In response to this article, I received the following comment:
The easy thing to do would be roll my eyes and go talk to my lawn furniture but I will set the example for my grand-kids that taking the easy way out isn’t always good. It is important to mention that I don’t support “Gun Anarchy”. It think laws are necessary especially in regard to things like guns, airplanes, flame-throwers, mustard gas, plutonium, and anthrax. I agree that the reason drunk driving has “fallen precipitously” is because of laws forbidding it. Summarizing “my argument” as a net that doesn’t catch all fish tells me you’ve missed my point. So I’ll explain it again. And since you’re a fan of fishing…
This fish is a rebel. He goes wherever he wants and does as he pleases. He doesn’t live by any laws.
The law is useless when there are no fish in it.
Sorry. This fish is a rebel. It goes where it wants and does what it pleases. You think this fish will do bad things with that bazooka and you’re probably right. A bazooka-toting fish without the law is a dangerous creature!
Hooray! The bazooka fish is living by the law! He’s not dangerous at all. In fact, he’s going to use that weapon to protect all his friends who don’t have bazookas. Sharks should think twice before they come around this school. (But they won’t because sharks are mindless eating machines that don’t care about laws.)
Yikes! That elephant is clearly not a Law Abiding Citizen! What can the school do to protect itself? Well, some of the fish are politicians who really, really, really, really, care about safety. They leap into action and…
…make stricter laws! The political fish reason that if the net was tighter, everyone would be safe. So they get busy creating “sensible gun legislation” to further restrict the activity of the Law Abiding Citizens who already follow the law. The politicians are shocked when the elephant opens fire on the school. They make a lot of speeches condemning violence. Because they really, really, really, really, REAAAALLLLY, care about safety, they take drastic measures and…
…take all the bazookas away from the fish. Now do you understand what I’m trying to explain?
Okay. One more time. Restrictive gun laws won’t protect Law Abiding Fish from Bazooka-Wielding Elephants. Politicians do not have the power to make lawless creatures obey the law. Pretending to “care about kids” is what politicians do to exert power over weak-minded people who can’t understand my simple fish and elephant illustration. Guns are dangerous. Stupidity is lethal.
If you’re STILL not getting this, please, please, please – PLEASE – stop voting!
33 Responses
Next time you see a maniac who wants to shoot up a school your going to tell him, “ Just don’t do that, I don’t.” These people are insane, the rules that apply to most of the population doesn’t apply to them.
Just stop shooting the kids How hard is that? Most of us manage to not do it, every day. Seriously: you need this spelt out? Or is it not in the spirit of international goodwill to ask Americans to refrain from overexercising their civil liberties?
“…truly depraved mind…” That’s gold, Jerry. Gold!”
Evangelicals: “We should pray to God for solutions.”
Sensible people: “Betcha don’t get an answer.”
It’s a direct question so probably not.
The question I asked was fairly simple in my opinion. Even if he answers with a complete gun ban that would at least be an answer.
Betcha don’t get an answer.
No one has even entertained the idea that killing children is okay. Now would please answer my question. What do you think we should do about shootings?
One of the signs of a truly depraved mind is the consistent refusal answer questions. Engaging in meaningful dialogue requires wisdom. God owns all wisdom. He gives it willingly to anyone who asks for it. The God-deniers do not have access to wisdom because they have repeatedly told God they don’t need or desire Him. Don’t be surprised when your question is answered with more howling mockery.
Really? Shooting the kids is acceptable. Making fun of it is not. Public prayer as a response is acceptable. Sweeping gun reform laws are not.
I get now why America is in steep intellectual decline.
That’s a shame. I was actually interested in his answer. Why Moneypenny.
I honestly don’t know…? I’ve never heard of her.
Satire about dead children isn’t very funny either.
A little background info, Jack…
Here’s the first conversation with ChrisS: https://johnbranyan.com/trump-can-be-president-but-he-cant-teach-sunday-school/#comment-23735
And here’s the last comment I ever sent him: https://johnbranyan.com/lets-hear-it-for-nancy-pelosis-applause/#comment-24372
In the few months between, I gave him the chance to say something–ANYTHING–new and note-worthy. But he didn’t. He just kept showing up trying to push JB’s buttons and disappearing when asked direct questions. So…same old, same old.
Anyway, we don’t mind if you want to show Chris the attention he craves. I just wanted you to see the history so you’ll know why neither of us will be joining.
(This was the closest we got to any answers from the Little Slugger. But he left when he realized we weren’t going to defend ourselves against strawmen: https://johnbranyan.com/you-might-belong-here-its-up-to-you/#comment-23702)
Everyone with a brain can see that there is a problem. What is your solution to that problem.
Jack: America has basically said, Yes, we’re going to live with the kids being shot. No, we’re not going to make sweeping reforms that will fundamentally change anything. Name me another developed Western nation that would even countenance such disordered thinking.
Evangelicals want to have their cake and eat it, too, but reality — on American soil, at least — has different plans. Sanity doesn’t enter the equation. To those of us living elsewhere, looking on, the US appears as a basketcase. My comment was simply a satiric barb aimed at Moneypenny’s hypocritical evangelical sanctimony, and her peculiar priorities.
