Daily Gnuz

It’s Wednesday, Hump Day, and, in case you forgot, Celebrate Trucker Citizen’s Band day.
You know, 10/4 good buddy!

In the gnuz…

Swing-seat Republicans squirm over GOP tax plan
H/T The Hill
HOW DARE THEY concern themselves over the well being of their constituents!!
FEALTY to Hair Leeder HWSNBN, good. Taking care of people, BAD!


Amid Bombshells, Trump Complains: ‘So Many Fake News Stories Today’
Uhh, yes. And most of them coming from the tweetfarts of HWSNBN


Rex Tillerson called Donald Trump a “moron,” was ready to resign: report
H/T Salon
C’mon Rex, man up and leave the moron to his own nepotistic devices. Do the Right Thing.

Open Thread, Resist
RUCerious @ TPZoo

16 thoughts on “Daily Gnuz

  1. The ammosexuals have several tired talking points that have served their cause well for the last 30 years or so. All are infuriatingly juvenile and illogical. One is that, “stronger gun control laws would not have stopped XXXX from killing people”, and a related “criminals will get guns no matter what laws.” These kinds of arguments are actually saying that, “no gun control laws should exist unless they can absolutely, 100%, stop all criminals from obtaining and or using guns in crimes.” Carry an argument with an ammosexual for a few minutes and they will actually make a statement close to if not exactly that (at least my personal experience has led to this every time).

    But they deeply resent this same standard being applied to any other laws.

    For example, note that NO abortion laws (including total ban with capital punishment) will stop all abortions from occurring – there will be doctors who illegally perform them and there will be even more women and girls performing ‘self-administered abortions’, illegally. So, by the anti-gun control standard, there should be NO LAWS against abortion, because none can be completely, 100% effective.

    Oh, and we might as well go ahead and eliminate every law (except the quirky oddball ones, like “no serving alcohol to a moose” somewhere in Florida), because there is NO law on the books that is not and will not be broken by a criminal somewhere. There is no law and no punishment that is 100% effective in deterring that specified behavior. Now, my experience has also been that if I point this out the ammosexual will get all puffed up and in a huff, “you’re just being stupid,” and storming off. I guess I should be thankful for the small blessings.

    And I am quite serious – if the standard of an acceptable law is that it deters the criminalized behavior 100%, then no law is acceptable.

    Mucking forons.

    • My ammosexual cousin told me, when I said to him that IMHO, guns were ridiculously stupid because their ONLY purpose is to kill something, and they should banned once and for all. His retort was also (predictably) ridiculously stupid: “If there were no guns, people will find something else to kill with. What, you gonna ban baseball bats too?”

      Personally, I say repeal 2A, then criminalize gun possession at the level of what, say, heroin possession is today — except for maybe the first year following repeal, during which time gun owners can turn in each and every one of their guns and be paid what was the current “new” value of each.

      Oh — and leave baseball bats alone.

      • If the Vegas/Orlando/Roseburg/Columbine/et al killers were swinging baseball bats or knives or cars or trucks or fly swatters, etc., the death toll would be a fraction of that caused by killers with guns.

        False equivalency. *sigh*

        • Yep, that’s my cousin. He was really good at false equivalency. Of course, I haven’t seen or heard from him for ten years or more, so I suppose he could have changed.

          Nah. No way.

    • Sorry, that would be He Who(m) Should Not Be Named…previously Voldemort from the imagination of J. K. Rowling, now the POTUS, Piece of Totally Useless Sheiss. aka Prezidunce, D. Trump.
      Used to avoid having to type his name, which gives me the crucking feeps.

