Here we go again with the Guns

Gun control: the bloggers’ view

Matthew Weaver
Tuesday April 17, 2007

After the deadliest mass shooting in American history you might think that Virginia Tech killings would prompt a rethink about gun control in the US. But No. If anything American’s stance of the right to bear arms is hardening, judging by what the bloggers have to say.

Trish and Halli, two harmless looking old ladies who post “great recipe” suggestions from Idaho, argue that some of the 32 deaths could have been prevented if guns had been more freely available. Halli posts: “If some students and faculty had been carrying their legally permitted guns today, it is likely that a few deaths would have occurred. However, in at least two instances the murderer chained classroom doors closed and proceeded to fire at students. In all likelihood an armed student would have stopped him before 32 people had been executed.”

Similarly Frank Staheli argues that if more students carried gun there would be fewer spree killings.

The National Rifle Association is reluctant to be drawn on the issue, But Gun Owners of America demands a end to gun-free zones in schools and campuses. It says: “It is irresponsibly dangerous to tell citizens that they may not have guns at schools. The Virginia Tech shooting shows that killers have no concern about a gun ban when murder is in their hearts.”

So what about the politicians? The leading Democratic presidential contenders all steer clear of advocating gun control. Instead Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards all turn to prayer.

According to Robin Toner on the New York Times political blogging site the Caucus says that Democrat hopefuls don’t want to harm their chances of election by calling for gun control as Al Gore did in 2000.

John Nichols in the Nation argues that US has failed to learn the lesson of Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine.

Raised in Chaos calls for a deeper examination of the malaise in American society She says:

“The issue is not guns, and while I personally believe there should be no need for them in a “civilized” society, and that fucking ANYONE shouldn’t be able to pick up a rifle and a pack of Cheetos at your local Wal-Mart, this is not the context in which to have this debate.

Instead, when a man with a gun (and do we know yet if he was a student or not?) strolls into a college dormitory at 7 a.m. and starts shooting people at random, we really need to take a critical look at the kind of society we live in.”

[…]

BBQ was taking the ‘why have they not banned guns line’ from the outset, and these same morons are also dismayed by the thinking of people like Paul Craig Roberts:

[…]

Guns have been around for a long time, but these crazy shootings are a new development that point to a failure of culture to produce people with a sense of responsibility and self-control. When I was a kid, a youngster could walk into a local hardware store and buy a gun. There were no restrictions. If a kid was so young that he couldn’t see over the counter, the store owner might call a parent for approval. We all had guns, and we never shot ourselves or anyone else.

One of my grandmothers thought nothing of me and my friends playing with the World War II weapons my uncle had brought back. My other grandmother never batted an eye when I collected my grandfather’s shotgun from behind the door and went off to match wits with the crows that raided the pecan trees or the poisonous cottonmouth snakes that could be found along the creek that ran through the farm.

My grandmother never worried about me until I got a horse, a more dangerous object in her view than a gun.

We also all had knives, which we carried in our pockets to school every day. We never stabbed anyone and very seldom cut our own fingers.

We often had fights, more often wrestling each other to the ground than fist fights. No one ever thought of pulling a knife or a gun on his antagonist. Parents and teachers did not exactly approve of fights, but they considered them natural. We were not arrested, handcuffed and finger-printed for being in a fight. […]

You need to read the entire article.

My brother kept guns at the age of 16; an M16 and some handguns. We had a ball with them. I did shooting at school as a sport. Guns are not a big deal, and they are not the problem. They are actually a huge amount of fun and a fantastic sport to be involved in.

‘Matthew Weaver’ says attitudes are hardening. Actually, everyone is fed up with the illogical and absurd newspaper lead idea that because someone snaps and goes berserk, we should all pay a penalty by having to suffer a raft of new and hastily drafted regulations.

Its appalling and sad when crazy people do stuff, but the law abiding should not be made to suffer a reduction in the quality of their life because a single nut-case does something terrible.

It is this same knee jerk mentality that allows people to think that its OK to ban home schooling because there was a single instance of a family that didn’t pull it off ‘correctly’, or the genocide of a whole breed of dogs because one owner let his dog bite a little girl. It is madness to live that way.

