Ammo For Sale

« « Church shooting | Home | Back » »


In addition to being violently angry, this person cannot read. Of course, if I looked like this, I’d probably be angry too.

Update: I wonder how this gal(?) will react when tomorrow the Brady Campaign releases a presser that dances in the blood of the dead? Think we’ll see the same righteous indignation (and fabulous hair color!) then?

Update: Blood dancing already under way.

And don’t bother commenting at the first link. I’ve been told Reasoned Discoursetm has already broken out. Personality and looks! Someone snatch this filly up!

Update: Being told it’s a dude. And here’s the comments he (srsly?) doesn’t want you to see.

126 Responses to “Projection”

  1. Linoge Says:

    Foley: Well, you continue to fail, and spectacularly at that. Not only are you going back and changing what you said (understadable, because it was a despicable, dishonest, and disgusting comment to make), but you are also failing on the “personal responsibility” test. *shrug* Oh well – this coversation was over before it started, but suffice to say that the shooter is responsible for, accountable for, and to blame for his actions, and no one else shares that with him. No one.

    There will always be some violent crime.

    Then people like me will always elect to lawfully carry our own methods of self-defense with us. After all, it is somewhat hard to pocket a police officer.

  2. Sir Michael L. Foley Says:

    Linoge, I never changd what I said. He is personally responsible, no one else. I am simply saying that you all should be proud of him, he’s the physical embodiment of all of your beliefs and hatreds.

  3. Linoge Says:

    In point of fact, Foley, you did, but now you are back to your standard, despicable, “he is just like you” crap, so I guess you have come full-circle.

    The sad thing is that you probably actually believe what you write, despite knowing next to nothing about me, my beliefs, the shooter, his beliefs, or much anything else you write about. How consummately pathetic it is to feel justified lumping millions of people in together with a single crazed madman… I honestly feel sorry for you.

  4. Nomen Nescio Says:

    Foley has a half a point, he’s just stating it very offensively.

    there’s a certain strain of… i don’t know whether to call them “conservatives”… that’ve been making hay off of demonizing “liberals”, democrats, and leftists in general for quite some time now. need i mention the titles of certain books one ms. Coulter has made a good living off of, or certain of her similarly-minded colleagues in punditry and authorship?

    see also David Neiwert’s much longer explanation of these matters here, here, and here. that last link is part one in a ten-part series; mr. Neiwert is one of the few folks in the blogosphere even longer-winded than i.

    now you might say that this is all talk, but that’s what whatserface running PETA keeps saying about her (and her organization’s) support for ecoterrorists too. talk is not always harmless; talking about how your ideological or political opponents are subhuman scum who deserve killing does eventually lead to consequences. if you can blame leftists for wearing Che Guevara tee shirts and tar them with that man’s sins and failings, then by the same logic this murderer’s acts tar right-wing eliminationist pundits as well. sauce for the goose.

    (now let’s see if all those links get my comment spam filtered or not…)

  5. Billy Beck Says:

    sabotabby“No, this doesn’t mean that I think that guns should be banned. But it does mean that I think it’s as irresponsible to have guns lying around your house…”

    {shrug} You can think what you want, but it’s ultimately none of your fucking business. Do you understand? I don’t care what you think. You don’t count.

    Have an ice day.

  6. Billy Beck Says:

    Tam: “A government capable of keeping me perfectly safe is no government I’d wish to live under.”

    Goddamned right. Or, as my friend Ed Rasimus recently put it: “I absolutely refuse to live in a world that’s made safe for children.”

  7. Sir Michael L. Foley Says:

    I find it hilarious that people who are posting positively in a blog entry that sinks to attacking someones’ looks rather than their arguments are calling me ‘offensive.’ That’s irony you can only find in real life.

    As for this guy’s beliefs, read this:

    Falafel boy, Weiner and the lesser half of Hannity and Colmes were all found in his personal library. People who knew him said he had a hatred of ‘liberals’ (this was found in his letter, as well:

    “Adkisson, 58, of Powell wrote a four-page letter in which he stated his “hatred of the liberal movement,” Owen said. “Liberals in general, as well as gays.””

    In other words, I know exactly what he believes so to claim I don’t is absurd on its face. He made it known to the public what he believed in both his letter, his library and his actions. Does that make it Falafel boy, Weiner, etc.’s fault? Of course not. I am just suggesting that right-wingers should embrace this man as their own because he is basically falafel boy and company, without the self control or good common sense that they have that keeps them from wanting to go to prison for killing people.

