Cognitive Dissonance

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather boa!" - Allen Ginsberg

Posts tagged Second Amendment

258 notes

My husband, Andrew, is tired of the Second Amendment evangelists proclaiming it means all guns, all the time, everywhere. 

I’m sick and tired of explaining that I don’t want to take all your guns. I’ll say it again: I. Don’t. Want. To. Take. All. Your. Guns. What I do support are common-sense regulations that might make it a titch more difficult to kill a mass amount of people, in a shorter amount of time, from further away.

My husband, Andrew, is tired of the Second Amendment evangelists proclaiming it means all guns, all the time, everywhere.

I’m sick and tired of explaining that I don’t want to take all your guns. I’ll say it again: I. Don’t. Want. To. Take. All. Your. Guns. What I do support are common-sense regulations that might make it a titch more difficult to kill a mass amount of people, in a shorter amount of time, from further away.

Filed under guns gun control politics second amendment

87 notes

The impotent right-wing rage on my Facebook feed is incredible…

From “Hitler took guns!” to “Hitler surrounded himself with kids!” to “OBAMA IS A NAZI BUT CONSTITUTION I LOVES MY GUN!” to “IMPEACH THE FÜHRER!” that’s got to be a record for going all Godwin.

The comments about Secret Service are just precious. It’s like Obama is the first president in the history of ever to use a Secret Service detail for himself and his family. That doesn’t make him a hypocrite. Newsflash: Ronald Reagan used Secret Service AND supported gun control. Chew on that for little bit. Bet it tastes like your own foot and hypocrisy.

For fuck’s sake, y’all. You can still own a gun. No one is taking that away. What we’re looking at now is maybe you don’t need a military-grade, semi-automatic assault rifle with a high capacity magazine for home defense and deer slaying.

And by the way, if you can’t get a deer in a few shots, it deserves to get away.

Chill. The. Fuck. Out.

Filed under gun control godwin's law politics guns violence policy law barack obama conservative second amendment rage

253 notes

State Revokes Gun Permit Of CEO Who Threatened To ‘Start Killing People’ If Obama Took Guns

The state of Tennessee has revoked the handgun carry permit of James Yeager, the Tennessee CEO of Tactical Response, after he posted a YouTube video threatening to “start killing people" if Obama’s gun control measures went "one inch further."

"The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public’s safety. Mr. Yeager’s comments were irresponsible, dangerous, and deserved our immediate attention. Due to our concern, as well as that of law enforcement, his handgun permit was suspended immediately. We have notified Mr. Yeager about the suspension today via e-mail. He will receive an official notification of his suspension through the mail," Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security Commissioner Bill Gibbons said, according to local NBC affiliate WBIR News.

In his original video, Yeager had said that if Obama strengthened gun control or banned assault weapons, or if President Obama’s gun control “goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.”

I posted about James Yeager here. He posted another video talking about his quickly-assembled “army” and backpedaling from the whole killing people statement later, but barely:

Yeager also doubles down on his warnings, claiming thousands of people have contacted him, some asking him what they should do.

"I don’t know, but I did tell you to load your mags, make sure your gun’s clean, and pack a backpack."

"And all you fair-weather Second Amendment people that are telling me that I’m doing a fucking disservice to the gun community, by saying that I’m not going to stand for the tyranny, fuck you, our country wasn’t founded by fucking fair-weather pussies."

But then Yeager somewhat changes course, saying, “I don’t condone anyone doing anything rash, I don’t condone anybody committing any felonies, up to and including aggravated assaults, or murders — unless it’s necessary.”

Glad to see Tennessee took notice of this guy. Let’s hope he’s all talk and no action. Much like Alex Jones, he’s one of the best arguments for gun control out there.

Filed under James Yeager Second Amendment Tennessee Politics law gun gun control concealed carry

407 notes

Vice President Biden is asking the president to bypass Congress and use executive privilege, executive order to ban assault rifles and to impose stricter gun control. Fuck that.

I’m telling you that if that happens, it’s going to spark a civil war, and I’ll be glad to fire the first shot. I’m not putting up with it. You shouldn’t put up with it. And I need all you patriots to start thinking about what you’re going to do, load your damn mags, make sure your rifle’s clean, pack a backpack with some food in it and get ready to fight.

