"Actress Katee Sackoff said she lost half of her Twitter followers when she tweeted a message urging people to practice gun safety."
How's that for an opening line? Sackoff lost approx. 100,000 of her ~200k Twitter followers because she thought it important for people to practice "gun SAFETY" and tweeted so.
What's wrong with that? If you're a gun control advocating extremist, as apparently half of her fans were, "safety" isn't enough. They demand gun CONTROL or worse, as shown in this response to her tweet, "Here's a radical idea folks. How about NO gun?", and in the mass exodus of her Twitter followers.
That level of intolerance is shocking to me.
It's not as if she was urging everyone to buy guns. Her tweet was "Please practice gun safety. This is horrible!" with a reference to a recent tragedy where a young child killed his father with a gun.
http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/06/11/actress-katee-sackoff-urges-gun-safety-on-twitter-loses-half-her-followers/
Well I guess I just learned talking about #GunSafety inspires a massive debate. Pro-Gun or Anti-Gun SAFETY should be unanimous! #OneLove
On a lighter note since I've lost half my followers due to talking about gun safety...the sun is shining & Happy Monday! Love your neighbor today!
Please practice gun safety. This is horrible! RT @CNN: Arizona police: 4-year-old boy fatally shoots his father. http://on.cnn.com/12edICF
As an actress, she played Starbuck, essentially a soldier, in Battlestar Galactica in addition to other gun-toting roles. What did her fans expect? Is it okay to kill with guns for entertainment but unacceptable to urge gun SAFETY in real life? What hypocritical fans!
Ironically, she briefly attended Santa Monica College before her acting career - site of the most recent nationally televised shooting incident.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0755267/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
===
June 12, 2013
http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/tv-star-tweets-on-guns-loses-half-her-following/
===
June 29, 2013
Am I going to Hell?
What do you think? If I otherwise had a clean slate and were to die today without time to repent for my 'sins', would I go to Hell for my advocacy of the 2nd Amendment? Do I carry the blood of innocent victims on my hands? Read this and let me know.
When referring to "gun lobbyists and politicians who are indifferent to the carnage of gun violence", National teachers union leader Lily Eskelsen Garcia. said, "I'm not an ordained minister, I'm not a theologian, but these guys are going to hell".
While I'm neither a politician nor do I represent the gun lobby, I have become an outspoken 2nd Amendment advocate though this blog and elsewhere. Am I "indifferent to the carnage of gun violence"? I don't think so. Nor do I assume it about anyone else, regardless of their profession, simply because they are supporters of our 2nd Amendment rights. But overzealous gun control advocates do. They don't listen to the words. They do observe the actions but they ignore the words and communicated intent of their opponents and replace it with their own in order to push forward their own agenda on a foundation of lies and misrepresentation. Speaking of lies, isn't there something in the Ten Commandments about "bear false witness"? So who should be going to Hell? And speaking of "bear", our constitution provides us with 2nd Amendment rights to "bear arms".
"panelists said a chance for meaningful national change remains, even after the Senate's rejection in April of a bill to broaden background-check requirements." Not with extremist rhetoric like 'you're going to Hell' it isn't.
"State Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said California is leading the way with bills that would, among other things, ban all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines; ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition; and require background checks for ammunition purchases.
"The gun lobby has been very smart about figuring out every single loophole to negate the assault weapons ban. We're sick of the loopholes, we're sick of the cat and mouse games," he said. "We need to distinguish between responsible gun ownership, gun ownership for sport ... and the extreme -- the use of rapid-fire weapons that have no purpose but to kill." "
Wow, "ban all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines"? I'm pretty darn sure that's a direct violation of the 2nd Amendment and recent Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions. And where would it end with these extremists? "We need to distinguish between responsible gun ownership, gun ownership for sport ... and the extreme -- the use of rapid-fire weapons that have no purpose but to kill." And this bozo thinks he and other extremists are the ones to do it? As soon as you use phrases like "rapid-fire weapons that have no purpose but to kill" you immediately lose credibility.
For practical purposes, "rapid-fire" translates to "semi-automatic" functionality that has been in use for 100 years. We're not talking about machine guns with "automatic fire" capabilities. Semi-automatic firearms can be used to kill. There's no denying that. But they're also used for sport and entertainment. And they are used for hunting, but generally not through "rapid-fire". If they ban the rifles, what will they do about the semi-automatic handguns that are equally capable of killing as the rifles, as well demonstrated at Columbine and Fort Hood? In the end, some of these extremists would like us all reduced to no more than bolt or lever-action rifles and revolvers, and then their friends would want to take those too.
http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_23513521/netroots-nation-features-call-action-gun-control
The NRA was not particularly impressed with these statements either, as shown here.
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2013/6/nea-vice-president-nra,-second-amendment-supporters-are-going-to-hell.aspx
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/06/intolerance-of-gun-control-advocates.html
Firearms Blog Collections
No comments:
Post a Comment