In my mind nothing needs to be said about this story, obviously, the woman is a loser and her methods are truly unacceptable.
And, then there is the comments section. Where one man reiterates the running joke, the sledge hammer should be outlawed. And, then that is followed by someone who allows that they don't get the joke. So, I explained it.
Here are the comments:
naplesconservative writes:
in response to SNOWBIRD27:Geez. She could have used a gun instead, right?
Now we need to ban sledge hammers so this does not happen again.
Patriot_1 writes:
in response to naplesconservative:Now we need to ban sledge hammers so this does not happen again.
WTH? Nobody is even suggesting a ban on guns... so why are you right-wing extremists so paranoid about it? It makes you look silly and whiny.
OP writes:
in response to Patriot_1:WTH? Nobody is even suggesting a ban on guns... so why are you right-wing extremists so paranoid about it? It makes you look silly and whiny.
It is awful to have to explain a joke, but, because you are special...
Background- There is a long running dispute about whether the gun or the man is to blame when somebody gets shot. One side blames the gun and wants them banned, The other side says, no, it is the man who misused the gun who is to blame. The first party remains unmoved by the logic of the second party.
So, the joke is that any inanimate object should be banned, in the logic of the first party, if it is used as a weapon. In this case, the inanimate object is a sledge hammer. But, the same mocking connection can be made with any inanimate object which is used as a weapon. And, so, to further elaborate; this is a running joke meant to parody the nonsensical approach of members of the first party who wish to ban guns when banning guns will not eliminate violence.
SNOWBIRD27 writes: