Well, by making the clear connection of him opposing the Iraq War which killed thousands of U.S. soldiers to him supporting the rights of gun owners and hunting to which he himself does, it adds up to that. People say that the Iraq War was morally unjust and we had no thought out reason for being in there, yet what's hunting?
I don't see the resemblance between a Congresswoman and a deer, no, nor do I see how that's relevant. For that matter, your link only redirects to French Google.
You oppose war because some people are killed. But you oppose gun control, and lack of gun control kills people. Do you understand?
What incredible logic you have. I'm sure it's hard up there, with your fellow Rhodes Scholars to explain things to idiot libertarians from Florida. I'm glad such thinking has gotten you this far on life on top of the Mountain of Enlightenment. You completely and totally addressed SJoyce's actual point thoroughly about what the difference is between hunting and war.
. . . . . oh wait.
I'm sorry but I don't understand you Mechaman.
And I have said "hypocritical libertarian", not "idiot libertarian", there's a difference between the two.
I just find it hypocritical to see some libertarians like Sjoyce, who is staunchly against war because war kills people, but they are against gun control too. And it's the case of Sjoyce. That's all.
My point is that Fitzgerald equated
hunting with
war. Unless most people are now on the cannibal diet, I don't exactly see the moral parallel he was trying to make with that part of the post. He basically equated hunters in the woods hunting deer with guys with glocks who kill McDonald's cashier workers and third world dictators.
Yes, I find that to be ridiculous.
