The op-ed is entitled, “I know Assault Weapons and You Shouldn’t Have One.”
My first reaction is, “Eat a dick. If you claim that, you don’t know what an assault weapon is.”
He claims to be a veteran who experienced “first-hand combat” in Vietnam.”
My first reaction is, “Then, perhaps you should know what an assault weapon actually is, but you don’t.”
I am calling on veterans who have served in active combat – lived and almost died depending on the assault weapon strapped to your body – to speak out. We are the people who have true insight on this issue. Without wealth and connections to keep a deferment, I was drafted and in active combat for a year in Vietnam from Nov. 1967 to Nov. 1968. During the Tet offensive in Jan. ’68, some of the worst fighting in the war, I was frequently in first-hand combat along the Mekong River and through the rice paddies in the delta radioing coordinates for artillery firepower.
Much like the “violence planner,” who took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, this cock-gobbler knows exactly dick about the Constitution, but much like the “violence manager,” he uses his alleged combat experience to gain credibility on a subject he obviously knows little to nothing about, despite his spurious claim.
“I was drafted to fight in Vietnam” doesn’t make him an expert. It makes him someone who had to be forced into military duty. Dick.
Assault weapons are just that: for assault. They are not for the general public to play at target practice or use for sport. They are too dangerous. The general public is not trained sufficiently nor mentally strategic enough to understand their raw power. They should be in the hands of only the military and tactical, highly trained law enforcement.
Hey, walking twat! This is Shyanne Roberts. She the daughter of my friend Dan Roberts and a competitive shooter. Last year, this adorable child helped build the custom AR she is shooting in this photo. She was 10 years old at the time. She also knows the difference between a semi-automatic rifle and the fully automatic one you used in Vietnam.
Perhaps it’s time for you and Gersh KUNTZman to compare manginas.
Disagree with me? If you’re a veteran and served in active combat with an assault weapon, I value your opinion – even if it differs from mine. If you’re simply a gun enthusiast who believes it’s your inalienable right to play with assault weapons, I don’t value it because you really don’t understand the consequences – you haven’t witnessed them. If that’s who you are and what you want, join the military and be useful with that.
So the very people of whom the military consists, and whose rights they are sworn to defend don’t count in your book, because you got forced into military service and now consider yourself an “expert?”
This veteran says “Eat a dick.”
I believe in the Second Amendment. I own a gun. I have a concealed carry permit just in case I need it – not to carry routinely. What’s the old saying … if you carry around a hammer, you’re always looking for a nail?
What you do and don’t believe is irrelevant. The Second Amendment exists, regardless of whether you believe it does, and it speaks plain English, regardless of whether or not your stupid ass can understand it.
I also understand the Second Amendment’s purpose when it was written and the state of weaponry when it was created. It’s called perspective – useful when you’re forming opinions and making decisions.
Oh, another one who apparently doesn’t believe that the Internet, computers, and even typewriters are covered by the First Amendment. When you write this ignorant screed with a quill on parchment, given the state of writing technology when the First Amendment was written, I might listen to you (but probably not, because you’re stupid). Until then, eat a dick.
I call out our N.C. senators in Washington who consistently vote against stricter background checks, reinstating the assault weapons ban, and not preventing people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns. I’m amazed that politicians like Thom Tillis accept immense amounts of NRA donations and think we don’t understand that compromises the way he votes. I may not have gotten a college degree because I was fighting a war, but I’m smart enough to figure that out.
So, he has no respect for pretty much any amendment in the Bill of Rights, except, of course, the one that protects his right to be stupid. Due process? Who needs it! Right to keep and bear arms? Fuck it. Right of the people? Don’t care and don’t understand it.
Difference between full auto and semi-automatic rifle? Doesn’t know it, or doesn’t care.
What would you expect for someone who was forced into service and then uses said experience to try and relieve others of their rights?
In other words, John Butler, eat a dick.
Want a gun? Take a bullet, says a blubbering, irrational pig named D. Watkins in a sputtering, badly-written indictment of gun owners as “cowards” if they refuse to take a bullet to feel the pain of those who have been shot.