    Further, I wasn’t referring to your beliefs specifically but to right-wing ridiculousness in general. If you’re not of the Hannity and Coulter crowd, then you’re not what I am referring to, it’s that simple. If you are, however, then you should love this guy. He killed some queers and liberals – no loss there, since they’re all evil, sinful traitors, no?

  8. SayUncle Says:


    Falafel boy, Weiner and the lesser half of Hannity and Colmes were all found in his personal library.

    immediately follows:

    entry that sinks to attacking someones’ looks rather than their arguments are calling me ‘offensive.’


  9. Sir Michael L. Foley Says:

    Looks are not the same thing as words spoken. Amazing, I know, but TRUE!

  10. SayUncle Says:

    I know. Those fucking gun fucks.

    You keep losing. Thanks for playing, though.

  11. retro Says:

    Wow! For a minute I thought my browser had been hijacked and rerouted to DU.

    Who opened Pandora’s Box? (No sexual innuendo intended…)

  12. Sir Michael L. Foley Says:

    Exactly where did I say “fucking gun fucks”? I’d love to see a quote.

    It’s pretty obvious you haven’t actually read a damn thing I’ve said except what you ‘want’ to see, since I made it clear that I believe in gun rights and gun ownership.

    You people are hilarious, though, I have to give you that. Maybe next time you can read what I actually write instead of jumping to assumptions?

    It might help you avoid looking like you can’t read. Who knows? Maybe you might learn something too.

  13. SayUncle Says:

    Exactly where did I say “fucking gun fucks”? I’d love to see a quote.

    Err, what is it exactly you think this whole post was about, anyway? Hint.

    Since you don’t get it, I’ll explain. Gather ’round the fire.

    Once upon a time, a person of indeterminate gender said hey, if you say more guns could have prevented a tragedy, fuck you gun fuck. Said person linked to me, intimating I took the position that more guns could could prevent this incident. I did not. Said person also did so by becoming a frothy mouthed lunatic hurling expletives at a particular sub-culture I belong to: gun nuts. I, being slightly smarter than your average cracker, decided to give said person a taste of their own medicine by poking fun of their appearance. I did not know whether they were male or female so I guessed. Apparently, guessing gender wrong turned into an issue and not one I particularly gave a crap about. So, I let it slide. But it did have the rich, delicious irony of showing that said frothy mouthed lunatic also belonged to a particular sub-culture. The Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory ensues. From both sides. Clear as mud?

  14. retro Says:

    [quote]He killed some queers and liberals – no loss there, since they’re all evil, sinful traitors, no?[/quote]

    From your perspective maybe, most of us “gun fucks” like to use ours for self defense (or just practice) rather than for assaulting those with whom we may not agree. Obviously you see things a bit differently.

  15. SayUncle Says:

    And for the record, I’ve read everything you wrote. From you coming here and falsely accusing me and my readers of blaming victims to asserting that we think more guns could have prevented a tragedy. that, in addition to not understanding the whole looks thing anyway.

  16. SayUncle Says:

    One more thing: Further, I wasn’t referring to your beliefs specifically but to right-wing ridiculousness in general.

    Then go yell at them. Sounds like you’re coming here all holier than thou yelling at us for stuff we’re not advocating. I’m quite on record as supporting the rights of the GLBT community.

  17. straightarrow Says:

    “I’m quite on record as supporting the rights of the GLBT community.”-Uncle

    Me too. I don’t have to approve or be a member of that community because I am a member of a much larger community that they also belong to, the community of people. They should have every right people are born with. That isn’t hard to understand.

    What is hard to understand is why these false charges keep being raised. Could it be without imaginary victimhood or imagined attempted victimization their illogical arguments get very short shrift, ergo they must wrap their opposition to our rights in a non-issue that wasn’t raised?

  18. Peter Says:

    The Thread That Will Not Die!

    And after the claim that a certain someone made about their comments not getting through the spam filter here, guess what happened to one of mine over at their place?

    Yep. Like I never typed a word.

  19. Nomen Nescio Says:

    um, who complained about getting spam-filtered here except me? ‘cos i don’t HAVE a place you might’ve commented on. (and it turns out i didn’t get filtered, either.)

  20. ATLien Says:

    I’m basically conservative, and that means i don’t care if you have sex with a man/tree/goat/rock of your choice. In fact, i bet most of the people who posted here don’t, either. Stupidest argument ever, really.

    I still believe that ugly people are made to be made fun of. Sorry. This is the real world. Wear a cup.

    Also we don’t care if you want to own a gun or not. We DO care when you try to foist an image of ourselves upon us and others that’s a damn lie. We’ll tangle with you all day for that.

    And yes, i DO talk shit about liberals (not int he classical sense), cause you’re treasonous douchetards. The Constitution of this country may be the best ever put on paper. Lefties keep trying to shape it into something it was NEVER supposed to be. I’ll hate you for that because if you want socialism, there are many countries you can live in that have that model. Hell, there’s one north of us. But leave THIS country alone. You’ve already fucked it up enough already.

  21. Kynn Says:

    And yes, i DO talk shit about liberals (not int he classical sense), cause you’re treasonous douchetards.

    Mr. Uncle, are you going to condemn ATLien for saying this?

  22. SayUncle Says:

    Mr. Uncle, are you going to condemn ATLien for saying this?

    Right after you condemn yourself for calling millions of law-abiding people foul names. Still awaiting your apology. I gave mine.

  23. Kynn Says:

    I’m working on it, Mr. Uncle. It’s a longish post.

    Your principle is that it’s wrong to call millions of people bad names. Well, there are millions of people who are liberals, and “treasonous douchetards” is a pretty bad name.

    It’s not my principle, though; I don’t have a problem with calling millions of people bad names. I think, for example, that Republicans are assholes. There are millions of Republicans and I just called them a bad name. This violates your principle — as certainly as ATLien’s comment does — but not mine.

    I do question whether you really hold to that principle, though. I see an awful lot of people on this site, your commenters, who are quick to attack whole groups of millions of people. If you truly do hold to that principle, I am surprised that you have not asked them to stop. You are more concerned with my journal (which you’d never heard of before the other day, nor anyone else who reads this blog) than with what your own readers say. Why is that?

  24. Standard Mischief Says:

    Zoe Brain Says:

    I consider what happened here in Australia to be brain-dead and an act of vandalism. Many antique firearms were destroyed. Many disabled people whose only option was to use a semi-automatic weapon were disarmed. The hysteria got so bad, our Olympic shooting teams were nearly disbanded, as they couldn’t practice legally.

    I’ve seen the pictures of mounds of personal firearms being destroyed. Now look at that through our perspective.

    The Battles of Lexington and Concord happened because the lawful government was trying to seize public arms. Quotes from the founders make it clear that they considered the right to arms and the right to self-defense as inalienable. They clearly wanted every man to be armed and considered this a tonic against tyranny.

    When we see a government trying to disarm the very people it was created to protect, well we get a might upset.

    The most effective crime-reduction measure is not severe sentences, it’s high clear-up rates. That has its own problems too,…

    I mostly agree with all this, in a free, open, and tolerant society at least. Dictatorships have other effective methods to keep the people in line.

    I have no problem with 5 or 10% of the population being armed and trained as deputies. I’m all for it. Call them a “well-regulated militia police auxiliary”. I’d encourage another 5-10% to be volunteer firefighters so they can protect their neigbours’ homes not just their own. Or have paramedic training and equipment, simple first aid, lifesaving and CPR. Give tax breaks, or even just pay them. All must pass stringent security checks though, an have training kept up to date.

    See, this is the point that really bothers me. Why the quota on self-defense? Look at that again from my perspective, the one where the government has no power to take away my rights. Tax breaks for showing yourselves to be ready, willing and able to contribute to the common defense is a grand idea, but I’d assume that you wouldn’t have a problem with 95% of the able-bodied citizens joining the volunteer rescue squad. Again, why the quota? (Oh, and I sincerely hope that those “stringent security checks” aren’t a back door registration scheme that would allow the government in our country to do what you government did to the citizens of your country.)

    At some point, you hit a trade-off. More weapons means more crimes of passion, accidents and suicides, but less violent crime. Fewer weapons means more violent crime, but fewer crimes of passion, accidents and suicides.

    First off, suicide is completely unaffected by the rate or regulation of firearm’s ownership. Plenty of people in Japan manage to off themselves just fine without handguns. Accidents are mitigated through training. The rate of small children having firearm accidents have steadily been going down in the US even as we as a nation continue to arm ourselves at an unprecedented rate. Plenty of crimes of passion still happen with baseball bats, knives , and fists.

    I feel we have to accept a trade-off. There will always be some violent crime. There will always be some gun-related deaths due to accidents. The trick is to minimise the need for weaponry, then see if we can find an optimum that minimises total deaths and assaults on persons and property….

    Again, this is where you lose me. Having a nation of riflemen, of people proficient in the use of arms, is a net benefit. Crime rates go down. People are safer.

  25. memomachine Says:


    The issue with kids is to familiarize and train kids to recognize a real firearm vs toys and how real firearms need to be handled at each appropriate age.

    The problem is that a lot of people prefer to have a firearm for defense, but try to ignore or forget about it and treat it as if it didn’t need to be managed.

  26. DJK Says: