Discussion:
Unethical Quote Of The Month (And STUPID Beyond Belief, As Usual): Joy Behar Of ABC’s “The View”
Add Reply
Michael Ejercito
2019-11-06 12:26:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
http://ethicsalarms.com/2019/11/05/unethical-quote-of-the-month-and-stupid-beyond-belief-as-usual-joy-behar-of-abcs-the-view/

Unethical Quote Of The Month (And STUPID Beyond Belief, As Usual): Joy Behar
Of ABC’s “The View”
NOVEMBER 5, 2019 / JACK MARSHALL

(Bear with me: This video will be relevant by the end, I promise..)

“If you’re going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected —
then take the guns away. Don’t tell them ahead of time.”
“The View’s” panelist Joy Behar, commenting on Beto O’Rourke’s exit from the
Democratic presidential nomination race after announcing that he advocated
the confiscation of semi-automatic weapons.

I don’t even watch “The View,” and Joy Behar’s ignorant and strident vocal
abuses of law, ethics and logic have still made it into many Ethics Alarms
posts. Imagine if I actually watched the show regularly. The woman is
astoundingly ignorant, and celebrates it, issuing loud and emphatic opinions
that would be argued down in a competent 7th grade class (if there are such
things), yet ABC gives her a public platform that is only responsibly
reserved for, if not brilliant and knowledgeable pundits, at least ones that
could win a game of Scrabble with a Dachshund puppy.

You know what her last featured howler was on Ethics Alarms? This: she
asked, in reference to a President Trump tweet mocking Rep. Omar, “Why can’t
he be brought up on charges of hate speech?Why can’t he be sued by the ACLU
for hate speech? I don’t get it. How does he get away with this?”

Why? WHY, you incredibly ill-informed woman? Because there is no such crime
as “hate speech.” Because the ACLU defends free speech, it doesn’t sue
people for what they say. You don’t get it because you’re the most
illiterate, ignorant pundit on television, maybe on television since its
inception. He gets away with this because it’s the United States, and we
have a Bill of Rights. Or as the late Sam Kinison would say,


This latest must be my favorite Joy cretinism. See, she’s a typical
progressive totalitarian as well as a dolt. The way to get your agenda
enacted is to lie to the public so they vote you into office based on false
pretenses! Sure, that’s the ticket! And not just any agenda, either—this
isn’t like Barack Obama promising to be a unifying President who favored
neither black not white. No, Joy wants candidates who plan on gutting
individual rights to lie about their plans so citizens will go to the polls
like lambs to the slaughter. Usually it’s villains that TV shows trying this
trick, monsters like Hitler and Sideshow Bob. The View has a permanent
panelist who endorses that route to power, openly, proudly.

She better watch out: Democrats don’t want her spilling the beans like that,

Of course, the strategy is impossible. To begin with it’s unconstitutional,
but naturally Joy, having slept through school, doesn’t know this. Second,
eventually people would find out that Beto’s Brownshirts were going door to
door, and the results would not be pretty. These are just details, however:
Joy just says whatever flotsam and jetsom flots into her cranium, and does
her level best to make View viewers as brick-stupid as she is. Here are
some other Joy highlights from past posts:

Speaking of Joe Biden’s habitual groping: “It’s a long way from smelling
your hair to grabbing your hoo-ha… I don’t think it rises to the point we’ve
been listening to like Harvey Weinstein and the rest of these people”

Justifying Democrats manufacturing imaginary offenses by the President:
“Because we’re desperate to get Trump out of office. That’s why.”

Explaining how the GOP can control the Senate when more votes were cast for
Democrats in the House: “Because of gerrymandering!”

On the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Kavanaugh hearings: “These white
men, old by the way, are not protecting women… They’re protecting a man who
is probably guilty.”

Responding to Alan Dershowitz’s criticism of Mitch Mconnell blocking the
Merrick Garland nomination: “Well then how come Mitch McConnell is not in
jail? That’s what I want to know.”

There are many more. Now, Joy has a right to be stupid, but she does not
have a right to have a major network facilitating her making the public
stupid. As I wrote here, I don’t advocate her being forced off the air by
boycotts, in the manner that so-called liberals have tried to silence Rush
Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson. That’s
censorship; that’s the Left’s MO in 2019. However, it is irresponsible for
any network to package the clueless opinions of a woman with the intellect
of a Pet Rock for public consumption. It’s like selling tainted food, or a
car that keeps breaking down.

It is broadcast malpractice. She should be fired. She should have been fired
years ago.

I even wrote a song about it. Sing the words to the music of “How do you
solve a problem like Maria?”(from “The Sound of Music”) in the video above.
I skipped the intro: it starts with the main theme.

Can’t The View Fire an Idiot Like Joy Behar?
Can’t the View fire an idiot like Joy Behar?

Why can’t they put that loudmouth in her place?

The View should protect the public from her nonsense

And wipe that smug expression off her face.

Many a thing you know they’d like to tell her

There is so much she doesn’t understand

But how can they make her read

Or research before a screed

You might as well try to lift a baby grand…

Oh, how do you fix an idiot like Joy Behar?

When will this moron finally be canned?

