Friday, September 25, 2009

Republican Candidate launches campaign with assault rifle giveaway

At left: Dean Allen, Democratic candidate for adjutant general, poses with AK-47 assault rifle. Photo by George Gardner of the Greenville News.

NOTE: SEE EDIT BELOW.

Just as the Republicans in places like California are really Democrats (think Schwarzenegger), the Democrats in places like South Carolina are really Republicans.

As evidence, I offer the following:

Candidate to launch campaign with assault rifle giveaway
By Paul Alongi • Staff writer, Greenville News
September 25, 2009


Dean Allen, 58, said he will give away the [AK-47 assault] rifle in a free sweepstakes open to all. He said it’s his way of celebrating the Second Amendment and showing solidarity against gun-rights opponents.

The winner will receive a gift certificate, Allen said. To take possession of the gun, the winner will have to pass an FBI background check, show identification and fill out federal paperwork, he said.

“I’m not worried about people that legally own weapons,” Allen said. “I’m worried about people that get them illegally without meeting all these criteria.”

South Carolina is the only state in the nation that elects its adjutant general, who administers the Army and Air National Guard, the State Guard and the Emergency Management Division.

Incumbent Adjutant General Stan Spears, a Republican, hasn’t said if he will run for another term,

Allen is the first Republican to announce his candidacy for the seat. No Democrats have announced.

The sweepstakes is being held in conjunction with a “machine-gun social” at Allen Arms Indoor Shooting Range on Poinsett Highway. For $25, supporters can eat barbecue and unload one clip from their choice of automatic weapon, Allen said.
Violence to animals as an extra recreational bonus! Only a dullard could resist.

And hey, doesn't this look like FUN?!--



EDIT: One of my commenters, Reputo, informs me that Dean Allen is a Republican, so there goes my joke! I have changed the headline and tag, but will leave the joke in. As I've said before, I don't edit my words retroactively to look like I don't make mistakes, but I do add the necessary corrections. (If its good enough for the New York Times, its good enough for me.)

55 comments:

Bob S. said...

Are you referring to BBQ as violence to animals?

I think I would vote for this guy. I like his marketing.

The true determining factors would be his stand on the issues; pesky things like the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, etc.

Where do you stand on firearm ownership?

DaisyDeadhead said...

Since you have to kill animals to barbecue them, duh, of course I do.

I am undecided about firearm ownership. On one level, I am pretty southern: go for it. One another level, WTF does anyone need an assault rifle for?

Frankly, it ain't you and me I am worried about.

PS: I have shot an assault rifle before. Ain't skeered! :P

Bob S. said...

Daisy,

Didn't know you were vegetarian. Sorry but we'll have to disagree about violence toward animals. Most, the vast majority, only exist for the purpose of food.

As for "need"; well, they are fun to shot. The skill of being able to control and hit a target is a challenging sport.

On the other hand, the terrorist attack in Mumbai showed there is evil in the world that should be confronted.

The primary issue is the "need" versus "want".
Most people don't need a car that can go over 75 mph...yet there are few restrictions on ownership.

As long as the arms are used in a responsible manner, "need" isn't an issue.

Glad to hear you've shot an "assault rifle" before
Mind if I ask what you shot and where? Sounds like fun

DaisyDeadhead said...

Sorry for typos! That's my deletion there...

Bob: Most, the vast majority, only exist for the purpose of food.

Who decided that? God? The Seventh Day Adventists and many Eastern religions would disagree.

Actually, Bob, I proclaim that YOU only exist for the purpose of food. Poof! I have spoken! (See how easy that was?) Please do not instruct me about the "purpose" of anything, unless you are God Almighty Himself, okay? And you ain't.

Bob: The skill of being able to control and hit a target is a challenging sport.

Eh, it's alright. I found it marginally entertaining, and damned noisy. It was primarily the racket that made it so thoroughly unpleasant for me.

Bob: Mind if I ask what you shot and where?

I'd rather not get into the details (refer to previous posts about the biker ex-husband) since these comments are searchable...but it was quite a long time ago in New Jersey, and I did it several times, maybe a half-dozen times in all. It was an M-16, not an AK-47. (I don't need no damn foreign guns!)

I've never been eager to repeat the experience and don't see the sense in it.

Pistol practice, now that makes sense and could be useful (by comparison).

Off to work, any other comments will be responded to late tonight.

Bob S. said...

Bob: Most, the vast majority, only exist for the purpose of food.

Who decided that? God? The Seventh Day Adventists and many Eastern religions would disagree.


The decision is made by the people raising the animals as food, the people consuming those animals for food.

What you are asking is for proof that a Greater Power destined those animals for food. Sorry but I doubt you would accept a Bible scripture as evidence but that is where I would turn to.

What I was meaning is that most cattle wouldn't be raised if they weren't part of the food chain. Even in India where cattle are sacred, they aren't as numerous as in America.

Actually, Bob, I proclaim that YOU only exist for the purpose of food. Poof! I have spoken! (See how easy that was?) Please do not instruct me about the "purpose" of anything, unless you are God Almighty Himself, okay? And you ain't.

Hate to break it to you, but you ain't God either. So your whimsical proclamation on reinforces your own opinion.

If I buy seeds, plant them, cultivate them, then the purpose of those seeds were determined by me. If I grew them for beauty, then that is a purpose I determined.

IF I choose to eat them then that is the purpose of those seeds.

I also notice how egotistical vegetarians can be. You get to decide which out of God's creations should and shouldn't be eaten. Isn't that a little hypocritical?

This item is not to be eaten (cattle) but this item is (soy, wheat, bran). What gives you the right to decide then turn around and lecture me on my right to decide what should be eaten?

I'm also more into pistols then long guns. That is the reason why I obtained my Concealed Carry license.

Reputo said...

the Democrats in places like South Carolina are really Republicans.

Except for the fact that Allen is a Republican, not Democrat. The story says he is. His website says he is a Republican. Not sure where you got your caption from.

JoJo said...

OMG are you kidding me????

Hey I'm all for the 2nd amendment and I've never been anti-gun...we own several firearms. But NO ONE needs an assault rifle.

~Macarena~ said...

That video is terrible. I don't want to know anyone who wants to do that, much less enjoys it.

Daisy, are you going to enter so the rifle can end up in good hands?

Bob S. said...

JoJo,

No one needs an internet connection or a blog to speak in public, right?

So, do you prevent people from owning and using them?

If the ultimate purpose of the 2nd amendment is a check on a tyrannical government, then yes people need a assault rifle.

Heck, there have been home invasions with multiple criminals attacking the owner....surely that shows a "need" for an assault rifle.

How about the police? If no one "needs" an assault rifle, why do they have them?

If the police have them, shouldn't the citizens also be able to possess them? Or do you think that the police are incorruptible?

DaisyDeadhead said...

Reputo, I stand corrected. This was second-hand info/gossip and I will add an edited correction. Thank you.

Bob, please stop being a concern troll and asshole. This is not Mike's blog, and I am not as tolerant of right wing trouble-making as I used to be. You are arguing like a bot.

Bob: I also notice how egotistical vegetarians can be.

And I notice how egotistical YOU are. Now, stop arguing bullshit or fuck off.

Blue Heron said...

Not to wade into the assault weapons debate (who the hell needs them?) but as a gasp, meat eater, and an epicure of sorts, I must say that carolina barbeque is an affront to gastronomes everywhere. The whole chopped with the vinegar base thing was a shock to my system and made me seriously consider becoming a vegetarian myself. In fact I definitely would, or would starve myself to death in order to avoid this regional delicacy. South Carolina is like a gift that keeps on giving to those of us who follow politics nationally. Don't know much about the state except one lone visit and the fact that they had shag huts in the early sixties where thousands of people would dance. It doesn't matter what you wear, just as long as you are there...

Anonymous said...

I'll bet BBQ Bob S. would taste pretty good, marinated in a nice soy/garlic sauce. Let's eat Bob and save some animals! He could be the new mystery meat down at the Roadkill Cafe!

slashingtonguedotcom said...

I really do not like guns. I think that they are there just to kill and are of no other purpose. E.g. You can use a knife to kill, but it cuts vegetables. You can use a car to kill, but it also gets you from point A to point B.

Okay, if you disagree and think that you need guns for protection, fair enough. Lets allow pistols and revolvers.

But should people have the right to own M-16s, Ak-47s and bombs? You really think that carrying an M-16 around would give you more protection? Give me a break!

Weer'd Beard said...

Daisy, since it appears the sides are about even, could I make a respectful request?

Would you might doing a debate post on the Assault Weapons ban/ "Assault Weapons"?

I just think a lot of good can come from that so long as both sides are respectful and polite.

sheila said...

Crazy...dem or republican. An AK47 as a prize? I don't know what to say. ?????? Stunning.

Rootietoot said...

I'd do it for a nice 16-gauge shotgun, or perhaps a good 30.06 hunting rifle for on of my older kids. But an AK? C'mon, that's ridiculous.

Bob S. said...

Anon @ 2:32 am,

Please be advised that not all of us are sheep waiting to be slaughtered.

If you come to try to BBQ, please note that I'm a firm adherent of the right to keep and bear arms.

Bob S. said...

Daisy,

thanks for once again showing how tolerant liberals truly are.

I started off discussing YOUR POST and YOUR COMMENTS.

I continued to discuss thing YOU brought up.

WTF does anyone need an assault rifle for?

If you don't want to talk about those things, DON'T mention them!

It's pretty simple.

I replied to JoJo's comment while awaiting your reply. I was trying to stay on the topic YOU wrote about.

You can call names (aren't liberals supposed to be against labeling?) all you want, doesn't change anything.

I notice that you resort to that standard tactic instead of respectfully discussing view points or simply agreeing to disagree...aren't liberals supposed to be about diversity?

Anonymous said...

My Dear Daisy,

I cannot fathom a christian deadhead but to each his (or her) own. As for assault weapon ownership, I have none, to expensive to buy and to expensive to shoot, but as long as the owner doesn't shoot it on main street I have no problem with that. Period.

Keep the F'ing government the hell out of my life when it comes to personal freedoms and choices. I can guarantee you that I live my life to a higher moral standard and towards more patriotic freedoms than most of the current politicians in office. You can do what ever you wish, so long as it doesn't limit my ability to do the same. Nothing else matters.

Happy Trails

Blue Heron said...

Rootietoot, you mention that you might get a thirty ought six to bring down one of your children. I can not condone that behavior in any way but think it would be more fun, not to mention sporting, to nail them with a small bore like a 22. and then bash them on the head with a club. But hey as they say in Baton Rouge, viva le difference.

Blue Heron said...

Bob S. (I am also a Bob S., are you my evil doppelganger?) you say you aren't going to be caught without your assault weapon like a sheep waiting to be slaughtered. Who is threatening you to cause such massive freaking paranoia? Have you thought about calling law enforcement? (or are they in on it, too?)

Might want to switch to a little decaf.

Bob S. said...

Blue Heron,

You might want to read my comment again. I said nothing about an assault rifle in reference to being slaughtered.

I simply stated that I am a 2nd amendment adherent.

Talk about reading comprehension failure:
Who is threatening you to cause such massive freaking paranoia?

Did you not read WHY I wrote what I did?

Let's eat Bob and save some animals! He could be the new mystery meat down at the Roadkill Cafe!

That sure sounds like a threat.

Or maybe I read the news and see all the "peaceful" liberal protesters causing such violence.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Bob, I don't mind conservative opinions, but I do mind concern trolling, which is what you do at Mike's and what you are attempting here. HERE is a handy-dandy description.

Read and learn the difference.

Bob: If you don't want to talk about those things, DON'T mention them!

Excuse me, this is my blog and I will do whatever I please. And if you address me in that male-supremacist, authoritarian tone again, I start deleting what you write. Stop talking to me like I'm one of your children; I am likely older than you are. You will not come here and give me orders and then behave like a common concern troll.

Politeness = learn what it is. As we ask here in south: Were you raised in a barn or what?

Weerd, I have no desire to have such a debate because of the people it brings out of the woodwork (as we see here). I have to work, and have no time to moderate this blog 24/7 for rude people like Rob.

Bob S. said...

By the way, I thought of calling law enforcement but with an average response time of 6 minutes shouldn't I be responsible for my own safety?

Bob S. said...

Nice Daisy,

Now we see how tolerant and supportive of free speech you are.

Don't like being called on your behavior?

DaisyDeadhead said...

Bob, can you read? I will not be talked to in that way. You are not my husband, my father or the Pope, and you have no authority to talk to me that way just because I am female and you fancy yourself superior or smarter.

First deletion. You will not address me as "Lady"--you have not earned this right.

Stop all this whiny "but I thought liberals believed in diversity--wahhh wahhh waaaaaahhh!" ... hey, I thought conservatives believed in MANNERS AND DECENCY, but as you have proven here, there are exceptions to everything.

