"We are not curtailing your rights. We are curtailing your hobby."

[Freeper]

WilliamPitt (53,293 posts)

"We are not curtailing your rights. We are curtailing your hobby."


 
I read that somewhere on DU, and it says it all.

"We are not curtailing your rights. We are curtailing your hobby."

Pass it on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022220817

Dear Gays, Lesbians, and whatever else is out there, when we say no to gay marriage we aren't curtailing your rights, we are curtailing your hobby.
Pass it on.

Dear pot smokers, and other drug users, we are not curtailing your rights we are curtailing your hobby too.

Martin Eden (4,042 posts)
2. My response to a wingnut who says banning assault rifles would "punish" law-abiding gun owners:

Making assault weapons no longer available for purchase is not "punishment" any more than telling a child he can't have the latest monster-style Tonka truck when he has plenty of other Tonka trucks in his fleet of vehicular toys.

Gun "enthiusiasts" need to grow up and out of their obsession with assault rifles, or find a different way to grow a pair.

 

derby378 (27,852 posts)
3. Rationalize it all you like...

...but you are still telling law-abiding Americans that when they wake up the morning after the ban passes, they are going to have fewer rights and freedoms than they had the previous day.

That's why I have to call bullshit on your premise, even as you try to belittle a right into a "hobby" and so on. I've been involved in Democratic gun activism ever since 2005 (and have tried to be nice about it all along, unlike some of these Teahadist mouth-breathers), and even after Sandy Hook, I see no reason to throw in the towel.

Enjoy your stay. You not only went against the hive, you poked at Wee Willie.

WilliamPitt (53,293 posts)
5. My ****ing hero.

Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:01 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

You're losing the argument.

Comprehensively.

Bone up on your coping skills. You're going to need them.

In the meantime, whatever you do, please don't go **** yourself. It would be a bitter shame if you went and ****ed yourself.

So don't. **** yourself, I mean.

madinmaryland (51,470 posts)
8. If General William Tecumseh Sherman had just completed the job after reaching the Atlantic

Ocean, we would not have that problem now. The South should have been Shermanized. **** THE GUN NUTTERS.

 

Now if Sherman has been killing brown people the DUmp would have hated him. He was killing crackers so that's fine and dandy.

[ChuckJ]

Couldn't the same be said of abortions?

[Freeper]

Couldn't the same be said of abortions?

Yes it could.

Dear sluts both male and female. When it comes to abortion we are not curtailing your rights, we are curtailing your hobby.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Couldn't the same be said of abortions?

I was thinking of William Whoreson's personal hobby (from a thread also captured by the invaluable Freeper):

Nuclear Unicorn (6,005 posts)

It is insane the number of people killed annually by [View all]

people under the influence of alcohol. How many drunk drivers and abusive bastards hurt children each year? Alcohol is involved in the majority of sexual assaults but weapons only account in 1/5.

Guns can be used for protection (from alcoholic exes, no less), hunting and sports. What purpose does alcohol serve? Where is there a right to get drunk? Who needs more than 1 drink? The repeal of Prohibition was the distillery industry to peddle their poison that kills the users and hurts those around them. How much of our national healthcare could be improved if we didn't have to mop up after those who peddle alcohol? No one needs a high-capacity case of alcoholic beverages. Why not register people purchasing alcohol to make sure repeat DUI ofenders don't buy alcohol? People should be licensed to drink and have to renew that license every 5 years after an extensive background check. Does your right to own a vast array of alcoholic beverages trump the right of living, breathing people to move about safely? Obviously the laws we have now are insufficient to stop alcohol related crimes, deaths and injuries and all people should support reasonable alcohol control. I bet the detractors have a whole bunch talking points "ginned-up" by the alcohol producers' lobby; who should be declared a terrorist organization. There making billions annually off of the misery of millions. Lemme guess: they can have your whiskey bottle when they can pry it from your cold, dead hand. Happiness is a cold beer. Only crazy people "need" alcohol and those are the first people who should be kept from having it. I'm not saying confiscate (wait a minute, yes I am) but we could make sure the taxes are $500 a bottle. THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DRINK!

If you don't support prohibiton then you are morally responsible for the tens of thousands of people killed by alcohol related incidences each year. Ditto the sexual assaults, domestic violence and child abuse. Their blood is on your hands.

A Jury voted 4-2 to hide this post on Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:16 PM. Reason: This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See Community Standards.) When the original post in a discussion thread is hidden by Jury decision, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted. Hide post

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,82987.0.html

[Freeper]

I was thinking of William Whoreson's personal hobby (from a thread also captured by the invaluable Freeper):

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,82987.0.html

Dear drunks we are not curtailing your rights, we are curtailing your hobby.

I also thought

Dear DUmmies we are not curtailing your rights by shutting down DU, we are curtailing your hobby.
You may cite the first amendment, but just like the founders didn't know about assault weapons they didn't know about the internet so free speech can be infringed.