Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
COFFEE BREAK

Banning Guns In Starbucks Is Like Asking Gays To Stay Closeted, Claims NRA Nutjob

Put on your Depends, kids. It’s time for The Queerty Comedy Hour! Today’s guest jokester is Colion Noir, the NRA commentator and YouTube sensation whose videos promote the interests of gun owners and the gun lobby.

Noir — if that’s his given name, there’s not much information about him anywhere on the internet — recently aimed his crosshairs on Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who last week asked gun owners not to bring their pieces into any Starbucks location. Schultz stopped short of banning guns altogether, but that wasn’t good enough for Noir, who compared Schultz’s request to banning gay people and interracial couples from entering the store in a video posted last week.

Noir opens his video by saying, “In the wake of Starbucks coming out of the proverbial anti-gun closet — yes, I said anti-gun, because when you request that I don’t bring my gun with me into your store, that’s an anti-gun stance. Think about it. If you said, ‘We’re not pro or anti-gay, but please, all gay people, we respectfully ask that you not bring your gayness into the store. I mean, we’ll still serve you, but if you can leave the gayness at the door, we would much appreciate it.’”

Noir goes on to explain, “My issue with the Starbucks’s open letter or request that we don’t bring our guns in there is the fact that they’re singling out responsible gun owners over a whole host of other jackasses that come into Starbucks. I’ve spent a third of my life studying in Starbucks to get through law school. And every single time, it was me, my law books, Mrs. Caramel Frappuccino, and Mr. Glock-19.”

If Noir truly spent a third of his life in law school — which should take no more than six years, if you’re going part-time — he might want to consider writing the institution that awarded him a J.D. for a refund, because he obviously never learned to form a logical argument.

Gun ownership, unlike sexual orientation, is not an inextricable part of a person’s identity. Nor, for that matter, does a person’s sexual orientation possess the potential to take another person’s life. Last time we checked, a lesbian never walked into an elementary school and murdered a bunch of six and seven year olds with her sensible haircut.

It’s unclear how Noir became so popular. Some of his YouTube videos boast more than 800,000 views. And if his rhetorical mastery seems suspect, his sensationalism certainly goes unchallenged. Facts be damned, he incites fear among gun owners that the government is trying to disarm them. In that respect, he’s a typical NRA lackey, refusing to entertain any discussion of gun control while portraying himself as a perpetual victim.

By:           Tommy Jordan O'Malley
On:           Sep 24, 2013
Tagged: , ,
  • 67 Comments
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      Yeah, only nut-jobs think the public should be disarmed as the roid-rage, low IQ, fat slob police have guns running around terrorizing people as we see in countless YouTube vids.

      Only nut-jobs think the public should be further disarmed as the 2-party system war machine kills innocent people and provides arms for gangs and drug cartels throughout the world.

      Noir became popular because the majority of Americans support the 2nd amendment no matter how many cowards try to exploit shootings in gun-free zones as an excuse to disarm the public. And there’s nothing anti-gay about his comment.

      But I’m all for control from the police state thugs and the 2-party system charade. Let’s disarm them for sure.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 12:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ McFrisky
      BJ McFrisky

      The author states, “. . . nor does a person’s sexual orientation possess the potential to take another person’s life.”
      Very true, however, my sexuality never had the power to protect me or anyone else from harm—that’s why I own a gun (or maybe more than one).

      Sep 24, 2013 at 12:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo
      2eo

      http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/09/18-1

      Study: Nations Awash in Guns Are Simply Killing Themselves

      Study used 15 different models, including the ones the NRA and the right use and still arrived at the conclusions lead to by the facts.

      I know it isn’t popular to be against gun violence on the internet, but the facts don’t lie.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 12:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      Another low IQ NRA assh*le! This Jackalope is fortunate they even allow him in any store, with or without a “law” degree. Scheeesch!

      Sep 24, 2013 at 1:22 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jjdeg
      jjdeg

      Lighten up on the guy. He’s wearing a Red Sox cap which means he’s a Dunkin Donuts man who’s probably never been inside a Starbucks in his life!

      Sep 24, 2013 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Snapper59
      Snapper59

      State law is state law and the CEO of Starbucks can demand you hop in on one foot and cluck like a chicken but he doesn’t replace state laws regarding guns. What an idiot. Suppose he mandated proof you were packing before serving your 50 cent cups of coffee that cost three dollars.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 2:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @jjdeg: You may be right. NRA people will sell their soul and common sense for a gun!

      Sep 24, 2013 at 2:18 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @Snapper59: Maybe magnetic scanners at Starbucks isn’t such a bad idea. If the alarm is triggered, a person is searched and if a gun is found… NO SERVICE! Back out the door!

      Sep 24, 2013 at 2:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Polaro
      Polaro

      @jeff4justice: Wow, that’s the kind of crazy that makes me for gun control.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 2:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Snapper59
      Snapper59

      Sorry Dakotahgeo, when you open a business in a state you don’t supersede the law.
      How amusing.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 2:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • whatisthis
      whatisthis

      @jeff4justice: Except for the fact that people fighting for gun control are fighting for just that – CONTROL. Not taking away everyones’ precious weapons. Seriously, how dense must you be to be against trying to stop batshit crazy mass murderers, children, and people who end up shooting a 10 year old kid while aiming for a deer from getting guns?

      There are a few ultra-gun haters who do want every single gun taken away, yes, but you second amendment wankers need to calm your tits and understand that those people aren’t the majority of us. This isn’t the 1700’s anymore, where every single American owning a gun may have been even slightly realistic or safe.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 2:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @Snapper59: Believe me, I’m well aware of that. If we can’t keep the religious nut jobs out, we haven’t much of a chance with the idiot NRA nut jobs! One would think they would have common sense!

      Sep 24, 2013 at 3:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charlie in Charge
      Charlie in Charge

      Yeah relating guns to gayness is not a very workable simile.

      Leaving gayness behind is pretending; leaving your gun behind is leaving a physical weapon behind.

      Some patrons might want me to leave gayness behind because of their discomfort with something that does not affect them; I would like people to leave their gun behind because it can very easily murder people.

      No one has walked into a building and murdered a dozen people with openly gay behavior.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 3:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      @Polaro: And that’s the kind of sheeple response I’d expect from a statist zombie.

      You trust clowns like the low-IQ, obese roidragers driving around terrorizing peaceful people as demonstrated on websites like:

      http://www.copblock.org/
      http://www.policestateusa.com/
      http://photographyisnotacrime.com/

      And I’ll trust everyday people to be armed.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 3:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jim H.
      Jim H.

      @Snapper59: I’m sorry, but you’re incorrect. States with open carry laws do NOT favor gun owners’ interests over property owners’ interests. If you enter a private establishment that someone else owns, that person has the legal right to require you to be free of deadly weapons. (Imagine that!)

      Sep 24, 2013 at 3:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      @jeff4justice: You’re right. It isn’t the 1700?s anymore. The murdering 2party system charade has created an unprecedented total surveillance society with a nation of bureaucrats who’ve hyper-criminalized nearly all aspects of peaceful human interaction while providing immunity to police terrorists who commit the types of crimes against humanity as detailed in the websites provided in my comment above.

      Only a psycho would think it’s reasonable for a person identifying themselves as “police” in a silly uniform with a gun to pull up to a lemonade stand and threaten kids for not having permits, or pepper-spraying Occupy protestors, or attacking peaceful people engaged in open-carry, or gang-beating a homeless person sitting still to death.

      And you’re right, you dense must you be to be against trying to stop batshit crazy mass murderers so that’s why I don’t vote for the 2-party system charade who presides over the police state gone wild while instigating endless lie-based war killing precious innocent children.

      But I’m all for applying gun control towards the 2-party system charade warmongers as well as the police state. I also think they should be required to participate in ObamaRomneyWellpointCare too. If a rule is good enough for you and I then it’s good for our fellow citizens declaring themselves as government. For the sake of the children of course.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 3:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      @Jim H.: Does that include the edible products that businesses sell that require the placement of signs warning “May cause cancer”?

      Sep 24, 2013 at 3:59 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • the other Greg
      the other Greg

      @BJ McFrisky: I always wonder – how do you guys shoot more than one gun at a time?