You and I both know that’s not what she was saying. No sane human has ever said that dead children are less important the the intellectual state of America. I’m not saying that our intellectual state isn’t a problem, but the killing of children is more pressing.
Yes, apparently it was among the last dying words of those kids gunned down at Sandy Hook and Parkland: “It’s not the dying that’s so bad — we’ll get over that — but the intellectual decline of American society that’s the real worry. Tell the folks we said that.”
Message received, loud and clear.
I see what you’re saying, but don’t you think we should have a discussion about how to possibly stop these killings.
To be honest, I don’t care much about the gun debate… I’m more concerned with the intellectual decline of our society. By the time the idiots are finished giving all of the power to the Government, all of us will deserve to have soliders run us over with tanks.
It’s been 24 hours without a peep from the guy who wanted an open conversation. A whole day since he lamented not having a chance to offer his point of view. He probably thinks I’m joking when I said he shouldn’t vote…
“Pretending to “care about kids” is what politicians do to exert power over weak-minded people who can’t understand my simple fish and elephant illustration. Guns are dangerous. Stupidity is lethal.
If you’re STILL not getting this, please, please, please – PLEASE – stop voting!”
not personal?
You’re the one who introduced yourself. If you claim to identify with the description, I’m not going to argue with you.
I’m flattered you used my comment to fire off another blog. You didn’t need to blur my photo or name — I stand by what I said. Actually, the gentlemanly thing for you to do would’ve been to reach out to me (if only their were a way), and let me know that you were going to use my comment, inform me of your response, and invite me into a debate. I could’ve forgiven you for inferring that I was a nitwit or lawn furniture and you could’ve forgiven me for calling you bruh and making fun of your joke. I’m still not clear, is lawn furniture inherently worst than regular furniture? Oh, because I don’t have a roof over my head I can’t be educated? Regardless, if you had invited me to this conversation I could have saved you some time on clip art illustrations of homicidal pachyderms. I’m aware that no singular law will solve all our problems. We could’ve discussed why laws against “flame-throwers, mustard gas, plutonium, and anthrax” seem to work (supply and monetary incentive) and what complementary steps for an assault weapon ban would make sense (buy back programs maybe?). We could’ve touched on why I made a point of saying that places with strict gun laws *tend* to have lower gun death, shown my work (hi source: https://www.vox.com/2019/3/8/18254626/mass-shootings-gun-violence-laws-study), and explained why this isn’t always true. I could’ve even beaten your commenters to the punch and explained why this isn’t the case in Chicago (open borders and being smack dab in the center of places with weak gun laws). I could’ve also said that no matter how many good fishies had bazookas to fight that elephant that, unless they were highly trained, they were more likely to cause problems than help (https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/september/fbi-releases-study-on-active-shooter-incidents/pdfs/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013) and even point out that a good guy with a gun recently got killed by law reinforcement (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/us/black-man-killed-alabama-mall-shooting.html). And I also couldn’t have made the point that sometimes even a delay in the purchase process of a gun is enough for a person to reconsider their actions.
We had the opportunity to do all this, and why not? We all want innocent people to stop getting shot right? We could at least have a civil conversation. But no, you decided it was a good time for one sided responses, condescension, and 3rd rate jokes. In the end, I’m not sure if I’m more disappointed in your failure to live up to your self-appointed billing as being intelligent, christian, or a comedian.
It is indeed a shame that you were not allowed to offer your side of the conversation.
If only there were some way you could have reached out to me and been afforded a chance to make this personal…
There’s no reason to invite Cliff into a debate… He’ll DESTROY you with his intelligence! Just ask him what you’re supposed to believe and go with it…
He has numbers! Lots of them! 🙂
Jack, it sounds reasonable at first blush, but who gets to diagnose people as mentally ill? The day may come when believing in God, or believing in uncompromised cisgenderism, or liking a politically incorrect commentator, or wearing a MAGA hat, will precipitate such a diagnosis from some overzealous self-anointed expert.
Oh, I agree that deranged people should not have weapons, but we need safeguards against abuse of the system. There must be a way to *quickly* redress false accusations/diagnoses, and that’s something that neither our system of justice nor our society tends to do very well.
John(or whoever else would like to reply) what are your thoughts on not allowing people who are diagnosed as mentally ill to have guns.
Jack,
I like the idea of Gun Violence Restraining Orders. Give the power back to the friends and family who are most likely to spot an issue…
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/gun-control-republicans-consider-grvo/?fbclid=IwAR3R8JL2RjyicgBDmccB68PdFRfCPZs6ejqY5_dFOaCfO9g05cN0dpWWX_E
When the comments are as good as the blog, made my day!
I should have said Chicago I’ll, because now someone is going to say “Chicago isn’t a state moron!” Or some such nugget of wisdom. Chigago, LA, And NYC, bring the numbers up for their respective states.
I’ve found that statistics and facts are only effective with people who are interested in truth. People who spout talking points are influenced more by pictures of fish carrying firearms.
Good explanation! I also want to see a children’s book called “if you give a fish a bazooka”!
The comment or you quoted above also told an outright lie. States with the strictest gun laws tend to have MORE gun violence, not less. Chicago is a prime example.
I think “If You Give a Fish a Bazooka” could be the next great thing in children’s books.