• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

There's smug....and then there's SMUG - how not to get re-elected

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Saw this article yesterday. Absolutely unbelievable. These are mothers - their constituents- in front of them who have been directly affected by gun violence. And these assholes think its ok/funny/making a point by wearing these pearls mocking these women for "clutching at their pearls"? Fuck them. I mean seriously, fuck these guys. It's simply astounding the lack of optics these people have.
 
I see some people who wish to mirror what was done to them. All their buttons and pins are there to say we belong and are honored somewhere which mirrors their loss of real self respect, and the pearls to say fuck you to those who made them feel that way vicariously. They can't tell their fathers and mothers and brutish culture to go fuck itself because that was beaten out of them as children. So they seek a safe group to dump their shit on.

The chin is up to tell you your insults and derision are welcome, that he is proud of the asshole his culture made him, that he spits on love and tenderness. Why do we hate somebody so sad? "Who cares about your children who get shot and killed in childhood? It's what happened to people like me."
 
SlowSpyder said:
I like what these guys did. If we get rid of all personal rights that can cause harm, then we'll all live forever. Right?
Click to expand...

Did you even read the bill that they were there supporting?
http://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?id=7

You're a complete fucking waste of skin for supporting these guys. What purpose did their little act serve? To mock and belittle their constituents? I'd bet some of those they were mocking actually voted for them. And regardless if they did or did not, those representatives, whether they agree with the person or not, SERVE that person and should respect those people. Fuck these guys - they are not, in any shape way or form what public servants are supposed to be.
 
SlowSpyder said:
I like what these guys did. If we get rid of all personal rights that can cause harm, then we'll all live forever. Right?
Click to expand...
Who wants to love forever? I just don't want to be shot at work in the back.

More seriously where does it say in the Constitution you have a right to own a gun? Or a missile? Or a grenade? I don't remember reading a specific phrase that says you have a right to a weapon that will rip a guy in half and blow up a building.
 
Sunburn74 said:
Who wants to love forever? I just don't want to be shot at work in the back.

More seriously where does it say in the Constitution you have a right to own a gun? Or a missile? Or a grenade? I don't remember reading a specific phrase that says you have a right to a weapon that will rip a guy in half and blow up a building.
Click to expand...

Mmm... loving forever. I like it.

Read the 2A and see if you can answer your own questions.

What do you think the odds of being shot at work are? According to this, there were 500 workplace homicides in 2016. That makes it very, very unlikely statistically to happen.
 
SlowSpyder said:
Mmm... loving forever. I like it.

Read the 2A and see if you can answer your own questions.

What do you think the odds of being shot at work are? According to this, there were 500 workplace homicides in 2016. That makes it very, very unlikely statistically to happen.
Click to expand...

The bill isn't' trying to abolish the 2A. Again, I will ask you if you even read the bill itself?

Here, I will give you the synopsis right from the document I linked:

This bill establishes a procedure for issuing extreme risk protection orders to protect against persons who pose an immediate risk of harm to themselves or others.

1 Statement of Purpose. The general court finds that allowing family or household members or law enforcement officers to petition for a court order to temporarily restrict access to firearms by individuals who are found to pose an immediate risk to themselves or others would advance public safety. This act shall not apply in cases of domestic abuse or stalking where the petitioner is eligible to petition for relief under RSA 173-B or RSA 633:3-a.
Click to expand...

Do you think that's wrong? Do you think these people should be mocked by their representatives for trying to discuss/promote this with them?
 
SlowSpyder said:
Mmm... loving forever. I like it.

Read the 2A and see if you can answer your own questions.

What do you think the odds of being shot at work are? According to this, there were 500 workplace homicides in 2016. That makes it very, very unlikely statistically to happen.
Click to expand...
2nd A doesn't say anything about guns. Or acid grenades. Or rocket launchers. In 400 years people will be arguing for lightsabers and vaporizers as being protected by the founding fathers. Currently it's being interpreted as including guns but excluding grenades and rocket launcher but this is something the courts have done and we know the position of the courts is not set in stone.
 
Sunburn74 said:
2nd A doesn't say anything about guns. Or acid grenades. Or rocket launchers. In 400 years people will be arguing for lightsabers and vaporizers as being protected by the founding fathers. Currently it's being interpreted as including guns but excluding grenades and rocket launcher but this is something the courts have done and we know the position of the courts is not set in stone.
Click to expand...
Muskets and black powder for all.
 
Homerboy said:
The bill isn't' trying to abolish the 2A. Again, I will ask you if you even read the bill itself?

Here, I will give you the synopsis right from the document I linked:



Do you think that's wrong? Do you think these people should be mocked by their representatives for trying to discuss/promote this with them?
Click to expand...


If a bill came forward to not allow you to be too critical of the president, but not otherwise abolishing free speech, would you be for it? Would you be for whittling away your rights while the government tells you it is for safety and your rights are still intact while clearly you are losing some bit of your rights?

