If there are too many

If someone were to say there were too many of something then wouldn’t that mean they would advocate reducing the number?

Apparently I’m a number to be reduced. Nice to know where I stand in the minds of the anti-gun people.

H/T Twitchy Team.


11 thoughts on “If there are too many

  1. Pingback: SayUncle » Why are anti-gun activists so violent?

  2. What all of her (his?) ilk never think about is that when the time comes to start reducing the “undesirables”, “WE” have more guns then his(her) allies/friends do…

  3. Yep – many of my guns are owned precisely because of the desire by others to either remove me, my loved ones, or my legally-earned possessions. It always baffles me how so many anti-gunners claim on the one hand how violent, aggressive, and mentally unstable all of us gun owners are, yet rely on our civility and humanity to simply not put a bullet in their them.

    If an affinity for guns is the sign of a small penis, then hatred for an inanimate object is the sign of an undeveloped cerebral cortex.

  4. The anti-gunners who think guns are phallic replacements should ask themselves why they’re so driven to — in their own terms — emasculate people.

  5. I always just laugh at them when they make dick jokes. Not with them, at them. And not at the jokes. They’re trying to elicit an emotional response because that’s all they appreciate (note I don’t say “understand”), but they won’t get it. They don’t deserve it. I use mine for two things, yeah, I know if I’m coming or going. It’s plenty for both, but no matter how much of it I had, it wouldn’t do me much good against a group of urban youts intent on my demise. That’s where the .45 comes in, no compensating for anything.

  6. Has anyone else ever noticed how the hoplophobes always caricature gun-owners as uneducated rednecks, yet the mass shootings are never committed by rednecks?

  7. Women consume more health care resources than men. Health care costs are skyrocketing and there are too many of you.

    Would that be considered ‘eliminationist rhetoric’?

  8. Well, if she feels that way about me only because of my sex, she’s shown herself to be a sexist bigot of the first order. I don’t need to buy any of her stupid books, then.

  9. As always, the very next question is: “Who do you propose we eliminate first?”

  10. What’s maybe worse is that, by expressing this attitude without thought for what might be the possible reaction from the “other” side is that she’s demonstrating incompetence at a core principle of her profession — fiction writing.

    It’s drummed into storytellers from Day One of character development that you must assume that any character comes into a situation with his own agenda.

    So, here she’s playing the part of the cardboard villain without any consideration of the fact that the people she’s denigrating have their own motivation and may react negatively — to her specific detriment — to what she says. She expects us to just roll over and present the belly in surrender.

    Yeah. Right, Joyce. Hack.


  11. At a writer’s conference years ago another writer said, “Life is too short to read
    Joyce Carol Oates.”
    Best thing I heard at the whole shindig.
    She proved it by writing a bloated, dumb novel a year for a long time afterward.
    Proved it again with this anti-gun, anti-male flap.

Comments are closed.