Right-Wing Christian Gun Nuts Rally in Support of Right-Wing Christian Gun Nut Who Cheated on Her Soldier Husband

Comments

1
That's pretty good tail to pull at a Republican conference.
1
I don't understand how those photos would shock liberals.
1
Speaking as someone who thinks this person is most likely abhorrent and unlikable, I am deeply uncomfortable with digging around her personal life for the purposes of pointing and laughing.
1
Teabagging sounds gross now.
1
3: If you're going to say you have more morals than someone else, your actions should match your words or else you will richly deserve ridicule.
1
@3, normally I think you're right, but she crafted a public persona for the sole purpose of bashing liberals, with a foundation grounded in her supposed morals and right wing conservatism. As far as I'm concerned, once you do that, your hypocrisy is fair game (especially considering the right's bashing of lgbt rights in the name of family, christian morals, etc.).
1
IOKIYAR
1
@2, I don't get it either since we've been referring to Jeebus nuts as Talibangelicals for years now.
1
Explain the difference?!?!?
Okay... One believes that her "God" demands the savage murder of anyone who doodles a cartoon of him. The other does not.

Frankly, it's the lefts failure to grasp this that baffles me most.
1
@9: YGBKM, please let us know about all the varied and manifold and often quite simple things that baffle you. Inquiring minds want to know.
1
@9- The Bible clearly forbids graven images. When the Protestant theocracy comes to America, images of God are going to disappear.
1
@9:

...and the other one believes that Jeebus jumps for joy with every Planned Parenthood bombing, and that homos deserve to be bullied to the point of suicide - that is, when they're not being left for dead on Wyoming rangeland.
1
@11, holding out for the Protestant theocracy... may it come soon.
1
@14 because white people with guns only ever shoot at targets and other animals. I can't think of one instance where a white person with a gun has shot and killed any people. That only happens on television, when the news is on.
1
@17-19: WTF just happened here?
1
Is Gilt Saifuc Slog's brand new rambling, nonsensical weirdo? Yay!
1
I think the problem is, we're only hearing one side of the discussion. We need to hear the imaginary people in his head that he's arguing against, then it'll all make sense.
1
@17-19: Co ja kurwa czytam? Choy schutta jee stuta?
1
Gilt Saifuc just totally kicked Mr. Strawman's ass with his verbal ninja skillz!!!
1
The difference is that the one on our right is slightly more likely to shoot someone intentionally. The one on our left is considerably more likely to leave her assault rifle sitting on the couch so her 4 year old can accidentally shoot himself or someone else.

Also, the one on our right is 95% less likely to go against her religious beliefs by cheating on her husband.

Both are terrible people.
1
@19 is still drunk from last night, obviously. Not that sobering up will help it much.
2
i see the difference now. only one woman would be killed with rocks for infidelity.
2
Unpleasant woman- good point.

The left irrationally fears the Constitutional right to bear arms. It's a phobia you folks have, often an outright paranoia. You're far, far more likely to die of any of a dozen things (themselves statistically unlikely) than of a gun totin' right winger shooting you. You irrationally equate those exercising their rights with terrorists or the Taliban or God knows what in those muddled terrified little minds of yours. But for you the thing that would make you safe and happy is if all those scary non city dwelling people with loaded guns lying around their homes and yards and huge SUVs had thse guns taken away.

Again, she may be a hypocrite in her personal life, but the photos make a valid point about the crazy terrors of lefties.
2
@28- I'm a leftist and I believe strongly in the right to bear arms as detailed in the Constitution. It's too bad we abandoned the militia system and went with a massive standing army, so there's no longer any well regulated militia for me to bear arms in.

Until the 1970s no one seriously thought that the Constitution meant that individuals should be able to tote guns around everywhere.
2
Ack

As a soldier, all I can see when I look at that pic is how horrible her trigger discipline is.

Get your finger off the trigger unless you're ready to pull it.

Oh, and don't have sex with ppl who aren't your hub and while he's away at war.
2
@28 - isn't it maybe that an amendment that made perfect sense at the time no longer does? The 2nd amendment was written by a country that had just won their independence in a war with a foreign power. It was absolutely essential to have a well armed citizenry to repel the British in case they decided to come back with reinforcements. It was a matter of national security.

It made perfect sense back then. It no longer does in 2015. I'm Canadian, and in the military, so I love guns. I own several bolt action rifles I use to hunt with.