I’m not fucking putting up with this. I’m not letting my country be ruled by a dictator. I’m not letting anybody take my guns! If it goes one inch further, I’m going to start killing people.

Tactical Response CEO James Yeager in a video posted to YouTube (deleted) and Facebook on Wednesday.

Tactical Response’s tagline is “We train good people to kill bad people.” Yeager is a former SWAT officer and trains civilians in tactical methods. He also owns a tactical supply shop for “military, police, and armed citizens.” Yeager writes on his company’s Facebook page, “In 2011, I was on the Discovery Channel show ‘One Man Army’ and was featured on the National Geographic documentary ‘Snipers Inc’.”

In other words, he’s a bit scarier than your average unhinged gun fanboy who likes to play pretend. Yeager actually has the know how to follow through on his threat and the materials to do so.

Perhaps it’s time for Tennessee State Police to pay him a polite visit, especially since he says he’s going to kill people if the gun control debate goes “one inch further.”

On the executive order, that’s fear mongering by Matt Drudge and Alex Jones – Congress would have to enact any ban.

Oh, and Mr. Yeager, this is exactly the best argument you could have given for gun control. Thank you.

Filed under gun control guns politics James Yeager Threats Second Amendment Tactical response right-wing

302 notes

The public wants guns out of the schools, not in the schools, and they’re not asking for a security official or someone else.

I don’t think the NRA is listening. I don’t think that they understand. Most Americans would protect the Second Amendment rights and yet agree with the idea that not every human being should own a gun, not every gun should be available at anytime, anywhere, for anyone. That at gun shows, you should not be able to buy something there and then without any kind of check whatsoever.

What they’re looking for is a common-sense approach that says that those who are law-abiding should continue to have the right to own a weapon, but that you don’t believe the right should be extended to everyone at every time for every type of weapon.

GOP political strategist and pollster Frank Luntz on CBS’ “This Morning” in response to NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre’s press conference calling for more guns and armed guards in schools.

Luntz gets it. Let’s see if the GOP listens to him.

Filed under guns politics Frank Luntz gun control wayne lapierre Second Amendment GOP common sense NRA

241 notes

If we’re gonna ban guns, let’s ban cars!

First off, I don’t know of anyone who’s seriously proposing we ban guns outright — just certain types (i.e. military grade assault rifles), and tightening regulations. Think of it as calling for safer tires after the multiple accidents caused by faulty ones several years ago, or the call for seatbelts back in the day.

But I keep seeing this come up again and again, and I have thirteen messages in my inbox with this claim — so I’m going to just agree. I’m casting aside the fact that the purpose of a gun is different than that of a car. The only way my gun is getting me a ride to school is if I brandish it in order to get a ride or a jack a car. 

Fine. The pro-gun folks win. Let’s treat guns like cars.  

In order to drive a car in Wyoming, you first must get a license. The requirements are fairly similar nationwide. Most states require you take a driver’s education course and have a learner’s permit with a multitude of restrictions, but all states mandate you must pass a written test and an eye exam — but don’t forget the actual driving test! You must prove to the instructor you know how to safely and accurately operate the vehicle, and if you are unable to, the instructor has the right to keep you from retaking the test for a specific time period. Scary, huh?

image

But hooray, you passed!

image

Not so fast, though! In order to use your driver’s license, your vehicle must be legally registered. This means that you have to go to the courthouse with proof of ownership (the title) to register it initially, and pay a fee every year after that. Failure to register your vehicle yearly can result in a ticket for $110 or more in Wyoming, and can be considered a misdemeanor, especially in other states. If you have multiple vehicles, each must be registered. This must be done within 45 days.

Oh, and you’ll need insurance on your vehicle, in case you damage someone’s property, or cause injury to yourself or someone else while operating your vehicle. In Wyoming, anyone failing to provide proof of insurance on a registered vehicle as required is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable pursuant to W.S. 31-4-103(a) upon conviction. The punishment is a fine of $750.00 or less, or a stint in jail of six months or less. Your insurance must cover each vehicle you own, even if you just drive it occasionally.

