Gun Mania and Climate Denial – Tightly Wound

August 11, 2019

Senator Ted Cruz has given us perhaps the most perfect example of the tight connection between the erotization of death dealing killing machines, and a history of science and climate denial.
Above, the Senator’s own description suggests equates the machines that have been used to kill hundreds of innocents with cooking breakfast meats.

Below, I drew on some of the Senator’s pronouncements on climate to illustrate the simplemindedness of climate denial talking points.

Draw your own conclusion.

Advertisements

25 Responses to “Gun Mania and Climate Denial – Tightly Wound”

  1. rsmurf Says:

    There is no purpose for guns in a civilized society or the USA.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      DUH! Another pronouncement from the burning bush. Let’s hope some large quadruped comes along and pees on it soon—the smoke and fumes are getting bad.

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      “There is no purpose for guns in a civilized society or the USA.”

      True! Well, except for target shooting, collecting, personal defense, teaching kids, hunting, killing vermin, feeling protected.

      Oh yeah – and because the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution gives you, and most every other citizen, the right to own own.

      You don’t want one? That’s fine.

      But personally, the idea of negating individual rights specifically enumerated in our Constitution seems to me to be a horrifically bad idea.

      • rsmurf Says:

        Obviously you are unable to read. Are u in a militia? No. So no gun. And you take away my right to be safe when you pack heat. Sorry pal. All the other are things that can be accomplished without a gun. Try again.

        • Keith McClary Says:

          A historian suggested that gun-nuts would really hate it if gubmints re-introduced “well regulated Militias” in the 1791 meaning – basically that gun owners were conscripted by the state.

        • Gingerbaker Says:

          “Obviously you are unable to read. Are u in a militia? No. So no gun. “

          Actually, I can read. I’ve been doing it for years! Pretty good at it, thanks for asking! 🙂

          And some of the things I have read include, among other things on the topic, the gun law wiki and the case law that the wiki is linked to. Including the last three Supreme Court rulings.

          Which make it absolutely clear as day that the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects the rights of individual people, even if they are not in a militia, to own and use guns for their own personal reasons.

          Feel free to move your lips when you read the first clause of the 2nd Amendment, nobody is going to blame you or make fun of you for doing that. But I will make fun of you for saying such hideously stupid and dreadfully ignorant statements about gun law as you just sputtered above.

          I sorta have a right to do that, too – it’s called the 1st Amendment.

          • rsmurf Says:

            Congratulations but the fact remains as written it’s one sentence and starts with the militia thing. Brush up.

          • Gingerbaker Says:

            “Congratulations but the fact remains as written it’s one sentence and starts with the militia thing. Brush up.”

            Earth to smurf! Earth to smurf!

            It’s the Supreme Court that interprets the meaning of the Constitution, not you.

            And they write down their legal opinions, where interested people who want to be informed about their opinions – before insulting the reading comprehension of others – can read them for enlightenment.

            Say! Maybe you should give it a try?

          • dumboldguy Says:

            You gave smurfy permission to move his lips while he read, but you forgot to OK his other very important reading comprehension skill—tracing out the words s-l-o-w-l-y with a finger as his beady little (too-close-together eyes) and lips struggle along. It would help if we tried not to use too many multi-syllabic words as well—-since smurfy uses few in his maundering here, it would appear that they are a “trouble spot” for him.

          • J4Zonian Says:

            “Which make it absolutely clear as day that Republicans have used many tactics to stack the Supreme Court with ultra-conservatives for a long time.”

            FIFY.

            Here are some of them: https://grist.org/article/the-debate-is-over-the-oceans-are-in-hot-hot-water/#comment-4300972502
            Subverting the Constitution by simply refusing to consider a nominee because they now have the power to refuse is another; it’s a result of that list of travesties.