It is the criminals who should be made to conform to community standards, not the community being whittled down to the level that assumes everyone is a potential mass murderer or dog fighter.

Advertisements
About

We are the best.

Posted in Someone Clever Said, The Facts
13 comments on “Here we go again with the Guns
  1. meaumeau says:

    It’s very like calling a ban on martial arts.
    A potentially lethal tool (of defence-?) that can be misapplied to the detriment of the ‘innocent’. The ability to commit violent crime is increased if you posess tools to execute the crime q.e.d martial arts should be banned.

    I asked about euthanasia because I wanted to know if you thought ‘liberal death laws’ are an appropriate freedom, I was just curious, so it can be saved for another time. (I would have picked abortion but foetuses aren’t people so it doesn’t count).

    it is my RIGHT to own a nuke

    Well it may be your right in a free society that values its freedom a) what would be the point, b) could you really find enough people to fund your nuke project?

    The right to own something does not equate to an obligation upon somebody to sell you that thing (or its parts).

  2. irdial says:

    We call it ‘fallacy’.

    So, you DO equate gun ownership with WMD. ASTONISHING.

    But of COURSE! An air pistol, a glock, RPG, tank, B52 bomber, nuke… by YOUR logic it is my RIGHT to own a nuke should I wish, and you would be happy for me to live next door to you doing so as it reaffirms your belief in the ultimately free society. Fantastic.

    This is facetious and fallacious logic. I wont’ bite.

    I’ve not said ban guns, I’ve expressed my societal preference and tried to point out the price associated with the right to bear arms.

    Your ‘societal preference’ puts gun owners at the service of your ideology, that it why you are wrong. There have been many instances of ‘societal preference’ like in South Africa under Apartheid when people expressed their ‘societal preference’ to live in a racist society, or like the Saudis who express their ‘societal preference’ to forbid women just about every dignity imaginable. In a free society, your societal preference stops at the inside of your front door. It does not enter my house, save as words on a page, which I am at liberty to use to keep my living room warm in the winter.

    But I am astonished that while the media can find out anyones medical and criminal history in a couple of hours it is derided as lilly-livered to suggest gun controls, such as preventing the mentally ill from aquiring ‘tools’ they are not fit to control.

    The mentally ill can buy knives, hammers, golf clubs and any manner of weapon or tool. Guns are not special, and you keep speaking as if they are; you just don’t understand guns, how they work, what they are or anything about them. This is why you put guns into a special fantasy category, making them into something special when in fact they are as mundane as a toaster. This is a plain fact.

    Or would you be zen-like if those you loved had died in the massacre, knowing that such is the price of this incredible important freedom?

    This is the sort of maudlin emotionalism used by The Sun to justify banning anything. It is beneath contempt.

    Perhaps when everyone has a mini-nuke in the attic society will sublime into the next dimension in a mass satori moment.

    That’s just silly.

    And I’ve said nothing against suicide, so I’m not going there! Enough meat!

    But indeed, you have. By being arbitrarily and irrationally against the rights of people to own guns, you are for the type of government that can ban suicide ‘for the greater good’.

  3. Alun says:

    So, you DO equate gun ownership with WMD. ASTONISHING.

    But of COURSE! An air pistol, a glock, RPG, tank, B52 bomber, nuke… by YOUR logic it is my RIGHT to own a nuke should I wish, and you would be happy for me to live next door to you doing so as it reaffirms your belief in the ultimately free society. Fantastic.

    I’ve not said ban guns, I’ve expressed my societal preference and tried to point out the price associated with the right to bear arms. But I am astonished that while the media can find out anyones medical and criminal history in a couple of hours it is derided as lilly-livered to suggest gun controls, such as preventing the mentally ill from aquiring ‘tools’ they are not fit to control. Or would you be zen-like if those you loved had died in the massacre, knowing that such is the price of this incredible important freedom? Perhaps when everyone has a mini-nuke in the attic society will sublime into the next dimension in a mass satori moment.

    And I’ve said nothing against suicide, so I’m not going there! Enough meat!