Plus, the police have the right to inspect your vehicle if they believe it’s necessary for safety reasons, and most states require a Vehicle Identification Number inspection and check by a sheriff’s deputy or state-designated inspector before the car can be transferred to a new owner, even with a private sale. The new owner must also provide the state with proof of a license and insurance to take possession of the title.

If you fuck up enough, the state can suspend your license as prescribed under the law. 

image

Doesn’t matter if you swear that you didn’t mean to, or that it’s your right to drive wherever the hell you want, when you want. Also, “YOLO, your honor!” will not be a great defense when you go before the judge.

image

In all seriousness, even an accumulation of little violations or a failure to pay a citation can get your license yanked, including not having insurance or registration.

You might say, “BUT I’M A LAW-ABIDING DRIVER!” Doesn’t matter. Everyone has to live by the same set of laws and obey them, even if they’ve never broken them before. This also means rules of the road in the form of traffic laws and such, including laws about where you can’t take your vehicle. You might think it’s your special snowflake right to drive on the sidewalk, do donuts in a school parking lot, or barrel through a city park, but the law says otherwise. Sorry snowflake!

"BUT OTHER PEOPLE DON’T OBEY THE LAWS!" is also not a reason to do away with traffic laws. Sure, there’s a lot of people who speed, myself included. But you take away the penalty, and it’ll be all fun and games until someone’s kid gets mowed down in a school zone by an asshat doing 60 mph — which happens ANYWAYS but is less likely because drivers like myself know there’s a stiff penalty for blasting through school zones. 

And yes, while tens of thousands of people die from traffic accidents every year, and that’s terrible, the laws and regulations we have now decrease the likelihood of it happening. Plus, the death rate from motor vehicle accidents (11.7 per 100,000 in the U.S.) is not that far off from firearms (10.1 per 100,000 in the U.S.) when all manner of deaths by firearm are considered. In fact, in some states, you’re more likely to be killed by a gun than in a motor vehicle accident. By 2015, it’s likely firearms will surpass motor vehicle accidents:

image

Let’s keep in mind, cars are not designed to kill something or someone, which I discuss while taking on the whole "People kill people" canard.

So sure. Let’s treat boomsticks like cars. After all, isn’t this where this comparison would ultimately lead? I’m cool with that.

image

Cheers,

Meg

Filed under cars guns politics gun control Second Amendment firearms Let's treat boomsticks like cars gun

154 notes

Here’s my issue: We have had two of the deadliest shootings happen within the last six months. Both of which claimed children. You know, like the one sleeping in your house right now. Both happened in places everyone had every right to believe were perfectly safe. And the Right’s response? “Everything’s fine. Stay the course.”

Everything is NOT fine. People are dying. Not soldiers. Not militia members. Children. Teachers. Mothers and fathers. No one signed up for this. There were no volunteers. There was just carnage. And all you can do is post the 2nd Amendment in fear that the Great Satan Obama is going to swoop in with his UN flunkies and melt your guns into food stamps to give to unemployed drug dealers.

So yes. It’s time to examine things again. It’s time to think about what’s available to whom. It’s time to take a good look at whether or not we should be making assault weapons legal to buy for any psycho with a clean driving record. Do I want to take your guns? No, not at all! I like guns. I like to shoot them. I like to hunt and eat wild game. And I like to know that I have a level of protection. But I can feel protected with a .22 pistol. And I can hunt with a 12-gauge or a .30-06.

I don’t need a semi-automatic AR-15 with pistol grip, laser sights, high-capacity clips and armor-piercing rounds. That rifle has one use, and one use only. Assault. Which, as you might recall, is against the law.

And here’s the thing. No one’s going to take your guns. If you already have an assault rifle, well, good for you. They can’t take it from you. But they can make it more difficult for the people that are going to hurt other people to get their hands on them. Will school shootings still happen? Yes. Will the wackos on the left still want to take your guns? Yes. Will they? No.

I don’t like gun control. But I’ve realized that something needs to change. A ban on assault rifles, high-capacity clips and armor-piercing rounds isn’t going to turn us into the Soviet Union. After all, people still shot other people in the 90’s, too. It just didn’t happen as often.

Legit Conservative, responding to a friend posting the Second Amendment because said pal wanted to remind folks what America’s all about. I thought his response was marvelous — similar to Joe Scarborough’s change of heart today.

image

Seriously.

Legit Conservative is on my radio show regularly, and he provides great commentary and answers to religious questions (he works with the church ministry at his non-denominational church). He’s also my partner in crime for when we taste weird junk food on-air. If you’d like to respond, email him at cogdistc@gmail.com or tweet at him @OlLegitty

Filed under Legit Conservative Guns gun control politics conservative second amendment 2nd Amendment

1,200 notes

On “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”

Rebloggable by request:

Your argument is invalid. Youre basically saying that someone can either use guns to kill someone fast or they can use something other then a gun to get the same fucking result. So should we outlaw baseball bats because I can take one swing a someones fucking dome and kill them instantly? Fucking stupid. Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Doesn’t matter the weapon.

image Anonymous

image Meg at Cognitive Dissonance:

Yep, you’re right. Obviously, a gun sitting on a table is not going to simply kill someone. However, you cannot deny that a semi-automatic rifle makes it easier to kill larger amounts of people in a shorter amount of time from further away.

Ever heard of dozens of people being killed and wounded by a mass-batting in a movie theater? Or a drive-by knifing committed by an assailant from the window of a moving car? Doubtful. Though pro-gun proponents have pointed to the case of children being knifed in China on the same day as those slain in Connecticut, unlike the children in Newtown, all the children in China survived the attack.

Or how about the number of homicides committed with firearms versus other methods? From the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

image

In 2009, the latest year for which the Center for Disease Control has national statistics, there were 16,799 deaths from homicide in the U.S. — of those, 11,493 were committed with a firearm. That means of the homicides committed in the U.S., 32% used something other than a firearm. According to the Department of Justice, the likelihood of surviving a violent attack increases dramatically without the presence of a firearm by either civilian or criminal.

The Harvard School of Public Health debunks several myths surrounding guns, primarily that guns are used in self-defense all the time (false), and that guns do not increase the rate of homicide (false again). From the University of Utah School of Medicine:

A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides. In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home. Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession.

The University of Utah also finds that when firearms are used for hunting, accidental injuries are very rare — more rare than among all gun owners. That’s the only time guns are used as tools, but their purpose is the same across the board — to kill something. 

I make the tool distinction because a baseball bat, a car, a knife, rope, your hands etc. have a purpose other than killing something or someone. A gun’s purpose is to kill. Period. Even when a gun is used by a police officer, a homeowner, or a hunter in a legitimate manner, the intent is to kill that at which said person is aiming. 

I think we need to examine a culture where it’s easier to purchase a gun than to get mental health treatment. It’s easier to get a gun than to get a driver’s license in many states.

Here’s a thought experiment for you. Meet Nixon:

image

My husband and I adopted him in 2009. In order to do so, we had to get a background check, pay an application fee, fill out this form, and then wait to be approved. Obviously, we were, but the animal rescue has rejected numerous unfit people.

Now, in 2005, I walked into a gun show in Wyoming, and purchased a Springfield bolt action 30.06 Rifle for my then-husband, and a .40 Glock for myself. I bought from two private sellers and neither checked my ID. I actually asked the dealer I purchased the Glock from if I needed to give him my ID, or if he needed to do a background check or anything, and he laughed. He explained that our forefathers didn’t need “a fucking background check — they lie anyhow” and that the Second Amendment was better than any ID. He ended his speech by throwing in a free box of bullets, and said, “God bless the Second Amendment!”

Indeed.

In conclusion, it was harder and more arduous to adopt my cat than to purchase a gun. I’m glad it’s tough to adopt. It’s fucked that it’s harder than buying the guns.

Unlike many people who own guns, I was in the military and know how to shoot. But I no longer own guns. I don’t know if my ex-husband does, nor do I care. One big reason I got rid of mine? See above.