      @jjdeg: You’re probably right about him and Dunkin’ Donuts. As their current TV commercial has it, I bet he goes to Dunkin’ for their “ambience and witty banter!”

      Sep 24, 2013 at 4:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @Jim H.: Thank you. You’ve educated me today. I always thought there was something weird about that law and you clarified it. Kudos!

      Sep 24, 2013 at 5:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • enfilmigult
      enfilmigult

      @Snapper59: He didn’t “demand” or “mandate” anything. He’s not an idiot for ignoring state law because he didn’t ignore it. In fact he goes into that specifically in the entire letter he wrote about this; try reading it.

      Irrational nonsense like this is doing more to hurt your cause than any gun-control advocate ever could, just so you know. I was firmly on your side, but now I’m far enough away to call it “your side,” and this is the ONLY reason why: with every gun owner I see on the Internet, going off and overreacting to a situation they’re misunderstanding yet again, it becomes a little easier to imagine them doing that in real life while armed.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 6:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mykelb
      mykelb

      False equivalencies are the bane of the uneducated.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 7:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • mykelb
      mykelb

      @jeff4justice: The majority of Americans don’t own guns. Only one-third do. Get your facts correct, sir.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 7:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      @mykelb: Get your facts correct, sir. I wrote, “Noir became popular because the majority of Americans support the 2nd amendment.” You replied, “The majority of Americans don’t own guns.” Oops.

      But to both comments:

      Queerty is blocking multiple links so online search:

      Public Support for Second Amendment Remains Strong
      usnews

      Gun Control Polls Find Support Sliding For Harsher Laws
      huffingtonpost

      How Many People Own Guns in America? And Is Gun Ownership Actually Declining?
      theblaze

      A minority of Americans own guns, but just how many is unclear
      pewresearch

      Just How Many Guns Do Americans Own?
      huffingtonpost

      Sep 24, 2013 at 8:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Fawkes
      Fawkes

      @jeff4justice: How dare you bring facts into this debate! How dare anyone mention that FBI statistics have repeatedly proven that higher rates of legal gun ownership leads to less violence in general, but especially robberies and home invasions! We need to have our guns taken so we can become toothless jellyfish like most of the government worshippers who support gun control already are! To hell with facts, logic and reason! Please my dear government, get rid of that nasty second amendment immediately!

      Sep 24, 2013 at 8:31 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jmmartin
      jmmartin

      There is something terribly wrong with our educational system that young people are not educated in the principles of logic and, in particular, the use and avoidance of fallacies? Of course, false equivalences are the meat and potatoes of politicians and some TV pundits, but the fallacy should be recognized for what it is and avoided in daily discourse. What guns in Starbucks and gays in closets have in common escapes me entirely. If young people were drilled in fallacious reasoning they would not make such mistakes as, e.g., saying that one knows the bible is the literal word of God because it says so.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 9:05 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Drake_Burrwood
      Drake_Burrwood

      @Dakotahgeo: Actually they aren’t that expensive, some are close to works of art but many more are just another product of the industrial age. The fact is it’s getting to the point where it’s going to be easy to make guns for the black market just like liquor during prohibition.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 9:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      @Fawkes: Yep. Leave it to LGBT Inc to foster perpetual victimhood. I’d rather date a guy like Colion than a self-victimizing gun grabber any day.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 9:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brent
      brent

      “Gun ownership is not a part of a persons identity” Neither is abortion. Yet there are no shortage of liberals who connect abortion rights to gay rights. I know what liberals will say to this argument. Abortion rights is about having control of your body. Well so are gun rights. The right to protect your person is what gun rights are about. Nutjobs could also describe the ACLU. Who defends the murderer from death row, the ACLU. Who wants to release prisoners in California because of overcrowding, while disarming the citizens. Well, the ACLU of course.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 10:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brent
      brent

      @jjdeg: I love it when gay liberals start stereotyping people. Do liberals have any sense of irony or self-awareness?

