Word substitution game

I played the word substitution game in this opinion piece in hopes it communicates how my blood pressure rises when I read about repression of gun ownership:

A preview of the argument is made in a case making its way through the federal courts. It challenges the District of Columbia’s gun ni**er law, which was revised after the Supreme Court’s prior action. It allows handgun ni**er permits only for residents who intend to use the guns for self-defense at home allow them to visit in their homes. It still bans people from carrying guns ni**ers around the nation’s capital, where each year millions of tourists, schoolchildren, visiting officials and foreign dignitaries come to conduct business, immerse themselves in history or celebrate spring amid the splendor of cherry blossoms.

“They want to establish a constitutional right to take any gun ni**er, anywhere, at any time,” says Dennis Henigan, vice president of law and policy at the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Ni**er Violence. “They want to force that into every nook and cranny of American society.”

Many Americans were unnerved at the sight of gun-toting ni**er protesters at health care discussion forums and even outside of events where Obama was appearing in the summer. The cheerless truth is that the gun ni**er lobby, with the probable blessing of the Supreme Court, proudly promises more of the same.


14 thoughts on “Word substitution game

  1. Joe, I honestly find that word substitution game so ridiculous, and in this case your word choice made it especially so.

    I would like to invite you to visit my site today because I posted a video which you may have seen, but one which may take on major importance in the coming months with the Supreme Court’s agenda.

    This is more to the point than those silly word substitution games.

  2. Joe, you are talking about D.C. here, you may have hit the nail on the head without really wanting to.

  3. Can anyone here name their state representatives from 1935, and what they did? He’s confusing rights with the fleeting, forgettable and ultimately irrelevant power of elected officials.

    There are no expiring rights. The right of defense is a natural one; it always has existed, and forever will exist. It is not a requirement to constantly be exercising a right in order to retain it. Idiots like Henigan and the Brady Campaign are toxic to the disarmament movement, because their constant challenges actually ENCOURAGE people to do things like prance around with loaded weapons on full display, just to make the point that the right is retained.

    Thanks again, Brady Campaign, for providing more motivation to make the disparate subgroups of liberty culture join together and fight back as one cohesive unit. It’s like having a second NRA that’s paid for by my political enemies.

  4. I honestly find that word substitution game so ridiculous

    Why? Why do yo ufind it so ridiculous? How is one right any different from another right? Why have you never managed to adequately answer that question? How is discriminating against people who dare to exercise their rights to self-defense, self-preservation, and the bearing of arms any different from discriminating against people who dare to exercise their rights of free assocation and equal treatment under the law.

    How is discrimination in one case any better than in another case? How is one right more “ridiculous” than another? Where is the line drawn, oh woman with the earrings?

  5. I replied to the No Heaven Register editorial, but I forgot to uncheck the “randomly exlude words from post content” option in my browser.

  6. Hey! I played your word substitution game too, only I substituted the word with f*ckw*d and I found out that I didn’t care what they did with them! I don’t have any use for f*ckw*ds either!

    (Mike is right. The word substitution game is stupid, but if it plays to your fan club, go for it.)

    TJP has a point too. (Where did that point come from? Wow! Right out of left field!)

  7. Sorry.

    The missing context is that, in the past, the Brady Campaign (which Henigan represents) have claimed that the right codified in the Second Amendment is outdated (i.e. rights expire), Henigan has recited the Second Amendment minus “the People”, and now he’s suggesting that “to bear” is not one of the indivisible parts of the pre-existing right. Good luck finding any of the imaginative interpretation of original intent on their website now, though, since the whole ‘Second Amendment’ category vanished from the Brady blog.

    The video missing “the people” can be found here:
    http://armedandsafe.blogspot.com/ (upper right-hand side)

  8. I am amused that your detractors are apalled at the truth the word substitution game reveals.

    Let’s face it, most murders in this nation of any kind, including gun murders are black on black crime. Where do we find the most stringent restrictions on gun possession? Large urban areas. What do Chicago, NYC, LA, DC have in common? Large minority populations.

    In some of these areas gun possession is illegal under any and all circumstances, though DC recently has been told it can no longer ban possession of firearms across the board. These cities have the highest murder rates committed by blacks than other more freedom oriented venues. They experience those murder rates despite the fact guns are banned. Ergo, guns are not the problem because black killers still manage to kill with banned items. So, perhaps it is time to ban black folks. Or confiscate so that only the authorities can possess them in the name of public safety.

    Oh wait, we tried that with the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws, didn’t we? We decided that was antithetical to American principle. But when we changed the name of those failed and evil policies to “Public Safety” it was OK to do it again. How’s that working out?

    Perhaps, just like everyone else the black folks could wrest their communities from the grip of the drug gangs if they, like others in more enlightened areas of the nation, weren’t prohibited from protecting themselves against state sponsored criminals. Uh Huh! I said state sponsored criminals. The state needs those criminals to give them justification for trampling the rights of law abiding good people of any and every color.

    I know some will argue with my assertion about state sponsorship, use toleration, if you like. The fact remains that the state and drug gangs have a symbiotic relationship. Anybody reading here can go to any large urban area he has never been to before and find an illegal drug emporium. But the cops can’t? PLEASE!

  9. Love that counter argument against Joe: “Your argument is stupid because I say it’s stupid!”

    Woah watch out for those people! I hope neither MikeB or ubu52 decide to Represent Roman Polanski on his upcoming appeals trial.

    “Your Honor, I would like to submit to the court exhibit A: which is my opinion that these charges are stupid. Upon submission of this evidence I would press the court that all charges be dropped!”

    CASE CLOSED!!! *heh*

  10. Wow, Ubu52 – I have to admit, I am quite surprised that you would so readily admit to being a bigot. However, now that you have come out of the closet, so to speak, perhaps you can address the question I keep trying to get answered, and given your position as a self-professed bigot, your answer should be quite illuminating: how is discriminating against one right any different than discriminating against another right? Where is the line drawn? Where are the differences? How is one right “better” than another? Please, lay out your argument for us.

  11. Good luck with that Linoge. Pro-Rights people will answer any challenge given just to make the anti-freedom bigots look like fools.

    The anti-freedom people, deep down inside, know who they are, and don’t present themselves as targets.

  12. Oh, do not worry, Weer’d – I was not honestly expecting a response. I just like asking the question, and having it go unanswered.

Comments are closed.