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]
I think I’ve tweeted that we should ban guns more in 2014 than ever! Banner year for us needing to ban guns
Ari Spool@arispool
Tweeted on December 20, 2014
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
@NYTimes: The Assault Weapon Myth. A ban on handguns is the only answer to our gun violence epidemic! http://nyti.ms/1m0YCv6 #GunControl
Disarm @Disarm
Tweeted on September 17, 2014
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Guns and ammunition need to be regulated on performance and capacity and not styling cues. Limiting weapons to single shot breach loaders would keep the second amendment happy (and save a bunch of lives).
Steve
December 17, 2014
Comment to Why Shooting Victims Can’t Win Lawsuits Against Gunmakers
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
You … keep yourself armed to the teeth and have committed yourself to death, mayhem, and destruction. You are thoroughly corrupted and your ilk has caused the deaths of these poor young kids at Sandy Hook that you call “so called dead children.” You are depraved, paranoid, and heartless. Wrap yourself in your warped misunderstanding of the 2nd Amendment as you polish your weapons waiting for more innocent blood to be spilled because of your irrationality and murderous ideology.
Guest
December 16, 2014
Comment to Why Sandy Hook Victims Won’t Win Their Suit Against Bushmaster
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
When people think this of gun owners taking your guns away will only be a “good first step”. People like this will claim they are being merciful when they send you to the extermination camps.—Joe]
You NRA scum are pure evil — PURE EVIL.
kglnyc
December 18, 2014
Comment to Why Sandy Hook Victims Won’t Win Their Suit Against Bushmaster
[And what do most people believe should be done with “pure evil”? Do you think people who believe “NRA scum” are pure evil don’t want to take your guns? Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
The price of liberty is eternal vigilance of people like this. Failure to pay this price will result in servitude and death for millions of innocent people.—Joe]
I find it very telling this anti-gun “Public Service Video” appears to advocate an activity similar to those practiced by youth organizations in countries like the USSR and Nazi Germany—spying on and turning your parents in to the authorities.
And that doesn’t even include all the crimes committed both in the making of the video and those enacted.
This is the model they envision for the path to their utopia.
Other viewpoints include:
Update: Another way to demonstrate how this is wrong is to replace the gun with a religious book. Do you turn steal constitutionally protected objects from people to give to authority figures?
This isn’t about responsible gun owners. This is about all the slow thinkers, starting with the mouth breathers from the National Rifle Association — the ones who have pimped themselves out to gun manufacturers and prostituted the Second Amendment at the same time — who actually believe that assault-weapons bans and tougher background checks and limits on ammunition are somehow a threat to everything good and decent.
Mike Lupica
December 14, 2015
America continues to protect gun nuts, even though Newtown remains wounded two years after Sandy Hook shooting
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
That is what some people think of us. “Gun nuts”, “slow thinking … mouth breathers from the National Rifle Association.”
I’ll beat he believes we would give up before we could sound out all the words and get to the point where we read, but still not understand, that if he could he would ban the most popular guns in the country. But it is he that is the slow thinker.
He apparently doesn’t care that more people are murdered with hands and feet than are with the type of rifle used to murder children at Sandy Hook. He apparently doesn’t understand that criminals substitute one weapon for another depending upon availability at the time. He apparently doesn’t understand that when some madman is slaughtering first grade children a machete would work just as well as a rifle, doesn’t need to be reloaded, and can be fabricated in your garage from a piece of scrap metal, a piece of wood and a couple of screws.
Mr. Lupica is such a slow thinker that he believes tougher background checks would prevent “the wrong people” from gaining access to firearms yet the evidence shows any high school dropout has easy access to whatever illegal recreational drug they want as well as alcohol.
Mr. Lupica is such a slow thinker that he thinks a ban on America’s most popular gun and limiting ammunition would not run afoul of the Second Amendment.
If Mr. Lupica thinks we are such slow thinkers then why doesn’t he offer to take point when they decide to go house-to-house enforcing the “assault-weapons” bans he is advocating? If he did then we could get some real world data as to who is the slower thinker as to the practicality of such an endeavor.—Joe]
Morons with guns are the scourge of this country.
Mike Costanza
December 15, 2014
Comment to Bride, groom bring out the big guns during Washington state rally opposing universal background checks
[This is what they think of you.
And just what do you suppose they think should be done to end the scourge?—Joe]
Back ground checks before being allowed to own a gun is just common sense, as is outlawing AK-47’s, but the pro gun movement has always seemed to me to be void of common sense.
westcoast2012
December 14, 2014
Comment to Bride, groom bring out the big guns during Washington state rally opposing universal background checks
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one want to take your guns.—Joe]
Being called fetishist by someone preferring random slaughter of children to giving up a penis substitue: priceless.
