Still more gun control mishmash from Slott
3 Comments Published by Avi Green on Thursday, May 29, 2014 at 8:17 AM.
He's clearly become resentful of me, as the following tweets should tell:
Really? Gee, what an honor, coming from such a botch of a writer! He won't mention directly that it's me, because he must not want to give me any traffic. No matter.
What, you mean a smart gun? Tell us about it. And what makes him think criminals couldn't use knives and baseball bats?
He might also want to ponder that yesterday, two armed intruders broke into an Orosi house where 4 siblings were living, two of them very young, and wounded the brave 22-year-old who endured bullets to protect the rest of the family from their own onslaught (H/T: Breitbart California). Does Slott think the older sibling was wrong to defend the rest of the family from those two tyrants?
Sorry, but if you're fine with guns in fiction, then you're basically saying a real life invention was okay to create since the 15th-16th centuries when they first turned up. He also seems uncomfy with the 2nd Amendment:
And Slott's forgotten instantly that the second part of the sentence from the Amendment defends the common citizen's right to self-defense. He may not understand that "militia" in those older times meant army and police force.
No, we appreciate having police movements to protect the public, but that doesn't mean we must rely on them 100 percent, because police and army can also fall victim to corruption and incompetence. That's how Rodger managed to commit his offensive crimes.
He must think everybody's greedy to own all kind of weapons just for sport. Besides, tanks and machine guns weren't invented yet in the 17th-18th century. And I don't think the gatling gun, a precursor to machine guns, was built until the 19th.
I still can't see the logic here. Rodger used a handgun. Is Slott suddenly fine with pistols?
And he's not the only one to chime in with more left-wing politics. Here's another moonbat in Marvel's staff:
I'm not sure if Brevoort is in charge of editing Silver Surfer, but it should be no surprise if tomorrow, they will work gun control arguments into Norrin Radd's stories.
And then, after Slott retweeted a picture of Jack Kirby in his army days:
Well the guy's right, he is speaking with a forked tongue. He's also getting pretty boring for that matter. And again, he's oblivious to the fact that Rodger committed stabbings too against his male roommates, who were all of Asian background. Those details never matter to somebody as poorly informed as Slott is.
Guy who thinks I'm a hypocrite for writing Silver Surfer & wanting gun control ('cause Surfer "shoots stuff out of his hands) is at it again
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 25, 2014
"It makes little difference whether Surfer kills or not; that power cosmic is very formidable, and could be lethal on mortal beings." Idiot.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 25, 2014
Really? Gee, what an honor, coming from such a botch of a writer! He won't mention directly that it's me, because he must not want to give me any traffic. No matter.
His new problem: "Does Slott really think criminals would buy smart guns? He needs to wake up." No. I said they'd cause less gun deaths.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 25, 2014
Smart guns would cut down on home intruders using an owner's gun against them. Also they'd prevent a child from firing that same gun. #Truth
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 25, 2014
What, you mean a smart gun? Tell us about it. And what makes him think criminals couldn't use knives and baseball bats?
He might also want to ponder that yesterday, two armed intruders broke into an Orosi house where 4 siblings were living, two of them very young, and wounded the brave 22-year-old who endured bullets to protect the rest of the family from their own onslaught (H/T: Breitbart California). Does Slott think the older sibling was wrong to defend the rest of the family from those two tyrants?
Just so we're clear here: I write comic books. I don't endorse real life guns. Or people really swinging off buildings. Or real giant apes.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 25, 2014
Sorry, but if you're fine with guns in fiction, then you're basically saying a real life invention was okay to create since the 15th-16th centuries when they first turned up. He also seems uncomfy with the 2nd Amendment:
A well REGULATED militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 27, 2014
A lot of people seem to forget that part.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 27, 2014
And Slott's forgotten instantly that the second part of the sentence from the Amendment defends the common citizen's right to self-defense. He may not understand that "militia" in those older times meant army and police force.
@Ti_Leo I agree. Just putting up the entire 2nd Amendment, 'cause a lot of its "supporters" like to forget the 1st pt and focus on the other
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 27, 2014
No, we appreciate having police movements to protect the public, but that doesn't mean we must rely on them 100 percent, because police and army can also fall victim to corruption and incompetence. That's how Rodger managed to commit his offensive crimes.
@GunSenseUSA @Cappers54 At the time of the founding, what did "arms" mean? Do you think the founders meant assault rifles? Tanks? Napalm?
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 27, 2014
He must think everybody's greedy to own all kind of weapons just for sport. Besides, tanks and machine guns weren't invented yet in the 17th-18th century. And I don't think the gatling gun, a precursor to machine guns, was built until the 19th.
And for those who missed it: I'm not against the 2nd Amendment. My main problem is w/ assault rifles, large clips, & gun show loop holes.
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 25, 2014
I still can't see the logic here. Rodger used a handgun. Is Slott suddenly fine with pistols?
And he's not the only one to chime in with more left-wing politics. Here's another moonbat in Marvel's staff:
@DanSlott I wish Silver Surfer was about gun control arguments at this point, because you'd have written issues of it.
— Tom Brevoort (@TomBrevoort) May 25, 2014
I'm not sure if Brevoort is in charge of editing Silver Surfer, but it should be no surprise if tomorrow, they will work gun control arguments into Norrin Radd's stories.
And then, after Slott retweeted a picture of Jack Kirby in his army days:
Wow. RT @miniditka01 @DanSlott Funny. Your for gun control yet you retweet a picture of Jack Kirby in his military uniform. #hypocrite
— Dan Slott (@DanSlott) May 28, 2014
Well the guy's right, he is speaking with a forked tongue. He's also getting pretty boring for that matter. And again, he's oblivious to the fact that Rodger committed stabbings too against his male roommates, who were all of Asian background. Those details never matter to somebody as poorly informed as Slott is.
Labels: bad editors, marvel comics, moonbat writers, politics, violence
In the late 1700's, a single-shot rifle was a state-of-the-art weapon, and it was the same type of weapon used by the military. Today, the same could be said about the AR-15 rifle or a 16-shot automatic pistol.
They didn't have fully automatic (or even semi-automatic) firearms in 1789. They also didn't have the internet, TV, radio, or telephones. Does that mean the First Amendment is obsolete?
In the 1700's, "well regulated" could mean well-trained, well-equipped, or just "in proper working order." And "militia" could mean all citizens, not necessarily professional soldiers or police. Legislation passed in 1792 basically defined "militia" as including any citizen qualified to vote. (But Fuhrer Obama and Commissar Holder say that a citizen with no criminal record should be barred from owning a gun, while a convicted armed robber should be allowed to vote.)
Smart guns, if they worked, would prevent criminals from using the good guys' own guns against them, and they would prevent children from accidentally firing them. But so would using a little common sense and storing firearms (and power tools, knives, and household chemicals like bleach or ammonia) securely. But Heaven forbid that people should ever accept any kind of personal responsibility for anything.
Slott is just spouting off to maintain his libprog credentials. Even this won't dissuade him. He lives, after all, in a comfy "progressive" bubble.
Another twist of Slott:
"It's not about changing an amendment. It's about understanding it was NEVER intended as the freedom 2 stockpile personal arsenals"
I am sorry but how does he know what it intended...he does not he knows what he wants it to mean.
Sorry Day you do not understand what it intended and if it had intended a limit it would have stated that fact. It is funny because he proves the failure of his logic with a statment that he made:
"It's clearly there in the 2nd Amendment: Well regulated militias get to eat at Chili's, Chipotle & Jack In The Box. "
So he cliams the Amendment needs to be specific in one statment then he claimes it does not in another.
This guy cannot even back up his own bull.