  4. irdial says:

    No, it’s more like trying to limit nuclear proliferation because you know the dangers if everybody has one. Even though it may be their right to have them. Even the US sees that argument.

    So, you DO equate gun ownership with WMD. ASTONISHING.

    When the USA, Britain, Israel, Russia, China, India and the rest disarm, then they can say that other countries cannot develop and deploy Nuclear Weapons.

    But I digress.

    The two things have absolutely nothing to do with each other, save that the police are calling for the weak to be disarmed, so that they can DOMINATE and BULLY. Anyone who is for that, really doesn’t understand reality, and in the light of what has been happening in the last few years, that is totally unbelievable.

    I’ve not said ban guns, I’ve not opposed guns with a function. But I know what society we have all chosen to live in, though we are adults and free to leave should we wish… maybe if the need to shoot things (or have guns in the cupboard) became overwhelming.

    Yes, you have and ARE saying ‘ban guns’. I can own a gun for whatever reason I like, which has nothing to do with anyone else other than me. You cannot pick and choose the uses to which I can put my tools, wether that tool be a hammer a toaster an oven or a gun.

    the guns are used for a lot of domestic disputes and suicides, so it’s not quite as rosy as it seems even within the ‘native’ population.

    Suicide is your absolute right. Period. And we have already been over the point that just because a gun is used to do a crime this does not make guns ‘bad’.

    If you commit suicide with a gun or by electrocuting yourself in the bath its YOUR BUSINESS, not anyone else’s.

    I don’t equate asking for help to determine your own fate with being murdered.

    And yet, you will not allow people to determine the way that they want to live when it comes to owning tools. If you are FOR people allowing to control how they exit this life, how can you be against them controlling how they live? And once again, why do you think people have the right to determine their own fate at all? HMG says doctors who do assisted suicide are guilty of murder, i.e. they call assisted suicide an act of murder. By your logic, we should agree with them and just obey because its, ‘good for society’ – someone might be killed against their will if we ‘allow’ assisted suicide.

    None of this washes, obviously.

  5. Alun says:

    It’s like calling for martial arts classes to be banned because of muggers.
    No, it’s more like trying to limit nuclear proliferation because you know the dangers if everybody has one. Even though it may be their right to have them. Even the US sees that argument. It certainly doesn’t want the nutter down the road getting armed-up, despite ignoring/bending the rules itself.

    I’ve not said ban guns, I’ve not opposed guns with a function. But I know what society we have all chosen to live in, though we are adults and free to leave should we wish… maybe if the need to shoot things (or have guns in the cupboard) became overwhelming.

    The most heavily armed country in the civilised world is Switzerland, whose democracy and electoral arrangements have been receiving favourable mention in these columns lately. They have virtually no gun crime, and what they do have is perpetrated by immigrants.
    Interestingly, I was just talking to my Swiss friend all morning about this. The Swiss argument is yet another straw man. They are heavily armed because the army gives everyone a gun which they keep at home. They got some bullets, a number which is being reduced (or at least debated at present). Unfortunately, the guns are used for a lot of domestic disputes and suicides, so it’s not quite as rosy as it seems even within the ‘native’ population.

    view on euthanasia / assisted suicide? I don’t equate asking for help to determine your own fate with being murdered.

  6. meaumeau says:

    Yes, I’m glad the UK lacks the freedom to help people kill each other more easily.

    What’s your view on euthanasia / assisted suicide?

    #—#

    Like most of the households in our village, we had an air rifle and a couple of shotguns around the house when I was a kid, for wildlife control purposes, their function was understood, no more temptation to go on a killing spree than drown a pig in the nearest sewage tank.

    When you have guns that serve a purpose you DO use them as tools, you practice your aim so your skills increase, you WANT to use the gun MORE responsibly and accurately and you realise that you need to act more CALMLY to do this. TBH I wasn’t particularly interested, only using the air rifle and mostly for target practice.

    There is no depiction of purpose of gun ownership in the media the only news is about sociopaths and the military, the only fictions are about cops & drugs, retribution & power. In the UK this means guns are largely some weird fantasy object.
    In the US these fantasies can be easily acted out by people who have no purpose using guns, this (IMO) is where the problem lies, there will be mishaps due to the right for anyone to own guns and an environment where there is little immediate purpose for that ownership (and where the responsibilities of gun ownership are not upheld) but it shouldn’t mean that people who have a purpose using guns should be victimised.