But I'm glad I live in a country where almost anyone can go and get military grade assault weapons with minimal background checks.
2
@31

Well, to begin with, we have a Constitutionally mandated mechanism to alter anachronisns in the Constitution. If American citizens who feel as you do can muster the Congressional or popular votes for amending the document, they should do so. Ignoring it however jeopardizes rights like expression, criminal civil rights and so on. Water down part of the law, you water down the rest whether you wish to or not.
Additionally the 2nd was a means of ensuring that the federal government respected the rights of the states and their citizens, by force if necessary. The Civil War and case law have effectively papered over that notion, but it certainly was in the minds of the writers of the Constitution.
I don't carry a gun around for the same reason I don't carry a hammer on a shopping trip. It's a tool. I don't need at that time. Nor do I think open carry to make a point makes any point but that the person carrying needs to brush up on firearms safety training. But nothing currently in our Constitution prohibits a non felon from doing so, however silly it is.
2
SB is back. So, SB... you wear bread wrappers on busses?
2
@32: Have you actually read the second amendment? Could you quote it?

And then could you explain how it says any of the things you think it says? Most citizens are not in a well-regulated militia. Nothing in our Constitution provides a right for all non-felons to play with their penis-substitutes in public, or for them even to own those toys.

Note that the Second Amendment, even if it did have the extra provisions you imagine, says nothing about not applying to felons. I'm really curious about what the text of the 2nd is, in wingnut fantasyland. Would you be willing to say it openly?

Especially the line where it specifies that these rights only extend to white people.

"The Civil War and case law have effectively papered over that notion, but it certainly was in the minds of the writers of the Constitution."

The Civil War didn't do the thing you think it did. Are you aware of what the Civil War was?
35
@34

You're wrong. On very nearly all your points.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to have and bea arms shall not be infringed. " I know, your version says "shall always be infringed" but that's not the text in the actual Constitution.

Having said very little about what I think that means, your ability to read minds should be congratulated!

But in Heller the Supreme Court had something to say about what they thought it meant, an individual and personal right to bear (carry, for English challenged folks like you) arms. Letters and public comentary from the men who wrote or debated the phrase suggest what they thought. They saw government as a thing to be carefully limited, liberty as a thing to be zealously gaurded from that
goverment, and revolution when government refused to live within those limits as a basic right of free citizens. The Civil War is usually seen as a defining moment in state versus federal authority, among others things the South asserted the right to peacefully or by force secede from the Union. Well, we all know how that worked out. Since the 1920's the Supreme Court has established case law suggesting a functionally limitless federal authority based on the "general welfare" and Commerce clauses. (Vile attacks on liberty like Wickard being ludicrously at odds with a rational reading of a document written by guys who risked all they had for their liberty. Men like Franklin were very clear in seeing limited and carefully contained government as necessary evils, or saying that a government which gives citizens everything can take everything from them. Or saying that the Republic will be nearing the end when people like you could vote themselves largesse from the treasury.)

As to reasonable regulation, with the burden of proof on government t show the need for regulation, that too is established case law. So, for example, a convicted felon forfeis their right to bear arms.

So what specific quarrel did you have with my comment? Oh. Just feeling angry that your gender studies major skipped history and civics altogether?

.
36
@35

For what it's worth, I'd far rather you didn't own a gun. You're clearly ustable. You talk of a tool designed to kill as a penis substitute and a toy.
But assuming you're not a felon and that the mental health professionals haven't caught up with you yet, even you have the right to bear arms.

Just out of curiosity, who other than you mentioned clauses about white people? The voices in your head, maybe?

@33

Ah. Speaking of crazy- what on earth are you talking about?
37
@ 36 - Not only would everyone here on Slog far rather YOU didn't own a gun, we also think the world would be a much better place if you didn't own a computer.
38
@37

Anything on the actual point- that liberal fear of gun rights are thoroughly irrational? That wasting time crafting laws covering stuff already illegal is in fact wasting legislative time better spent on real problems?

No? Just "I HATE you, you big meanie you!"? (You'll just have to assume the effeminate lisp I imagine you employ, don't know to indicate it in writing in that sentence.)

Okay.
39
@35: You know that those guys who "risked all for liberty" then went out and crushed numerous armed rebellions, right?
40
@32 " the 2nd was a means of ensuring that the federal government respected the rights of the states and their citizens, by force if necessary." If that were true the easy stamping out of the whiskey rebellion when the country was less than 20 years old showed it to be a failure. Since 67% of the time in this country when someone dies as the result of a trigger being pulled its the person who pulled the trigger who does the dying I'm not too concerned about you owning a fire arm.
41
@ 38 - I don't have a feminine lisp, but thanks for showing us once again the extent of your immature prejudices. You're really outdoing yourself this week.

