Gun Control From The Perspective Of Unabashed Stupidity

[Trooper]

This comes from Dana Loesch:

http://danaloeschradio.com/gun-control-f...stupidity/

Originally published in MS magazine.
http://msmagazine.com/blog/2013/06/12/my...-week-one/

Gun Control From The Perspective Of Unabashed Stupidity
Posted on June 15, 2013 by Dana Loesch
This is comically awful.

Getting the permit to carry a concealed weapon was simple. I filled out a form, had my fingerprints taken for a background check and paid $56.50. No training required. It took far longer to get my dog a license.

And yet it seems law makers of this author’s political persuasion are more eager to prosecute animal cruelty than they are fraud on their NICS application.

It was obvious from the way I handled the gun that I knew nothing about firearms. Tony sold it to me anyway. The whole thing took 7 minutes. As a gratified consumer, I thought, “Well, that was easy.” Then the terrifying reality hit me, “Holy hell, that was EASY.” Too easy. I still knew nothing about firearms.

OK, so maybe Colorado Rep. Joe Salazar was talking about THIS lady when he said that women were too stupid to own guns.

Tony told me a Glock doesn’t have an external safety feature, so when I got home and opened the box and saw the magazine in the gun I freaked. I was too scared to try and eject it as thoughts flooded my mind of me accidentally shooting the gun and a bullet hitting my son in the house or rupturing the gas tank of my car, followed by an earth-shaking explosion. This was the first time my hands shook from the adrenaline surge and the first time I questioned the wisdom of this 30-day experiment.

A bullet blowing up her car? SCIENCE, HOW DOES IT WORK? So she purchases a gun she didn’t bother trying before purchasing and she blames her inauthentic curiosity and lack of education on the law. Terrified people who have no idea how to handle guns are people who cause accidents. Law-abiding gun owners who are educated shouldn’t be held responsible for the willfully ignorant.

Added thought: I wonder had she been denied based on the Salazar stereotype whether or not she would have cried “sexism.”

I needed help. I drove to where a police officer had pulled over another driver. Now, writing this, I realize that rolling up on an on-duty cop with a handgun in tow might not have been fully thought through.

Because heaven forbid she go to a range to learn or sign up for a class, like the vast majority of gun owners and people with more than one brain cell.

I told him I just bought a gun, had no clue how to use it.

Unlike the majority of gun owners.

I asked him to make sure there were no bullets in the magazine or chamber. He took the magazine out and cleared the chamber. He assured me it was empty and showed me how to look. Then he told me how great the gun was and how he had one just like it.

Brilliant. She had no idea if it was even loaded. Her ignorance puts others, including her child, not an inanimate object.

The cop thought I was an idiot and suggested I take a class. But up to that point I’d done nothing wrong, nothing illegal.

Sadly, idiocy of this level isn’t a crime.

In some way, I feel a certain vindication. I was right to protest Starbucks policy. Today, they have a woman with absolutely no firearms training and a Glock on her hip sitting within arm’s reach of small children, her hands shaking and adrenaline surging.

Here she celebrates her stupidity.

This is one of the dumbest articles I’ve ever read but I did so because I was on a plane. Also, I should add, honestly dumb. But the honesty was accidental.

I could go for some Starbuck’s right now.

- See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/gun-control-f...z1edk.dpuf

People like this should not be allowed to vote, let alone own guns. And never, never be able to have children.

[Nukes]

The article reminds me of [some uncharitable descriptions].

[LRRPF52]

I prefer the American experiment in freedom, where ignoramuses still have more rights than university-educated scholars living under despotism in a foreign land.

[Nukes]

Indeed, the author of the article has a right to be [whatever she wants].

[montana]

Nature had a way of weeding out the incurably stupid. Now with all the the safety nets the nanny state has created , we have inadvertently interrupted this process.