BadExampleMan @BadExampleMan
Tweeted October 25, 2014
[It’s another Markley’s Law Monday! Via a tweet from Linoge.—Joe]
The cheap and easy availability of guns in any home in America makes it very easy for criminals to get their hands on as many weapons as they choose. All they have to do is break in and steal them and create their free market of stolen guns on the street –quite the active and ongoing enterprise. Shhhhhh…this is a truthful point that upsets Conservatives if you even dare to bring it up and burst their bubble. They like to pretend that there is no cause and effect that results from that.
AllynF
December 6, 2014
Comment on Gun Control, Real Time with Bill Maher.
[Got that? Criminals “get their hands on as many weapons as the choose” because private citizens possess guns in their homes. The specific enumerated right to keep and bear arms is the root of all problems with guns.
If banning the private possession of something would solve the problems associated with it then banning alcohol, cigarettes, and recreational drugs would solve problems too. AllynF has no respect for the Bill of Rights, no concept of guns being useful for the protection of innocent life, and at best a tenuous connection with reality.
Don’t let anyone ever get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
We cannot have big guns out here as far as the big guns that are out here, the semi-automatics and all of them. We can’t have those running around out here. Those are not hunting weapons. We should ban those in Iowa.
…
The state of Iowa should take semi-automatic weapons away from Iowans who have legally purchased them prior to any ban that is enacted if they don’t give their weapons up in a buy-back program.
Rep. Dan Muhlbauer
(D-Manilla)
January 7, 2013
Iowa Lawmaker on ‘Semi-Automatic’ Firearms: ‘I Think We Need to Start Taking Them’
[Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
He may incoherent and possibly even hallucinating about guns with legs running down the streets. But his vote in the state legislature is worth thousands of times more than yours is in the ballot box.—Joe]
I’m not talking about gun control. I’m not talking about waiting periods and background checks.
I’m talking about flat-out banning the possession of handguns and assault rifles by individual citizens. I’m talking about repealing or amending the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
…
Those of us who think widespread handgun ownership is insane need to keep speaking up. We need to teach our children handguns are wrong. We need to support any measure that limits their availability — and work to repeal the Second Amendment. We need to keep marching forward until someday this nation becomes civilized enough to ban guns.
One of the frequent refrains of gun freaks about President Obama is “He’s coming for our guns.” Obama never said such a thing. But I will:
We’re coming for your guns. And someday, we’ll take them.
Gerald Ensley
Senior writer/columnist Tallahassee Democrat
850-599-2310 or gensley@tallahassee.com
November 23, 2014
Stop the insanity: Ban guns
[Via email from Carl Stevenson.
Never let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.
And to Mr. Ensley, I would like to suggest you take point when you take those guns.—Joe]
I-594 has claimed its first casualty, even though it doesn’t go into effect until December. A museum in Lynden, WA, is returning some WW II rifles it was loaned, loans which would become problematic once the law is in effect. So, people going to the museum will not be able to see the parts of history they once could. I’m sure you feel much safer now.
The push to marginalize guns and gun owners, to make them seem “other,” different, freakish, and strange continues.
Those cases only verify what I think has been this Court’s judgment in Heller and Miller, Congress’s judgment, the judgment of State legislatures for a long time, that these are exclusively used for unlawful purposes.
John F. Bash
Assistant to the Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.
Oral arguments to SCOTUS in Samuel James Johnson v. United States
November 5, 2014
[H/T to Ry and David Hardy.
Bash is referring to short barreled shotguns.
This was said even though he knows tens of thousands of these guns are lawfully owned by people and are not used for unlawful purposes. He claims to believe these are only owned by collectors who don’t actually use them. Any use, he claims, would be exclusively for an unlawful purpose.
His justification appears to be because of NFA34 and various state legislatures put restrictions on this item beyond the restrictions on some other type of firearms. That is what the U.S. government thinks of one aspect of the right to keep and bear arms. Once a gun is restricted then that is justification for more restrictions.
Apparently if there were laws against something then there must have been a valid reason and the courts should not question the law. I would like to hear him draw similar conclusion from the history of laws against interracial marriage, laws against homosexual acts, and prohibitions against people of color using public swimming pools.—Joe]
I think people should have all the guns their hearts desire. They can sleep with them, oil them, shine them. Bullets, however, should be outlawed, confiscated and never made again.
Ellen Balfour
January 20, 2013
Comment to Please Take Away My Right to a Gun
[Ahhhh yes, “I don’t want to take your guns! (Just your bullets.)”
When the confiscation starts I would like to suggest Ms. Balfour take point on that task. I’m sure she would get all the bullets she cares to have before she is done.—Joe]
Just wait for the next initiative and you all will be shooting those nerf guns.
Hank B Reardon
November 5, 2014
Comment to Editorial: Voters stand ground on gun control in passing I-594 over I-591
[The irony of his handle aside, our opponents know what their objective is and occasionally let it slip.
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you no one wants to ban your guns.
We have Episcopal Church in Michigan passes gun resolution as evidence to the contrary. The resolution says:
RESOLVED: that the 180th Convention of the Diocese of Michigan, in response to the impact on Michigan communities of deaths from gun violence, join with other faith communities calling for the following steps to be taken by Federal and State lawmakers:
1. Requiring and enforcing universal background checks on all gun sales;
2. A clear ban on all future sales of military-style semi-automatic weapons, high-capacity ammunition magazines and high-impact ammunition (i.e. ammunition more deadly than ordinarily used in hunting);
3. Making gun trafficking a Federal crime;…
The Episcopal Church supports the U.S. Constitution’s protections of the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms; but, we also stand for public policies to ban gun violence and assault weapons.
You have to marvel at the naiveté and/or stupid exhibited here.
You can’t support the Second Amendment then make the demands for background checks anymore than you could require background checks for sales of First Amendment materials. One would guess they support the First Amendment and would claim protection if gun owners were to demand they be punished for hate speech because of their vocal support of restrictions to gun ownership.
Background checks on all gun sales? As the supporters of I-594 in Washington State found out there are lots of devils in the details. Will gifts and loans require background checks? If not then they have a big loophole. If yes will we then end up with me being able to loan my gun to my son but not my daughter in law? If I loan it to him can he then loan it her? Or maybe I can gift it to him and then he can loan it to her and then after a week he can gift it back to me. Or if all “transfers” require background checks will it make gun rentals impractical? Or how about letting your buddy (or a new shooter or student) take a few shots with your gun? Or loaning a gun to someone for the evening or a weekend with a suddenly active stalker and no FFL available to do the background check? Truly “universal background checks” will result in a chilling effect on the exercise of specific enumerated right. If there are enough exceptions to avoid clear infringement of the right then any claim of society benefit is delusional.
A “clear” ban on “military-style” weapons? I’m speculating the word “clear” was an acknowledgement of the difficulties with the Federal 1994 (and various states) “assault weapon” bans. But the issues aren’t resolved by demanding the ban be “clear”. Bayonet lugs, pistol grips, barrel shrouds, and detachable magazines restrictions were all minor stumbling blocks to people wishing to exercise their rights. We were still able to create, sell, and use firearms that gave anti-gun people the evil black rifle hysterics. And now we have the Heller decision which said firearms in common use are protected. Evil black rifles are now the most popular type of rifle in the entry country. So, good luck with your demands to violate that specific enumerated right.
“High capacity” magazines? The Heller decision said firearms in common use were protected so good luck with that as well.
I have no idea what they mean by “gun trafficking”. Firearm wholesalers? Retailers? Private sales? The Second Amendment would rendered meaningless if you couldn’t buy and sell the protected items.
But the item that pegged my naiveté and stupid detection meters was their call for a ban on “high-impact ammunition (i.e. ammunition more deadly than ordinarily used in hunting)”. The very purpose of hunting is to kill as quickly and humanly as possible. To that end hunting ammunition has been evolving for the last several centuries to make it the most deadly it can possibly be with the exception of delivering chemical, nuclear, or biological agents which kill more slowly than a lead projectile which expands upon impact. There is no commercially available ammunition more deadly than that ordinarily used in hunting.
So just what were they thinking here? I’m pretty sure thinking is outside of their domain of expertise so such a question should be rejected on the basis that it presumes facts not in evidence.
For the remaining weapons such as guns or blades, women will hold exclusive right of use over them in order to defend ourselves from men, from the risk of them taking power over us again.
witchwind
October 7, 2014
UTOPIA: what would a women’s society look like?
[Via Sean Sorrentino via Michael Z. Williamson on Facebook.
Also in her utopia:
All of men’s (alive and euthanised) belongings, property, resources and land will be confiscated from men and handed back to female care and supervision – property rights over land will be abolished. You can’t own land!
And if that isn’t sufficient to confirm she been off of her anti-psychotic meds too long here is a clincher (pretty much every paragraph would do, but I particularly like this sentence):
Our lives have no more or no less value than those of a rabbit, fly, tree, plant, fish, seashell or stone.
Regardless, don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]