She is constantly confused

Ill-informed and so bemused

Hasn’t read the Constitution even once…

She’s predictable I guess

Since her values are a mess

She’s not clever! She’s not funny! She’s a dunce!

But Joy’s certain she is smart

And with gusto plays the part

Of the brave progressive warrior at work

Confrontational and loud,

She’s intolerant and proud

She’s embarrassing…let’s face it,

She’s a jerk.

Can’t the View fire an idiot like Joy Behar?

Why do they want to make their viewers dumb?

It’s so perverse inflicting her like they are…

Her opinions are like a drug that makes brains numb.

Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her

Millions of things she doesn’t know and more

But how do you make her stay

And listen to what you say

When her IQ is stuck at eighty-four?

Why can’t they fire an idiot like Joy Behar?

Why won’t they show that imbecile the door?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Klaus Schadenfreude
2019-11-06 16:17:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 04:26:25 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
Post by Michael Ejercito
http://ethicsalarms.com/2019/11/05/unethical-quote-of-the-month-and-stupid-beyond-belief-as-usual-joy-behar-of-abcs-the-view/
Unethical Quote Of The Month (And STUPID Beyond Belief, As Usual): Joy Behar
Of ABC’s “The View”
NOVEMBER 5, 2019 / JACK MARSHALL
Don't know if this is "unethical" or not-- after all, deceiving and
lying is what leftists *do.*

[chuckle]
Michael Ejercito
2019-11-07 15:32:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Klaus Schadenfreude
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 04:26:25 -0800, "Michael Ejercito"
http://ethicsalarms.com/2019/11/05/unethical-quote-of-the-month-and-stupid-beyond->>belief-as-usual-joy-behar-of-abcs-the-view/
Unethical Quote Of The Month (And STUPID Beyond Belief, As Usual): Joy Behar
Of ABC’s “The View”
NOVEMBER 5, 2019 / JACK MARSHALL
Don't know if this is "unethical" or not-- after all, deceiving and
lying is what leftists *do.*
No doubt about it!


Michael
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
God's Sock Puppet
2019-11-07 16:06:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 04:26:25 -0800, in talk.politics.guns "Michael
Post by Michael Ejercito
Unethical Quote Of The Month (And STUPID Beyond Belief, As Usual): Joy Behar
Of ABC’s “The View”
NOVEMBER 5, 2019 / JACK MARSHALL
(Bear with me: This video will be relevant by the end, I promise..)
“If you’re going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected —
then take the guns away. Don’t tell them ahead of time.”
Well, we oppose the gun industry pushing guns; however, the guns are
already there and you can't put the genie back in the box. A
"buyback" program might work where you have relatively few guns and no
particular secondary export market; however, the US is completely
awash in guns. It's like dope: if a kid is experimenting with
narcotics, taking them away might be effective; however, once a person
has been heavily addicted for several decades, that won't work because
the person will become physically ill and many times violent.

We need a program of titration. First and foremost, we must sell the
idea to the general public. If people *believe* something, then (for
them, anyway) it becomes a fact. People believe that there is some
*right* to a gun, so there is... ten words in a document written by
dead White men 230 years ago really don't matter. Don't worry about
the guns for now; first you must change societal beliefs.

For example, the anti-smoking efforts have not eliminated smoking
however, they have de-normalized it to the point where it has been
banned from public space... mostly.

After that:

1) Pass a universal background check requirement at the federal level
for all gun transfers. This implies a registration database, of
course. This would probably pass today. It won't have much immediate
impact; however, we're looking a couple of decades down the road. In
the short term, it won't take the guns; however, it will add some
administrative delay to a new gun purchase.

2) Repeal 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903; this is the law that protects gun
manufacturers and sellers from litigation. If that were repealed, it
would increase the cost of guns and ammunition significantly because
the manufacturers would be forced to purchase insurance, the cost of
which would be passed on.

3) Repeal the "Dickey Amendment" which prohibits research into gun
violence by the CDC.

These are fairly simple legislative matters that would only require a
simple congressional majority. The big Kahuna, of course, is
de-normalizing guns.
Just Wondering
2019-11-07 18:56:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
Well, we oppose the gun industry pushing guns
No we don't.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
however, the guns are already there
Good.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
and you can't put the genie back in the box.
I've read Aladdin. The genie was in a lamp, not a box.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
A "buyback" program might work where you have relatively few guns
and no particular secondary export market;
"Might"? Can you estimate a probability? 1/100 of 1% is still
"might" but is so unlikely as to be meaningless.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
however, the US is completely awash in guns.
Good.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
It's like dope
No it's not. Recreational drug abuse is harmful. Gun ownership
is not harmful. Violence, yes, but ownership is a big no.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
We need a program of titration.
"A titration is a technique where a solution of known
concentration is used to determine the concentration
of an unknown solution."
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/lab/techniques/titration/what.html
Please explain how to titrate guns.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
First and foremost, we must sell the idea to the general public.
No, we must not. But if you want to sell an idea to the general
public, go right ahead. Nobody's stopping you. Give it your best
shot. Let us know how it works out for you.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
People believe that there is some *right* to a gun, so there
is..
People believe there is a right to defend yourself. In a
world where bad guys have guns, a right to a gun is a corollary
to that right.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
ten words in a document written by dead White men 230 years
ago really don't matter.
Fourteen words codified in the Supreme Law of the Land
really do matter.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
1) Pass a universal background check requirement at the federal level
for all gun transfers. This implies a registration database, of
course. This would probably pass today.
You are not going to get a universal gun registration law enacted.
Period.
Which means you are not going to get universal background checks,
even if you should get a law passed.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
It won't have much immediate impact
You finally wrote something that's probably true.