[Bwild97]

It was obvious from the way I handled the gun that I knew nothing about firearms. Tony sold it to me anyway. The whole thing took 7 minutes. As a gratified consumer, I thought, “Well, that was easy.” Then the terrifying reality hit me, “Holy hell, that was EASY.” Too easy. I still knew nothing about firearms.

[I]OK, so maybe Colorado Rep. Joe Salazar was talking about THIS lady when he said that women were too stupid to own guns.[/I]

Tony told me a Glock doesn’t have an external safety feature, so when I got home and opened the box and saw the magazine in the gun I freaked. I was too scared to try and eject it as thoughts flooded my mind of me accidentally shooting the gun and a bullet hitting my son in the house or rupturing the gas tank of my car, followed by an earth-shaking explosion. This was the first time my hands shook from the adrenaline surge and the first time I questioned the wisdom of this 30-day experiment.


I wonder, is this lady advocating that lawmakers draft a Bill that would encourage Clerks of gun shops to use discretion in deciding who is too stupid to own a gun based on how they act when they are at the counter during a sale?

Oregon has a law like this for establishments that sell liquor. Only it's based on apparent drunkenness instead of stupidity.

[sneaky one]

Good call BW-no time for an IQ test at the counter, well, Most would fail anyway LOL! Ha-Ha, and HEE-HEE on that unit! Hope she married for the money! Good Lorde!

Montana, we are screwed-we need to weed them out -ourselves!

I'm going fishing this wknd. , to de-stress about all these idiots. Good fun guys, total comedy routine here-yikes to all= teach the populace of the weapons we like-bring them to the range-pop off a few hundred of plinkers, & etc.
Learn the crowd-

[babaganoush]

Nature had a way of weeding out the incurably stupid. Now with all the the safety nets the nanny state has created , we have inadvertently interrupted this process.

It reminds me of a saying they used to (sill do?) have in Germany, regarding their Autobahns. When asked about the dangers of poor drivers having access to a roadway with no speed limits, the usual reply went something like; "There are no poor drivers on the Autobahn... for very long." Ironically, most of the wrecked cars on the roadside had American GI license plates.

Some I know have also said that some forms of stupidity are self-correcting.

[TheOTHERmaninblack]

I'm a little curious as to how you go into a store, shop for a weapon, pick it out, fill out the 4473, have the vendor fill out his portion of the 4473, make the NICS call, wait for NICS to respond, ring through the sale, and still make that 7 minute mark.

[sneaky one]

No one cares about the small details anymore-a big thanks to the I fones-Internet- do a study on it=we are all too indy lately=we need to re-connect as humans, in and as to a many different situations, to deal with REAL LIFE, NOT the crap on the web-fones etc. I see this everyday-the youngest in the workplace-=wandering around-bumping into walls-etc/. while online on the phone, & negating their duties at the job they were hired for. Maybe this is related to the issue of -not paying attention?

[LRRPF52]

Is it just me, or does her argument seem to amount to this logical fallacy:

"I'm so proudly ignorant of the safe use of potentially dangerous tools, that nobody else should be allowed to own them."

[davidj]

Just proves the old saying "you can't fix stupid".

[shotgun_wedding]

I understand this person right up until she brought it home. Finding out how easy it was is a good exercise (although, like TheOTHERmaninblack, I find it impossible to believe it only took 7 minutes).

After she got it home and realized the gravity of her purchase is where I immediately diverge. When I buy something that is dangerous to myself and others, I figure out how to use it safely. For most of my life, I have spent time around tools and machines which can kill or maim you (or those around you) if they are not used properly. Seeing accidents or working with people who didn't have all of their body parts made an impression on me.

A couple of decades ago, I could understand a little ignorance, but not the desire to remain ignorant. Now - with all of the information easily available (Google, Youtube, forums, etc), anybody who chooses to remain that ignorant should be considered criminally negligent.

[JASmith]

Nature had a way of weeding out the incurably stupid. Now with all the the safety nets the nanny state has created , we have inadvertently interrupted this process.

Sadly, you are on the mark.

