[ SECRET POST #2284 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2284 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________

















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 015 secrets from Secret Submission Post #326.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 1 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - random porn ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

He started it by calling me "soulless." I didn't call him "evil." I think he's stupid and misinformed and ignorant, yes. Evil, no. Don't put words in my mouth.

[(Anonymous)]

Man, you even sound like one of them. Aggressive and touchy and filled with self-righteous anger.

Oh no, someone with no influence whom you don't know and never will called you a name! Surely you should boil with fury for the rest of your natural born life (and blame the stress on him, because you're too stupid to realize that you're doing it to yourself).

[(Anonymous)]

I guess I should just go serenely on with a smile and a wave when someone I don't know calls me soulless and wants to take my rights away.

Just like the SJWs go serenely on their way when someone they don't know dares to use the word "bitch" in their presence.

But, yeah, I should not let a brainless knee-jerk has-been celeb get under my skin. You're absolutely correct.

[(Anonymous)]

Wait... this person is aggressive and touchy and filled with self-righteous anger for insulting him, but he's not those things when he does it?

[(Anonymous)]

Wait, what?

[(Anonymous)]

In other words, it's perfectly okay for him to aggressively and touchily and angrily call me soulless, but heaven forbid I actually take offense when he does it.

I suppose I should watch my tone when responding.

[(Anonymous)]

But he wasn't aggressively, angrily, and touchily calling you soulless. He doesn't even actually think that you're soulless.

You getting upset about this is like me getting upset because Tom Hiddleston told me to kneel and declared that my natural state is to serve in 'The Avengers,' and dammit I'm not subservient and I don't need some two-bit pansy British git in a cape telling me that I'm worthless and trying to control me.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not talking about this video. I'm talking about his tweet where he said that anyone who ran out and bought an "assault rifle" in the wake of Sandy Hook (which further shows that he has no idea what he's talking about) had neither a heart nor a soul worth defending.

Because it's not like there's a knee-jerk reaction every time something like that happens where lawmakers rush to ban semi-auto rifles or anything, and people want to get them before they can't, or anything. And it's not like anyone would have a legit reason for wanting an AR-15 for home defense or varmint hunting.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I think it's pretty tasteless to react to tragedy by immediately running out and buying an assault rifle. I don't think he's wrong there, and I think the "knee-jerk reaction" is you taking anything that criticizes guns and blowing it completely out of proportion.

But, since you must have been one of those people who immediately ran out and bought an assault rifle, since otherwise I don't see why you'd think that you were being called "soulless," then I suppose I understand your rage. I also want to take that thing away from you before you snap and hurt someone.

[(Anonymous)]

I think it's pretty tasteless to react to a tragedy by immediately blaming people who didn't do it and calling anyone who belongs to the NRA complicit.

And, no, I didn't immediately run out and buy an AR-15. But I did run out and take a concealed-carry class. Because if I'm ever in a situation where I'm confronted by someone like Adam Lanza, I want to be able to fucking shoot back and not cower behind a desk. When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away, after all.

I'm in no danger of snapping. "Yelling at people on the internet" is a far different prospect from shooting them dead. Some of us know the difference.

[(Anonymous)]

No, lawmakers don't rush to ban semi-auto rifles every time something like this happens. If they did we'd have more gun control laws since it happens pretty often. The first gun laws passed after the Connecticut shootings made gun control weaker.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, New York State didn't rush out and ban "high-capacity" magazines that held more than 7 rounds and then realize "whoops, we forgot to exempt law enforcement." And then further realize "whoops, no one actually makes magazines that only hold 7 rounds for most of the commonly-manufactured weapons, so we'll fix that by just making it illegal to load more than 7 rounds in your 10-round mag instead."

Oh, wait.

They do try, in various places. They don't usually succeed. Thankfully.

[(Anonymous)]

Besides getting a chance to snark at anybody thinking things designed to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time should be regulated, that was pretty irrelevant. The NRA's got gun control pretty much in hand. Nobody's really going to get in the way of the next Adam Lanza who wants to shoot up a room full of people. Don't worry.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, someone would get in the way in Utah. Our teachers are allowed to be armed in the classroom if they have a concealed-carry permit.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes, your fantasies about the teacher taking out the shooter like a badass will prevent any deaths in that situation.

[(Anonymous)]

Right. Far better to provide a free-fire range for criminals and crazies instead of letting people have the means to possibly protect themselves.

Do I think that it will prevent all the deaths in a situation like that? No, of course not, because I do live in the real world where in a high-stress situation people (even trained police officers) do not always hit what they aim at. But it might prevent some.

How's that saying go? "If it saves one life..." Works both ways. If the teacher is going to put herself between the kids and an armed maniac (which they generally do in these situations, because they're kind of awesome like that and that's what they do), it'd be nice if she was more than a damn target.

[(Anonymous)]

Right. Far better to provide a free-fire range for criminals and crazies instead of letting people have the means to possibly protect themselves.

Or far better to work at keeping weapons that make it easy to kill dozens of people in seconds away from criminals and crazies instead of just leaving it up to the kindergarten teacher and her students to protect themselves.

How's that saying go? "If it saves one life..." Works both ways.

It also applies to the risk of being really free with all weapons or hypothetically putting guns in classrooms with kids. If the teacher gets killed trying to take down the guy wearing body armor lives are saved if he has to reload too.

[(Anonymous)]

Well, gee, if this administration would enforce the laws already on the damn books before they tried to pass more, maybe I'd trust them more. At this point, I trust them as far as I can throw my house.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/feb/03/mayors-against-illegal-guns/us-files-criminal-charges-fraction-gun-denial-case/

"In 2009, the FBI 'referred more than 71,000' cases of people failing background checks when trying to buy a gun to another federal agency, 'but U.S. attorneys ultimately prosecuted only 77 of them.'"

That is miserable and a horrible dereliction of duty. These people talk a good game, but when it comes to actually doing anything, they fall down on the job. Big time.

[(Anonymous)]

So you're agreeing that lack of gun control is a problem and that people have way too much access to deadly weapons. Because not enforcing gun control laws we have is a big complaints of pro-gun control people.