Skip to main content

Credit cards are officially more deadly than guns...

"Guns don't kill people, credit cards do!" This is basically what Auburn Republican Dan Dumaine recently stated.

In response to the state's Democratic-controlled House voting to ban concealed weapons from its chamber, Dumaine said, "A holstered gun is not a deadly weapon. ...But anything can be used as a deadly weapon. A credit card can be used to cut somebody's throat."

Really? We're now comparing credit cards to guns? What will we compare to guns next? Here is a list of suggestions I have for far-right gun enthusiasts and what I imagine their rationale would be:

Paper - "Paper cuts are more deadly than gun shot wounds! You can also make a paper airplane and poke someone's eye out with that thing! Guns aren't dangerous! Paper are, I mean is, wait - is it is or are? Whatever."

Purse - "Have you ever seen an angry woman with a purse? They're the number one cause for concussions in males who don't play football. It's even worse when a woman busts out her purse in icy conditions. With one smack of a guy's head, that purse can send the guy to certain death, as he is backed up a few feet and then slips on some ice, before his head makes contact with the pavement. Guns are dangerous? Ha! Purses are more dangerous than guns!"

Socks - "Not only can socks smell bad, but they can result in death under certain circumstances. Other than placing them on our feet, what are socks most used for? Shoving into people's mouths and making people choke on the stench! Plug a person's nose while doing this and they will meet their ultimate doom. It's a scientific fact - socks are more dangerous than guns!"

Toilet-paper roll - "What's more dangerous? Shooting a bullet out of a gun or smacking or throwing a toilet-paper roll at someone? A toilet-paper roll can leave some serious marks and if it's shot out of a gun, can kill a person. Like I always say, guns aren't dangerous, toilet-paper rolls are, especially if they're shot out of guns!"

http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/3585350-95/ban-gun-republican-committee
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more