It seems like we get more serious accidents because the kids are clothed in bubble wrap and raised in rubber rooms. They never get a chance to make small mistakes, so they have to learn from the big ones...

[Dust]

Left this comment

First, why did you walk out of a gun store, knowing nothing about guns? Did Tony not seem versed enough in guns to tell you something about them? He seemed sentient enough to listen to what you wanted and found the right gun for you, but you didn’t think to ask him more about it and how it worked.

Second, there are many gun ranges all over the country that offer firearms instruction classes. There are probably a few that could be recommended by Tony if you didn’t think he had enough time to do it for you himself. Why did you walk out of a store that sells guns for money without finding out more about the products they were selling?
You can’t seriously consider yourself a “good guy with a gun” if you not only don’t know how to shoot it at all, much less accurately, but you don’t even know how to check to see it’s loaded? I can only assume two things. 1. your motives are less than sincere, or 2, you cognizance and responsibility is less than stellar. I side with no. 2, as I don’t know a responsible parent that would knowingly put his/her own child in danger, in mortal danger, based solely on his/her lack of knowledge, whether intentional or not.

[Trooper]

She was playing the fool, trying to make a point that one can be less than moral. Her belief is that all morality comes from the government and the threat of punishment. That no one is mature or responsible. Without a sense of faith, this is what we get in society.

I see people like her converting to Islam as it will give her someone else to tell her how to live. for most of us of faith (Christian or Jewish), we are required to be self accountable. It is that personal responsibility that comes from our faith that allows us to live up to the ideal of rights given by the Creator. Neither Islam nor socialism believe that man is trustworthy.

[LR1955]

Guys:

Given Trooper's post and the strong religious beliefs of many people here, this one can turn into an out of control religious thread very easily.

I caution you guys. Keep it focused on the topic.

Do not bring up religion on this specific thread. It has nothing to do with the comments of the leftist.

LR1955

[JASmith]

Guys:

Given Trooper's post and the strong religious beliefs of many people here, this one can turn into an out of control religious thread very easily.

I caution you guys. Keep it focused on the topic.

Do not bring up religion on this specific thread. It has nothing to do with the comments of the leftist.

LR1955

Excellent caution -- but the point is an extraordinarily strong one and goes to the heart of the challenges to the second amendment. The Bill of Rights was written by people who understood the value of self determination - being accountable to oneself in matters of judgement. This goes far beyond prescriptive rules of behavior that eliminate the need to judge right and wrong.

Seen from this point of view -- that is the government is our sole source of moral guidance -- then the rabid nature of the current assault on the second amendment begins to become a little more understandable. With our 'popular' leader telling us what is right and wrong, and us following his mandates to the letter, why do we need guns?

How do we turn this around? I know that focusing solely on the 2A is not the solution since the assault is on the entire Bill of Rights and the whole package needs to be viable for any one of them to be protected.

[LR1955]

Excellent caution -- but the point is an extraordinarily strong one and goes to the heart of the challenges to the second amendment. The Bill of Rights was written by people who understood the value of self determination - being accountable to oneself in matters of judgement. This goes far beyond prescriptive rules of behavior that eliminate the need to judge right and wrong.

Seen from this point of view -- that is the government is our sole source of moral guidance -- then the rabid nature of the current assault on the second amendment begins to become a little more understandable. With our 'popular' leader telling us what is right and wrong, and us following his mandates to the letter, why do we need guns?

How do we turn this around? I know that focusing solely on the 2A is not the solution since the assault is on the entire Bill of Rights and the whole package needs to be viable for any one of them to be protected.

Joe / Guys:

Was I not clear enough in my caution against getting this thread bogged down in a religious argument?

Let me make myself more clear.

Keep this thread on topic and the topic is a leftist who thinks it is too easy to buy a handgun.

There are people of many different faiths on this forum. Some are agnostic and others are outright atheists.

I have witnessed what happens to a thread when religion gets tossed into the mix. It becomes a podium for atheists and believers to rant about how much they hate each other. And, it can become a podium for anti-semitism and outright bigotry.