  2. Hi, guys. I haven’t been around much lately but I do check in every day for a dose of sanity. I’ve been squeezing in all the outdoor activities I can before the Minnesota weather gets uncomfortable. Although, since we haven’t reached a low of below 50 or a high below 60, I need to force myself to remember that it will get cold and unpleasant. It’s a bit weird that virtually no trees have changed color. Hmmm? Is there a mechanism that might explain why we have nothing but fresh, green, leaves when it should be the height of “leaf season”? Maybe it has something to do with the climate? I can’t say for sure. /s

    Anyway. I wrecked my back so I’m back to watching the blogs for the latest outrage and discovered this at TP; which I don’t think I’ve visited in more than 6 months. Needless to say, it’s another outrage. The rightwhiners can’t and won’t understand that the reason all of us “leftists” want more effective gun control is inspired by a hope that we can reduce the number of victims. The rightwhiners, on the other hand, seem to believe that being required to prove that you are worthy of the responsibilities of gun ownership is, in itself, some kind of abuse.

    Hello! Whatever happened to “if you’ve done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear”? Sigh… Now I’m tired before dinner time and my back still hurts too much to take a nap so I will just have to keep surfing to help me ignore the pain in my back and NONE OF IT IS WORKING!!!

    There. I vented and I fell better. Cheers!


    • Hope you get to feeling better in your spinal tap area..
      Hope someday the gunnuts get a better understanding of the ‘intent of the founders’ rationale behind the 2nd Amendment.
      Without ‘well regulated militias’, the whole argument goes counterclock wise down the toilet.

    • Ted Poe, R-TX, said:

      They are just beside themselves about guns. They don’t talk too much about the shooter — they don’t want to talk about him and his motives for the killing and that he was the one responsible for the killing. The guns are responsible for the killing, and so we have to eliminate guns everywhere we can in the United States. They want to have a society where only government has guns, like they do in Russia and China and North Korea. Only government has guns, and citizens don’t have guns. That’s their plan.

      Reminds me of my dumbass cousin who has long liked to say, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” I guess it was somewhere around forty years ago — thanks, Jimmy Carter — that I thought this country was finally coming around, that ‘thinking’ would soon no longer be a crime, and that the common good of the entire planet might, in the process, become a well-thought goal.

      Then came Reagan. The rest is history.

  3. I wish the ‘lefty’ news would at least get the terminology right. It’s called a ‘bump-fire’ stock, not a ‘bump stop’. I have bump stops on the shock absorbers on my truck. A ‘bump-fire’ stock lets the recoil of the rifle pull the trigger repeatedly until the firer of the weapon pulls his finger out of the trigger guard. Even Rachel is calling it a ‘bump stock’.

  4. Conservative columnist: It’s time to repeal the Second Amendment

    A mere 3 percent of American adults own half of the entire nation’s guns, according to a Washington Post article from Sept. 2016. And while the overall rates of gun ownership have declined, “the number of firearms in circulation has skyrocketed,” the Post writes.

    “The implication is that there are more guns in fewer hands than ever before. The top 3 percent of American adults own, on average, 17 guns apiece, according to the survey’s estimates,” the Post reported.

    These harrowing statistics tell a unique tale about a country that has long been obsessed with, and has fetishized, a culture of gun ownership. Reflecting this newfound shift in gun control views of conservatives, New York Times columnist Bret Stephens penned an op-ed on Thursday entitled “Repeal the Second Amendment.”

    Repealing the Amendment may seem like political Mission Impossible today, but in the era of same-sex marriage it’s worth recalling that most great causes begin as improbable ones. Gun ownership should never be outlawed, just as it isn’t outlawed in Britain or Australia. But it doesn’t need a blanket Constitutional protection, either. The 46,445 murder victims killed by gunfire in the United States between 2012 and 2016 didn’t need to perish so that gun enthusiasts can go on fantasizing that “Red Dawn” is the fate that soon awaits us.

    First time in recent memory that I’ve agreed with a conservative on guns. We do differ on a tidbit — I’d like to see every damn gun on the planet melted down so there would be NONE left anywhere, but I would settle for getting rid of “most” of them in this country. That’d be a good way to start, to begin the elevation of the human species’ status to beyond that of, say, the pasture bull.

    But I refuse to hold my breath in anticipation.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s