What if they saw how anti-Trump this site is, found who you are, and told you that you are a potential danger so you can from there on out only say nice things about government?

On paper it looks nice and clean. The problem is how it is enforced in reality, as gun owners have seen in the past, would be an issue. I don't think this should be put into law. It sounds like someone could arbitrarily be considered a danger and the government could strip them of their rights. I guess if due process is followed it'd be a help, but it still goes against the spirit of the 2A. Having license/permission from the government to have firearms that are meant to keep us safe from the government is kind of self-defeating.
 
Last edited:
Sunburn74 said:
2nd A doesn't say anything about guns. Or acid grenades. Or rocket launchers. In 400 years people will be arguing for lightsabers and vaporizers as being protected by the founding fathers. Currently it's being interpreted as including guns but excluding grenades and rocket launcher but this is something the courts have done and we know the position of the courts is not set in stone.
Click to expand...

It says firearms. The right to firearms.

Let me help you with that definition.

Civilians can and do own grenade/rocket launchers. Hell, you can own a tank if you want (people do).
 
hal2kilo said:
Muskets and black powder for all.
Click to expand...

That's a silly argument. They did not say muskets. Repeating firearms have existed for quite literally hundreds of years before the 2A was authored, and our forefathers that were well versed in military arms still chose the wording they did.
 
So this part is an obvious lie?
The whole thing is bizarre from any angle.

Kimberly Morin, president of the Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire, said on Twitter, “The PEARLS are in support of the Women’s Defense League. Women who ACTUALLY PROMOTE GUN SAFETY and WOMEN’S RIGHTS.”

She also told the New Hampshire media outlet The Union Leader that opponents of the gun control measures have been wearing pearls at gun-related hearings since 2016.
 
Greenman said:
So this part is an obvious lie?
The whole thing is bizarre from any angle.

Kimberly Morin, president of the Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire, said on Twitter, “The PEARLS are in support of the Women’s Defense League. Women who ACTUALLY PROMOTE GUN SAFETY and WOMEN’S RIGHTS.”

She also told the New Hampshire media outlet The Union Leader that opponents of the gun control measures have been wearing pearls at gun-related hearings since 2016.
Click to expand...


Wow, look at that. Anti-2A fake news. My shocked face: 😕
 
Greenman said:
So this part is an obvious lie?
The whole thing is bizarre from any angle.

Kimberly Morin, president of the Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire, said on Twitter, “The PEARLS are in support of the Women’s Defense League. Women who ACTUALLY PROMOTE GUN SAFETY and WOMEN’S RIGHTS.”

She also told the New Hampshire media outlet The Union Leader that opponents of the gun control measures have been wearing pearls at gun-related hearings since 2016.
Click to expand...

lol. Classy.
 
Some of the Reps here in New Hampshire sure have class, please don't judge all people from here based on these idiots.
 
Greenman said:
So this part is an obvious lie?
The whole thing is bizarre from any angle.

Kimberly Morin, president of the Women’s Defense League of New Hampshire, said on Twitter, “The PEARLS are in support of the Women’s Defense League. Women who ACTUALLY PROMOTE GUN SAFETY and WOMEN’S RIGHTS.”

She also told the New Hampshire media outlet The Union Leader that opponents of the gun control measures have been wearing pearls at gun-related hearings since 2016.
Click to expand...

Yes in support of a league that is equivalent of a WOMAN'S NRA!

And who wears a lapel button of an "assault weapon" except for extremist.

1551914567738.png
 
SlowSpyder said:
That's a silly argument. They did not say muskets. Repeating firearms have existed for quite literally hundreds of years before the 2A was authored, and our forefathers that were well versed in military arms still chose the wording they did.
Click to expand...

So what? They were all black powder flintlocks.
 
In the age of Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Tree of Life, Charleston and Sutherland Springs (and a host of others) there are people in office who openly mock the concern of victims and mothers like that?

What a bunch of pricks, and I say that as someone with plenty of iron who enjoys shooting.
 
Jhhnn said:
It's the height of fashion among the ammosexual crowd. It shows they'd rather be packing iron. You know, like everywhere, the same way some wear a crucifix. Can't be too careful with those MS13 Antifas lurking everywhere. They even come in pink for the fashion conscious lady paranoids-

https://www.sportsmansoutdoorsuperstore.com/category.cfm/sportsman/guns-of-color-pistols-pink
Click to expand...
So the two things that actually surprise me at that sight are the reasonable prices, and that it appears that I can buy a weapon and have it shipped to me. How is that possible?

I'm going to use your ammosexual line. It's going to be my new gender. Thanks for that.
 
Greenman said:
So the two things that actually surprise me at that sight are the reasonable prices, and that it appears that I can buy a weapon and have it shipped to me. How is that possible?

I'm going to use your ammosexual line. It's going to be my new gender. Thanks for that.
Click to expand...

They're shipped to local/ regional licensed gun shops who act as their agents to do the background checks. Go thru the ordering process to see how it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top