Reply #32: People can still have sex. We're just talking about what equipment to allow. [View All]

[krispos42]

They just can't do it with their genitals. But outlawing genitals in no significant way impedes the ability of people to have sexual relations. Plenty of other ways to do it. Men have the prostate, and women have the clitoris, neither of which require molestation-enabling assault penises to stimulate. And the Adam & Eve catalogue has a variety of accessories to help. They just can't do it with those rape-enabling assault genitals, which I'm sure is something that all reasonable people can agree to.








Funny thing, then, that certain anti-gun people are claiming that non-gun-owners are the majority of the population and support stricter gun laws. Other anti-gun people are for an outright ban and total confiscation. Check out any of the high-count threads started in the last week or two.


Ah, I know where I screwed up.

First off I have to start a think-tank or two and some sort of political action committee. Then I have to figure out how to "frame" the debate, invent some pejorative terms, fund a few studies that prove exactly what I want them to prove, and convice some lawmakers that this is an issue that they can win on.

Then I have to get the public used to the idea, so I'll convince the lawmakers to jump on the bandwagon for some high-profile but defect-riddled piece of legislation. I'll have to get it done on both the state and federal level. With 50 states to fight in, odds are I'll get a few of them to turn over to my side. I'll just claim it's an issue for the states to decide. And when the patchwork of state laws don't resolve the issue, well then, I guess we'll just have to have federal laws, won't we?

The effects of my high-profile legislation are irrelevent; I've started the public talking about it and forced parties and politicians to take sides on the issue. If it works, I'll say we need more of the same. If it doesn't, I'll say it was due to bipartisan loopholes, or partisan loopholes, or lack of enforcement, or poor record-keeping.

I'll get the public's mentality to be "how much will we regulate it?" instead of "should we be regulating it?" or "do we have the right to regulate it?". I'm sure the MSM will be fully cooperative in pushing the talking points and creating memes.

God willing, there will be some high-profile public events that I can exploit to my advantage and integrate into the message.

It will take years of work, but in the end I'll have given myself millions of dollars in salary and worked my goals through the minefield of politics and law. I'll be a power broker, sought by many people with fat wallets.



It's a hard slap in the face when you drive for the final goal directly, isn't it? When the ultimate goal is just laid out before you?