If this thread started out as a religiously oriented topic, I would let you guys go for it and Bill would eventually lock it down.

However, it is not a thread about the religious convictions of the Founding Fathers and theories about how their religious beliefs effected the 2d A.

So guys, keep this thread on topic and do not interject your religious convictions here.

LR1955

[TheOTHERmaninblack]

But... but... but... Can we talk about liberalism/leftism at all, then? Because, make no mistake, liberalism is its own religion, complete with dogma, blind faith, and religious pogroms. The author of the article is a prime example of this-- a zealot, if you will. Her beliefs transcend rational thought or provenance. They ignore any proselytizing by any but other true believers. Only accepted canon can penetrate the veil of her belief.

Can we accept that liberalism/leftism is a meta-religion that transcends and usurps common or traditional religions or philosophies? Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, none of those things matter to liberals. They're just masks from behind which they proffer rationalizations justifying liberalism in whatever form the believer has immersed themselves. Everything-- every belief, every tradition, every theory-- is malleable to a true believer.

Nothing means anything beyond what it can be made to mean in order to prove whatever point is currently being made, nor is any given point of any substance beyond that moment or purpose. A minute or a day later, the true believer might well offer contradictory, or even mutually exclusive "proof" or belief in order to justify some other tenet of liberalism.

Atheist? Nope. A liberal will embrace God (in any form) whenever and wherever it seems beneficial or advantageous. At the same time, a liberal will embrace a lack of God if that's what it takes. I don't believe you could even call a liberal a secularist. Even secularism requires a certain consistency that liberalism doesn't seem capable of.

This woman seems like a "true-believer", and you cannot deal with those folks without recognizing the battlefield for what it is.

To us, this woman is Karazzy! Her blind "stupidity" seems obvious on its face. Since many of us cannot conceive of that sort of thinking being natural, we flip over to "she's deliberately skewing the thought process". What if she isn't either? What if she honestly believes what she'd writing? What if her personal worldview tells her that every fact of life must have concrete rules set forth in writing and enforced by some sort of authority?

Guys, there's a reason that freedom of the sort America used to enjoy is the faintest blip on history's radar. Freedom of the sort we speak of every day as though it were as natural as taking a crap after a big meal is a statistical anomaly in the grand scheme of things. By far the largest portion of history is the tiering of classes-- those who make rules and those who obey rules. Accompanied by that much smaller subset of guys who enforce or break rules.

The average person-- the ones we here call sheep-- are more than just people who don't look out for themselves. The majority of them cannot conceive of taking care of themselves. The very idea gives many of them stomach troubles. To these folks, there is no such thing as original thought-- no such thing as free will. Every idea, concept, or desire expressed by anybody must come from somewhere else. Somebody, somewhere, has to be running things.

this is why the Tea Party scares them so much. The Tea Party doesn't really have any leaders. Not that there aren't legions of sociopaths trying to seize control. Try this as an experiment. (I have done this, by the way) Find a liberal you can stomach, sit them down, and try to explain the concept of a whole bunch of different groups of people spontaneously gathering together because there is a single point of intersection to their beliefs, and that this gathering will disburse after this single point is resolved. Watch their eyes while you're explaining that there is no central control-- no leader manipulating things from somewhere on high. Watch the struggle to understand that such a thing is even possible. Watch them fail to grasp the concept. Watch the fear flash through their eyes as they try.

We-- most of us-- here, we can grasp the concept of mutual aid without coercion. Your typical wage slave/peon/peasant cannot. they only feel safe inside a solid web of codified rules that keep all of the bad mans at bay.

LR1955, Bwaits, if this post has transgressed somehow, feel free to delete it. (as if you needed my permission:p) I'm not trying to step on anybody's toes here, and I'm not trying to start/proliferate any arguments. I'm just trying to establish a baseline for dealing with the sort of nonsense this article involves. And without a fundamental understanding of the religious nature of liberalism, that cannot be done.