    It’s like calling for martial arts classes to be banned because of muggers.

  7. irdial says:

    Sure, just move to the US!

    Hang on, you’d be data-raped to get in, forced to carry photo ID and they’d take that pipe off you for a start. But at least you’d be free to be slaughtered by anyone who takes a dislike to you, or to shoot who you like with any weapon you can afford. I think they’ve got their freedoms in a muddle.

    Its actually you who are in a muddle.

    You use the term ‘data rape’. I assume by this we are talking about passenger profiling, collecting their data before you reach the USA to be sent to Uncle Sham, and then having your fingerprints and photo taken on arrival. The US government say they are doing this ‘for the good of society’, for ‘increased safety’. Your freedom to move about as you wish without being tracked is being removed because they think it is good for the whole. It is the same rationale that removed guns from your hands; its good for society in the end, so its justifiable.

    You are the same as the data rapers, only you don’t seem to be able to see that … except that delusion is not one of their characteristics. They KNOW that what they are doing will not decrease the risk of ‘terrorism’ they KNOW that they are using ‘increased safety’ as a pretext for total control. You, on the other hand, seem to be inside the delusion that removing guns actually makes people safer, which of course is nonsense. If you believe that taking away guns makes people safer, why do you not believe that everything else the government is planning and doing also makes you safer?

    Like the handheld ID checker, what is so wrong with that? They say it can help catch criminals; who would be against that? They say that banning guns would help reduce gun crime, you believe that unquestioningly, so why not believe everything else?

    You use the same logic as they do and agree explicitly with the same principle of the state having the right to override your liberty in the name of collective safety as they do and so it appears at first glance that you are no different from them. If you are different to them, then please correct me and say how you are specifically, and explain how you can say that USVISIT, UK ID cards, mass fingerprinting, racial profiling, all pervasive CCTV, hand held ID checkers and everything else we know you don’t like is bad, but controlling guns is good, correct, perfectly OK etc etc.

    And as for moving to the US, that is always an option. In that country, as I have said before, it is possible to fix what is wrong more than in any other country. At least there (when its working) you have guaranteed rights, like being able to home school and all the other things.

    Many gun enthusiasts left the UK so they could carry on with their sport. People are leaving the UK for many reasons all the time. They are sick of the dyed in weakness, the illogic, the foolishness the group think….

    What about thinking the unthinkable (not Nu-Labour’s strong suit) and repealing the ludicrous ban on the private legitimate ownership of handguns. Its stated intention has been a total failure, and only the law-abiding owners, such as myself had to surrender them, while of course the criminals couldn’t care less. The Luger captured by my late father in WWII was not destined for destruction as far as I was concerned, so I exported it, and myself to a more enlightened third world country. I emigrated thirty-odd years ago when sickened by the Wilson/Callaghan/Heath maladministrations, only returning when Margaret Thatcher came to save us. Now we have not only an incompetent (as always) Labour government, but a positively malevolent one, and after their re-election I felt the whole electorate had gone mad, and voted with my feet once more. Every totalitarian government makes it one of their first orders of business to disarm the populace for the wielding of greater control; Hitler, Stalin, Blair, you name them. The most heavily armed country in the civilised world is Switzerland, whose democracy and electoral arrangements have been receiving favourable mention in these columns lately. They have virtually no gun crime, and what they do have is perpetrated by immigrants. We would be far safer as a nation if we encouraged the upright tax-paying public to have and use firearms for their own protection, because the police plainly are no longer in that business.

    there are so many examples, and each time it happens, britain is worse off because the people who are left behind are the weakest of the weak minded, who will let this country go to the dogs.

  8. Alun says:

    ‘If I get off the pipe can I have my guns back?’
    Sure, just move to the US!

    Hang on, you’d be data-raped to get in, forced to carry photo ID and they’d take that pipe off you for a start. But at least you’d be free to be slaughtered by anyone who takes a dislike to you, or to shoot who you like with any weapon you can afford. I think they’ve got their freedoms in a muddle.

