Quote of the day—Michael Schaus

Deciding that they should organize a protest outside of the NRA annual meeting in Indianapolis, gun control advocates “flocked” to show their disdain for American gun-owners… But, there was only one problem: With a mere 25 people deciding to show up for the rally, the “protest” looked more like an OFA global warming meeting.

Apparently, two dozen people was the absolute most the anti-gun group, Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence, was able to gather for the afternoon… Heck, I could probably attract a larger crowd by handing out high-capacity sodas on any given afternoon.

Michael Schaus
April 28, 2014
Bloomberg Is His Own Worst Enemy on Gun-Control
[David Hardy was there and took a picture with his cell phone (they blocked his video camera). I cannot count more than 25 in his picture yet “Moms Demand Action” claim there were “More than 100…”. And in the comments JT Niggle points out that on their Facebook page they claim “over 300”. They do have a picture up that might have 100 people in it but there is no way they have 300.

Anti-gun people almost always seem to have a problem with numbers. This is just one more example.—Joe]


7 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Michael Schaus

  1. Let’s do some math. 100 rights-deniers, 70,000 rights supporters. Bloomie can’t say it’s because they were outspent, can he?

    BTW, when is the NRA going to spend some $$$ to make the point that Bloomberg is using his money to subvert an enumerated Civil Right?. When the KKK did that, they were hounded off the face of the Earth.

    I want to see some NRA ads: “Bloomberg = KKK”. When the NRA makes a project out of Bloomie, I will help finance that project. I stopped contributing to the NRA when they showed me their Rolodex instead of their rifle in some recent fights.

  2. I think Bloomberg pays by the head so they lie about the numbers to get more money (or something like that).

    • Hmm. That actually seems plausible. The concept of the rent-a-mob goes way back. I believe that, before he started his little club in Guyana, Jim Jones was known for his ability to get significant numbers of people to the protest du jour for Progressive causes.

  3. You conservatives and your extremist rules about numbers: counting people to figure out how many people were there is lame, like the rule about only voting once or remembering to take your STD-meds every single day. Stop limiting a number to just one meaning! A number can mean anything you want it to mean. You need to deconstruct the idea of counting, to really get at the underlying racism and patriarchy.

    Trust me on this, I just got a $350,000 grant from NEA on this very topic. I’m a tenure-track expert in the field of post-modern numerology.

  4. As I like to say; what’s an order of magnitude (or two) between friends?

    If you get a number right, to within one or two orders of magnitude, you’re fairly close considering how far off you COULD have been. Isn’t that the new definition of accuracy, or of success, that we’re expected to embrace?

    If they aren’t already, these people should be working for the government.

  5. Last Tuesday we had 350-400 people on the steps of the Pennsylvania Capitol Building in 40°F temperatures and steady, cold rain. We do it every year rain, snow, or shine with speeches from a few political figures and dignitaries and then those who are unarmed (or have checked their weapons) procede inside to lobby the representatives directly. We likely would have doubled the crowd if the weather had been as nice as the protestors in Indy had.


    • Wait right there, Buster! Large numbers of supporters only count when they’re supporting authoritarianism (and 25 is a decisive number). In that case, it is incontrovertible proof of the will of the American People, and of course we all know that the will of the people is law. Done deal. It’s democracy in action, and what could be better than that? Hmm? Why, it represents EVERYTHING that we stand for in the country…

      On the other hand, when tens of millions of nut-jobs like you demand that their rights be protected, that’s a national tragedy, a global embarrassment that must be corrected. The larger the numbers you can post, the more urgent the problem, don’t you know. It’s practically a national emergency, and you have NO RIGHT to create a national emergency. Doing so makes you an enemy, not a patriot. If you were a patriot, you’d stand by your president and his handlers. If you’re against the president, you’re against America (and your breathing does nothing but pollute the atmosphere with carbon dioxide).

      Sorry about all that. The point I’m making is that the numbers are not nearly so important as the principles. The authoritarians can sometimes get away with disregarding the numbers or attacking millions of people’s honor, but if they’re forced to take a stand against the actual principles, we at least have made THE case, and the forces of evil are far less able to wiggle out of it intact.

Comments are closed.