So if you're a 'celebrity' (or rich or politically connected), they're A-OK w/ you having a gun or armed bodyguards. For the rest of the 'unwashed masses', they're SOL.Gun control is discrimination at its core.
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
@CSGV: Some Animals are more Equal than Others
On the fact that Bill Cosby attacks CCW holders yet had one himself.
So if you're a 'celebrity' (or rich or politically connected), they're A-OK w/ you having a gun or armed bodyguards. For the rest of the 'unwashed masses', they're SOL.
Gun control is discrimination at its core.
So if you're a 'celebrity' (or rich or politically connected), they're A-OK w/ you having a gun or armed bodyguards. For the rest of the 'unwashed masses', they're SOL.Gun control is discrimination at its core.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Yeah, because you always hear about celebrities being violently attacked, and never hear about that happening to nobodies like us.
Oh, wait.
I noted the "more likely" -- so we have to wait until some percentage of chance we'll be stalked or the victim of a crime is reached?
I wonder what the odds have to be: is it "Bob has only 1 in a 1,000,000 chance of being stalked but Bill has 1 in 100,000"?
This is what we always knew, they just don't come out and say it most of the time.
I want to say that the honesty is refreshing, but the naked bigotry on display kinda ruins it for me.
Cosby said that people who carry guns “mean to harm somebody, kill somebody.”
So that doesn't apply when you're a "celebrity"?
Elitism at its finest.
Imagine you have a stalker ex-spouse after your messy divorce or an angry former business partner.
Well, if you live in a state like California with waiting periods and getting a CCW permit requires classes, testing, and the good will of your local police, you are toast.
I'm sure our Founding Fathers felt that restrictions on defending yourself are OK for public safety, except for the rich and powerful. No wait...I seem to remember that they wrote a specific amendment to avoid this. What was it again?
[end sarcasm]
Of course if somebody has an active stalker in the various states and towns that refuse to issue permits to "commoners", they should just "think of England" as they are being murdered.
Also note that if the "celebrity" happens to run Joyce-Funded Media Matters, then no permit is even required!
Any respect I had for Bill Cosby has evaporated when the fact he himself has a CCW came to light. Guns for me but not for thee, typical elitist they know better than the unwashed masses that is so rampant in the gun banner movement. The hypocrisy is infuriating.
"Far more likely" means jack-all when we are discussing a sample size of 1, be it Bill Cosby or me. Probabilities, guess-work, and statistics all amount to nothing at all when a criminal decides that you look like a potential victim today, and acts accordingly - after all, someone's time has to come up at some point, and that someone might eventually be you.
And I can guarantee that there are people living in more dangerous neighborhoods with a higher risk of being victims of violent crime than Cosby at the moment, but I can likewise guarantee that CSGV would be more than willing to disarm those people just because they are not celebrities.
I guess it is progress that "gun control" has moved from being racist to classist... not sure if it is positive progress, but it is progress.
Post a Comment