Cheers,

Meg

Filed under guns guns DO kill people Second Amendment shooting murder homicide violence mental health obviously we're all gonna ban bats and knives anon anonymous politics

125 notes

In America today, there is a much longer waiting period for discussing guns after a tragedy than buying guns before it.

Mrs. Betty Bowers, America’s Best Christian.

And can we please drop the BS about “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” sometime soon? Please? If that were truly the case, all I’d have to do when I wanted to shoot someone is point my finger and go *BANG* multiple times. The person supplied the intent, the gun provided the mechanism.

In some cases, there’s no intent. A toddler picks up a gun carelessly left out and shoots a playmate. Playmate dies. We fall all over ourselves saying it was a terrible accident. But by right-winger standards, that child is totally guilty of murder y’all. See, the gun didn’t kill the other kiddo, that toddler did it!

Guns kill people all the time. And there’s a lot of guns that don’t every single day. But to say guns don’t kill people is factually wrong and intellectually dishonest. Someone pulls the trigger, purposefully or not, and that gun became a mechanism of murder. It enabled the killing of another human being.

Got it?

(Source: cognitivedissonance)

Filed under shooting guns politics gun control America Second Amendment

23 notes

Description:

"Isaac Anthony is a conservative six-year-old who knows where he stands on political issues and the upcoming Presidential election."

When the new hot pundit for your movement is an “armed” six-year-old, it’s time to look at your life and look at your choices.

The two top comments from above:

If a six year old can get it, what’s wrong with the rest of you???
dogwithlaserpointer

ROCK ON LITTLE FELLER !!!! these liberal dipshits want to keep spewing their hate and threats because you exercised your 1st amendment right, and i will bring the whole W.O.L.F. militia and our AR’s to your house to stand guard…you can feel safe knowing we will use our 2nd amendment right to protect you and your family from the obamazombies…..
lustkovar1

W.O.L.F Militia? Wait… what?! Simmer down, guys. You’re making a great argument for gun control. 

Look, if a six-year-old can get it, it’s less political policy and more like Spongebob. Isaac is a minimum of two presidential elections away from voting. But I sincerely doubt he drafted his own soundbites. Loop21 does a great job of breaking his claims down regardless. 

Pro-tip: If the ink on your own birth certificate is barely dry, you don’t get to demand the president’s. 

Actually, check that. An “armed” 6-year-old IS actually the best spokesman for this merry band of miscreants.

(Source: cognitivedissonance)

Filed under Isaac Anthony Conservative Barack Obama Mitt Romney politics Republican Election 2012 Seriously punditry kid children gun guns Second Amendment militia patriot movement vote I can't

25 notes

But this is my boomstick! Gun owners and fire prevention intersect

I’m hearing complaints from people regarding possible limits on shooting in open areas because some fires may have been started by those shooting off ranges. Chairman of the Utah Sports Shooting Council Clark Aposhian said that perhaps 5 percent of the wildfires in the state have been caused by target shooters this year, and “I don’t know how much of a problem it really is.”

Two things:

1. Yes, this has happened:

"A Mesa man is facing six months in prison and a $5,000 fine for his role in starting the Sunflower Fire which charred nearly 18,000 acres of Arizona land.

Authorities said Steven Craig Shiflet, 23, from Mesa, and four of his friends were in the Sycamore Creek area for a campout and bachelor party on May 11, 2012.

The group had been shooting at targets when Shiflet loaded a shell into his shotgun and fired it. Shortly after Shiflet fired the shot, smoke appeared in the brush just behind where the shot was fired. The men told police, despite their best attempts, they were unable to extinguish the fire.”

Also, this happened:

"Among the recent fires, target shooters on June 21 ignited a blaze south of Salt Lake City that forced the evacuation of about 2,300 before it was contained."

2. Your right to bear arms ends where my property rights and personal safety begin. Find an outdoor shooting range instead of the brush. No one is telling you that you can’t have guns. We’re saying you can’t use those guns in certain areas, at certain times, for the safety of other people. Are these target shooters really so selfish that they cannot limit themselves out of personal responsibility? I thought the right to bear arms was about protecting one’s self and others, not about risking burning down their homes because gun rights mean getting to shoot whenever and wherever. 

Take some personal responsibility and shoot in designated areas, and obey fire restrictions — basically, quit bitching restrictions infringe on Second Amendment rights. They don’t. It’s a temporary restriction while the West is a tinderbox waiting to explode.

But only five percent of fires! But boomsticks!

Ask the people who lost homes in the Waldo Canyon Fire about that. Though that fire’s cause is still unknown, a point of origin was found and a reward is being offered for information. It can take one fire sparked by one person shooting one round.

Would shooting into a crowd be justified if a person was hit only five percent of the time? 

No, of course not. Because THAT would be ridiculous, amirite?!

(Source: cognitivedissonance)

Filed under Boomstick Gun rights Second Amendment politics wildfire Arizona Utah Wyoming guns West

57 notes

Awkward: Tampa Asks Rick Scott to Ban Guns at RNC Convention

The Tampa City Council on Thursday said they would ask Florida Gov. Rick Scott to ban firearms outside the Republican National Convention later this year.

The council has already issued a citywide ban on items like pieces of wood, switchblades, slingshots, containers of bodily fluids and even squirt guns. A so-called “Clean Zone” around the convention area would prohibit string longer than six inches, glass containers, light bulbs, portable shields and gas masks. A smaller protest area would prevent demonstrators from having camping gear, bottles, cans and umbrellas. The Secret Service has said that only law enforcement will be able to carry firearms inside of the convention center.

But Tampa now needs Scott’s help because state law prevents local governments from regulating guns. City officials believe that Scott has the executive power to temporarily suspend that law.

"We believe it is necessary and prudent to take this reasonable step to prevent a potential tragedy," council member Lisa Montelione wrote in a draft of the letter to the governor.

Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn has said that the state law makes the city “look silly.”

"The absurdity of banning squirt guns but not being able to do anything about real guns is patently obvious," Buckhorn explained last week. “Given the nature and the potential dynamic of this event, I think it would make sense that you would not want firearms introduced into that environment by people other than law enforcement.”

But… but… Second Amendment! Freedoms! Liberty! I WANT MY BOOMSTICK BEFORE OBAMA TAKES IT AWAY!

I love Bob Buckhorn’s comment. He’s right. It IS silly that the city can ban squirt guns and not real guns from certain places. 

Filed under Second Amendment Rick Scott Florida politics guns RNC Republican National Convention

95 notes

cognitivedissonance:

From the “It’s not The Onion” files:

Yes, that’s right, the “new and improved” Susan G. Komen for the Cure now has partnered with the manufacturers of Smith and Wesson, the largest manufacturer of handguns in the U.S., to produce the Walther P-22 Hope Edition handgun in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Breast cancer is a terrible thing. It kills an estimated 41,000 people (yes, a small fraction of its victims are men) annually. Gun violence in America kills 10,000 people a year. What better partnership could there be?
Oh, and by the way, the pink Walther P-22 “Hope Edition” (Hope… Really, as in, “I hope I kill you?” Seriously?) can be yours for the low price of $429.99. Get them while they last.

The New Civil Rights Movement has more here. 
Their next partnership should be with the N.R.A. because it could lend itself to all kinds of slogans. How about “Susan G. Komen and the N.R.A. - Arming women to shoot cancer IN THE FREAKIN’ FACE!”
So maybe that’s a little long. But you get the idea.
The “hope” edition handgun… I can’t even…


The plot thickens. Susan G. Komen is now claiming the partnership never existed, yet employees of the retailer claim the guns have been sold for quite awhile and are a popular product.
With Komen’s reputation for truthfulness lately, it’s plausible the partnership existed in some way, and now it’s damage control time. From CBS:

Employees at three of DGS’ 10 locations said they sold the pink gun. An employee at the Bothell, Washington, store said the guns are “popular” and said he took an order “not too long ago” and that DGS had been selling them for at least two years.
Another employee at a Bellview, Washington, gun store said the store had been taking orders “sporadically.” He also said they had been selling the guns since he started working that store a couple of years ago.
The $400 million charity is famous for its marketing prowess and partnerships. The organization has successfully convinced the entire NFL to accent their uniforms with pink during October, breast cancer awareness month. It is difficult to turn around without seeing a pink ribbon on a cereal box or on a car bumper.

cognitivedissonance:

From the “It’s not The Onion” files:

Yes, that’s right, the “new and improved” Susan G. Komen for the Cure now has partnered with the manufacturers of Smith and Wesson, the largest manufacturer of handguns in the U.S., to produce the Walther P-22 Hope Edition handgun in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

Breast cancer is a terrible thing. It kills an estimated 41,000 people (yes, a small fraction of its victims are men) annually. Gun violence in America kills 10,000 people a year. What better partnership could there be?

Oh, and by the way, the pink Walther P-22 “Hope Edition” (Hope… Really, as in, “I hope I kill you?” Seriously?) can be yours for the low price of $429.99. Get them while they last.

The New Civil Rights Movement has more here

Their next partnership should be with the N.R.A. because it could lend itself to all kinds of slogans. How about “Susan G. Komen and the N.R.A. - Arming women to shoot cancer IN THE FREAKIN’ FACE!”

So maybe that’s a little long. But you get the idea.

The “hope” edition handgun… I can’t even…

The plot thickens. Susan G. Komen is now claiming the partnership never existed, yet employees of the retailer claim the guns have been sold for quite awhile and are a popular product.

With Komen’s reputation for truthfulness lately, it’s plausible the partnership existed in some way, and now it’s damage control time. From CBS:

Employees at three of DGS’ 10 locations said they sold the pink gun. An employee at the Bothell, Washington, store said the guns are “popular” and said he took an order “not too long ago” and that DGS had been selling them for at least two years.

Another employee at a Bellview, Washington, gun store said the store had been taking orders “sporadically.” He also said they had been selling the guns since he started working that store a couple of years ago.

The $400 million charity is famous for its marketing prowess and partnerships. The organization has successfully convinced the entire NFL to accent their uniforms with pink during October, breast cancer awareness month. It is difficult to turn around without seeing a pink ribbon on a cereal box or on a car bumper.

Filed under Susan G. Komen gun politics Second Amendment Seriously Really? Pink everything Facepalm for fuck's sake

95 notes

From the “It’s not The Onion" files:

Yes, that’s right, the “new and improved” Susan G. Komen for the Cure now has partnered with the manufacturers of Smith and Wesson, the largest manufacturer of handguns in the U.S., to produce the Walther P-22 Hope Edition handgun in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
Breast cancer is a terrible thing. It kills an estimated 41,000 people (yes, a small fraction of its victims are men) annually. Gun violence in America kills 10,000 people a year. What better partnership could there be?
Oh, and by the way, the pink Walther P-22 “Hope Edition” (Hope… Really, as in, “I hope I kill you?” Seriously?) can be yours for the low price of $429.99. Get them while they last.

The New Civil Rights Movement has more here. 
Their next partnership should be with the N.R.A. because it could lend itself to all kinds of slogans. How about “Susan G. Komen and the N.R.A. - Arming women to shoot cancer IN THE FREAKIN’ FACE!”
So maybe that’s a little long. But you get the idea.
The “hope” edition handgun… I can’t even…

From the “It’s not The Onion" files:

Yes, that’s right, the “new and improved” Susan G. Komen for the Cure now has partnered with the manufacturers of Smith and Wesson, the largest manufacturer of handguns in the U.S., to produce the Walther P-22 Hope Edition handgun in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.

Breast cancer is a terrible thing. It kills an estimated 41,000 people (yes, a small fraction of its victims are men) annually. Gun violence in America kills 10,000 people a year. What better partnership could there be?

Oh, and by the way, the pink Walther P-22 “Hope Edition” (Hope… Really, as in, “I hope I kill you?” Seriously?) can be yours for the low price of $429.99. Get them while they last.

The New Civil Rights Movement has more here

Their next partnership should be with the N.R.A. because it could lend itself to all kinds of slogans. How about “Susan G. Komen and the N.R.A. - Arming women to shoot cancer IN THE FREAKIN’ FACE!”

So maybe that’s a little long. But you get the idea.