; however, we're looking a couple of decades down the road.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
In the short term, it won't take the guns; however, it will add some
administrative delay to a new gun purchase.
What delay? A typical background check takes less than five minutes.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
2) Repeal 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903; this is the law that protects gun
manufacturers and sellers from litigation.
No it doesn't. It only bars suits "against a manufacturer or seller
of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive
damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution,
fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or
unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party."

It DOES NOT bar
an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or
negligence per se;
an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product
knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or
marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the
harm for which relief is sought
any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or
conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a
qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that
the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing
or receiving a firearm or ammunition
an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the
purchase of the product
an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting
directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when
used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner
Post by God's Sock Puppet
If that were repealed, it would increase the cost of guns and
ammunition significantly because the manufacturers would be
forced to purchase insurance, the cost of which would be passed on.
Nope. If it was repealed, manufacturers would spend a whole bunch
of money, and valuable court resources would be tied up, litigating
frivolous lawsuits.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
3) Repeal the "Dickey Amendment" which prohibits research into gun
violence by the CDC.
The Dickey Amendment does not prohibit CDC researching gun violence.
It only prohibits CDC from using funds to advocate or promote gun
control. In fact, CDC HAS researched gun violence. Here's one example:
https://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf
Post by God's Sock Puppet
These are fairly simple legislative matters that would only
require a simple congressional majority.
And a President who won't repeal. And a whole shitload of
litigation that would have to go the way you want, damn the
Constitution.
God's Sock Puppet
2019-11-08 01:19:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:56:16 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Wondering <***@jw.com> wrote:

Sorry, I can't follow you. Try writing in sentences... put those into
paragraphs... I'll be happy to look at it again.
Just Wondering
2019-11-08 04:43:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:56:16 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Sorry, I can't follow you.
I'm sorry to learn of your functional illiteracy.
I hope you get help.
God's Sock Puppet
2019-11-08 14:25:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 21:43:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by God's Sock Puppet
Sorry, I can't follow you.
I'm sorry to learn of your functional illiteracy.
I hope you get help.
I'm fine if you want to edit out parts of a posting to which you reply
if you're not replying to that part. I see nothing wrong with it; in
fact, I encourage it. OTOH, I also believe that, if a person edits
for brevity, he or she should do so on a paragraph boundary.

Obviously, when you snip in mid-sentence, you will alter the semantic
meaning of the sentence... and you well know that. Changing the
semantics is dishonest... and you know that also.

Trust me on this, sir: when you have read as many freshman essays as I
have read, you will have read them all! ... and I find that reading
*your* writing to be like reading "Post-It" notes or marginal
comments. I *can* read it; however, it's just too much work, so I
don't.

Sorry.
Just Wondering
2019-11-08 21:12:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 21:43:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by God's Sock Puppet
Sorry, I can't follow you.
I'm sorry to learn of your functional illiteracy.
I hope you get help.
I'm fine if you want to edit out parts of a posting to which you reply
if you're not replying to that part. I see nothing wrong with it; in
fact, I encourage it. OTOH, I also believe that, if a person edits
for brevity, he or she should do so on a paragraph boundary.
Obviously, when you snip in mid-sentence, you will alter the semantic
meaning of the sentence... and you well know that. Changing the
semantics is dishonest... and you know that also.
My post to which you are responding doesn't change any meanings, and you
know that also.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
Trust me on this, sir: when you have read as many freshman essays as I
have read, you will have read them all! ... and I find that reading
*your* writing to be like reading "Post-It" notes or marginal
comments. I *can* read it; however, it's just too much work, so I
don't.
You wrote "We need a program of [gun] titration." My response:

"A titration is a technique where a solution of known
concentration is used to determine the concentration
of an unknown solution."
http://chemed.chem.purdue.edu/genchem/lab/techniques/titration/what.html
Please explain how to titrate guns.

Is that too much for you? What would a program of titration entail?

If I had to guess, I would guess you meant "attrition". When you
have read as many freshmen essays as you claim to have done, you
should know the difference between titration and attrition.
God's Sock Puppet
2019-11-08 22:38:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:12:16 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Is that too much for you? What would a program of titration entail?
No sir... I know what "titration" means; it's a term used in drug
withdrawal programs where the therapist is trying to derive the
minimal dose of the drug (usually a diazepine or some such) where
"cold turkey" would be hazardous.

Hey... suppose we just came in and took your guns? Why, you'd blow up
federal buildings; you'd barricade yourselves into your homes and
immolate your families... and we do *not* want to go there.

So, the idea is that we become a society that is unfriendly to guns.
You know... you carry a gun into a restaurant and your wife gets a
milk shake thrown in her face... people spit at you and your children.

But, we won't try to *take* your guns because we'd end up getting
blamed for your suicide... I thought that was a liberal thing;
however, you people do use it effectively.