And it's really amusing that you should blame me for not answering your actual point, since you're the one who does that all the time when other sloggers try to debate with you. How ironic.

But no, I don't hate you. You have a much too high opinion of yourself if you think you're worthy of such a strong emotion as hate on my part. I just find you laughable. Pathetically laughable, but nothing more than that.

In the end, you're the proof of all the progress that has been made, stronzo, since absolutely no one ever agrees with your backward views... except your imaginary friends, of course.
42
@39,40

I nowhere argue for armed rebellion, the '2nd Amendment solution.' We live in, despite whiny city liberals, the greatest nation on Gods earth. And unlike liberals I'm happy in the place. I like America, unlike you. I was merely pointing out historical facts.
But since that's the only thing you can argue, I'll assume you cede the stuff that does matter. Heller established a personal, non militia, right to have and bear arms, whether that infuriates you lot or not.
And the bed wetting terror lefties feel at the thought of anyone anywhere owning a gun- that terror is irrational, often paranoid. You are much likelier to be hurt or killed by a dozen other still statistically insignificant causes.
43
@42- Your disconnect from reality is substancial today. I'm a leftist, my parents were leftists. We had guns. Target shooting was a thing we did for fun in the woods behind out house. I don't fear people owning guns, except of course for the idiots who participate in your average open carry demonstration. They're idiots who's biggest love in their life is a killing machine.

I believe that guns should be strongly regulated, the standing military should be drastically down sized, America's foreign policy completely switched around, and we should bring back the militia system for the defense of our borders. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that the people have a right to take their guns into public places whenever they choose. It says they have a right to keep arms in their home and bear them in militia service.
44
@43

On some of that we actually agree. As I wrote, openly carrying a weapon into a restaurant or shopping mall or to the park is at worst stupid and at best indicative of a need to redo safety training.
Though in a lot of places the right to do so exists, I personally see better reasons not to, tan to, exerciae it. I agree that the money we spend on the standing military could be better spent and result in better national security through non military humanitarian aid abroad and enlightened foreign policy with respect to other governments.

Yes, guns being lethal weapons government has a compelling interest in regulating them. But there should be a minimum standard of government interest here, since we're talking about an explicit Constitutional right on par with the freedom of expression, press and so on. Regulations should always be provably advancing public safety, not merely the false perception of it. In other words limits on personal freedom by the government should happen under high scrutiny and high standards that the regulation is required for the government to meet its duties.

But. We're not going back to militia, anymore than we're going away from the ridiculous security theater of the TSA. And Heller did in fact decide that the militia phrase was not the underlying condition of the right to have and bear arms phrase. No reason is required, self defense or hunting or military necessity. How would you feel if free speech required government rules as to whether the speech of merit?

And, back to the point of this whole thread, the unpleasant woman made a valid point about how many liberals see gun rights. Fear of gun violence is as irrational as fear of being in an airplane crash. Either could happen. Both are extremely unlikely.
45
And of course, SB did not answer me after accusing me of not answering him. So predictable. So laughable.
46
@45

What's to answer, Ricky? You're pathetic etc etc etc? If you had made a substantive comment, I'd have bothered with a response.

Anyway, didn't you claim to be from elsewhere the other day? What could you care about the second amendment or right left squabbling in the US?
47
Dan, thanks for a really good laugh, from reading that stuff. "Holly, I know it's you, posting in your husband's name."
48
@ 46 - Read my comments carefully: I didn't mention anything about it. I just took the piss out of you. You should feel proud: you got my undivided attention today.

Otherwise I just hang around here for the crazy sex problems, which are as entertaining as they are universal.

That said, since that hypocritical woman made comments that had to do with world politics (see the meme), I do feel that this story concerns me, as well as everyone else in the world. I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but it's not always just about you.
49
I'm pretty sure that Holly DOES have 'more morals' than most people. It takes an immense investment in moralizing and theological hair-splitting to make any damn' thing YOU do automatically 'moral.' Even if only after the fact.

Jeebus! Guns! With that background chant you can whisper 'adultery' and the cheerleaders won't hear a thing.