The “hope” edition handgun… I can’t even…

Filed under Susan G. Komen gun politics Second Amendment Seriously Really? Pink everything Facepalm for fuck's sake

18 notes

So this is a thing:

For some Arizona kids, photos with Santa come with the usual holiday cheer and some serious firepower.
Armed with assault rifles, grenade launchers, and pistols, the jolly old fellow is posing with families and their children at a Scottsdale, Ariz., gun club. Young and old can preserve the moment while gripping the high-powered weapon of their choice.
To gun enthusiasts like Bruce Stevens, the photo shoot is something to be joyful about. He plans to take his four children, ages 8 to 17, to take pictures with Santa and his arsenal. ”It’s a unique opportunity for a family that does enjoy shooting and the recreation portion of it and the history of it all,” he says.
But some say linking guns to a figure affiliated with Christmas sends the wrong message. ”It’s a time when you’re talking about peace and good cheer and things of that nature,” says the Rev. Brent Loveless of the North Valley Baptist Church in Phoenix. Although he is a hunter who supports the right to bear arms, the pastor says that arming kids with machine guns around Santa “is probably just a little too much.”
The cost of a sitting with Santa is $5 for members and $10 for nonmembers, with one print photo and one digital copy included.
To Eric Bowen, the father of an 11-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy, the photo shoots are more of a novelty than anything else. “It all comes down to a personal right,” he says. “If you want to celebrate the Christmas season with Santa and your favorite rifle, then why should I stop you?”
At the photo session Nov. 26, people of all ages took turns standing next to St. Nick, grinning and toting AK-47s and modified AR-15s. The backdrop included an $80,000 Garwood Minigun, a heavy machine gun.

"If you want to celebrate the Christmas season with Santa and your favorite rifle, then why should I stop you?" Is this from the War on Christmas claim? Because I thought that was all about “Jesus is the reason for the season” etc. - not that gun-hating liberals want to take away the right to pose with Santa and guns. 
Did anyone else think of the "Red Sleigh Down" episode of South Park?
You know what actually surprises me about this? With 30.2 guns for every 100 people, Wyoming didn’t do it first.

So this is a thing:

For some Arizona kids, photos with Santa come with the usual holiday cheer and some serious firepower.

Armed with assault rifles, grenade launchers, and pistols, the jolly old fellow is posing with families and their children at a Scottsdale, Ariz., gun club. Young and old can preserve the moment while gripping the high-powered weapon of their choice.

To gun enthusiasts like Bruce Stevens, the photo shoot is something to be joyful about. He plans to take his four children, ages 8 to 17, to take pictures with Santa and his arsenal. ”It’s a unique opportunity for a family that does enjoy shooting and the recreation portion of it and the history of it all,” he says.

But some say linking guns to a figure affiliated with Christmas sends the wrong message. ”It’s a time when you’re talking about peace and good cheer and things of that nature,” says the Rev. Brent Loveless of the North Valley Baptist Church in Phoenix. Although he is a hunter who supports the right to bear arms, the pastor says that arming kids with machine guns around Santa “is probably just a little too much.”

The cost of a sitting with Santa is $5 for members and $10 for nonmembers, with one print photo and one digital copy included.

To Eric Bowen, the father of an 11-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy, the photo shoots are more of a novelty than anything else. “It all comes down to a personal right,” he says. “If you want to celebrate the Christmas season with Santa and your favorite rifle, then why should I stop you?”

At the photo session Nov. 26, people of all ages took turns standing next to St. Nick, grinning and toting AK-47s and modified AR-15s. The backdrop included an $80,000 Garwood Minigun, a heavy machine gun.

"If you want to celebrate the Christmas season with Santa and your favorite rifle, then why should I stop you?" Is this from the War on Christmas claim? Because I thought that was all about “Jesus is the reason for the season” etc. - not that gun-hating liberals want to take away the right to pose with Santa and guns. 

Did anyone else think of the "Red Sleigh Down" episode of South Park?

You know what actually surprises me about this? With 30.2 guns for every 100 people, Wyoming didn’t do it first.

(Source: csmonitor.com)

Filed under Arizona guns politics Christmas xmas Santa Santa Claus St. Nick guns and santa really? This is a thing? Second Amendment Seriously? x-mas holidays