Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nuclear Unicorn

Nuclear Unicorn's Journal
Nuclear Unicorn's Journal
January 22, 2015

I'm starting a campaign against same-sex marriage.

Just because you're married doesn't mean the sex has to be the same.

January 21, 2015

Man arrested after tackling shopper carrying gun

Them gun nutters are gonna shoot each other. Bunch paranoid, racist idiots are just going to start running around attacking innocent people, or hopefully, just each other.

So sayeth the cartoons --

'Cause, you know, only the paranoid and irrational carry guns (and only those who fear guns are truly rational and responsible).

And then there is the actual reality --

Man arrested after tackling shopper carrying gun

RIVERVIEW (FOX 13) - Hillsborough deputies arrested a man who spotted someone with a gun, followed him into a Walmart, and tackled him. The problem? The man with the gun had a concealed weapons permit, and the man who rushed him didn't call 911 or alert store security.

According to the sheriff's office, Michael Foster, 43, saw Clarence Daniels, 62, in the Walmart parking lot with a gun holstered under his coat.

Foster followed Daniels into the store, put him in a choke-hold and brought him to the ground, the sheriff's office said. He then started yelling that Daniels had a gun.

A struggle ensued, with Daniels yelling that he had a permit. Security detained both men until deputies arrived.


Thank God Mr. Daniels was not seriously hurt by this nimrod. We've already seen one innocent man shot and killed for holding a BB gun because of the irrational fears of others.

Well-played, anti-RKBA'ers. Well-played.

*slow-metered sarcastic clap*
January 20, 2015

The day the Klan messed with the wrong people

Saw this in GD --

From Daily Kos: "The day the Klan messed with the wrong people."

You saw those cars coming, and you knew who those men were. They wanted you to see them. They wanted you to be afraid of them."
- Lillie McKoy, former mayor of Maxton talking about the KKK

By the mid-1950's the Civil Rights Movement was gaining momentum and the KKK decided they had to fight back. Their campaign of terrorism swept through many of the southern states, but largely fell flat in North Carolina.

James W. "Catfish" Cole, the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina, decided he was going to change that. Cole was an ordained minister of the Wayside Baptist Church in Summerfield, North Carolina, who regularly preached the Word of God on the radio. His rallies often drew as many as 15,000 people. As Cole told the newspapers: "There's about 30,000 half-breeds up in Robeson County and we are going to have some cross burnings and scare them up."

Cole made a critical mistake that couldn't be avoided by a racist mind - he was completely ignorant of the people he was about to mess with.

Dr. Perry was a black doctor in Monroe, NC, and helped finance a local chapter of the NAACP. One night at a meeting, the word was received that the Klan threatened to blow up Dr. Perry's house. The meeting broke up and everyone went home to get their guns.

Sipping coffee in Perry's garage with shotguns across their laps, the men agreed that defending their families was too important to do in haphazard fashion. "We started to really getting organized and setting up, digging foxholes and started getting up ammunition and training guys," Williams recalled. "In fact, we had started building our own rifle range, and we got our own M-1's and got our own Mausers and German semi-automatic rifles, and steel helmets. We had everything."


The OP's personal comment --

Now this is what I call a 2nd Amendment remedy!
January 20, 2015

Argentine prosecutor who accused Cristina Kirchner over 1994 bombing found dead

Argentine prosecutor who accused Cristina Kirchner over 1994 bombing found dead

Alberto Nisman, who on Monday was due in parliament to present his case against President Cristina Kirchner, found dead days after warning "I could end up dead because of this"

An Argentine prosecutor who accused President Cristina Kirchner of covering up Iran’s involvement in the country’s worst ever terrorist attack has been found dead, hours before he was due to present his evidence in parliament.

Alberto Nisman, 51, had spent the past decade investigating the 1994 bombings of a Buenos Aires Jewish centre, which killed 85 people.

Two years ago he began working on a 300-page dossier – due to be presented to a parliamentary committee on Monday afternoon – which used extensive wiretaps to unravel the mystery of the attack at the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association building (AMIA), for which no one has ever been convicted.

He knew that the revelations in his dossier were going to cause a huge outcry. The stridently anti-Kirchner newspaper Clarin said that he had told one of their reporters on Wednesday: “I could be dead by the end of this.”


It's been ruled a suicide.
January 18, 2015

Woman uses 2 guns to shoot at would-be home invasion robber

Woman uses 2 guns to shoot at would-be home invasion robber


The man who answered the door told the suspect at the door that he didn't know the person and tried to close the door, but the suspect forced his way in.

The suspect pointed a gun at the man's head and said "This is a robbery, give it up," according to the report.

A woman in a bedroom in the home heard the commotion and came out with a handgun, dove on the floor and started shooting at the suspect.

The suspect exchanged gunfire with the woman, who went back to the bedroom for another handgun and kept shooting at the suspect.


"Only gunners feel like they need multiple guns."

"The only purpose for more than 6 rounds is mass murder."

"What are the odds of ever needing a gun?"

"You're safer without one in your home."
January 16, 2015

'Did the Americans plan the Paris terror attacks?' asks leading Russian tabloid

'Did the Americans plan the Paris terror attacks?' asks leading Russian tabloid

American intelligence services carried out the Charlie Hebdo terror attack to punish France for considering dropping sanctions against Russia – or at least, that's the version of events presented in one of Russia's leading newspapers today.

The front page splash in Komsomolskaya Pravda, which asks "Did the Americans Plan the Paris Terror Attack?", is just the latest of a series of bizarre conspiracy theories put forward by some of the Russian press in the wake of last week's tragedy.

The headline relates to a page 7 interview with a political scientist called Alexander Zhilin, who links the murders of 16 people at Charlie Hebdo and a Kosher supermarket to disagreements between western governments about how to deal with sanctions against Russia.


I wonder if this gives RT room enough to print a "some say" article?
January 11, 2015

Some people just insist on showing their "but"s

Even now people are saying, "Murdering over speech is wrong -- BUT..."

Just say, "No" to BUT monkeys.

January 9, 2015

"Not all Muslims"

Okay. Accepted happily without argument or reservation.

But how about: Not all Westerners. Not all Westerners are Islamophobes. Just as the violent Islamists are a tiny minority so too are the violent Islamophobes among Western nations. Most Westerners are content to go about their lives not bothering anyone and no more deserve to have war waged upon them than do the innocent Muslims of the Middle East.

Can we stop with the lectures and assignments of guilt already? If you preach it you should at least have the courtesy to practice it.

January 9, 2015

I am not beholden to their beliefs.

I don't set out to offend people, I even try to avoid it (most times). Still, I am my own person.

I find many things to be offensive. I try to avoid them. Many times I speak out against them because I am my own person. I prefer to speak to those who are offensive. First, because I don't think that which offends my values should be left unanswered. It should be challenged. Second, because I think people are free moral beings they have the ability to choose between right and wrong - and to see people choose right is a cause for joy. People certainly, according to my values, be compelled to do right. That's not a correct moral choice but rather a compulsion and it nullifies any moral benefit to the one who was coerced and the one who forced the action.

A man who refrains from stealing out of fear of the police is not honest, only the man who values his neighbor so as to not take what his neighbor has earned can be called honest.

I think blaspheming someone else's beliefs is at best, rude. But I am not beholden to their commandments because I do not share their values. Telling me to not offend them serves no purpose, it won't make me a better person it can only make me subject to values I do not share. That is pointless and if there are threats of violence for my failing to obey then it is now my values being blasphemed.

Why should I respect those who offend me with coercion?

If it can be demanded that I adhere to demands concerning blasphemy what else am I obligated to observe that would also offend my values? Should I cover my head? Should I never leave my house without my father or husband?

"No one is demanding you do that!"

Yet. By even then, why one and not the other? What is the boundary between what I am expected to accommodate and what I am free to choose on my own?

Offended? Let's talk it out.

Don't want to talk about it? That's your choice, you're on your own. Say whatever you like about me but keep your hands to yourself. If you can't then the problem will be yours. I'm not the bravest girl in the world but I don't feel like surrendering to anyone but my own Conscience.

Maybe I am just a young, naive waif and I have chosen the wrong Creed. Maybe others know better. But until the day comes and I am blessed with an epiphany I can only be who I am now. Anything else would be lying to you.

January 8, 2015

There is no such thing as being, "anti gun."

All law is predicated on the use of force, including deadly force.

Those who propose gun control laws are not advocating for the absence or guns but merely exclusivity in the use of guns. Advocating for laws is to advocate for the use of force.

But the use of force against whom? Women? The elderly? Shop owners? Family members? Hobbyists?

And this is supposedly done in the name of protecting the innocent.

Gun control is a wildly self-contradicting creed.

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Sep 16, 2009, 07:33 PM
Number of posts: 19,497
Latest Discussions»Nuclear Unicorn's Journal