Sometime after the Swaggert/Bakker/Popoff thing blew up, a bumper sticker made the rounds: 'Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven.'

Certainly by themselves.
50
@28, 32, 35, 36, 38 42, 44, 46:

LOOK, THERE! EVIL PURE AND SIMPLE!
51
@ 46 - And by the way, don't fool yourself: your comments aren't exactly substantive either. They're just long. There's a big difference between the two, and I really think you should be made aware of it.
52
@32: Really? You think there was ever a right to rebellion? That if you felt you weren't getting what you wanted from Uncle Sam, you had every justification to pick up your musket and shoot the feds? You've been forcibly educated here before, but I'll remind you again of the Whiskey Rebellion and Shays' Rebellion, in which the nascent United States of America put down rebellions by aggrieved militias. Your imaginary ideal of fighting The Man for freedom didn't somehow disappear when the Civil War tore the country asunder.

@35: Fucking MISQUOTED. LOL.
Also: "among others [sic] things the South asserted the right to peacefully or by force secede from the Union"
Excuse me, but they didn't just assert the right to secede. They demanded that the federal government cede federally-administered properties and structures to the southern states, and then fired on them when refused. And then the goddamn Johnny Rebs had the gall to call it the "War of Northern Aggression", in a sort of revisionist history not unlike your claim that all they wanted was to leave the Union.

@42: "I nowhere argue for armed rebellion, the '2nd Amendment solution.'"
Please then explain this:
"Additionally the 2nd was a means of ensuring that the federal government respected the rights of the states and their citizens, by force if necessary."
WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT SUPPOSED TO MEAN OTHER THAN AN ENDORSEMENT OF ARMED RESISTANCE AGAINST FEDERAL OFFICIALS? Answer me THAT, you lying scum!
"Heller established a personal, non militia, right to have and bear arms, whether that infuriates you lot or not."
That's funny. When the SCOTUS upheld the ACA and its provisions as Constitutional, you insisted that they were wrong and that we don't have to listen to them. But when they make a decision you agree with, you say that we all have to go along with (your interpretation) of what they said. Do you see the disconnect and the double standard applied here?

@44: "Regulations should always be provably advancing public safety, not merely the false perception of it."
What say you, then, to the regulations passed by Republicans requiring that clinics providing pregnancy termination and related services be outfitted essentially as full-fledged hospitals?
53
@36: "@35

For what it's worth, I'd far rather you didn't own a gun. You're clearly ustable."


Since you wrote 35, I'd have to agree with you. Since you're clearly unstable, I too would far rather you didn't own a gun. You're also kind of... not very smart?

I'm sorry if referring to your penis-substitute toys as penis-substitute toys hurt your feelings so badly that it had you running to mommy and/or five wingnuts on the Supreme Court who, like you, pretend that the first half of the second amendment doesn't exist, just like they think the 14th doesn't. Since they're transparently wrong about what the Constitution says, citing them isn't as authoritative as you seem to think.
54
@52

Is English really this difficult for you? Commenting on an historical fact and endorsing it are not the same thing. In this case, noting one of the motivations of some of those who wrote the Constitution isn't equal to approving that desire here and now. And writing about how the southern states saw things isn't the same as agreement with that perspective. I assume there are ESL courses near you. I'd encourage you to take one.

As to whether the men who formed this nation saw rebellion as a right- have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? The letters and editoral comments the people who wrote the Constitution also wrote? Forgot. English is difficult for you.

How to explain this to a moron......
The justices on the Supreme Court aren't gods. They aren't infallible. We've been over this before, but bone stupid like yours can't be educated, forcibly or otherwise. So, slowly for your softened brain, anytime the Court decides something it's immutably eternally the law? Great! So you approve of Plessy or Dredd Scott? Overruling those was an error of a later Court? Heller was decided in part on 14th amendment language and obligations, in part on the clear language of the 2nd amendment. The ACA decision was founded on a line of cases stretching back to an abomination called Wickard. In that, the execrable traitor FDR had decided a man couldn't grow corn on his land for his stock. Parenthetically, even had Wickard bought feed at the local store, it would not have been interstate and was still outside federal jurisdiction. The twisted language in the decision decided that by not engaging in interstate commerce in any way, Wickard was engaging in interstate commerce. From this bit of tyranny, risible if it hadn't been so disastrous for our liberty, any real limit to federal authority has disappeared. And on it the claim the ACA makes that the feds can force me to engage in commerce rather than merely regulating it got its dubious support.

Speaking of decisions made on ideological grounds devoid of legal reasoning, Roe v Wade is an excellent example. See, the difference between regulating a medical procedure, like infanticide euphemistically called abortion, and regulating 1st or 2nd amendment rights is that we explicitly have 1st and 2nd amendment rights. Roe is founded on dubious reasoning and inference rather than clear Constitutional language or precedential ground.

55
@53

Blah blah blah. I get it it. Any chance to use the word penis excites you. Good for you!

I own one gun, inherited and rarely fired. It's a tool I simply don't need, so it's locked away. But here's the thing, big guy. For whatever legal reason I choose to own or use it? I have that right- and there's not a thing you lefty loonies can do about it.

But you better be careful. Kid VL is going to get after you for deriding the Supreme Court, that citadel of eternal verities.

Never mind. He's a hypocrite who only attacks those whose ideology he doesn't share.
56
guns are more dangerous when they're loaded, kind of like people. and you should always treat a gun like it's loaded, kind of like people.

57
@55 Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are two of the right-wing loonies who created an individual right to possess a firearm, unrelated to service in a militia, in 2008. Do you know why Scalia has to fuck Thomas?
58
@57

Oh. I can play that game.

Bawney Fwank and Bernie Sanders are two left wing whack jobs who spent their legislative careers in intense hatred of America and what made it great. Do you know why Frank hired an underage prostitute?

No. It makes no sense when a lefty loont is used either. What the hell do you think you said?
59
@58 No, because he can't go fuck himself, the way you can.
60
@58 It's a joke, son.
61
In this thread, Seattleblues continues to insist that his opinions are more meaningful than decades upon decades of legislative and judicial precedent.

@54: So what you're saying is that because your opinion is that the court is wrong, you're free to ignore what they say. But when you're in agreement with the court, you say we all need to follow the ruling. You're making your arguments in favor of rulings you agree with and against those you don't, but the fact remains that YOU are claiming to pick and choose which SCOTUS rulings are valid.
I'm not saying that the Supreme Court never makes mistakes, or that I agree with all their rulings. I'm saying that they're the highest court of the land. Just because Joe Schmo disagrees with them doesn't give Joe the right to ignore the ruling. We follow the rulings; if we don't like them, we work to change the law through the legislative process or to raise judicial challenges to the precedent. We don't just IGNORE the rulings for the same reason we don't just IGNORE the laws: because that way leads anarchy.
You're getting dangerously close to "sovereign citizens" territory, where every man gets to decide for himself what laws he wants to follow, and every man is his own supreme authority on what the Constitution does or doesn't allow.

@55: Hey, remember when we caught you lying about the gun? First you said you owned a gun. Then you said you didn't own a gun. Then we called you out on it, and you said it was held in trust for a junior relative and therefore didn't count as yours. And now you're back to saying you own a gun again.
62
@61

You'd be a bit more convincing in your faux outrage if you did the attack dog routine w/ 57 and 53. But you're basically an ideologically driven hypocrite who applies your dubious logic only to those whose ideas you happen to share.
63
I'm @57 but not @53. My dad told me, if you meet one asshole, that's bad luck, but if everyone you meet is an asshole, maybe that's your fault.
64
@62: You're saying that Supreme Court rulings you disagree with should be ignored. Eudaemonic and pemulis are saying that some of the justices on the SCOTUS are ideologically slanted. That's not even apples and oranges; that's apples and crocogators, and you're saying we should treat them equivalently because they're both green.

As usual, your response when confronted with an argument to which you have no comeback is (paraphrasing) "but, but, you're not constantly calling out the lies and inanity of people you agree with!" (Note that when left-wing people who are fruitsy bananas post here, like dirtclustit, I call them out. Just because you're too thickheaded and opinionated to understand what someone is saying doesn't mean they're wacko.)
WELL MAYBE I TEND TO AGREE WITH PEOPLE WHO AREN'T INANE LIARS, HMMM?
65
In 2011, there were 11k gum homicides and about 800 accidental gun deaths. Compared to motor vehicle accidents (32,000), the highest cause of death to people under 34, it seems to be a somewhat rational fear.

Of course, this doesn't account for the fact that you are much less likely to be shot if you don't have a gun (source: The Guardian, Guns don't offer protection).
66
if you meet one asshole, that's bad luck, but if everyone you meet is an asshole, your luck hasn't changed
67
@66 I'm not sure whether you agree with me or not
68
blame the victim