  2. Ted Cruz: Climate has always changed, my parents were smart, I believe is science so much that I chair the Science & Space Subcommittee, I’ve heard testimony and data, Democrats don’t approach this issue from the standpoint of science and evidence, Democrats instead approach this issue as a matter of government power, Democrats just want to control the economy, O’Rourke voted in favor of a devastating $10/barrel oil tax which would have cost us 24 cents per gallon of gasoline, Democrats want to destroy millions of jobs in our robust oil and gas sector, those workers buy stuff and give to churches, U. of Texas and Texas A&M benefit from oil and gas revenue.

    Moderator: Your time is up

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4763730/ted-cruz-climate-change

    • rsmurf Says:

      You sir are full of crap. Are you not aware of the climate crisis. And stop with the dems and power it is the republicans that have proclaimed they want a PERMANENT REPUBLICAN MAJORITY. And that sir is to exert power. You need to get unconfused.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        You, smurfy, are the one who is confused (as usual). Charles was quoting Cruz, and Cruz is the one who is full of crap, not Charles. Did you not view the link?

  3. dumboldguy Says:

    One of the hottest places in hell is reserved for Ted Cruz, who is among the biggest and stinkiest turds ever to float to the top of the cesspool that is American Republican politics. (McConnell will be right next to him)

    And I cannot believe that many Texans support the idea of “machine gun bacon” either—-it’s just another supposedly “clever” piece of BS that will appeal to certain slack-jawed low-IQ droolers on the right, but I’m sure Texans have more respect for a weapon than to treat it like this (to say nothing of the cost of the ammo and the fact that you can’t do it at home).

  4. rsmurf Says:

    And eat my shorts Cruzing-for-boys.

  5. rhymeswithgoalie Says:

    Hey, Peter! Did you know that the satellite record is the most reliable temperature data?

    • jfon Says:

      ‘..the satellite record is the most reliable temperature data’
      No it ain’t. The most reliable temperature record for surface temperatures is a thermometer right where you’re measuring them, not a satellite a hundred and fifty miles away. Data from the satellite has to be interpreted, since the monitors are receiving infrared from every level of the atmosphere, as well as the surface. The satellite can only measure temperatures at the time it’s passing over a particular area, and that time varies as drag slows down the satellite and lowers its orbit. Taking the measurements slightly earlier year by year meant that on average the surface had not warmed up as much during the day. That was the reason why the University of Alabama/Huntsville team, the one usually referred to by climate ‘sceptics’, were able for years to claim that satellite temperatures were not showing the same increase as ground measurements did. It took outside researchers to show the basic flaw in their own data.

    • mboli Says:

      Do you have a clue as to how satellites measure temperature, at different levels, from microwave radiation?

      Do you imagine that satellites dip thermometers down into the atmosphere at different levels?

  6. doldrom Says:

    Cruz hails from Canada, renounced his citizenship only in 2014. Ever heard of Canadian bacon? We don’t bake any bacon with machine guns barrels.

    Texas traditions … what a poseur.

  7. Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

    Probably good this opinion will be moderated later.
    Ted Cruz is so low a life form he is below bacteria. I believe I should be able to have any weapon I want. I do not believe this right should apply to kid killers and other scum. There for, am happy to lose the right, as a civilized adult, to own mass killing weapons. As the post points out, there is a connection between gun ‘nuts, deniers and low IQ. Bodes ill for a successful revolution.

  8. redskylite Says:

    The semi-automatic rifle that Cruz is using in this 2015 video is not a machine gun. It is a piece of hardware that was used earlier in senseless mass killings. The short video is a thoughtless insult to those who lost loved ones.

    It is also an insult to those who love arms, as it was designed for selective fire – not cooking bacon.

  9. Brent Jensen-Schmidt Says:

    The point here, is that there is a strong correlation between knuckle dragging gun nuts, the moronic side of right wing sheep and anti science deniers.
    Just to join the irrelevant threads above.
    It is not about the arbitrarily applied ‘rights’, as interpreted by a political supreme court, with no apparent regard for citizen obligation.
    The AR15 is designed to fire fast and kill many, not selectively.


Leave a Reply to Keith McClary Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: