Want to see the #1 hypocrite on the internet?

Who is she? ...and why should I care? Whatever her views are, until she puts herself into a position to take mine, she can think what she wants.
 
Theres a message board to discuss all her issues. At least she's open for debate. The computer is a wonderfull thing.
 
-who's 'badthing'?
-who's Marilyn?
-This belongs in legal & political, and should be moved.
-blissninny hoplophobes are misguided or stupid or often both. But her assertion that 'until guns are gone, we need to use them safely' is basically 100% correct. We DO need to use them safely, most certainly. Until they are gone. Which, thankfully, will be never. She is right about many of the views she expresses - it's not the guns, etc., etc. She's *almost* there. But her logic breaks down when she says change the 2A to make sure people only use non-lethal weapons. Because non-lethal weapons, quite unfortunately, don't stop an attack from one who is hellbent on attacking, and can't compete against the criminals who will always have actual bullet-shooting deadly guns, legal or not. But she's light years ahead of the average blissninny in her competence and logic. Her goal of non-violence is certainly a laudable one and shared by 95+% of gun owners here and elsewhere. She says this guardian angel group carries guns and promotes non-violence - good on them - so do we! :) http://www.guardianangels.org/about.html A group we should all support, blissninny or not!
 
# 1 hypocrite

Well, I guess she is againts any thing that is not west coast political correct. Her way is the only way and all people shoud live like her. A TRUE LIBERAL in my view.
 
Hrm.

1. Thread started by troll, or
2. Thread started by owner of linked website, in an attempt to gain publicity and/or traffic.

Thanks, I'll pass.

jmm
 
this will never be a perfect world, untill Jesus comes back and makes it one. untill then I'll keep my guns. may God still bless America./?
 
I don't think anything she had to say was really all that disagreeable. She admits weapons are necessary, wishes that they weren't, and proposes better non-lethal weapons.

There's nothing in that that is actually at odds with the philosophy of the Constitution. If non-lethal weapons were just as effective at safeguarding us from tyranny, then they would be the moral choice (set phazers to 'stun').

The fact that she thinks human beings might develop beyond the current violent state is optimistic of her, not stupid or hypocritical.
 
You know, these days, given the new Windows exploit that's been reported, I'm not visiting any strange websites by anyone who has a single post...
 
I also bit.


this is great.

"[If I could rewrite the 2nd ammendment, it would go as follows]"....

We, the people of the United States, in order that we shall have the right to preserve a State free for all races, shall achieve this end by the use of non-lethal weaponry only for our continued survival as human beings. This free State entails our personal self-defense as well as our right to our food consumption. In keeping with current government law, if we so choose to possess a non-lethal weapon (be it either upon our persons or within our private homes), we are obligated to store these aforementioned weapons plus any ammo relating to its use in a manner which will serve to protect the welfare of a minor child. To further secure our persons, we have the right to wear bullet-proof body armour, plus live in bullet-proof houses as well as drive bullet-proof vehicles."
Click to expand...
 
Calling her a hypocrite is not the way to convert her. I've been active on her message board, along with at least one THRer, and she looks like she could be persuaded to come on our side of the fence, given time and logic.
 
I really don't like the idea of living my life wearing bullet-proof body armour, living in bullet-proof houses or having to drive in bullet-proof vehicles. If I wanted my whole life to be lived in a condom, I'd live like Howard Hughes in his later days, never going out, wearing kleenex boxes for shoes. Better yet, I'd just have myself shrink-wrapped and be done with it. If enough people lock themselves away the question is raised as to who exactly is in prison anyway? And who put them(selves) there? Put's me in mind of General Patton: to paraphrase, the intent is not to die for one's country but to make some other poor SOB die for his. I'd rather the potential home invader feel like he is in need of wearing bullet-proof body armour. Maybe enough need to forego the home invasion in favor of easier ways to make a living. Don't mean to sound pugnacious because I'm not but the source of safety and security is not continually moving away from the trough because the mean pigs want the food.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top