“So if you love guns, if they make you feel safe, if you hold and cuddle with them at night, then you need to be shot. You need to feel a bullet rip through your flesh, and if you survive and enjoy the feeling––then the right to bear arms will be all yours.” Says D. Watkins from the safety of whatever lair he uses to write his barely literate garbage. This keyboard commando calls you a coward if you want to exercise your basic right without experiencing his violent fantasies of seeing his fellow Americans savaged by violence.
Doing a little research on this noxious tool, I discover he’s a Baltimore-based former drug dealer who decided to become a writer… apparently by lying about his alleged poverty in order to gain street cred with the victim class. According to his bio, he was the winner of Baltimore magazine’s “Best Writer” award in 2015. With gems such as this, “You need to have gun, like taking selfies with pistols, can’t live with out [sic] it? Then take a bullet and you will be granted the right to purchase the firearm of your choice,” and “recommending that fire arms [sic] be present in elementary classrooms,” and the visionary, profound, butchered English in this, “Bullets are extremely hot and they hurt. I saw them paralyze, cut through faces, pierce children and take life. I have friends, relatives and loved ones be gunned down [sic],” you can certainly see the “merit” of giving this barely literate hack such an honor.
Why is it that pusillanimous, lying colostomy bags of fetid crap such as Dwight here want to disarm you? Projection, I gather. They have violent snuff fantasies, and they project those onto everyone else, fearing that the rest of us are just as violent as he is.
I won’t bother debunking the lies he quotes, such as Hillary Clinton’s “90 people killed by guns daily” lie. I’ve done it already.
But Miguel over at the Gun-Free Zone blogged about it this morning, and that gave me an idea. Miguel wrote:
Dear D. Watkins: If you happen to have a fire extinguisher, I wanna see your self-inflicted burn scars. Otherwise, stop talking nonsense out of your rectal exit.
PS: You can’t have sex unless you pass a bowling ball through the above-mentioned rectal exit. A man should not be allowed to have carnal knowledge with a woman until he experiences the pain of childbirth… without epidural.
Prior to sex, you should probably be raped too. And if you like the experience of your body and your soul being decimated by forcible penetration, you can then proceed to get some nookie. But only if your partner says “yes” every ten minutes. (Does “Oh, God!” count? Asking for a friend.)
So what other right can you not exercise until you experience its worst conclusion?
You cannot drive a car until you’ve been crushed in a vehicle collision, your bones shattered by tons of steel at high velocity. (h/t Brad Torgersen on Facebook)
You absolutely cannot be allowed to be a writer or reporter until you have experienced libelous statements about you and your family. Libel tears apart people’s lives. In some cases, those who have been libeled actually end their lives. It’s only fair that any “journalist” be required to endure lies published about them, reporters at their doorstep, hounding them around the clock, the pain of trying to restore your life and reputation…
Prior to purchasing a knife – regardless of its intended use – you must be stabbed. If you enjoy the feeling of your flesh being carved up and blood spurting out of your body, go ahead and buy that implement. Same goes for hammers and baseball bats, as well as other types of clubs, since they’re used more in murders than rifles are.
Want to buy a pool? You should be waterboarded to emulate drowning. Do you have any idea how many innocent children drown, you selfish, arrogant, cowardly turd?
Want to smoke that cigarette? Perhaps you should be put through some chemotherapy, lose your hair and puke daily, and if you like that, then buy that next pack of Newports and second hand smoke me to death!
Want that steak and those cheese fries? Let’s induce a heart attack, so you can see what it feels like to suffer your body revolting against you as you clog your arteries with crap. Heart disease kills more Americans than anything else and costs us $320 billion, so go get that arugula salad and quit contributing to health care costs in this country.
And after you’ve done all that, learn the definition of “rights,” and learn to use English properly, you moron.
September 11 was a historic day in America. It was tragic. It was emotional. It was dark. But it was definitely historic – a painful part of American history that is never to be forgotten.
Enter this asshole. OH NOES! Teh EEEVIL NRA™ put a GUN on display in its museum! A GUN! How awful!
New York Police Officer Walker Weaver did not survive that horrific day on Sept. 11, 2001, but the NRA is pleased that his gun was recovered.
The NRA writes, “Officer Weaver never made it out that day … but his revolver was recovered from the ashes.”