  9. irdial says:

    What a great freedom. Yes, I’m glad the UK lacks the freedom to help people kill each other more easily.

    Like I said, its like trying to convince the Belgians about ID cards being bad. There is no getting through to them, and that is OK by me, ID cards for Belgium, and Sporks for the British.

    Tag me up and herd me out.

    Its a good thing that that is what you want, because thats what they are doing.

    Are you really saying it’s good to live in a country so free that any foreign psycopath can walk into a shop and buy guns?

    I’m saying that its perfectly normal to be able to go into a shop and buy a toaster, or a hammer or a pack of needles, or a bottle or rubbing alcohol. In the UK, pharmacists now question why you are buying rubbing alcohol. If you think that is OK, well then, Spork On® dude.

    I’ll pour away the Kool-Aid if you get off the pipe!

    If I get off the pipe can I have my guns back? In your world view no. In my world view, you getting off the breast means that you get what you want because it has nothing to do with me, whereas you getting what you want puts an irrational newspaper editor created, fictional and pointless control on me.

    And that is the difference.

  10. Alun says:

    Also on the ‘not an american, was not ‘having a bad day’ but was in fact a total psycho, on medication with a history of problems’ comment. Are you really saying it’s good to live in a country so free that any foreign psycopath can walk into a shop and buy guns?
    I’ll pour away the Kool-Aid if you get off the pipe!

  11. Alun says:

    ‘Come on. This guy was not an american, was not ‘having a bad day’ but was in fact a total psycho, on medication with a history of problems. ‘
    A straw man, I say. Of this years 30,000 deaths, this nutter has accounted for 0.1%. And the other 99.9%, are there another 999 massacres to happen this year? No. Most are ‘normal’ rational people doing something they shouldn’t in the heat of the moment with a weapon they don’t ‘need’ to have around. What a great freedom. Yes, I’m glad the UK lacks the freedom to help people kill each other more easily. To think the US is more free since it lets its citizens have weapons… Well.
    Tag me up and herd me out, I’m a brain dead-eloi, obviously.

  12. irdial says:

    YHBT?…no its all true…

    Without feeding the troll too much meat, I’d just point out that 30,000 U.S. citizens are sacrificed every year at the altar of liberal gun laws. That’s a lot of lives for a pointless liberty.

    No liberty is ‘pointless’…unless its someone else’s liberty of course, then its of no value at all, just like the liberty of the slaves was to the british slavers and the people who sold them. I don’t expect any British person to understand the concept of a written constitution, liberty, or anything else about what made the USA country great. I expect them to be what they are, the mouldering left overs after all the free people have fled to Australia (who comprehensively demolished their governments ID card plans en masse), and the USA.

    There is no such thing as ‘liberal gun laws’; everyone has the right to have a gun, just like they have the right to own a toaster. There are no ‘liberal toaster laws’ or ‘liberal knife laws’ or ‘liberal hammer laws’.

    If US citizens abided by their own constitution and used their gun-toting rights as intended by the founding fathers, they would have used their right to bear arms to remove the president-who-is-not on the day he was sworn in over 7 years ago. But they didn’t.

    That doesn’t mean that the right to bear arms should be removed. Doh.

    They should have used the right again the day he signed the Patriot Act into law. But they didn’t.
    So it’s both a pointless and a false liberty.

    Another false piece of logic. If they CHOOSE to overthrow their government, then they HAVE THE ABILITY if they are armed. Removing the guns removes that choice, and its really hilarious that someone pokes fun at people who have the means at their disposal to do that but who choose not to, when in their own country the population has been disarmed and the police have been given more powers than ever by a fascist government, and there is NOTHING you can do about it should HMG decide to put troops in the streets. Yes, it CAN happen here.

    Of course, people who are against guns only know about what they read in the newspapers. The newspapers never report about the instances where gun ownership stops the maniacs in their tracks but then, they wouldn’t would they? They have also never used guns, and probably have never been in the same room as a gun, unless it was to enter their own country where the police are all armed with submachine guns. Writing that comes from a position of knowing nothing about guns is instantly recognizable, because anyone who has ever shot one knows the truth about them, and doesn’t put them in the same class as WMD.

    Now, one could say “the law abiding should not be made to suffer a reduction in the quality of their life because a single nut-case does something terrible” But you’d be stuffing an already paunchy straw man. Reduced quality of life because you’re not free to live in the OK corrall? Please. Or like those who suggest cars should be banned as they kill more people than do guns. That’s a straw Bibendum.

    No its not a straw man, because guns really are no different to any other tool, unless you have no experience of them and live in a society of milk blooded, limp wristed, fear soaked, panty waisted, nanny state adoring, soft as shite leftovers who believe anything they read in the newspapers and just take it as gospel. Not meaning you in particular Alun, clearly, but I DO mean the BBQ subhumans and those fervent anti state warriors that I know whose brains switch to ‘OFF’ when the word ‘gun’ is used in a sentence.

    An example of the sort of fear soaked dunderhead that I describe above is the man whose son was killed by a knife wielding scumbag. He then went to push for all knives with points to be banned in the UK, so no one else would ever be stabbed. No doubt there are some nincompoops who are calling for a ban on hammers. This is the level of total insanity that this country has sunk to, and everyone just goes along with the group think, unquestioning, unthinking, and just plain dumb:

    I agree with others who can cite some “racism” in this considering that Englands history is full of swords, spears, maces, axes, a multitude of domestic edged weapons which in the hands of a skilled user is equally as dangerous as any Japanese sword. But the Brits are well known for banning anything remotely perceived to be a threat to society and it’s a matter of time before forks and knives will be banned there and the whole country will be using plastic sporks.

    […]

    http://www.japantoday.com/jp/news/400702

    Yes indeed; the new symbol of Britain, encapsulating everything about it’s culture and people… The Plastic Spork.

    Thankfully in the USA, less and less people are buying into this crap. Overwhelmingly people understand that not only is it their right to keep and bear arms, but that when you do, you are safer. No matter what the brain dead eloi of the UK might think about this, Americans will not give up their guns. Period.

    Its like Saudi Arabians saying that the British are barbarians for letting females drive. No one here cares what they think, and no one in the USA cares what the british think. In fact, they like it that you don’t have guns, because then they don’t have to slaughter you on the Olympic firing ranges.

    So, NRA-loving, freedom fighters of the US, use it or lose it.

    They will use it at a time of their own choosing, and not at the behest of the lilly livered.

    Sacrifice 70 people a day so you can all carry your paranoia around and permit anyone having a bad day to blast who they like. Or sacrifice them so you are still free enough to remove a ‘government’ who rule only through your ignorance over what your freedoms really are and what greater freedoms they have already taken away.

    Come on. This guy was not an american, was not ‘having a bad day’ but was in fact a total psycho, on medication with a history of problems. We should not all be lowered to the level of children because some people are insane and go off the rails; the insane should be locked up and controlled. Once again, the insane can use anything to kill, and we should not ban or modify everything that can be used as a weapon…unless you think eating with a plastic spork is OK, and while you are at it, eat your phood off of a polystyrene plate, because china can be broken and made into shivs.

    Honestly.

    You cannot on the one hand, be against the state mandating ID and all the bad things that go with it, but be FOR the state taking away your right to own a gun or anything else that is your personal and private business. Next you will be saying that ‘the war on drugs’ is completely right, and that we, “cant have people getting stoned, because one of them might cause an accident”.

    It is totally illogical to be against gun ownership AND against nanny state / fascist police state controls. If you are FOR gun controls, then you are FOR mandatory ID, FOR control of all ‘drugs’, FOR the banning of vitamins, FOR mandatory vaccination and FOR every other state machination, because if you allow them to take your guns, why should you not allow them to do everything else? It is the same argument used for all of the above, ‘the benefit of society’ so why not let them do EVERYTHING that they want?

