Family Feud: Right-Wing Demagogue edition

You know how to play — 100 cretinous right-wing demagogues were surveyed and their top answers are on the board.

Our question: Who or what is to blame for the mass-murder last week in a Colorado theater?

Flip Benham, Operation Save America: “The ideology of the Democratic Party.”

Margie Phelps: “Direct result of filthy fag pride parade in Colo.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas: “Ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs.”

Former state Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Ariz.: The unarmed, “unprepared” victims.

Greg Stier, Dare 2 Share: “Satan.”

Fox News host Mike Huckabee: “Sin.” (Other people’s sin.)

Jerry Newcombe, Truth in Action Ministries: “Civil libertarians” and Rob Bell.

Matt Barber, Liberty Counsel: “Planned Parenthood.”

Fred Jackson, American Family Association: “I have to think that all of this, whether it’s the Hollywood movies, whether it’s what we see on the internets [sic], whether it’s liberal bias in the media, whether it’s our politicians changing public policy, I think all of those somehow have fit together — and I have to say also churches who are leaving the authority of Scripture and losing their fear of God — all of those things have seem to have come together to give us these kinds of incidents.”

""You've sold your soul for a used popsicle stick." - The Dork Tower"

It’s not 2011, and no one’s ..."
"Sort of like the Imperium of Man in the Warhammer 40K universe: a group of ..."

It’s not 2011, and no one’s ..."
"Except Ron Jeremy is supposed to be a good guy to work with. Unlike..."

It’s not 2011, and no one’s ..."
"Laws are for *those* people, to keep them on the straight an narrow, not for ..."

It’s not 2011, and no one’s ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Considering how successful the KKK and the Southern Democrats were at refighting the civil war and winning in the political arena, do you REALLY want to make the case that such stamping-out was really all that successful? (-_-)

  • BaseDeltaZero

    My feeling on the matter is, if you want guns, have guns, but (unless your gun collection consists of a hunting rifle and a purse-sized handgun, no more and nothing else) you had damn well better belong to the National Guard. That way your gun can be used in service of the country and also the country can keep tabs on you, ‘keeping tabs’ to include regular checks to make sure you’re not planning mass murder.

    What about hunting shotguns?  Also, more than one rifle, because you want different ones for different game (shoot an elk with a .22 and you’ll annoy it.  Shoot varmints with a .308, and there won’t be more than shreds left).

    Body armor. No amount of handguns in the audience would have done any good at all.

    He was wearing a full, sealed suit that was somehow capable of diffusing kinetic force so that getting shot doesn’t still has a damn good chance of knocking you over?

    “The issue is whether the “militia” clause limits the right to bear arms, or whether the clause merely announces a purpose for that right.”

    It does establish that the militia can be regulated, though.

    Personally I wouldn’t mind if owning a firearm came with a corresponding requirement to go to a government firing range and practice with the thing a certain number of hours per month under the eyes of experienced instructors.  On alternate days the public firing range would be converted to a classroom where civilian gun owners would get to analyze shoot/don’t-shoot situations, observe bullet wounds, talk to people who had been involved in armed altercations, etc.  I think this would reduce the number of people who think that a gun is a Magic Wand of I Win +1.

    That’s a really good idea, generally.  ‘Well Regulated Militia’ and all.  As for the happy fun stuff like assault rifles and RPGs, well… my first impulse would be to give special liscences to trusted ranges to possess such weapons, so they could ‘rent’ them to the firepower fanboys, but they couldn’t leave the range.  Possibly put a tracker of some kind in them too.

    As for the ‘defense against tyranny’ argument… you probably don’t want to go toe-to-toe with an national army in the first place, even if you *do* have assault rifles and RPGs.  Yes, you can legally own a tank, but it’s still not a good idea.  An armed populace – and more importantly, a populace familiar with weaponry – can work as a deterrent against oppression, as the government knows that even if it can crush any opposition on the field, they’ll be facing an armed insurgency… which is a lot harder to crush.  Plus, in the much more likely case of a civil war which splits the government and military, having a lot of civilians on your side who are already familiar with guns – and therefore can be trained into soldiers relatively quickly – can be a major benefit.

  • PJ Evans

     A hundred-round magazine wouldn’t leave enough of you to charge.

  • PJ Evans

    the surprisingly low incidence  of gun violence in the heavily armed Wild West

    I seem to recall hearing that many towns in the West banned handguns, too.

  • Dan Audy

    I’ve never understood the challenge American’s face differentiating between the validity of different types of weapons.  I own a handful of rifles and shotguns that serve well for hunting but I don’t own (nor would I if it were legal) any handguns, automatic weaponry, missiles, or explosives (excepting brief possession of stumping powder between store and usage) because the only use for those is killing people or causing massive structural damage.  Handguns, submachineguns, and assault rifles are amazingly fun toys when I’ve gotten a chance to use them but the idea of having people allowed to take them out of those closely controlled areas manned by professionals fills me with absolute dread.

    Afghanistan and Iraq both had extremely high rates of gun ownership but that didn’t stop their governments from being extremely oppressive nor did it prevent foreign invaders from rolling in over them like nothing.  Explosives and mortars are what has been useful for them fighting foreigners, carrying assault rifles just gets them killed from miles away by bomb, missile, or gunship without any chance to fight back.  Conversely the low gun ownership rates in Spain, Australia, or England has not caused them to descend into oppressive regimes.  As best we can tell there is absolutely no correlation between civilian gun ownership and the likelyhood of a country being oppressive.

  • Dan Audy

    I seem to recall hearing that many towns in the West banned handguns, too.

    That is an absolutely correct recollection.  Most towns had gun control laws that forbade possession of firearms within their bounds.  Huffington Post had an article last year by a law professor who has written a book on the history of gun control and gun rights on it.

  • EllieMurasaki

    What about hunting shotguns?  Also, more than one rifle, because you
    want different ones for different game (shoot an elk with a .22 and
    you’ll annoy it.  Shoot varmints with a .308, and there won’t be more
    than shreds left).

    So I don’t know jack about guns. Sue me. I’ll amend my previous statement to say anyone whose gun collection includes anything that isn’t a handgun or specifically designed for hunting, and/or more than one handgun, needs to not be a civilian. And I’d be happier if there were a limit on the number of hunting guns one could own (what a reasonable limit would be, I leave to experts, though I note that five seems high).

    Guns that I am absolutely confident are not designed for hunting: anything rapid-fire, anything where the ammo is designed to maximize instead of minimize damage to the target, anything meant to go through anything sturdier than meat and bone.

  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    Conversely the low gun ownership rates in Spain, Australia, or England has not caused them to descend into oppressive regimes. 

    The biggest category of guns owned by Australians are rifles–a little over half of all firearms, I think. I grew up in the country where farmers have a legitimate need for rifles to control feral animals and put down livestock.

    You can’t buy a firearm in Australia because you just want one; you have to explain why you need one. “Self-defense” is not an acceptable reason for civilians. If you want to buy a firearm for the first time, you wait 28 days. If you want to buy a handgun for target shooting, you have to show that you’re a participating member of a target shooting club, and the type of handgun you can buy is restricted. You cannot buy a semiautomatic weapon under any circumstances because that’s an unbelievably appalling idea.

    All of this and yeah, we’re still doing fine on the freedom front.

  • But surely, *surely* criminals will just lie on the form! 

    I mean,we KNOW FOR ABSOLUTE FACT that gun laws ONLY keep honest lawful citizens from getting guns; they would stop NO criminals from getting them, and even if they did, the criminals would just use homemade explosives instead.

    I mean, we know this for a FACT; it’s simple logic, and if you can’t use pure logic to disprove it, then we must accept it as true and ignore the fact that every other country in  the world has not just lower gun violence, but *several orders of magnitute lower per capita gun violence*.


  • Sgt. Pepper’s Bleeding Heart

    I’m feeling pretty slapped around by mortality at the moment so I’m afraid I’m not in the mood to engage in sarcastic banter about a fucked up mentality that makes parents bury their kids.

    Maybe another time?