Let’s start with the fact that the pistol is a bit of history. There are cameras that survived the 9-11 attack that belonged to a photographer – Bill Biggart – who did not, that are displayed at the Newseum in Washington, DC. Why? Because it’s a NEWS museum, and therefore, tools that a photojournalist used to capture the news are prominently displayed there as part of news history.
Likewise, the NRA’s museum is a FIREARMS museum. The pistol that belonged to a fallen officer who died on 9-11 is part of history! Therefore, it’s perfectly appropriate that the tool the officer used every day to protect his life and the lives of others is prominently on display there as part of firearms and American history.
Yay for the gun! #GunsLivesMatter.
Yay for lack of rational perspective! #HoplophobicBuffoon.
After Weaver’s family donated the gun to the NRA National Firearms Museum and with the 14th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, the NRA writes, “Weaver’s revolver holds a place of honor today and serves as a somber reminder of the law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line daily.”
I don’t know where any of you were during the bombings, but I was one or so miles from Ground Zero, just hoping that one gun would survive as we watched in horror as citizens and first responders tirelessly dug through the rubble, day after day.
So you’re using your alleged presence near Ground Zero to give yourself credibility? Well, I was pretty near the Pentagon – where 125 military and civilians died at the hands of psychotic murderers. And some of those folks even carry guns as part of their jobs… you know… in the military, you cretinous coward! In the military – especially when we deploy – we carry our firearms with us all the time. They are tools.
This look familiar? Care to make fun of it, you deplorable, callous cunt?
These weapons are part of our jobs – especially on deployment. Just as Officer Weaver’s pistol was part of his job – and the only part left his family was able to recover. So your smarmy, oleaginous sarcasm is neither warranted, nor appreciated.
With each dig into the ground, we hoped to see just one barrel peering out into the sunlight.
With each word you show yourself to be a pompous, insensitive nitwit, that has not a gracious bone in its body. This is the only thing his family had left of him in the wreckage of that horror – the tool he used every day to protect himself and others. And you have the unmitigated gall to wax sarcastic about it?
And one did. It was Officer Walker Weaver’s gun. He didn’t make it but the NRA is very happy that yet another gun is OK.
I’m sure Officer Weaver’s family is gratified that they are able to donate the only thing left of him they were able to recover from the rubble to a museum to honor the the man who courageously bore that tool on the job and preserve it as part of history – history you apparently do not understand or respect, you sniveling cock monkey.
The courageous gun lobbyist organization used social media yesterday to attack surviving family members of gun violence.
And by “attack,” you mean “asked a legitimate question about the #whateverittakes movement and its intent toward our rights.”
We’re sure the gun rights group was relieved to hear that the guns used in the aforementioned acts of violence survived, too.
We’re sure relieved that your pusillanimous pantshittery against guns is so profound, that you would denigrate the only item that was recovered from someone who was murdered by psychotic terrorists and begrudge that tool becoming part of history merely because you insist on personifying an inanimate object.
Forget the thousands of lives lost 14 years ago, and let’s take a moment to honor the gun that pulled through such a terrifying event.
Forget the fact that the gun is the only item that was recovered from one of those victims. Let’s hate on it, because GUNS!
And now, I’m going to go throw up.
Translation: Look how sensitive I am! I’m going to throw up because INANIMATE OBJECT! I sarcastically attack the memory of one of the victims of a vicious terrorist attack on our nation, but I’m righteous, because I’m attacking a GUN!
Be sure to give us some ‘like’ on Facebook.
If you haven’t heard of Heidi Yewman yet, it’s about time you acquainted yourself with this numbskull, who decided to become a “good guy with a gun” for 30 days and document her trials and tribulations in MS Magazine.
So instead of educating herself, getting some training and documenting objectively her 30 day experience, this one chose to paint gun ownership in the most negative light possible without actually breaking any laws.
Yes, I bought a handgun and will carry it everywhere I go over the next 30 days. I have four rules: Carry it with me at all times, follow the laws of my state, only do what is minimally required for permits, licensing, purchasing and carrying, and finally be prepared to use it for protecting myself at home or in public.
Can you already tell which side of the gun control debate Heidi Yewman falls on?
Me, a board member of the Brady Campaign. Me, the author of a book about the impact of gun violence, Beyond the Bullet.
I will say this: judging by this inane, imbecilic attempt to demonize gun owners and gun ownership, I can already tell that her little book on the impact of gun violence is likely a biased, subjective piece of dreck on which I wouldn’t bother spending money.
Additionally, when someone tells me the reason for her little “experiment” is curiosity about “what would it be like to be that good guy with a gun? What would it be like to get that gun, live with that gun, be out and about with that gun. Finally, what happens when you don’t want that gun any more?” after Wayne LaPierre astutely noted post-Newtown that “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” I have to wonder why Heidi thinks that being a “good guy with a gun,” means an absolution from her responsibilities as a gun owner.
Getting the permit to carry a concealed weapon was simple. I filled out a form, had my fingerprints taken for a background check and paid $56.50. No training required. It took far longer to get my dog a license.
I started my 30-day gun trial with a little window-shopping. I visited a gun show and two gun dealers. I ended up buying a Glock 9mm handgun from Tony, a gun dealer four miles from my house. I settled on this model because it was a smallish gun and because Tony recommended it for my stated purposes of protecting myself and my home.
It was obvious from the way I handled the gun that I knew nothing about firearms. Tony sold it to me anyway. The whole thing took 7 minutes. As a gratified consumer, I thought, “Well, that was easy.” Then the terrifying reality hit me, “Holy hell, that was EASY.” Too easy. I still knew nothing about firearms.
Tony told me a Glock doesn’t have an external safety feature, so when I got home and opened the box and saw the magazine in the gun I freaked. I was too scared to try and eject it as thoughts flooded my mind of me accidentally shooting the gun and a bullet hitting my son in the house or rupturing the gas tank of my car, followed by an earth-shaking explosion. This was the first time my hands shook from the adrenaline surge and the first time I questioned the wisdom of this 30-day experiment.
I needed help. I drove to where a police officer had pulled over another driver. Now, writing this, I realize that rolling up on an on-duty cop with a handgun in tow might not have been fully thought through.
I told him I just bought a gun, had no clue how to use it. I asked him to make sure there were no bullets in the magazine or chamber. He took the magazine out and cleared the chamber. He assured me it was empty and showed me how to look. Then he told me how great the gun was and how he had one just like it.
The cop thought I was an idiot and suggested I take a class. But up to that point I’d done nothing wrong, nothing illegal.
So to summarize:
Idiot buys tool and gets concealed carry permit.
Idiot rejects any responsibility for owning said tool.
Idiot gets no training and acquires no knowledge about said tool.
Idiot is appalled she passed the instant background check to purchase said tool.
Idiot is incensed that her state has no laws preventing her from being an idiot, and that the store where she bought said tool will not take action to prevent her from doing stupid things.
Idiot publicizes stupidity.
See, most responsible gun owners don’t need laws to compel them to do what is right. They will get training, they will familiarize themselves with their firearms, they will follow all proper legal procedures, but will also go above and beyond – something which Heidi did not do intentionally, and then attempted to paint general gun ownership as irresponsibly as she painted her own.
Most gun owners respect the tool and understand the personal accountability that goes along with it.
Heidi has no concept of these principles, and has decided to pretend that the rest of the gun owners in this nation are just as stupid as she is.
I had posted the following in the comments on that website, and to my surprise (not), the comment was never approved.
“So let me get this straight. Author buys tool. Has no idea how to use it, and is appalled that she passed the instant background check to purchase it. Expects store and law enforcement to remedy her ignorance about said tool, instead of taking responsibility for herself.
Publicizes her stupidity.
Perhaps if Heidi Yewman had bothered becoming a responsible gun owner, getting training, getting educated about guns and getting enough practice to become comfortable with her tool, as the vast majority of gun owners do, she would have a little more credibility with a crowd that isn’t entirely comprised of hysterical hoplophobes who support her cause.
But for now, Heidi Yewman is weapons grade stupid.
Do you ever wonder why the general public seems to be so completely ignorant on the issues that are critical to our country today? I’m wagering an educated guess that this is because they swallow whatever the media feeds them like a porn star in a bukake scene. Self-important rags like the Washington Post and the New York Times spew it, and the Great Unwashed swallow in great, big gulps. Doing research is just extraneous effort to them, not worth expending. Why bother, when the Washington Post editorial staff writes gems such as this?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-Conn.) offered a trenchant comment the other day about the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December, which was carried out by Adam Lanza with a semiautomatic assault weapon that reloaded bullets in rapid succession from a single ammunition magazine.