Now, I told you to go read Recursive Paradox's piece on trolling, and there is no way you could have read it so fast. I'd advise you to go there and read and digest it. Maybe you won't get your comments censored, if you learn to behave yourself (as any intelligent 4th grader has already figured out).

Troll.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Bob, continues whining: Now we see how tolerant and supportive of free speech you are.

I support SPEECH, not TROLLING.

Again, read the piece. Gave me a whole new outlook on moderating. :)

DaisyDeadhead said...

Bob, I'll be writing about Genderbitch's trolling piece soon, ...and will give you a prominent place in it, don't you worry your pretty little head, okay?

Can't decide if you are a concern troll or a clever troll. Possibly a Griefer.

I'm glad I finally have definitions for you people.

Bob S. said...

Daisy
Thanks for providing yet again another example of liberal hypocrisy.

You support SPEECH, but not TROLLING eh?

Is that like supporting Free speech but not "hate speech"; e.g. anything you disagree with?


I think you've hit all the liberal high points.

I'll give you extra points for this one:
don't you worry your pretty little head,
Hypocrisy combined with condescension... +2 for the combination.

Isn't it amazing that you start a conversation, then you get upset that people talk about what you are talking about.

You say I'm rude but use foul language to me.

Please explain exactly how I have to "earn" the right to be respectful in calling you Lady?

DaisyDeadhead said...

Bob: Is that like supporting Free speech but not "hate speech"; e.g. anything you disagree with?

No. Did you read Recursive Paradox's very long piece, delineating the difference? What did you think of it?

See, asking a question like that tells me that you are not following the necessary instruction to gain the understanding you claim to seek. That is how I know you are a concern troll. Answers are duly given, and you just ask more stupid "questions"...

Bob: I think you've hit all the liberal high points.

I'll give you extra points for this one:
don't you worry your pretty little head,
Hypocrisy combined with condescension... +2 for the combination.


How do you like being patronized? No fun, is it?

Bob: Isn't it amazing that you start a conversation, then you get upset that people talk about what you are talking about.

Did you read the piece I linked? Do you understand the difference between "talking about" and trolling?

What did you think of Genderbitch's post? Let's discuss THAT.

Bob: You say I'm rude but use foul language to me.

Awww, poor baby. More whining, waaah waaah waaah....

It takes a lot to get through to some people, obviously

Bob: Please explain exactly how I have to "earn" the right to be respectful in calling you Lady?

"Lady" is insulting--this is a feminist blog and we don't use "lady"... this is not open to discussion or debate. If you need to learn more about Feminism 101, please go here.

But do not ask more questions, if answers are contained in that link...that tells me you are not interested in actually obtaining the answers, if you will not study your assigned reading material.

Weer'd Beard said...

What about my request?

Will you defend Assault Weapons Legislation in a respectful debate here?

DaisyDeadhead said...

Weerd, I replied to you already.

The guy in this song is also BOB, and I keep thinking of him while I type replies to Bob... LOL.

Anonymous said...

Wow, Daisy, are you that far left that you can't see freedom anymore. Has it evolved into socialism yet? Do you want the government to provide everything for your existence?

You are not fair to probably anyone not agreeing with you, not objective enough to use a blog effectively, not mature enough to handle a debate (reference all YOUR name calling), and from your pro-drug sites advertised therin quite possibly not in your right mind. Oh wait, you don't have a "right" mind. Of course, all I have seen of your blog is this one installment. I dare not expose myself to the rest.

AztecRed said...

"WTF does anyone need an assault rifle for?"

Because a well regulated militia would look pretty silly with 16 gauge shotguns. Not to mention be woefully under-equipped.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Aztec Red, best argument I've heard yet. Teach the other guys how to argue decently, willya?

Hint: Having a POINT, is always a good place to start.

Anonymous, personal attacks do not an argument make, but nice try. Fuck off, troll.

Rootietoot said...

Blue Heron,
a .22 is too small, as my children are LARGE and FAST and VERY THICK HEADED. No, a 30.06 it should be.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Here's hoping the troll invasion is over for tonight, anyway.

At work, a rather wound-up customer insisted to me that Barack Obama IS a Muslim ("although a brilliant one!") --and I started wondering if the country is having a collective nervous breakdown?

What would JG Ballard say?

Bob S. said...

Daisy,

Just because you seem to be trying to provoke a response, I'll oblige.


If I can't call you LADY, does BITCH work for you?

Anonymous said...

A feminist blog? I like it!

I still say we BBQ Bob S. He's cheaper than other meats though he seems like he might be a bit tough. He says he's not a sheep then he warns that he is armed, like an armadillo? Or are armadillos armored?

Whatever. It's obvious he's one slow animal who just doesn't get it.

Pretzels, anyone?

Bryce said...

good work, d. dont feed da trolls.

Rootietoot said...

Awe Daisy, *I* like you, and I'm not even a liberal!

PS...got some neem oil...miracle stuff that!

genderbitch said...

Just wanna let you all know, 2nd amendment was designed specifically because the states didn't have much of a standing army and foreign threats could and often did enter our soil.

Separatist militias were not what they had in mind with that one. XD No government ever gives you the means to dismantle it. Not even ours. That's mildly suicidal for a governing body.

Bob S. said...

GB,

That is exactly what the government did...give the power to the people to dismantle it.

These were folks that had just successfully revolted from a government they considered unjust.

The founders of our country did not want people, individual people to be powerless against a tyrannical government.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Bob, people who call me names and pick fights with my regulars, are not welcome here. Please leave. If you don't, know that I regard your continued presence as harassment and trolling. I am not interested in anything you have to say. Please go away.

If you don't, keep in mind that this makes you an ill-mannered fascist bully who insists on impolitely barging in where you are not welcome and where you were never invited. Do not continue all the freedom-fighter nonsense; true conservatives are usually quite respectful of territory, and this is mine.

Adios.

mikeb302000 said...

Daily, I go away for one weekend and you take half my commenters away.

In all seriousness, I find a politician who poses with an AK-47 absolutely ludicrous. It's a sad comment on the voting public in his area. Of course as soon as I mention their under-educated and fundamentally stilted world view, I'm accused of being a bigot. Maybe I am. But guns are bad news for the country and only the most self-serving would argue against that.

white rabbit said...

It would be nice to win the AK47 in the raffle and then ostentatiously put it through one of those metal crushing devices they used for decommissioning paramilitary arms in Northern Ireland.

Problem solved :D

genderbitch said...

Hiya Bob,

Madison's quote actually proves my point, yanno.

The government trusts you with those arms. Why would it trust you if you mean to dismantle it?

Webster establishes that the armament of the American citizen is a part of the self government of the United States, not a means to dismantle it. It establishes a balance point and puts the power to protect America into the hands of civilian and military. Not to destroy it.

Coxe establishes that the American citizen is the militia, which is, again, what I said. We are the protectors of America, not its dismantlers.

And Jefferson sings the same tune of self government and an integral role of the American citizen in governing and protection of America.

Quote mining is cute and all, Bobby boy, but you have to make sure the mined quotes actually back your point up.

Instead of mine. XD

Bob S. said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DaisyDeadhead said...

Bob, nobody gets to hang around after calling me a bitch. If you wanted to argue with my commenters in good faith, you shouldn't have been such a rude dick.

You said "Bye" in the last comment of yours I deleted--obviously a lie. You have no integrity.

Mike, you can have them all back--I am hereby sending all the ill-behaved brats back home.

D. said...

At work, a rather wound-up customer insisted to me that Barack Obama IS a Muslim ("although a brilliant one!") --and I started wondering if the country is having a collective nervous breakdown?

What would JG Ballard say?


Probably "Who wrote this crap?"

Rootietoot said...

If only deleting IRL trolls were as easy *sigh*

Mama Moretti said...

Oh Daisy, you poor thing. What a train wreck.

Weer'd Beard said...

I'm calling Daisy and her commenters out.

Link here: http://weerdbeard.livejournal.com/563542.html

Note that my Pro-Gun readers will NOT be allowed to comment, this is a place for you to discuss your feelings on gun control with me.

Mike W. said...

No government ever gives you the means to dismantle it. Not even ours. That's mildly suicidal for a governing body.

Funny because that's exactly what our founders did.

I'd suggest you read the Federalist Papers and the Declaration of Independence.

Theo Kahil said...

Enjoy the party of DJ and enhance your beauty please contact :- There Photographers in Lafayette la as single and the entire future in the fraction behavior which will assist in increasing the period of service as djs in New Orleans in brain what as a consequence needed along with very important to contain in favor of taking pictures sitting to New Orleans Photographer. The genuine as well as precise systematize in anticipation of the end of instance was the accurateness which might give you an idea about the way such on top of baton rouge photography.