Quote of the day–sfprogressive

If we see anyone walking around with a gun it is a signal that they are crazy and we should lock them up. “Guns don’t kill people, but crazy open carry people walking around with guns can kill people”. Lets hope that Obama has the guts to push for a total gun ban and melts down all the guns these crazy people want to wank around with.


sfprogressive
May 28, 2010
Comment to Dueling emotions on gun control flare anew
[Ahhh… yes. This is no surprise. If you don’t conform to their view you must be crazy and need to sent off to the mental hospital. That is what they did in the USSR and it’s what the “progressives” advocate here.–Joe]

18 thoughts on “Quote of the day–sfprogressive

  1. We have the strict law. It’s called the second amendment. What we do not have is strict enforcement of the same. Hence the problem.

    Mikeb is calling for the same thing as sfprogressive– civil war, gulags– a thousand Wakos, ten thousand Ruby Ridges…a totalitarian police state. Mikeb; you didn’t have to come right out and say it like you did just now. We already understand the “progressive” mind. It has a long, extremely deadly history. It was well understood at the founding of this country, though it had other names back then, and THAT is why we have the second amendment.

    A progressive trying to convert a conservative is a very funny thing. It’s tantamount to a kindergartner trying to teach history to an 80 year old history professor. No, Mikeb; it’s the other way around– conservatives are those who were raised in a progressive environment, figured out the stupidity of the left, and then graduated to adulthood. You don’t go back the other way, reverting to childhood, unless you’ve suffered brain damage of some sort. Therefore all the “progressive” claptrap in the world, can, at best, only hold back some of the potential graduates.

    What the left needs to sustain itself is a steady supply of new ignoramuses, overwhelming physical force (the point of the OP), or both.

  2. Oh yes. Pleeease, Obama, push for a total gun ban. Please, please, pretty please.

    heh.

  3. Of course, Sparky neglects to mention, perhaps maliciously, why it is that New York City is reporting a decrease in overall crime. For example:

    They reveal that precinct bosses threaten street cops if they don’t make their quotas of arrests and stop-and-frisks, but also tell them not to take certain robbery reports in order to manipulate crime statistics. The tapes also refer to command officers calling crime victims directly to intimidate them about their complaints.

    As a result, the tapes show, the rank-and-file NYPD street cop experiences enormous pressure in a strange catch-22: He or she is expected to maintain high “activity”—including stop-and-frisks—but, paradoxically, to record fewer actual crimes.

    […]

    Bosses spend more time in the roll calls haranguing the officers for “activity”—or “paying the rent,” as it was known—than anything else. In other words, writing summonses, doing stop-and-frisks (known as “250s”), doing community visits, and making arrests. Or else.

    Officers were under constant pressure to keep those numbers high to prove that they were doing their jobs, even when there was little justification for it. Like a drumbeat, this mandate was hammered home again and again in almost every roll call.

    […]

    During a September 12, 2009, roll call, a fellow cop tells Schoolcraft: “A lot of 61s—if it’s a robbery, they’ll make it a petty larceny. I saw a 61, at T/P/O [time and place of occurrence], a civilian punched in the face, menaced with a gun, and his wallet was removed, and they wrote ‘lost property.’ ”

    The practice of downgrading crimes has been the NYPD’s scandal-in-waiting for years. The NYPD claims that downgrading happens only rarely, but in the course of reporting this story, the Voice was told anecdotally of burglaries rejected if the victim didn’t have receipts for the items stolen; of felony thefts turned into misdemeanor thefts by lowballing the value of the property; of robberies turned into assaults; of assaults turned into harassments.

    And then there is this:

    * A new survey of 491 retired captains that found that respondents who worked in the CompStat era felt greater pressure from management to doctor major crimes.

    * The NYPD Staten Island Evidence Collection Team’s fingerprinting of burglary scenes but not entering its findings if cops did not issue the victims a police report. The burglaries would then not appear on CompStat.

    * Sergeants’ different attitude during roll call once CompStat began. Before, they would instruct officers to report all crimes. When CompStat came aboard, that speech disappeared.

    * Officers who purposely made it difficult for victims to file complaints. Cops responding to burglaries would ask for serial numbers and receipts for lost items and not file their reports until those had been produced.

    * Cops who turned felony assaults into misdemeanor assaults if suspects couldn’t be identified.

    * A sergeant who recorded an iPod stolen during an assault as lost property. The same cop recategorized burglaries down to the level of criminal trespass.

    The New York City Police Department downgraded reports, misrepresented crimes, and overinflated their “we are doing work” numbers, in order to create the decline in crime they are now seeing.

    In short, they lied. Just like Sparky does on a nearily-daily basis. So, in the end, we have absolutely no idea whether or not NYC is enjoying a decrease in crime or not, simply because the data used to make that determination has been corrupted at the most basic of levels.

    Question, unanswered.

    And, yet, at the same time, individual American citizens’ most basic rights are being abridged by a an authoritarian, rule-changing government, petty totalitarians like sfprogressive up there desperately wants to lock people up for simply being of a differing opinion of him, and liars like Sparky here spread their misinformation like it is gospel.

    But, remember, no one is trying to hurt us, or destroy our rights, or take our firearms…

  4. And of course no new gun laws have been enacted around the cited timeframe. NY had strict gun control and a high violent crime rate…fast forward to today NY has a lower violent crime rare, and the same gun laws.

    I think we’re all aware that MikeB302000 is truly suffering from mental illness, and claiming to be the only sane man in the room.

  5. If MikeB desires strict law enforcement, he should return to the US from Europe, and serve his sentence.

  6. Well, for one, it proves that if the voters of San Francisco were pro-Jew Control, UBU52 probably would not have a problem with it…

  7. I didn’t expect Joe or Linoge or anyone else to accept that as an example, not because it’s like a kindergartner trying to convince an 80-year-old, as Lyle so eloquently said, but for the simple reason that you guys have your minds made up.

    And it’s not necessary to exaggerate what was said either. No one is talking about “taking your firearms.” You guys are like a broken record with that one. We’re talking about strict gun laws strictly enforced.

  8. “No one is talking about “taking your firearms.”

    And since we aren’t either, you’re lying again Sparky.

    What we primarily talk about are laws that have been shown to have no effect on crime and whose only purpose is to restrict and reduce ownership as much as possible.

    You know it. I know it.

  9. Weer’d,

    If you look down below this list of comments, you will see a box (the one I am typing in) that says “Comment.” Underneath, it has a little box that says “Save Comment.”

    I am posting a “comment” relating to the original post which linked to a story in the San Francisco newspaper. I am not trying to prove anything. It is merely a comment. Perhaps Proposition H is something Joe is unfamiliar with? I don’t know.

  10. ubu52,

    I am very familiar with Proposition H. I donated money to one of the organizations that helped win that lawsuit. I commented about Proposition H numerous times here on my blog and I talked to people behind the scenes who were closely involved in the lawsuit and learned things that are not public knowledge.

    Although wouldn’t have worded it as Weer’d Beard and Linoge did I did wonder why you mentioned it.

    I can sort of understand the majority of a certain group wanting to pass laws against certain behaviors such as mixed marriages, homosexuality, and public carriage of weapons. But what perplexes me is that this is from a culture that claims to support “diversity”. They pass such laws then advocate sending those that disagree with them to a mental hospital.

    The more I learn about human behavior the more I like cats and computers.

  11. …but for the simple reason that you guys have your minds made up.

    So sayeth someone who simply glossed over the admitted-to and resigned-because-of facts that the NYPD have inflated, delfated, and otherwise adjusted their crime numbers to make the outside world believe that they are enjoying a decrease in crime.

    They might very well be. But it does not matter – there is no way to accurately, honestly, or truthfully determine that now. And yet despite the warped records, despite the sweeping under the rug, despite the “adjustments”, despite the falsehoods, despite the maliciously erroneous data, despite the fact that more than a few people have lost their jobs due to all of these things, you still believe that the unprovable reports that NYC has a decrease in crime supports your position.

    So, remind me again – who has who’s mind made up about the situation, and who is unwilling to even entertain evidence to the contrary?

    Then again, I am trying to have a rational, logical, and reasonable conversation with someone who is incapable of determining fact from fiction, someone who obviously suffers from a significant case of projection (i.e. accusing other people of being close-minded while wearing continent-sized blinders yourself), and someone who also seems to be stricken with a very deep sense of ressentiment, so I am not exactly sure what I was expecting. Perhaps my mind is made up that it is possible to dig through all of your layers of bigotry, malicious ignorance, and intolerance, Sparky, despite all of the copious evidence to the contrary. Should I go about changing that as well?

    Unrelated to Sparky, all comments serve a purpose, otherwise people would not make them. Unfortunately, UBU52 dodged the question regarding hers, so we are left to simply speculate. I wonder why she found it so difficult to explain her rationale?

  12. Did Linoge pimp his own website enough in that post or what? He’s a control freak but I doubt a lot of you recognize him as such. Does his “significant other” ever post?

    Responding to Joe: I always find it humorous when anyone points at an SFgate news story. It’s funny to read the comments too since they overwhelmingly endorse guns (usually) but they aren’t just coming from the SF region. And that is why Prop. H is so interesting. So, let the comments reign! Do they really matter?

  13. He’s a control freak but I doubt a lot of you recognize him as such.

    *giggle*

    *gigglegiggle*

    *falls out of his chair laughing*

    That is perhaps the funniest thing you have ever written, UBU52. Absolutely ludicrous, and a pointless ad hominem attack that still has you evading a very simple and honest question, but also funny as hell – even funnier than you being incapable of identifying sushi, and then viciously attacking another person, and his parents, for identifying it correctly.

    But I thought you were ignoring me? Or are you just ignoring me except to take cheap personal shots when you get the chance? Convenient, that. Although, pray tell, what does my wife sharing or not sharing in a hobby of mine have to do with me suposedly being a “control freak”. *giggle*

    I am sorry for not pointing out that you probably suffer from just as much ressentiment as Sparky does, if not more – did being left out make you feel insignificant or something? Is that why you embarked on another one of your pointless (and equally baseless) ad hominems?

    At any rate, it is interesting that you continue to oppose “outside influences” in San Francisco, as if individual cities (and states, I assume?) can abridge basic Constitutionally-protected rights on a whim and a prayer. But, let me guess – you oppose the recent trend amongst states to pass 10th-Amendment reinforcement bills, right?

  14. “Did Linoge pimp his own website enough in that post or what?”

    Are you calling Linoge a pimp? I think that’s what you just did.

    I especially enjoyed that remark because Linoge is the one who started, about a year ago, linking back to his own site whenever mentioning me or quoting me. Then some of the others started doing it, I guess they thought it was cool. Then some of them started banning me, not Linoge though, he’s above that kind of thing.

    The most enjoyable twist of all, and these guys offer many twists, is from Weer’d. After stating that he would never comment on my blog again “for moral reasons,” he’s been commenting again. They’re like a barrel of monkeys.

    About the original post, recent events in the U.K. have highlighted again that in that oppressed island nation there are so few headline-grabbing multiple shootings compared to the U.S., that when they have one it’s international news. Here in the U.S. of A., thanks to guys like Joe and his friends, we don’t even blink when there’s a mass shooting. It’s become as much a part of the American culture as Chevrolet and apple pie.

  15. He’s a control freak but I doubt a lot of you recognize him as such.

    How sad, UBU can’t respond intelligently to Linoge’s comments, so she takes a cheap personal shot at him. You anti-gunners do wonders for the pro-gun cause just by opening your mouths.

    And MikeB, I am sure that if some guy went on a shooting spree for hours in a major city with the cops chasing him and killed a dozen or so people it’d make national news.

Comments are closed.