OK, stop right there! The semiautomatic rifle chambered the next round only as quickly as Lanza could pull the trigger, but already the Post is making it sound like the big, bad magazine was responsible for the mass murder. The magazine simply holds the rounds. The rifle chambers them. The shooter is the one who controls the speed with which the rounds are expelled. But that doesn’t matter, because now that the media realizes there’s no way an assault weapons ban will pass, they’re focusing their dull quills on what they call “high-capacity magazines,” or in the cases of the truly retarded, “clips.”
Twenty children and six adults were killed in a deadly few minutes of fire. “We do know that historically in these instances, amateurs have trouble switching magazines,” the senator said, according to the New York Times. “I believe, and many of the parents there believe, that if Lanza had to switch cartridges nine times versus two times there would likely still be little boys and girls alive in Newtown today.”
Dear Senator, you’re a blithering idiot. Historically we know WHAT? A monkey high on crack can switch out a magazine. Push release. Drop mag. Slap another one in. If you’re really skilled, you tape two mags together in a Jungle Style configuration, to make reloading even easier. What you nattering hysterics believe has no grounding in reality, and basing legislation on what you believe without actual evidence to back up what you’re saying amounts to destroying basic rights of the people based on nothing but histrionics.
The 10-round limit was included in the 1994 assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. Taking stock of that law, a report for the National Institute of Justice noted that studies have shown that attacks with semiautomatic weapons “result in more shots fired, more persons hit, and more wounds inflicted per victim than do attacks with other firearms.” There is already a huge stock of these weapons and ammunition clips in civilian hands, but Congress could at least staunch the manufacture and purchase of new ones.
This comes from a report issued by a Christopher Koper at the University of Pennsylvania, and based on “predictions that are tenuous,” according to the principal investigator himself. The author also prefaces this claim with the following:
Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.
Not that the Washington Post would make any mention of this particular bit of text. Additionally, considering the tiny percentage of shootings committed with these weapons and these magazines, the sample size is too small to make an adequate assessment.
A limit on high-capacity magazines draws more support in recent public opinion polls than does a ban on assault weapons.
Maybe that’s because the Great Unwashed don’t realize that these magazines are standard for many of these rifles. You ban the mag, and you end up with a de facto ban on the rifles. I bet the legisleeches know this. Does the public? And as far as the actual claim about public support… well, I guess that would depend on whom you ask and which poll you believe. A January 20 survey in the Wall Street Journal saw 80 percent of respondents oppose a high-capacity magazine ban. But I don’t suppose the Washington Post would acknowledge this.
Senators who have resisted gun control legislation out of concern for political fallout have been hinting that they may support limits on ammunition clips. One of them, Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), has stated that, despite his “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, he is ready to depart from the status quo in response to Sandy Hook. The senator could do so by speaking up for a limit on large-capacity ammunition clips.
This makes them ignorant squishes, who are ready to compromise your rights away for a little political capital. Just because they have indicated their intent to support a ban, does not make the ban a good idea.
No one who owns guns for hunting, target practice or personal self-defense needs to have a 30-bullet magazine, as Vice President Biden rather inartfully stated in an online chat last week.
I would think these people would beg to differ. And these. And I’m betting this lady, who fought off thugs wielding an AK, wouldn’t agree with a mediot’s assessment of what she may or may not have needed in this battle. And I’m betting those Korean shop owners who defended themselves and their property during the LA riots would tell you to shove your ban up your collective asses as well. As for Biden’s “inartful” idiocy… anyone who would advise folks to negligently discharge a shotgun instead of using an easy to load, low recoil, light tool of self defense, needs to be ridiculed mercilessly and exposed for the tool that he is.
Mr. Biden said that civilians don’t need a semiautomatic assault rifle of the AR-15 type — like that used by Lanza — to protect themselves. “It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself,” the vice president declared. “Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.”
Mr. Biden is a retard. We’ve already established that, but thanks for playing, Washington Post. You’re excused.