The Shorter “Every Argument With A Minnesota Gun Control Advocate”

THEY: You’re paranoid! Nobody is coming for your guns! Period!

ME: The Democrats have been introducing bills that would ban vast swathes of guns, and have been telegraphing that they see the whole thing as an incremental process. Perhaps you could stand to open your mind and learn a bit.

THEY: I don’t have time to obsess over this stuff.

ME: Well, those of us who make the time are telling you – the threat is real.

THEY: You’re paranoid! Nobody is coming for your guns! Period!

ME: Um…again, the proposals are on the books, and have taken effect in some places. Seriously, here are the cases…

THEY: I don’t have time to obsess over this stuff.

ME: Yeah, so I hear – but those of us who stay involved are telling you – the threat is no joke.

THEY: You’re paranoid! Nobody is coming for your guns! Period!

ME: Er…just because you keep saying it doesn’t mean it’s true. Listen and learn.

THEY: I don’t have time to obsess over this stuff.

ME: Well, those of us who make the time are telling you – the threat is real.

THEY: You’re paranoid! Nobody is coming for your guns! Period!

ME: See what happens here? You don’t know the issue, make an unsupportable statement, and wriggle away from getting set straight…

THEY: I don’t have time to obsess over this stuff.

ME: Um…nice weather we’re having?

THEY: You’re paranoid! Nobody is coming for your guns! Period!

ME: Bring me a shrubbery.

THEY: I don’t have time to obsess over this stuff.

ME: Wagga wagga ding dong

THEY: You’re paranoid! Nobody is coming for your guns! Period!

ME: [Walking away].

THEY: I don’t have time to obsess over this stuff.

THEY: You’re paranoid! Nobody is coming for your guns! Period!

THEY: I don’t have time to obsess over this stuff.

THEY: You’re paranoid! Nobody is coming for your guns! Period!

THEY: I don’t have time to obsess over this stuff.

THEY: You’re paranoid! Nobody…

[And SCENE]

THEY: I don’t have time to obsess over this stuff.

Posted

March 1, 2019

Victim Disarmament

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Berg’s 7th Law

Comments

8 responses to “The Shorter “Every Argument With A Minnesota Gun Control Advocate””

Swiftee Pinochet

March 1, 2019

ME: [Walking away].

THEY: You’re paranoid! Nobody is coming for your guns! Period!

THEY: I don’t have time to obsess over this stuff.

THEY: You’re paranoid! Nobody…

[And SCENE] ME: [Walking back] Here, I’ve fetched your stick, now listen again to my compelling and fact filled argument.

FTFY

See, your problem Mitch, is you think you’re going to win this fight because you have hard data to back you up. It’s hubris, my friend, and it’s a flaw.

You’re so froze to dazzle them with your knowledge and experience you can’t, or won’t see that the degenerates really don’t give a fvck about your facts, or expertise. They have an agenda, and fvck your facts.

The only response to Them is: Fvck your agenda. It’s my right, and it’s protected by the constitution. Don’t like it? Tough sh1t boss, amend the constitution. Good luck with that and stay the hell out of my business while you try.

“People who worship only themselves get a slick, polished look — like monuments. Too bad they had to go so soon.”

-Vanna Bonta

ps: Still waiting for you to clean up the mess on isle 3.
Mitch Berg

March 1, 2019

you think you’re going to win this fight because you have hard data to back you up.

Nah. The data picks off the undecideds who can be convinced.

To the Rachel Josephs and Nancy Nord Bences of the world? You’re right.

But it’s not them I’m writing to.

ps: Still waiting for you to clean up the mess on isle 3.

????
Joe Doakes

March 1, 2019

“I don’t want to ban abortion. I just want to impose some reasonable, common-sense restrictions, to ensure the safety of everyone involved”

Would that fly with the pro-abortion crowd? Of course not – they’d howl about infringements and coat hangers.

Everybody is conservative about what they know best. But only conservatives understand this.
Swiftee Pinochet

March 1, 2019

From the text of HF9 (Red Flag law)

8.23 (d) If the court finds there is a preponderance of the evidence to issue an extreme risk protection order, the court shall issue the order prohibiting the person from possessing a firearm for the duration of the order.

Emphasis mine.

This means that a pissed off wife, or husband, or a kid that got his or her iPhone taken doesn’t need to provide clean and convincing evidence. All they need to do is find a gun-grabbing judge (in MN that shouldn’t take more than 5 minutes), and let events follow the natural course.

That judge will appoint a gun-grabbing examiner to evaluate you, to go through your medical records, to ask the neighbor that is irritated because you park your car in front of their house (MY spot!), to call your employer, to search your social media (chilling; literally shaking!), your phone texts, your email.

People that have been judged mentally incompetent are already forbidden from owning firearms, but the reprobates don’t want to have to go through all that trouble. This is the express lane to a lifetime of trouble.
Swiftee Pinochet

March 1, 2019

clear and convincing evidence…

effin autocorrect
Swiftee Pinochet

March 1, 2019

“???”
Mammuthus Primigenius

March 1, 2019

This is what they do:
-Racism is whatever they call racism (“racist” is the new Kulak).
-The second amendment is racist.
-Therefore the second amendment is evil.
-Racism beats the Bill of Rights.
bikebubba

March 1, 2019

Regarding Swiftee’s comment, preponderance of evidence if 50% plus one iota, and given that they’re not going to be having cross examination, what that means is “testimony of one, maybe versus testimony of another, plus bias of the courts.”

In other words, the courts will “make passionate love” to gun owners in Hennepin and Ramsey.