Matthew Foss
From here.
[I don’t know the date or which of the many Matthew Foss’s in the world wrote this. I don’t know if it was a parody or sincere. If you find out let me know so I can update this post.
Assuming it was sincere…
Just so you know what they think of you and what they want done to you.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Breathtaking in its stupdiity and moral vacuousness.
M
If not a parody, I read it as a way for him to kill off all who don’t agree with him (and without getting his pretty hands dirty), or a way to scare others by penalty of death to submit to his views.
Pretty sick!
Would he submit quietly to the mugger, the corrupt bureaucrat, the cattle car loader?
Yes, I suppose he would, because it would be for the best, in his mind at least.
Like most “progressives,” he expects to be the one in charge, so his opinions are always about what should be done to other people, because HE knows what’s best for them. He’s smart enough to make his own choices wisely.
Bad things only happen to the stupid peasants, and they deserve it, don’cha know?
“he expects to be the one in charge”
Useful Idiots.
My first thought was that he was mocking the Progressive mindset. It’s sometimes impossible to tell the difference, however, between mockery of Progressivism and the real thing unless you have more context.
Wanting to kill people to “bring harmony to the universe” is certainly representative of Progressive thinking. A universe with Billy-Bob and his guns, and the people he saved who might actually be grateful to Billy-Bob and his guns and might want to see more Billy-Bobs with guns, would be a horribly disjointed and out of kilter universe in the mind of any Progressive. Even if a Progressive were six galaxies away from the Milky Way, he’d be unable to rest knowing that there were Billy-Bobs on Earth with guns, and people who liked the Billy-Bobs or even tolerated the Billy-Bobs. Thus “Harmony in The Universe” means there is no one alive, anywhere, who disagrees with Progressives and Progressivism. As Rush Limbaugh has put it many times; the Progressive mind does not want a level playing field. It wants to clear the playing field of all opponents.
There is just so much idiocy in that. I think this is one time I really am stupider for having read something. sheesh.
I’ve often wondered about something regarding statements like this. Progressives often make statements like this desiring the death of their opponents and nothing happens. I wonder, if Joe were to make a similar statement, would “nothing” happen? Would he get a visit or a phone call? A restraining order? Or worse? It makes me think that there’s either a double standard, or it’s well known that someone like this Matthew Foss is probably incapable or a wuss, so one can automatically discount him. I think it’s a combination of the two
I’ve often wondered too. But I don’t have any evidence to resolve the question.
The evidence has been all around us for many years. Hillary, whose only major accomplishment in life is having hitched her wagon to Bill, is a WONderful person, while Sarah Palin is a stupid dirty rotten whore. The guy who created “Piss Christ” was paid with public funds, while the guy who did the “Crude and Disgusting Video” that no one saw and which was dishonestly blamed for the Benghazi attack, was arrested. We could probably max out your server’s storage capacity with such examples.
I was referring to evidence that law enforcement would treat such talk/writing differently.
First, I am no longer amazed by the intolerance of those who are not capable of rationale thought.
Second, the fact that he bases his worldview on “movies” is ludicrous at best.
People like him should wear a’badge of peace’ ( See Robert Heinlein)
so the perps can recognize the easy pickin’s.
L:et’s be clear: people (?) like this do not want our guns, they want our lives-
but they are incapable, so they rant.
“They are incapable,” that’s it, right there. They won’t be taking point.
Note that Matthew Foss puts it all passively. These people “should be killed” — by someone else, but at his direction, apparently.
He really hates the idea, it seems, of someone killing a criminal in self defense — or, even worse, of saving lives by doing so. Yet he doesn’t seem to mind ordering other people to their deaths, and doesn’t seem to see the extreme irony of it.
I’m going to guess that this is a false-flag parody. Perhaps I’m naive, but I just don’t want to believe that anyone could honestly mean to say something that stupid.
If I thought he really existed and really did mean it, I’d want to respond: Go for it, big guy. If you really believe that, then be man enough to pull the trigger yourself. Just keep in mind that we have harsh penalties for murder… and that the people you want to kill in cold blood are, by definition, better armed and better trained than you. (They’re also more ethical and more law-abiding — they haven’t threatened to kill YOU, have they? — but that’s another matter.)
My money is on parody myself, but it says a lot about liberalism nowadays that we have a hard time discerning the difference.
I had to look up the Final Destination films. I think I had heard of them, but have never seen them. If this guy is taking his understanding of the moral universe from horror movies, It’s no wonder he comes to such sick twisted conclusions.
Yep. By his logic, the teenagers in the Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street series’ are morally in the wrong for attempting to stop Jason and Freddy Krueger from hacking them to death. Poor Jason and Freddy are just “forces of nature”, you see, and the teens’ deaths are the “will of the Universe”.
It takes two to murder: one killer, one victim. If either abdicate their “responsibility” – the killer to kill, the victim to die – there is no murder. If the victim chooses to fight back rather than die and slays the killer, it’s no more a “murder” than if the killer chooses not to kill. Both parties take responsibility for their actions (or inactions). Calling the murder “universal harmony” removes that responsibility from the killer, and redefines the victim as a guilty party for daring to fight back against his/her own murder.
Want to talk about “blaming the victim”? Ask this Matthew Foss guy.
(As another thought, the researchers who developed the vaccines for polio and smallpox must be guilty of genocide to this Matthew Foss. Saving millions of human lives must have required the merciless deaths of trillions of microbial “forces of nature”. Just saying.)
I’m not trying to be That Guy, but you linked this from a thread on 4chan, which has for a decade been the Mos Eisley of the Internet: a wretched hive of scum, villainy, and bored thirteen-year-old trolls.
I mean, it’s possible somewhere there’s a guy named Mike Foss who said that sincerely on some “social media” page–Poe’s Law (“so many people today have both an Internet connection and a complete psychotic disconnect from reality that you can no longer tell trolling or parody from real insanity, which is why The Onion isn’t funny any more”) and all that–but when 4chan is anywhere in the chain of evidence I have to wonder whether someone somewhere slapped it together in Photoshop or even MS Paint and put it out there to laugh at our reaction to it.
Trust me. Nobody wants to be That Guy.
If the lives saved by guns aren’t worth the lives taken by guns, then law enforcement shouldn’t have guns either. No wonder the Feds are giving them armored vehicles.