Arguing With A GunGrabber: Guns v Scissors, Frosted Flakes v 'Karaoke Bars'

If you nuts want to mock the brainy beautiful Mika, then I’ll mock you. Here is a philosophical question. Who’s game? I read a news piece about two grown men both were flatmates. They lived surrounded by guns. Guns on the kitchen table guns under their pillows, guns in the head, let’s just say guns everywhere. One night one of the flatmates got hungry and ate the last bowl of Frosted Flakes. The other flatmate took a gun on the table and blew away his friend, because he was saving that bowl for morning. Now, was the gun the problem or was it a Frosted Flakes problem? 

- OliverB on October 6, 2015 at 6:33 PM 

It's the Liberty versus Control's version of rock, paper, scissors! 

True story… 

OK, so like there was this woman named Zhang. One day, she got all paranoid and hissy and started to think that her man was foolin’ around with some sweet, young thang down at the local ‘karaoke bar’ (Insider tip: in China, a ‘karaoke bar’ is slang for brothel). So, she crushed up some sleeping pills and put them in Han Mou’s drink. After he passed out, she proceeded to cut off his penis with a pair of scissors. For good measure, she flushed the member down the loo to ensure that there would be no reconnection, so to speak. 

Fast forward three months, an apology, a release on bail, and reconciliation. Han decided that, even though he still loved his wife, he was, once again, determined to get a divorce because Psychang was ‘just too jealous’. ‘While awaiting Zhang’s trial, the pair still lived together with their children. But, fearing that his wife might go to prison, Han Mou went out to look for a new partner, someone to be a mother to his children if their biological mother ended up behind bars.’ (Dude, I’ve been really feeling your pain up until now, but I must admit that it is just a tad selfish to seek out a replacement wife for the sole purpose of caring for your spawn. 我選擇了你，你選擇了我，這是我們的選擇。我會愛你直到海枯和岩石崩。/ I chose you, you chose me, and this is our choice. I’ll love you until the seas run dry and the rocks crumble.’) 

One day, out of the blue, Zhang just flipped out over something about Han’s trousers…or so she claimed. Obviously, her psychosis, jealousy, husband’s rejection, pending divorce, looming prison sentence, and the prospect of another woman bagging his tea and I’m not talking about preparing Han’s afternoon Xinyang Fur Tip green tea, IYKWIMAITTYD, had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it./ 

So, Mrs Zhang Thang obtained a syringe and used it to inject crushed sleeping pills into a container of milk from which she knew her husband would drink. Sure enough, he drank it and soon, sure 'nuff, Qiáozhì Foreman was out for the count whilst Zhang Ali was floating like a butterfly as she proceeded to retrieve her trusty pair of scissors. After which, she returned to the scene of the crime because...why not? Since she could not remove the penis because it was, by then, floating somewhere in the South China Sea, she could hack away at her man’s remaining testicles, which she gleefully did while probably singing 'Earl, ain't it dark, wrapped up in that tarp?' or some Chinese version thereof. 

I doubt that there has been reconciliation, but I can reasonably predict that Han Mou is now known as Han Solo. 

Now, was Han Mou the problem? 

Or were the ‘karaoke bars’ the problem? 

Or was Han’s drink the problem? 

Or were the sleeping pills the problem? 

Or was Han’s penis the problem? 

Or were the scissors the problem? 

Or was the toilet the problem? 

Or were Han’s trousers the problem? 

Or was the syringe the problem? 

Or was the milk the problem? 

Or were Han’s testicles the problem? 

OR WAS THE FACT THAT ZHANG WAS A FUCKING NUTTER THE PROBLEM??? 

It’s really not a difficult question to answer, good ol’ Ollie.

Oh!!! A test I can pass! I choose “Was the fact than Zhang was a nutter the problem?” for $1000 Alex! :) 

- smokeyblonde on October 6, 2015 at 10:56 PM 

If Zhang of Anhui had been your typical terrorist, Zayda of Benghazi, ‘out for a walk one night and decided [she'd] go kill some Americans’, the answer would be: 

‘Was the fact that Nakoula Basseley Nakoula made a video, Innocence of Muslims, which only about 300 people worldwide had seen, the problem?’ for $1,000, Alex!'

UPDATE:

Ollie, Charles CW Cooke has a few words for you.  Here's an excerpt:

An Open Rant Aimed at Those Who Would Repeal the Second Amendment 

Talk is cheap, but persuading Americans to surrender their rights will be expensive, difficult, and time-consuming… 

When the likes of Rob Delaney and Bill Maher and Keith Ellison say that we need to get rid of the Second Amendment, they are not speaking in a vacuum but reflecting the views of a small but vocal portion of the American population. 

And they mean it. 

That being so, here’s the million-dollar question: What the hell are they waiting for? Go on, chaps. Bloody well do it. 

Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there and begin the movement in earnest. Don’t fall back on excuses. Don’t play cheap motte-and-bailey games. And don’t pretend that you’re okay with the Second Amendment in theory, but you’re just appalled by the Heller decision. You’re not. Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller “interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it would be exactly what you want! Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Constitution. 

It’ll be tough explaining to suburban families that their established conception of American liberty is wrong. You might even suffer at the polls because of it. But that’s what it’s going to take. This will involve hard work, of course. You can’t just sit online and preen to those who already agree with you. No siree. Instead, you’ll have to go around the states — traveling and preaching until the soles of your shoes are thin as paper. You’ll have to lobby Congress, over and over and over again. You’ll have to make ads and shake hands and twist arms and cut deals and suffer all the slings and arrows that will be thrown in your direction. You’ll have to tell anybody who will listen to you that they need to support you; that if they disagree, they’re childish and beholden to the “gun lobby”; that they don’t care enough about children; that their reverence for the Founders is mistaken; that they have blood on their goddamn hands; that they want to own firearms only because their penises are small and they’re not “real men.” And remember, you can’t half-a$s it this time. You’re not going out there to tell these people that you want “reform” or that “enough is enough.” You’re going there to solicit their support for removing one of the articles within the Bill of Rights. 

Make no mistake: It’ll be unpleasant strolling into Pittsburgh or Youngstown or Pueblo and telling blue-collar Democrat after blue-collar Democrat that he only has his guns because he’s not as well endowed as he’d like to be. It’ll be tough explaining to suburban families that their established conception of American liberty is wrong. You might even suffer at the polls because of it. But that’s what it’s going to take. So do it. Start now. Off you go.