      Sep 24, 2013 at 10:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brent
      brent

      @Dakotahgeo: It’s interesting that a liberal uses a religious word like soul. I thought liberals were for separation of church and state. Once again no self-awareness among liberals. Soul is really a word liberals should avoid considering their support of partial birth abortion.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 10:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brent
      brent

      @Dakotahgeo: What’s next? Are we going to allow a business to kick out two guys for kissing.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 10:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brent
      brent

      @whatisthis: Would you say the same about people fighting for abortion control? No you would make the same slippery slope argument the NRA argues.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 10:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brent
      brent

      @Charlie in Charge: We should leave our gun behind because it can murder people. Guns do not kill people anymore than a knife kills someone. I guess you should leave your car at home since it can kill someone. It’s true gun rights are not connected to a persons identity like being gay. But then abortion rights are not connected to a persons identity. Yet liberals keep pushing gay rights and abortion rights, like the two are connected.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 10:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brent
      brent

      @enfilmigult: People who commit mass murder don’t usually belong to the NRA.NRA members tend to be people who use guns for the right reasons, Hunting, self-defense.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 11:04 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brent
      brent

      @mykelb: That is a very interesting idea. I assume you mean people who compare gun rights to gay rights. What would you say about people comparing abortion rights to gay rights? Abortion is about behavior, not orientation.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 11:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brent
      brent

      @mykelb: What difference does it make if a majority own guns? I’m surprised, well not really, that a gay liberal would defend majority rights over minority rights. Once again, is there self-awareness among liberals?

      Sep 24, 2013 at 11:11 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brent
      brent

      @jmmartin: My sense of logic tells me that unless a woman has been raped, there is no connection between gay rights and abortion rights. Unless you argue that being gay is a choice or a woman has no control over her sexual habits.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 11:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Lawerence
      Lawerence

      Omg! There are some scary demonic soulless zombie sheeple here. How could anyone agree with this subhuman fraud. He’s most likely a delusional Uncle Tom Rethuglican! Good thing I don’t drink coffee and haven’t been in a Starbucks in years.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 11:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eiswirth
      Eiswirth

      If the only way you feel safe in Starbucks is if you’re carrying your gun, then I suggest you seek out a safer location to buy your coffee.

      Sep 24, 2013 at 11:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @enfilmigult: Sadly, that is the very reason that many, many people have given up hope and changed sides against gun enthusiasts and even more so, the NRA! The NRA used to have an unblemished record nationwide and now even I would be ashamed to my name on a list of support for them because of the extremists. They’re really no better than the American christian Taliban we see parading around! I am more in favor of gun control every day, even if it’s operated by the government.

      Sep 25, 2013 at 12:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @Eiswirth: I would agree with you 100%. I now keep my eyes on everyone as they enter the Starbucks doors where I partake! Not fearful… just label me cautious and armed with my cell phone camera!

      Sep 25, 2013 at 12:36 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @Drake_Burrwood: So noted. :)

      Sep 25, 2013 at 12:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @brent: Comment noted… and dismissed! No relevance.

      Sep 25, 2013 at 12:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @brent: Y’ jus’ neva know… it’s already happened… numerous times. Could be.

      Sep 25, 2013 at 12:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jim H.
      Jim H.

      @jeff4justice: I’m not sure what you’re asking, exactly, but it seems you’re trying to be clever by observing that food disclosure regulations are more intrusive on business owners’ rights than open-carry laws are. I suppose they are, but since the two sets of laws are unrelated and serve entirely different purposes, I don’t see this as a coherent (or even interesting) critique of the law.

      As citizens, we all have our various interests, and many of those interests pose inherent conflict. My interest in physical safety conflicts with your interest in unfettered access to weaponry. (It also conflicts with my own interest in protection from government surveillance.) A restauranteur’s interest in having discretion over his business affairs conflicts with a patron’s interest in not having his food secretly tainted with harmful chemicals.

      It’s a messy puzzle with no possibility for a rule or principle to resolve all of these conflicts. Rather, they have to be hashed out individually in the democratic process, which itself is constrained by overarching constitutional requirements.

      The bottom line? If you think you’ve found a rule or principle that solves all of these problems, that’s about the surest proof possible that you don’t even understand what the problems are.

      Sep 25, 2013 at 1:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      @Jim H.: And my interest in roaming where I wish conflicts with private property ownership.

      Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on gays getting married… I mean, voting on what’s for dinner. The concepts of “law” perpetuated in the US are nonsensical – Marc Stevens outlines how very clearly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cw3-s172yA4

      Regarding your comment, “If you think you’ve found a rule or principle that solves all of these problems,” the non-aggression principle is a pretty good place to start as opposed to the statism of the 2-party system charade which is a blatant failure with half a nation in poverty, endless lie-based war, and mostly blatant liars being elected.

      While most of the readers of this blog appear to be stuck in the left vs right hamster-wheel, people like Peter Joseph and Stefan Molyneux (who have very different views from one another) are having great conservations about emancipation from government and money: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaP2GJvZlWY

      Just remember, beware the has browns: http://850digital.com/warning-mcdonalds-fries-hash-browns-may-cause-cancer/

      Sep 25, 2013 at 1:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      @jeff4justice: hash browns, do’h!

      Sep 25, 2013 at 1:33 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @jeff4justice: “While most of the readers of this blog appear to be stuck in the left vs right hamster-wheel, people like Peter Joseph and Stefan Molyneux (who have very different views from one another) are having great conservations about emancipation from government and money—-
      _______________________________________________________________________________________
      I’m thinking you mean conversations, not conservations……. ROFLMBO!!! Oh, you intellectuals just slay me with funnies! Oh, thank you x 3! (Snicker, snicker, snicker… snort!).

      Sep 25, 2013 at 1:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Harley
      Harley

      Love the comparison of gun rights to abortion rights. Good one. Lets require a trans-rectal ultrasound before purchasing a gun to prove you are not full of shit.

      Sep 25, 2013 at 5:57 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo
      2eo

      @Harley: Impossible, sadly the far right and far left are batshit insane about guns. They rate the massacre of schoolchildren very low, sadly.

      Guns are worth more than people, this is one of the main reasons why the American empire is collapsing. They subtract wealth and worth from education and transfer it into religious lunatic lobbying groups instead.

      The arguments from both the far right and left are exactly the same, any semblance of a clever discussion of the issues is shouted out because of their belief only one amendment matters, and fuck everyone else. On the planet.

      Sep 25, 2013 at 6:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • enfilmigult
      enfilmigult

      @brent: So? I wasn’t talking about mass murderers. Just pro-gun people who’ve alienated me by demonstrating that their reactions to things they don’t like are quick, hostile, irrational and based on a misreading of the situation…all absolutely dreadful qualities in a gun owner, but ones I just keep on seeing. Like, for instance, the comment to which I was replying.

      As for the NRA (which I wasn’t talking about in particular either), the notion that they’re anything a person could reasonably call a “gun safety organization” is one I’m going to have a hard time believing again after such things as the post-Sandy Hook press conference.

      Sep 25, 2013 at 9:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jeff4justice
      jeff4justice

      @Dakotahgeo: Using typos to deflect. Classic. If yore laughing your but off may I suggest you put it back on. I mean you’re. I mean butt.

      Sep 25, 2013 at 9:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • BJ McFrisky
      BJ McFrisky

      Lawrence’s comment, No. 38, states, “He’s most likely a delusional Uncle Tom Rethuglican!”

      I knew it was only a matter of time before someone brought his race into the conversation. A good white liberal NEVER passes up an opportunity to trash a black conservative . . . or a gay one . . . or a female one . . . or Hispanic, or Asian, or . . . well, you get the point. You guys believe you have a monopoly on minorities of all stripes, and it’s always amusing to see your reaction when it’s made apparent that you do not.

      Sep 25, 2013 at 10:03 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • enfilmigult
      enfilmigult

      @Dakotahgeo: Yep, pretty much. I used to think by “gun safety” people like this might mean the kind of mandatory training other heavily armed countries require, or things that actually improve gun safety—mandatory background checks *especially* when someone’s buying a firearm from some random guy instead of a licensed dealer, for instance—but no, it’s just stubborn resistance to anything but a total free-for-all, or as close to it as we can get. Someone up there was mockingly making a comparison to leaving your car at home because you can kill someone with it, but we keep better track of cars and regulate their use more strictly, and that’s insane.

      Sep 25, 2013 at 10:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • 2eo
      2eo

      @enfilmigult: Like all people who fall into the lower intelligence spectrum all they have the ability to utilise is “Slippery Slope” arguments, and something about government seizing the land and literally r@ping the very ground itself, never going to happen.

      Hasn’t happened in Britain, we have very, very few shootings, and an astonishingly tiny amount of mass shootings, America averages about 50 per year, and about 500,000 verified offences, let alone the thousands of ones where the cops don’t bother.

      There’s something about seeing not seeing the forest for the trees, but given the standard of the pro-gun sentiment I think it may be a little too advanced.

      There is a direct correlation between these gun lunatics and being unintelligent, a direct and absolute correlation, they are lesser, you are not as clever, it is simple fact, judged by decades and decades of reality proving pro-gun idiots only care about guns, and should be held complicit for the murder of every gunned down child.

      Sep 25, 2013 at 10:24 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • krystalkleer
      krystalkleer

      just another limelight hog!!
      http://getoffmydress.blogspot.com/2013/09/this-is-what-i-do.html

      Sep 25, 2013 at 11:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charlie in Charge
      Charlie in Charge

      @brent: Everyone wants to compare guns with cars as if that makes any sense.

      First in this case, yes, no one wants you to drive your car into Starbucks because that is dangerous.

      When a car is used correctly it gets you from point A to point B. A gun used correctly sends bullets very quickly toward a target. Mass murderers don’t drive their cars into schools and office buildings mowing people down. They use guns or explosives. Why is that? Why didn’t the Columbine killers kill people with cars?

      Sep 25, 2013 at 12:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brent
      brent

      I can’t help to notice that liberals have not said anything critical about the ACLU. The group that defends the rights of people who use guns for murder.

      Sep 25, 2013 at 2:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brent
      brent

      @Harley: What is the point of abortion rights if you can’t protect your body from someone intending harm. I love how liberals defend the right of women to control their bodies, but not the right to protect their bodies. Did you hear about the woman who was raped in her home because the dispatcher did not have a cop to send to her house. 90% of abortion is about lifestyle choices. Not so with rape. That woman almost certainly will buy a gun after her experience.

      Sep 25, 2013 at 2:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Polaro
      Polaro

      @jeff4justice: @brent: It really is funny, and counterproductive, for you gun nuts to be so rabid and antagonistic. Owning guns myself I really find it impossible to even think about aligning myself with you, your style of personal attack and the way you all portray yourselves on any thread about guns. I am in no danger of losing my guns to gun control. But, I wold gladly give them up to shut you a-holes and your crazy up.

      Sep 25, 2013 at 3:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @jeff4justice: Heh heh heh… you just crashed and burned your own comments… (yawwwn). Thanks again for the giggles… priceless!

      Sep 25, 2013 at 3:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @enfilmigult: Right on the mark in comment54! Kudos!

      Sep 25, 2013 at 3:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brent
      brent

      @Polaro: You can’t imagine aligning yourself with this persons style of attack. You then go on to call him an a-hole. If you don’t like personal attacks, why then are you calling someone an a-hole?

      Sep 25, 2013 at 4:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Dakotahgeo
      Dakotahgeo

      @Polaro: Comment No. 60: You are… spot on the mark!! Thank you and Kudos!

      Sep 25, 2013 at 4:02 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charlie in Charge
      Charlie in Charge

      @brent: Really curious Brent, why haven’t mass murderers used cars? If cars are just as deadly as guns why don’t you read about crazed students mowing classmates down with cards instead of guns?

      Sep 25, 2013 at 7:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • brent
      brent

      @Charlie in Charge: I have read about it. You don’t thin people get made and decide to mow someone over? There is no shortage of crazy and reckess people with cars.

      Sep 26, 2013 at 12:42 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jwtraveler
      jwtraveler

      @jeff4justice: It’s pointless debating the gun nuts. I’ve learned that it’s impossible to have an intelligent, rational discussion with idiots and lunatics.

      Nov 16, 2013 at 3:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.