(Hey, as far as *I* am concerned, go ahead and burn your family.)
Just Wondering
2019-11-09 03:59:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:12:16 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Is that too much for you? What would a program of titration entail?
No sir... I know what "titration" means; it's a term used in drug
withdrawal programs where the therapist is trying to derive the
minimal dose of the drug (usually a diazepine or some such) where
"cold turkey" would be hazardous.
Hey... suppose we just came in and took your guns?
Guns? WHAT guns? I don't have any guns.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
So, the idea is that we become a society that is unfriendly to guns.
You know... you carry a gun into a restaurant and your wife gets a
milk shake thrown in her face... people spit at you and your children.
You want a society where people commit acts of criminal violence
against other people just because they peacefully exercise a right
protected by the Constitution. Got it.
Just Wondering
2019-11-08 21:14:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 21:43:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by God's Sock Puppet
Sorry, I can't follow you.
I'm sorry to learn of your functional illiteracy.
I hope you get help.
I'm fine if you want to edit out parts of a posting to which you reply
if you're not replying to that part. I see nothing wrong with it; in
fact, I encourage it. OTOH, I also believe that, if a person edits
for brevity, he or she should do so on a paragraph boundary.
Obviously, when you snip in mid-sentence, you will alter the semantic
meaning of the sentence... and you well know that. Changing the
semantics is dishonest... and you know that also.
Trust me on this, sir: when you have read as many freshman essays as I
have read, you will have read them all! ... and I find that reading
*your* writing to be like reading "Post-It" notes or marginal
comments. I *can* read it; however, it's just too much work, so I
don't.
You wrote, "First and foremost, we must sell the idea [of gun
titration] to the general public." I responded, "No, we must not.
But if you want to sell an idea to the general public, go right
ahead. Nobody's stopping you. Give it your best shot. Let us
know how it works out for you." IF that's too much for you, it's
your problem, not mine.
God's Sock Puppet
2019-11-08 22:39:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:14:51 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
You wrote, "First and foremost, we must sell the idea [of gun
titration] to the general public." I responded, "No, we must not.
But if you want to sell an idea to the general public, go right
ahead. Nobody's stopping you. Give it your best shot. Let us
know how it works out for you." IF that's too much for you, it's
your problem, not mine.
Thank you for your intelligent reply.
Just Wondering
2019-11-08 21:17:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 21:43:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by God's Sock Puppet
Sorry, I can't follow you.
I'm sorry to learn of your functional illiteracy.
I hope you get help.
I'm fine if you want to edit out parts of a posting to which you reply
if you're not replying to that part. I see nothing wrong with it; in
fact, I encourage it. OTOH, I also believe that, if a person edits
for brevity, he or she should do so on a paragraph boundary.
Obviously, when you snip in mid-sentence, you will alter the semantic
meaning of the sentence... and you well know that. Changing the
semantics is dishonest... and you know that also.
Trust me on this, sir: when you have read as many freshman essays as I
have read, you will have read them all! ... and I find that reading
*your* writing to be like reading "Post-It" notes or marginal
comments. I *can* read it; however, it's just too much work, so I
don't.
You wrote, "ten words in a document written by dead White men 230
years ago really don't matter." You didn't specify, but I assume
you had the Second Amendment in mind. I responded, "Fourteen
words codified in the Supreme Law of the Land really do matter."
If that's too much work for you, it's your problem, not mine.
God's Sock Puppet
2019-11-08 22:40:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:17:18 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
You wrote, "ten words in a document written by dead White men 230
years ago really don't matter." You didn't specify, but I assume
you had the Second Amendment in mind. I responded, "Fourteen
words codified in the Supreme Law of the Land really do matter."
If that's too much work for you, it's your problem, not mine.
No, they don't. SCOTUS is easily and often overturned.
Just Wondering
2019-11-09 04:00:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:17:18 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
You wrote, "ten words in a document written by dead White men 230
years ago really don't matter." You didn't specify, but I assume
you had the Second Amendment in mind. I responded, "Fourteen
words codified in the Supreme Law of the Land really do matter."
If that's too much work for you, it's your problem, not mine.
No, they don't. SCOTUS is easily and often overturned.
Not when it comes to its holdings on what the Constitution says.
Just Wondering
2019-11-08 21:19:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 21:43:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by God's Sock Puppet
Sorry, I can't follow you.
I'm sorry to learn of your functional illiteracy.
I hope you get help.
I'm fine if you want to edit out parts of a posting to which you reply
if you're not replying to that part. I see nothing wrong with it; in
fact, I encourage it. OTOH, I also believe that, if a person edits
for brevity, he or she should do so on a paragraph boundary.
Obviously, when you snip in mid-sentence, you will alter the semantic
meaning of the sentence... and you well know that. Changing the
semantics is dishonest... and you know that also.
Trust me on this, sir: when you have read as many freshman essays as I
have read, you will have read them all! ... and I find that reading
*your* writing to be like reading "Post-It" notes or marginal
comments. I *can* read it; however, it's just too much work, so I
don't.
You wrote, " 1) Pass a universal background check requirement at
the federal level for all gun transfers. This implies a registration
database, of course. This would probably pass today."
I responded,
You are not going to get a universal gun registration law enacted.
Period.
Which means you are not going to get universal background checks,
even if you should get a law passed.

