Jayne Lynn Stahl Final Words On Her Piece
Background here. She supports your right to own a gun so you can kill yourself with it:
There is so much that begs to be changed, in this society, why waste your valuable time and energy harassing a writer whose greatest crime is her naivete where human nature, and the viscera of the American gun culture, are concerned. You may keep your guns, with my pleasure, I can think of no better solution to the problem of overpopulation.
In a couple days she’ll be swearing up and down that she didn’t wish us dead.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Poor baby. Now that she’s been thwacked, she’s not going to comment on it anymore. Sure she won’t.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
It amazes me to no end to see people make outlandish statements and then play victim when they get their asses handed to them.
This idjit needs to go back home and let the big kids play.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
You know, the guy who wants 100 guns seems a lot more mentally stable than the person who want to ban them.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
You don’t need to worry about the guy who wants a hundred guns…you need to worry about the guy who only wants ONE.
But the libtards will never figure that out, because they aren’t thinking about the problem, they’re acting out based on emotion – just like a child trowing a tantrum.
The more flustered she gets, the more outlandish will be her statements.
November 5th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
On a related note, has anyone noticed that Robyn Ringler has stopped contributing to her TimesUnion blog?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
I guess an echo chamber wasn’t as much fun as she thought it would be.
November 5th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
My God. I thought she was at least a borderline well-meaning person. This really is a nasty piece of work.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
“Please note: I never described members of the NRA, nor would I describe members of any group, as ‘gun toting sickos”
Comparing 4+ million people to a psycho aint describing us as “sickos”?
“nor am I responsible for the image that went with the original article.”
Jayne’s been full of crap about everything else, why should we believe this?
“I was merely suggesting that anyone who wants peace, regardless of their uniform, join with others who wish to contain the ABUSE of firearms, and assault weapons.”
BULLSHIT! You wer’nt “suggesting” anything of the sort Jayne, you were flat out STATING that NRA members are psychos! Nothing else.
“There is so much that begs to be changed, in this society, why waste your valuable time and energy harassing a writer whose greatest crime is her naivete where human nature, and the viscera of the American gun culture, are concerned.”
Since when is people, the people YOU slandered, telling you what WE think about YOU harassment? Remember Jayne, the first ammendment applies to ALL of us, not just libtard writers. If you cant handle the backlash that results from your rantings then dont rant. And if you’re really that naive about people who excercise their 2nd ammendment rights then why did’nt you keep your piehole shut about us, or EDUCATE yourself before writing anything? All you did in that article was show everyone how bigoted you are.
“You may keep your guns, with my pleasure, I can think of no better solution to the problem of overpopulation.”
We dont need your OK to keep and bear our arms Jayne, thankfully it’s not your call. I wont comment on the last sentence, it speaks volumnes on it’s own about what kind of a person Jayne Lynn Stahl acually is.
’nuff said
November 5th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
You know don’t you that she will claim she meant she expected we would be killing the excess population, that she never wished us dead, only that she expected we would kill millions.
Count on it.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
So…
This means she’s in favor of the epidemic levels of homicide by gunshot among inner-city black youths? You know, so that “overpopulation” can be solved?
I mean, death by gunshot is not really all that significant a statistical factor outside that one particular demographic, and being, you know, a journalist she must know this fact, right?
So… (carry the three…) that means she’s a racist, right?
November 5th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
No, she’s just a dipshit, who thought she said something profound with the “poster boy” nonsense, was told convincingly it wasn’t profound just idiotic, and dipshit that she is she just goes on being a dipshit. We’re talking room temperature IQ combined with a spoiled princess outlook for that lady.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
My first read on Jayne Lynn Stahl was that she is an insincere manipulative provocateur.
She appears to be completely unreliable. I doubt we have heard the last from her.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:00 am
Hopefully #9 she is sterile.