December 18, 2012

“Rhode Island prof demands NRA chief’s ‘head on a stick’”

Of course, it’s one thing to demand a person’s head be placed on a stick, and another to go out, subdue that person, and then lop his head off — particularly when you’re dealing with someone you know is probably packing.

My advice to the good professor, should he really wish to complete his savagery against a fellow citizen:  bring a bigger gun than the one you’re likely to face.

If only for the irony.

(h/t Pablo)

Posted by Jeff G. @ 9:30am
32 comments | Trackback

Comments (32)

  1. People like this are demanding that other people carry out the actions they desire. After all, they are the deciders, not the implementers.

  2. oh yeah that’s great. I’d like to see Mr. sloppy-sweater-vest-pissing-his-pants-over-guns get close enough to anyone to lop their head off. But in a police state I guess the soldiers would cut off the NRA president’s head and parade it in the public square, so that the professors could dance around it?

  3. Or a machete, because they’re way more deadly than guns. And since the goal is to remove his head, you’re going to need some form of silverware anyways.

  4. the name Erik Loomis should be in the post for so people can google what kind of bloodthirsty freaks are teaching at the college their kids go to

  5. When liberals say things like this, it’s foolish to take them literally. When conservatives say things like this, it’s because they really are dangerous loons whose words must be exposed and ridiculed.

  6. It should be noted that this.tool blogs at Lawyers, Guns and Money.You know, that super intelligent blog.

  7. It’s a metaphor, slart. You dumb fucking wingnut. Like, for instance, crosshairs on an electoral map.

    Oh, wait –

  8. “I hate violence so much I’ma behead all the violent people.”

  9. Don’t you realize that all of this criticism is intimidating? You’re practically forcing him to write a magazine article about how the VRWC is silencing him! It’ll be the most hard-hitting piece since the Dixie Chicks were featured on the cover of Entertainment Weekly. Because nothing demonstrates the extent of one’s marginalization and silencing like a feature in a national magazine.

  10. What kind of pike? Walleye maybe? That would look kind of strange.

  11. Don’t you realize that all of this criticism is intimidating? You’re practically forcing him to write a magazine article about how the VRWC is silencing him!

    ^^^FYI, this is neither satire nor parody.^^^ Which, these proggs have made that virtually impossible to do.

  12. I think Loomis is one of Kaufman’s buddies over at Lawyers Guns and Money.

  13. I wish the NRA in Rhode Island would go down to that university protest and rock that guy’s office back and forth until the liberal bullshit scales fall from his eyes.

  14. “It’s a metaphor, slart. You dumb fucking wingnut. Like, for instance, crosshairs on an electoral map.
    Oh, wait –”

    Or surveyor’s marks.

    Or engineering diagram “view” symbols that represent the frustum of a cone as seen from above. Those are pretty fucking violent too. Engineers, architects piss their pants a lot at work from all the hate stress vibe they constantly get out of the draughting (drafting to lay people) office. It sucks when you finally get rid of AutoCad and find out that Inventor wants you dead too. A circle with a cross in it is HATE. Just ask the Celts.

    Hell they used to kill people slow with crosses. That’s what they were FOR.

  15. Uh oh. Got a progressive going with the “militia” = “National Guard” argument. Blast that shit out of the water, gun nuts!

  16. A. reasoning for requirement + B requirement.

    A. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

    B. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

    A is explaining the reason for B. B is actually forbidding legislators and the executive from having the authority to order something specific.

    That thing they are forbidden from doing is infringing the right of the people to keep an bear arms.

    A could be changed without changing B, even absurdly.

    Walruses being damned sexy, owing to their being hilariously cross eyed, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

    The explanation has changed but the legislature and executive is still forbidden from doing something and that thing is STILL infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    The explanation is not a condition. A does not limit B. B is what, and A is why.

  17. I question whether someone with Loomis’s propensity for violent rhetoric should be allowed to teach impressionable young people.

    It’s speech safety, not speech control.

  18. I hope the NRA sues him and mentions death threats in their tort and ruins him utterly and if possible gets him charged criminally.

  19. Heh!

  20. I want

    For Loomis’ own sake he should maybe examine that self-control device over capricious expressions of private whims. Foot-stamping isn’t attractive in children, nor characteristic of adults.

  21. Yes. An awful lot of the verbage wasted on trying to explain to the hoi polloi that “the people” doesn’t really mean the people seems to be predicated on a severe and intentional misreading of the first part of the Second Amendment. I’ve always thought they were saying, look, we know the government is going to have guns, so the government shall not be able to prevent the people from having them.

  22. Palaeo – very good analysis. I’ve made one just like it using libraries and books when talking to libs. Always gets them to pay attention.

    One thing to add when arguing with these gun control idiots and how they try to make it a collective right (even if they cannot understand the logic you expressed) is this:

    Nowhere else in the Constitution do the words “The People” mean a collective right. Everywhere the words “The People” appear, they mean the individuals themselves.

    Because if it does then my libturd friends cannot speak or peaceably assemble unless they are part of a “militia” and own guns (since apparently to them that is what “The People” in the 2nd amendment is referrign to – the militia)

    I find when I present the analysis like you have and then follow it up with that, it pretty much shuts them up and then they throw poop and walk away.

  23. Remember when Perfesser Caric said we were all a cancer that needed to be cut out? I’m beginning to see a pattern here with liberal dumbass profs.

  24. Erik Loomis deleted his Twitter account. And yes, he does blog at LGM.

    A sick and twisted, tortured mind, to RT this.

  25. Erik Loomis (professor at University of Rhode Island) twitter’s page was still up when I tweeted this.

    But he never came by!

  26. If liberals could be prosecuted for death threats, we’d have to wall off a major city to use as a prison.

  27. If liberals could be prosecuted for death threats, we’d have to wall off a major city to use as a prison.

    Or use one that is surrounded by water. One place comes to mind.

  28. Just keep Snake Plissken away from it.

  29. I saw Snake, once. I thought he was bigger than he turned out to be.

  30. It’s a metaphor, slart. You dumb fucking wingnut. Like, for instance, crosshairs on an electoral map.

    Oh, wait –

    Or bullseyes. But that was a progressive group so it’s okay, even if a certain Congresswoman was one of the bullseyes. The “crosshairs” mean eeeeeeevil icky CALLS FOR VIOLENCE since it was made by icky conservative types, but “bullseyes” mean hugs and kisses because progressives are such snuggly people.

    Even when they want heads on a stick.

  31. I want Erik Loomis’ head on a stick.

    That would have made a good post title. Hell, you wouldn’t need much to the post, other than: Discuss.

Leave a Reply