If that's too much work for you, it's your problem, not mine.
God's Sock Puppet
2019-11-08 22:43:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:19:01 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
You wrote, " 1) Pass a universal background check requirement at
the federal level for all gun transfers. This implies a registration
database, of course. This would probably pass today."
I responded,
You are not going to get a universal gun registration law enacted.
Period.
Which means you are not going to get universal background checks,
even if you should get a law passed.
If that's too much work for you, it's your problem, not mine.
Oh... all we need is a simple majority and that's likely a done
deal... well, who the f*** knows, but it's in the cards and
politically popular even with Republican voters.

We just need a few more mass shootings and it'll happen.
Just Wondering
2019-11-09 04:04:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:19:01 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
You wrote, " 1) Pass a universal background check requirement at
the federal level for all gun transfers. This implies a registration
database, of course. This would probably pass today."
I responded, You are not going to get a universal gun registration
law enacted.
Period.
Which means you are not going to get universal background checks,
even if you should get a law passed.
If that's too much work for you, it's your problem, not mine.
Oh... all we need is a simple majority and that's likely a done
deal... well, who the f*** knows, but it's in the cards and
politically popular even with Republican voters.
We just need a few more mass shootings and it'll happen.
Try it. What you will get is 60 million law-abiding citizens
saying "I will not comply" - and they won't. But you're drifting
far afield of what is needed. What we need are solutions to
violent crime. What you want does not address what we need.
Just Wondering
2019-11-08 21:24:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 21:43:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by God's Sock Puppet
Sorry, I can't follow you.
I'm sorry to learn of your functional illiteracy.
I hope you get help.
I'm fine if you want to edit out parts of a posting to which you reply
if you're not replying to that part. I see nothing wrong with it; in
fact, I encourage it. OTOH, I also believe that, if a person edits
for brevity, he or she should do so on a paragraph boundary.
Obviously, when you snip in mid-sentence, you will alter the semantic
meaning of the sentence... and you well know that. Changing the
semantics is dishonest... and you know that also.
Trust me on this, sir: when you have read as many freshman essays as I
have read, you will have read them all! ... and I find that reading
*your* writing to be like reading "Post-It" notes or marginal
comments. I *can* read it; however, it's just too much work, so I
don't.
You wrote: "2) Repeal 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903; this is the law that
protects gun manufacturers and sellers from litigation."

I took pains to explain why your statement is incorrect, that 15 U.S.C.
§§ 7901-7903 "only bars suits 'against a manufacturer or seller
of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive
damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution,
fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or
unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party.'"

It DOES NOT bar
an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or
negligence per se;
an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product
knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or
marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the
harm for which relief is sought
any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or
conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a
qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that
the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing
or receiving a firearm or ammunition
an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the
purchase of the product
an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting
directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when
used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner

Unlike you, I actually looked at the law, and quoted directly from it.
I am right and you're wrong, and that's all there is to it.

You also wrote, "If that [15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903] were repealed,
it would increase the cost of guns and ammunition significantly
because the manufacturers would be forced to purchase insurance,
the cost of which would be passed on." To that, I replied, "Nope.
If it was repealed, manufacturers would spend a whole bunch of
money, and valuable court resources would be tied up, litigating
frivolous lawsuits." Again, I am right and you're wrong, and
that's all there is to it.

But I understand if all that is just too much work for your brain
to comprehend.
God's Sock Puppet
2019-11-08 22:49:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:24:26 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
You wrote: "2) Repeal 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903; this is the law that
protects gun manufacturers and sellers from litigation."
I took pains to explain why your statement is incorrect, that 15 U.S.C.
§§ 7901-7903 "only bars suits 'against a manufacturer or seller
of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive
damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution,
fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or
unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party.'"
It DOES NOT bar
an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or
negligence per se;
an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product
knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or
marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the
harm for which relief is sought
any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or
conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a
qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that
the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing
or receiving a firearm or ammunition
an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the
purchase of the product
an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting
directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when
used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner
Unlike you, I actually looked at the law, and quoted directly from it.
I am right and you're wrong, and that's all there is to it.
You also wrote, "If that [15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903] were repealed,
it would increase the cost of guns and ammunition significantly
because the manufacturers would be forced to purchase insurance,
the cost of which would be passed on." To that, I replied, "Nope.
If it was repealed, manufacturers would spend a whole bunch of
money, and valuable court resources would be tied up, litigating
frivolous lawsuits." Again, I am right and you're wrong, and
that's all there is to it.
But I understand if all that is just too much work for your brain
to comprehend.
No... JW, it isn't difficult: the objective is to drive the cost of
guns up. That law pushes them down. If we repeal it, the cost of
guns and ammunition immediately doubles... and that is the objective.

Hey, you can cite some document written by people two centuries dead
and claim: "It's our *right*!", but we don't have to subsidize you...
buy insurance like every other business has to.

Yeah, it's your *right* (until we can repeal it), but we don't have to
be friendly to you... we wish you'd move someplace else if you don't
like it.
Just Wondering
2019-11-09 04:05:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:24:26 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
You wrote: "2) Repeal 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903; this is the law that
protects gun manufacturers and sellers from litigation."
I took pains to explain why your statement is incorrect, that 15 U.S.C.
§§ 7901-7903 "only bars suits 'against a manufacturer or seller
of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive
damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution,
fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or
unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party.'"
It DOES NOT bar
an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or
negligence per se;
an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product
knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or
marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the
harm for which relief is sought
any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or
conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a
qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that
the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing
or receiving a firearm or ammunition
an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the
purchase of the product
an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting
directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when
used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner
Unlike you, I actually looked at the law, and quoted directly from it.
I am right and you're wrong, and that's all there is to it.
You also wrote, "If that [15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903] were repealed,
it would increase the cost of guns and ammunition significantly
because the manufacturers would be forced to purchase insurance,
the cost of which would be passed on." To that, I replied, "Nope.
If it was repealed, manufacturers would spend a whole bunch of
money, and valuable court resources would be tied up, litigating
frivolous lawsuits." Again, I am right and you're wrong, and
that's all there is to it.
But I understand if all that is just too much work for your brain
to comprehend.
No... JW, it isn't difficult: the objective is to drive the cost of
guns up. That law pushes them down. If we repeal it, the cost of
guns and ammunition immediately doubles... and that is the objective.
Hey, you can cite some document written by people two centuries dead
and claim: "It's our *right*!", but we don't have to subsidize you...
buy insurance like every other business has to.
Yeah, it's your *right* (until we can repeal it), but we don't have to
be friendly to you... we wish you'd move someplace else if you don't
like it.
You live in a fantasy world of your own creation. Again, that's
your problem, not mine.
Michael Ejercito
2019-11-09 17:59:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Just Wondering
Post by God's Sock Puppet
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:24:26 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
You wrote: "2) Repeal 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903; this is the law that
protects gun manufacturers and sellers from litigation."
I took pains to explain why your statement is incorrect, that 15 U.S.C.
§§ 7901-7903 "only bars suits 'against a manufacturer or seller
of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages, punitive
damages, injunctive or declaratory relief, abatement, restitution,
fines, or penalties, or other relief, resulting from the criminal or
unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party.'"
It DOES NOT bar
an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or
negligence per se;
an action in which a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product
knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or
marketing of the product, and the violation was a proximate cause of the
harm for which relief is sought
any case in which the manufacturer or seller aided, abetted, or
conspired with any other person to sell or otherwise dispose of a
qualified product, knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that
the actual buyer of the qualified product was prohibited from possessing
or receiving a firearm or ammunition
an action for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the
purchase of the product
an action for death, physical injuries or property damage resulting
directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when
used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner
Unlike you, I actually looked at the law, and quoted directly from it.
I am right and you're wrong, and that's all there is to it.
You also wrote, "If that [15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903] were repealed,
it would increase the cost of guns and ammunition significantly
because the manufacturers would be forced to purchase insurance,
the cost of which would be passed on." To that, I replied, "Nope.
If it was repealed, manufacturers would spend a whole bunch of
money, and valuable court resources would be tied up, litigating
frivolous lawsuits." Again, I am right and you're wrong, and
that's all there is to it.
But I understand if all that is just too much work for your brain
to comprehend.
No... JW, it isn't difficult: the objective is to drive the cost of
guns up. That law pushes them down. If we repeal it, the cost of
guns and ammunition immediately doubles... and that is the objective.
Hey, you can cite some document written by people two centuries dead
and claim: "It's our *right*!", but we don't have to subsidize you...
buy insurance like every other business has to.
Yeah, it's your *right* (until we can repeal it), but we don't have to
be friendly to you... we wish you'd move someplace else if you don't
like it.
You live in a fantasy world of your own creation. Again, that's
your problem, not mine.
Note that Jonesy wants the state to DELIBERATELY drive the costs of gun
ownership up.

Are there any other rights for which he wants to drive up the costs
deliberately?


Michael
God's Sock Puppet
2019-11-09 22:25:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 9 Nov 2019 09:59:25 -0800, in talk.politics.guns "Michael
Post by Michael Ejercito
Note that Jonesy wants the state to DELIBERATELY drive the costs of gun
ownership up.
No, dickbreath... I want the state to quit deliberately pushing the
cost of gun manufactuaing *down*.

Fucking morons!

Just Wondering
2019-11-08 21:26:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 21:43:21 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Post by God's Sock Puppet
Sorry, I can't follow you.
I'm sorry to learn of your functional illiteracy.
I hope you get help.
I'm fine if you want to edit out parts of a posting to which you reply
if you're not replying to that part. I see nothing wrong with it; in
fact, I encourage it. OTOH, I also believe that, if a person edits
for brevity, he or she should do so on a paragraph boundary.
Obviously, when you snip in mid-sentence, you will alter the semantic
meaning of the sentence... and you well know that. Changing the
semantics is dishonest... and you know that also.
Trust me on this, sir: when you have read as many freshman essays as I
have read, you will have read them all! ... and I find that reading
*your* writing to be like reading "Post-It" notes or marginal
comments. I *can* read it; however, it's just too much work, so I
don't.
You wrote, "3) Repeal the "Dickey Amendment" which prohibits research
into gun violence by the CDC."
I responded, The Dickey Amendment does not prohibit CDC researching
gun violence. It only prohibits CDC from using funds to advocate or
promote gun control. In fact, CDC HAS researched gun violence.
Here's one example:
https://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf

I am right and you are wrong. If it's just too much work for you to
comprehend that, it is your problem, not mine.
God's Sock Puppet
2019-11-08 22:52:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:26:37 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
I am right and you are wrong. If it's just too much work for you to
comprehend that, it is your problem, not mine.
Whatever. Repeal it anyway.
God's Sock Puppet
2019-11-08 01:35:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:56:16 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
I've read Aladdin. The genie was in a lamp, not a box.
I doubt it. The title wasn't "Aladdin"; it was: *The Arabian Nights*
or *The Book of One Thousand and One Nights*. "Aladdin and the Magic
Lamp" was but one story that was turned into an illustrated children's
book. The original was in Arabic and predated the US Constitution...
or parts of it did, anyway.

My copy was printed in 1906.

But I was really talking about Barbara Eden's character in the TV
show.
Just Wondering
2019-11-08 04:42:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:56:16 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
I've read Aladdin. The genie was in a lamp, not a box.
I doubt it. The title wasn't "Aladdin"; it was: *The Arabian Nights*
or *The Book of One Thousand and One Nights*. "Aladdin and the Magic
Lamp" was but one story that was turned into an illustrated children's
book. The original was in Arabic and predated the US Constitution...
or parts of it did, anyway.
I never claimed otherwise.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
My copy was printed in 1906.
But I was really talking about Barbara Eden's character in the TV
show.
Barbara Eden's character in "I Dream of Jeanie" didn't live in a box.
God's Sock Puppet
2019-11-08 14:35:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 21:42:31 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Barbara Eden's character in "I Dream of Jeanie" didn't live in a box.
I don't know; I don't watch sit-coms and never have. My wife
threatened me until I got the first cable subscription of my life a
few months ago... it's a waste of money IMHO. Well... TCM is good, I
suppose.

And I can switch back and forth between Fox News and CNN; I can't
believe they're broadcasting from the same planet! I doubt that an
intelligent consumer would watch either of them. If I had to choose
only one medium, I'd probably choose *USA Today*.

I bet you watch Fox.
Just Wondering
2019-11-08 21:36:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
On Thu, 7 Nov 2019 21:42:31 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
Barbara Eden's character in "I Dream of Jeanie" didn't live in a box.
I don't know; I don't watch sit-coms and never have. My wife
threatened me until I got the first cable subscription of my life a
few months ago... it's a waste of money IMHO. Well... TCM is good, I
suppose.
And I can switch back and forth between Fox News and CNN; I can't
believe they're broadcasting from the same planet! I doubt that an
intelligent consumer would watch either of them. If I had to choose
only one medium, I'd probably choose *USA Today*.
I bet you watch Fox.
How much do you want to bet? I'll bet you $10,000, make it $100,000,
that I don't watch Fox. Or any cable news channel, for that matter.
I do occasionally watch TCM because I like old John Wayne movies.
God's Sock Puppet
2019-11-08 22:51:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 14:36:39 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Just
Post by Just Wondering
How much do you want to bet?
Oh... a million dollars, I suppose; isn't that the usual bet?

And, now... we need someone to hold the money, right?

Is this stupid enough yet?
Michael Ejercito
2019-11-08 14:54:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by God's Sock Puppet
We need a program of titration. First and foremost, we must sell the
idea to the general public. If people *believe* something, then (for
them, anyway) it becomes a fact. People believe that there is some
*right* to a gun, so there is... ten words in a document written by
dead White men 230 years ago really don't matter. Don't worry about
the guns for now; first you must change societal beliefs.
Peopl;e also believe that they have a right to be free from unreasonable
searches and seizures, a right to a fair trial, a right to equal protection
under the law.
Post by God's Sock Puppet
For example, the anti-smoking efforts have not eliminated smoking
however, they have de-normalized it to the point where it has been
banned from public space... mostly.
An anti-gun campaign can not work unless all government institutions give
up their guns.

Otherwise, it reeks of hypocrisy.


Michael
God's Sock Puppet
2019-11-08 22:53:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 06:54:53 -0800, in talk.politics.guns "Michael
Post by Michael Ejercito
An anti-gun campaign can not work unless all government institutions give
up their guns.
Poof!
plainolamerican
2019-11-08 21:33:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Michael Ejercito
http://ethicsalarms.com/2019/11/05/unethical-quote-of-the-month-and-stupid-beyond-belief-as-usual-joy-behar-of-abcs-the-view/
Unethical Quote Of The Month (And STUPID Beyond Belief, As Usual): Joy Behar
Of ABC’s “The View”
NOVEMBER 5, 2019 / JACK MARSHALL
(Bear with me: This video will be relevant by the end, I promise..)
“If you’re going to take people’s guns away, wait until you get elected —
then take the guns away. Don’t tell them ahead of time.”
“The View’s” panelist Joy Behar, commenting on Beto O’Rourke’s exit from the
Democratic presidential nomination race after announcing that he advocated
the confiscation of semi-automatic weapons.
I don’t even watch “The View,” and Joy Behar’s ignorant and strident vocal
abuses of law, ethics and logic have still made it into many Ethics Alarms
posts. Imagine if I actually watched the show regularly. The woman is
astoundingly ignorant, and celebrates it, issuing loud and emphatic opinions
that would be argued down in a competent 7th grade class (if there are such
things), yet ABC gives her a public platform that is only responsibly
reserved for, if not brilliant and knowledgeable pundits, at least ones that
could win a game of Scrabble with a Dachshund puppy.
You know what her last featured howler was on Ethics Alarms? This: she
asked, in reference to a President Trump tweet mocking Rep. Omar, “Why can’t
he be brought up on charges of hate speech?Why can’t he be sued by the ACLU
for hate speech? I don’t get it. How does he get away with this?”
Why? WHY, you incredibly ill-informed woman? Because there is no such crime
as “hate speech.” Because the ACLU defends free speech, it doesn’t sue
people for what they say. You don’t get it because you’re the most
illiterate, ignorant pundit on television, maybe on television since its
inception. He gets away with this because it’s the United States, and we
have a Bill of Rights. Or as the late Sam Kinison would say,
This latest must be my favorite Joy cretinism. See, she’s a typical
progressive totalitarian as well as a dolt. The way to get your agenda
enacted is to lie to the public so they vote you into office based on false
pretenses! Sure, that’s the ticket! And not just any agenda, either—this
isn’t like Barack Obama promising to be a unifying President who favored
neither black not white. No, Joy wants candidates who plan on gutting
individual rights to lie about their plans so citizens will go to the polls
like lambs to the slaughter. Usually it’s villains that TV shows trying this
trick, monsters like Hitler and Sideshow Bob. The View has a permanent
panelist who endorses that route to power, openly, proudly.
She better watch out: Democrats don’t want her spilling the beans like that,
Of course, the strategy is impossible. To begin with it’s unconstitutional,
but naturally Joy, having slept through school, doesn’t know this. Second,
eventually people would find out that Beto’s Brownshirts were going door to
Joy just says whatever flotsam and jetsom flots into her cranium, and does
her level best to make View viewers as brick-stupid as she is. Here are
Speaking of Joe Biden’s habitual groping: “It’s a long way from smelling
your hair to grabbing your hoo-ha… I don’t think it rises to the point we’ve
been listening to like Harvey Weinstein and the rest of these people”
“Because we’re desperate to get Trump out of office. That’s why.”
Explaining how the GOP can control the Senate when more votes were cast for
Democrats in the House: “Because of gerrymandering!”
On the Senate Judiciary Committee in the Kavanaugh hearings: “These white
men, old by the way, are not protecting women… They’re protecting a man who
is probably guilty.”
Responding to Alan Dershowitz’s criticism of Mitch Mconnell blocking the
Merrick Garland nomination: “Well then how come Mitch McConnell is not in
jail? That’s what I want to know.”
There are many more. Now, Joy has a right to be stupid, but she does not
have a right to have a major network facilitating her making the public
stupid. As I wrote here, I don’t advocate her being forced off the air by
boycotts, in the manner that so-called liberals have tried to silence Rush
Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson. That’s
censorship; that’s the Left’s MO in 2019. However, it is irresponsible for
any network to package the clueless opinions of a woman with the intellect
of a Pet Rock for public consumption. It’s like selling tainted food, or a
car that keeps breaking down.
It is broadcast malpractice. She should be fired. She should have been fired
years ago.
I even wrote a song about it. Sing the words to the music of “How do you
solve a problem like Maria?”(from “The Sound of Music”) in the video above.
I skipped the intro: it starts with the main theme.
Can’t The View Fire an Idiot Like Joy Behar?
Can’t the View fire an idiot like Joy Behar?
Why can’t they put that loudmouth in her place?
The View should protect the public from her nonsense
And wipe that smug expression off her face.
Many a thing you know they’d like to tell her
There is so much she doesn’t understand
But how can they make her read
Or research before a screed
You might as well try to lift a baby grand…
Oh, how do you fix an idiot like Joy Behar?
When will this moron finally be canned?
She is constantly confused
Ill-informed and so bemused
Hasn’t read the Constitution even once…
She’s predictable I guess
Since her values are a mess
She’s not clever! She’s not funny! She’s a dunce!
But Joy’s certain she is smart
And with gusto plays the part
Of the brave progressive warrior at work
Confrontational and loud,
She’s intolerant and proud
She’s embarrassing…let’s face it,
She’s a jerk.
Can’t the View fire an idiot like Joy Behar?
Why do they want to make their viewers dumb?
It’s so perverse inflicting her like they are…
Her opinions are like a drug that makes brains numb.
Many a thing you know you’d like to tell her
Millions of things she doesn’t know and more
But how do you make her stay
And listen to what you say
When her IQ is stuck at eighty-four?
Why can’t they fire an idiot like Joy Behar?
Why won’t they show that imbecile the door?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
jews and guns rarely work together.
The Peeler
2019-11-08 22:46:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 13:33:55 -0800 (PST), plaingaydumbmuzzieshit spouted yet
Post by plainolamerican
jews and guns rarely work together.
You mean, somewhat like muzzies and brains don't, plaingaydumbmuzzieshit?
Loading...