Skip to comments.1=Taunt a liberal, 2=???, 3=PROFIT!!
Posted on 03/29/2013 1:06:06 PM PDT by Lazamataz
Way back in the late 80s I participated a lot in FidoNet, which was the precursor to the internet in some ways. These were back in my more liberal days, when pot was a big part of my life. I was more liberal than not, because of the pot issue. There was a fellow there named Harquarliquarlin Haurquarfaurquarr, who was also liberal, so he was on my side, but I always noticed he was a definite jerk in responding to opponents. Always with the mockery. We connected on Facebook and had this exchange today. It is amusing.
I think he needs a hug.
Emotional Wayne LaPierre Honors Victims Of Background Checks
WASHINGTON: In an emotionally charged press conference addressing gun control legislation, NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre delivered a tearful speech Wednesday honoring the thousands of Americans who have tragically fallen victim to background checks...
What you say with irony, I say with conviction:
On March 5, 1991 Bonnie Elmasri called a firearms instructor, worried that her husband-who was subject to a restraining order to stay away from her-had been threatening her and her children. When she asked the instructor about getting a handgun, the instructor explained that Wisconsin has a 48-hour waiting period. Ms. Elmasri and her two children were murdered by her husband twenty-four hours later.
On June 29, 1993, at three o'clock in the morning, a 21-year-old woman named Rayna Ross was awakened by the sound of a burglar who had broken into her apartment and entered her bedroom. The burglar was her ax-boyfriend, a man who had previously assaulted her. This time, having smashed his way into her apartment, he was armed with a bayonet. Miss Ross took aim with a .380 semiautomatic pistol and shot him twice. The burglar's death was classified as a "justifiable homicide" by the Prince William County commonwealth's attorney, which determined that Miss Ross had acted lawfully in shooting the attacker.
Miss Ross had bought her handgun one full business day before the attack, thanks to Virginia's "instant background check." Virginia's 1993 Democratic candidate for governor, Mary Sue Terry (endorsed by Handgun Control, Inc.), proposed that-although the Virginia instant check already checks all handgun buyers-Virginia handgun purchasers should undergo a "cooling-off period" of five business days. Had the proposal been law in Virginia in 1993, Rayna Ross would now be undergoing a "permanent" cooling-off period.
Armed with a knife, Charles A. Grant, Jr., sexually assaulted a 33-year-old woman on a Virginia beach one Tuesday in 1991. The assault was videotaped by a tourist who (not having a permit to carry a concealed handgun for protection) apparently could do nothing to help except record the crime.
The following day, Wednesday, Charles Grant raped a 12-year-old girl. News broadcasts of the videotape of Grant's Tuesday assault frightened many people in the nearby Nags Head community.
A young woman named Sonya Miller had been wanting a handgun for a while, and on that Wednesday, her father bought her a .38 Special revolver. He gave her the revolver that evening. At about 9 P.M., Miss Miller went to the post office to pick up her mail. As she stepped into the dimly lit parking lot near the post office, Charles Grant saw her, and she saw Charles Grant. They both screamed. Grant told the young woman he would not hurt her, but when she attempted to get into her car, Grant lunged at the door. He stuck a .25 caliber pistol in her face, began climbing into the car's back seat, and said, "I'm going to kill you." "No," she replied, "I'm going to kill you." Sonya Miller picked up the revolver she had acquired less than fifteen minutes before. When she pulled the hammer back (a step preparatory to firing), he dropped his gun and fled. Miss Miller drove home; her father called the sheriff's offices, and Charles Grant was apprehended. Regarding the handgun Miss Miller had just acquired, "It's the only thing that saved her life," her father observed.
At the age of seventeen, Virgen Blanca emigrated to the United States from Spain. By the time she was twenty-three, she had three children and was divorced. To make ends meet for her family, she had to work two or three jobs, as long as eighteen hours a day. In 1993, Ms. Blanca and her three teenage children moved from Mesquite, Texas, to Dallas, in order to be closer to her job as a house painter. The family moved into a seven-unit apartment building, where they were the sole tenants.
During the night of Saturday, July 24, 1993, a prowler twice attempted to break into the apartment. The second time, Ms. Blanca's 15-year-old son Reel jumped out a second-story window to call the police. By the time they arrived, the prowler was gone, having left behind a message scrawled on a light switch next to the Blanca apartment, "I'll be back."
On Sunday, Mrs. Blanca purchased a Bryco semi-automatic pistol [an inexpensive pistol]. On Monday night, Mrs. Blanca left the apartment to buy food. Moments later, 15year-old Reel, 14-year-old Alexandra, and 10-year-old Grumpy Paul heard a door creaking outside the apartment house. Recognizing the man to be the same man who had twice attempted to break in Saturday night, Reel took the Bryco pistol from his mother's room, and aimed it out the window at the man in the courtyard below. Reel yelled "Freeze!" but the man began to open the door to the apartment building. Reel shot the gun three times, wounding the man in the groin.
The man limped two blocks, asked someone to call an ambulance, and claimed that he had merely been looking for a place to urinate. Because Mrs. Blanca could not make a positive identification of the man, police dropped burglary charges.
What a Difference a Day Makes
In 1985 in San Leandro, California, a woman and her daughter were threatened by a neighbor. Instead of being able immediately to obtain a handgun for self-defense, the woman had to wait fifteen days. The day after she finally was allowed to pick up her gun, the neighbor attacked them, and she shot him in self-defense. Had the man attacked fourteen rather than sixteen days after his initial threat, the woman and her daughter might have been raped.
In September 1990, a mail carrier named Catherine Latta of Charlotte, North Carolina, went to the police to obtain permission to buy a handgun. Her ex-boyfriend had previously robbed her, assaulted her several times, and raped her The clerk at the sheriff's office informed her the gun permit would take two to four weeks. "I told her I'd be dead by then," Ms. Latta later recalled. That afternoon' she went to a bad part of town, and bought an illegal $20 semiautomatic pistol on the street. Five hours later, her ex-boyfriend attacked her outside her house, and she shot him dead. The county prosecutor decided not to prosecute Ms. Latta for either the self-defense homicide, or the illegal gun.
Wow, so you can cut-and-paste anecdotes that support your position and fears that background checks are some slippery slope towards whatever conspiracy theory infects your brain these days. I'm also sure that with equal non-effort, I can cut-and-paste equal and opposite anecdotes about the number of psychos who managed to kill others who shouldn't have had guns.
But here's the thing: I don't care. No really, I don't care. The depths of how much I don't care can't be expressed in words. I'm not pro-gun. I'm not anti-gun. And when I start talking to people like you (and your polar opposites) on this issue, I am reminded how much I don't care.
I posted this because I think Wayne is a flaming idiot and I love that he got the Onion treatment. But please don't waste even a millisecond more trying to convince me of your position because... that's right... I don't care.
Wow, so producing examples that counter your position on an issue that i care about somehow makes your fact-o-meter frazzle out, forcing you to resume with your typical meritless and mocking approach that you somehow (mistakenly) view as a valid dismissal.
But here's the thing: I don't care if you care or not. No really, I don't. The utter and complete lack of concern I have for your position, or lack thereof, cannot be measured, except perhaps in quantum levels of indifference and lassitude. And when I receive a disdainful response from someone who admittedly doesnt even care about the issue, I am reminded about how insignificant is the quantity of concern I have for their opinion.
I posted my response only because the Onion piece was foolish and jejune. I know better than to try to argue a point with a person who isnt concerned with an issue, because my level of concern about someone with no opinion is vanishingly small.
First, you don't know my position on the issue. You are assuming you do. But the only thing a rational person should assume is that I enjoy seeing Wayne mocked. If you care, as with all things, I think there is probably a very reasonable middle ground possible on this issue. But with people like you (and your polar opposites), I seriously doubt that will ever be brought up.
Second, the war of anecdotes that you (and your polar opposites) wage on this and related issues is somewhere between lazy and thoughtless. If you want to convince someone like me that your "they're comin' to get yer guns!" paranoia has any merit, then you will speak to the Constitutional, moral, practical, and other issues. And show me you're willing to seek a reasonable set of compromises.
Honestly Laz, I don't like being insulted. Posting an emotional set of anecdotes as a counter to your presumption of my position is insulting. Honestly, what was the intended effect? Do you really think that upon reading your copy-and-paste, I'm going to say, "gee, because there are a set of anecdotes supporting Laz's position, gosh, I think I'll change my mind." Do you really think my position on this and related issues is so irrational and tenuous that all it takes is an emotional appeal?
Quick response: "First, you don't know my position on the issue."
Well, except for that part in your first post, in which you specify your position.
"Honestly Laz, I don't like being insulted"
Welcome to the club, Grumpy. You might want to review the way you come off in your responses. It is exactly what prompted me to respond as *I* did. I used your message as a template and merely filled in blanks.
As it so often is in life: Effecting the outside world is an inside job.
I don't have to review the way I "come off". I intended to be insulting. And no, this didn't start with my response to you. You responded to my "share" with a cut-and-paste emotional anecdotal argument. That was the first insult.
And no, I haven't specified my position on this. I have stated that I think your historical and current paranoia related to guns is stupid, but that's a statement about *you*, not about what I think. You can assume that I take an opposite position to yours, but you would be wrong. But at this point, I don't give a shit about providing a nuanced discussion about what I feel and what I don't.
" I don't have to review the way I "come off". I intended to be insulting."
Curiously, so did I. What I get from a poster, I return in spades. Like you, I have been at this since the early 1980's, so I can give as good as I get. If you want to be a jerk, no worries. I, too, have decades of experience at it.
"And no, I haven't specified my position on this."
Well, except for the part where you did: ===> "But here's the thing: I don't care. No really, I don't care. .... I'm not pro-gun. I'm not anti-gun" <===
"I have stated that I think your historical and current paranoia related to guns is stupid..."
Well, except for the part where it isn't: http://www.examiner.com/article/joe-biden-says-pending-federal-gun-control-law-is-just-the-beginning
Yes Laz, I want to be a jerk. You can go back to whatever it is you should be doing.
"Yes Laz, I want to be a jerk."
We have that in common.
Which is nice.
"You can go back to whatever it is you should be doing."
I count this as a win. XD
Found his yearbook photo:
No, I know the guy. I mean, he’s got a little ‘bot blood in him, but mostly he’s Italian.
lol, who in their right mind would name their kid that?
You and me. We could name our kid that.
Ouch........it’s obvious from his second response you made him pucker.....and I’m not talking about his lips. The best part about reading this is knowing how much he does care and how this entire exchange probably ran through his head all day.
Lucious learned how to fight young, I bet.
I think you should post more of this, Laz, and remind us (and teach others) how to argue and discuss and come out of it without really being an asshole .... just a jerk
(You may have years on the internet as a jerk, but I precede the internet by at least ... 30, 35 years.)
The same ilk that names their boy Dominique ... soon to be Tiny’s bitch inside.
lol, no we couldn’t.
Well, I wasn'tgoing to ping my crew, knarf, but if you think it's good enough to spread around, I will. :)
Hope the rest of you aren't annoyed. It's a fun exchange, and a clear win for the Good Guys. :)
Why not? Aren’t you a guy? I’m a lovely virginal girl!
Really? Me too!
Don’t think we’d have much luck then. :-(
Here's my picture.
Let's get freaky.
lol, I think you already are based on your photo.
THIS is my photo.
Let's get freaky.