Monday, February 25, 2013

We Are Unable to Focus on the Problem, So We'll Do Something Else

From the happy assholes in that shithole at N40.75616, W-73.99017 New York Times:
Senator Christopher S. Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, is haunted by many things that emerged from the investigation of the December mass shooting at a Newtown elementary school...
“We do know that historically in these instances, amateurs have trouble switching magazines,” Mr. Murphy said, referring to the high-capacity ammunition feeding device used by Mr. Lanza to shoot scores of bullets in seconds. “I believe, and many of the parents there believe, that if Lanza had to switch cartridges nine times versus two times there would likely still be little boys and girls alive in Newtown today.” 
So, it's ok for him to kill his mom, steal her guns, take them to the school and kill the kids as long as he did it with magazines limited to 5 rounds...

More ridiculous are the comments from, typical libtards I guess, which indicate that these idjits are as stupid as the misguided politician the article is quoting.

From the typical NYer:
I approve of the proposed ban of high capacity magazines, but realistically it will not have a major effect. In the case of mass killings, it will help reduce the numbers of deaths, to an extent. The shooters could easily just carry several guns, or practice reloading.

However, the vast majority of deaths due to guns in this country are not due to mass shootings. Those grab headlines and attention, but dozens of people are killed every single day by handguns, and a smaller amount by rifles and shotguns. The high capacity ban, and the assault rifle ban, would have zero effect on these deaths.
"Yes- it won't do any good, but hey, let's do something that limits another law-abiding citizen's ability to use a legal tool in a legal manner, because TEH CHILDRUNZ!"

From another person unable to equate the first and second amendment:
(In Hawaii, no less)
A strict constitutional constructionist, and a believer that the intent of the founders is paramount, and believing that the Constitution is NOT a living document (it's principles do not change with time), we have a right under the Second Amendment to flintlocks and muskets.
This what the Founders envisioned for each citizen.
The Constitution has NOT BEEN AMENDED to update or in anyway alter that ORIGINAL INTENT.
Muskets and flintlocks are the right of each citizen...
I guess your right to free speech is limited to technology available in 1787, right?

A commenter from Georgia starts to sound semi-sentient, then goes off the rails in a spectacular manner:
Why can elected officials say things like this with a straight face? “I believe, and many of the parents there believe, that if Lanza had to switch cartridges nine times versus two times there would likely still be little boys and girls alive in Newtown today.”

So, instead of shooting 26 people, maybe he would have killed 12? Is that supposed to be acceptable? He could have all the cartidges he wanted; if he didn't have the gun to shoot them with no one would have been shot.

This is so tiring. "Politically toxic" my foot. As if the majority of voters are so attached to being able to have an automatic weapon. It's politicians who are so attached to their campaign donations.
Again- to this mouthbreather semi-automatic=machine gun. Pathetic.

Some other winners:
...As far as straw purchasers, there needs to be a special place in Hell for people like the person who allegedly bought the guns used by W____m Sp____r to murder those firemen.
And W____m Sp____r was released from prison?
Sorry- when you beat your 90-year old Grandmother to death with a hammer and you get to plead to manslaughter? Thanks NY Legal System... You get equal blame for the deaths of the First Responders on Christmas Eve 2012.

Another NYer
I've been following the gun control debate for a few decades, and have yet to read one sensible, rational argument for NOT limiting guns and ammunition from the pro-gun crowd.
It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun? This is the biggest whopper of them all.
Gun control really isn't about self-protection for most of these people. It's about manhood, or some weird psychological sense of well-being and power they get with their weapons.
TL;DR: "Shut up you small-penis rednecks. Grownups are talking."

And from the rain-soggy Pacific Pathetic Northwest Left Coast:
This is that classic Right-Wing tactic: Take a totally crazy position.
Compromise achieving acceptance of a less crazy position.
Ignore them and get it right for Heaven's sakes.
Let me fix this for you...
This is that classic Right-Wing  Liberal tactic.  Take a totally crazy position.
Compromise achieving acceptance of a less crazy position.
(Repeat until process each time a horrible tragedy that fits the agenda to erode personal freedoms and eliminate things YOU don't like.)
Ignore them and get it right for Heaven's sakes. me, please.
Some of them get it though...
One reader (from Texas forsooth!) opined:
While I disagree with the majority of you, I certainly recognize your unalienable right to speak your piece. (First Amendment anyone?)

Many of you may be willing to give up your right to defend yourselves in some misguided utopian hope that it may provide a safer human condition, but until all crime is eradicated and no person ever rises to power and wields that power to oppress others, I believe I shall defend mine.
And another:
(From NYC - oops Georgia, as indicated by typos)
The gun control in any form is NOT the problem. A deranged person who is intent on hurting or killing people, will do so, no matter what kind of gun they have, or how many bullets it can hold or fire. we limit clips down to a 5 or 10 round capacity... thing you know, the next lunitic bent on killing someone, will just say... to heck with using a gun, they'll just graduate up to a bomb of some sort, which will have the ability to harm more people than a 30 round bullet clip does.
Instead of pushing for gun control and gun banning for law-abiding citizens, the government should be incouraging people to exercise their right to "open carry" their own firearm, so that the law-abiding people will have the means to protect themselves (and others) when some deranged person decides to try to harm or kill innocent people.
The criminals (whom gun control has no effect upon) will ALWAYS be able to obtain any kind of gun or ammunition they want, on the "streets" or the "black market", no matter what gun control laws are passed. Only the LAW-ABIDING people are negatively affected by governmental gun control laws, through disarming law-abiding innocent people of the means by which to protect themselves.

Go read it yourself - cover your keyboard though... I don't want to be liable when you vomit all over it as you read the comments.


No comments: