacy land?

 

[Turtle]

Yeah well I'm not THAT angry...

OK, good. I feel relieved now.

I wasn't necessarily talking to "you". I meant what I said more figuratively than anything else... Your narcissism is bleeding through again.

I'm sorry. You were replying directly to me, and you referenced me directly. I don't know why my bloody narcissism made me believe you were talking to me. It's a cross I must bear, apparently.

For the record I vehemently disagree with your characterizations.

At the risk of learning a new and improved definition of "characterization," I didn't make any. So, <gulp>

Of what characterizations do you speak?