    Freedom is not an item you buy from a shelf at Waitrose. It is not a option from a basket of choices. You are either for it or against it. You cannot allow them to do only SOME of the fascist things, because what YOU think is OK (banning guns) inevitably affects someone who doesn’t agree with you. This is the fundamental misunderstanding about freedom that most British people make. They all believe that they alone are completely reasonable and ‘have it about right’ which of course is total delusion. The person who truly understands freedom knows that what he thinks only applies to him, and that he cannot and should not have a say over what other people do on their own land and in their own houses, unless it affects people outside of their property. Owning guns affects no one, just like owning a hammer or a toaster doesn’t. If you go wild with it, that is another story that has noting to do with guns, but instead is about you and your state of mind.

    Trying to convince the British about guns is like trying to talk about ID cards with Belgians. They are so inured to having an ID card, and being required by law to carry it when they leave ‘their’ homes that it is second nature to them. They think you are insane to question them and their ID loving ways, and in fact, they cannot understand how the UK functions without ID cards. In the UK almost no one understands what guns are or what they are for. All the young people you talk to will come up with retarded lines like, “the only thing guns are for is killing, so why would you want one in the first place”. It makes you want to puke; to be exposed to hamsters that brainwashed is like smelling the most rancid sewer smell imaginable.

    But I digress.

    People here just don’t get it. Even people who are on the surface against the police state, and all its nefarious deeds and violations are against guns, and for gun control, they are monumentally stupid, off key and without any understanding of their place in the universe. They are secretly sucking on the withered breast of the state, drinking its curdled Kool Aid poison milk, which kills their brains whilst making them think that they are opposed to the very tit that they are sucking on. Well, I’ve got news for you; you SUCK.

    These are the facts:

    California legislators held special hearings on campus safety, and Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said she hoped this would “reignite the dormant effort to pass common-sense gun regulations in this nation.” Please. That’s a lot of reaction for something that almost never happens.

    […]

    The shooting incidents are awful but aberrant; more Americans die from lightning strikes than from school violence. More kids die in bathtubs. But the media had become obsessed with school violence. After Columbine, my network aired 383 stories about the tragedy. Sam Donaldson warned wary parents and students about “angry teens turning up in other towns.” CBS News correspondent Bob McNamara called school shootings “an American nightmare that too many schools know too well.”

    […]

    The media hysteria encouraged people who run schools to do crazy things, like spend thousands of dollars on security cameras, and hire police officers to guard the doors. Some schools terrified students by running SWAT team drills; cops burst into classrooms and ordered kids down to the floor. The result? Students felt less secure than ever before. Though school violence was down, studies show kids were more scared. “They can’t learn under these conditions,” said psychologist Frank Farley, former head of the American Psychological Association.

    […]

    To listen to the media, Farley told me, you’d have to believe that Chicken Little was right. “The sky is truly falling. America is in terrible straits and our schools are a mess and they’re violent. But they are not violent. I don’t know why there is all this press coverage, other than the need for a story,” said Farley.

    That’s it. The media beast must be fed. Scares drive up ratings.

    And that is from ABC NEWS

    Even the mainstream in the USA is awake to this bullshit.

    And that is saying something.

  13. Alun says:

    Without feeding the troll too much meat, I’d just point out that 30,000 U.S. citizens are sacrificed every year at the altar of liberal gun laws. That’s a lot of lives for a pointless liberty.
    If US citizens abided by their own constitution and used their gun-toting rights as intended by the founding fathers, they would have used their right to bear arms to remove the president-who-is-not on the day he was sworn in over 7 years ago. But they didn’t.
    They should have used the right again the day he signed the Patriot Act into law. But they didn’t.
    So it’s both a pointless and a false liberty.

    Now, one could say “the law abiding should not be made to suffer a reduction in the quality of their life because a single nut-case does something terrible” But you’d be stuffing an already paunchy straw man. Reduced quality of life because you’re not free to live in the OK corrall? Please. Or like those who suggest cars should be banned as they kill more people than do guns. That’s a straw Bibendum.

    So, NRA-loving, freedom fighters of the US, use it or lose it.
    Sacrifice 70 people a day so you can all carry your paranoia around and permit anyone having a bad day to blast who they like. Or sacrifice them so you are still free enough to remove a ‘government’ who rule only through your ignorance over what your freedoms really are and what greater freedoms they have already taken away.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: