Semi- @NRA

The @NRA Twitter feed is still silent, but there are plenty of  insecure cowards crying about big meanies picking on the poor, poor guns who never did anything but make them feel as if they had a semi-adequate penis. The solution to schoolchildren being shot, according to the flaccid logic of these gun fetishists, is to have more guns in schools. Obviously. This is because in their daydreams they are a big movie action hero who dodges bullets and blows away evildoers with their beautiful beautiful gun, and they almost achieve a semi-hardon, which is a real big deal for them. They just can’t understand why the rest of us don’t want to share the wonderful benefits of firearm ownership like having the same peace of mind of as Ted Nugent.

This semi-intellectual is trying to tell us that we are helpless and that there is no reasonable way to keep pistol grip assault rifles away from a twenty year old with the emotional development of a four year old and so the only thing left to us to do is to train our children to charge shooters.

I’ll let that sink in for a semi-second.

The apologists for the murder merchants usually generate a hypnotic drone that lulls us into helpless submission, but now they have either gone silent or shrill with hysteria and serve only to agitate. We are awake and angry and will not be duped into a doped stupor. I have some ideas on the problem but they are only semi-baked at the moment but in a few days they should be fully baked and ready for sharing.


4 Responses to “Semi- @NRA”

  1. I posted this elsewhere on the intertubes, but it seems appropriate here as well. For folks who believe that more guns would solve the gun problem, I have to also assume they believe the following:

    More candy would solve the obesity epidemic
    More cancer would solve the cancer epidemic
    More AIDS would cure the AIDS epidemic
    More cholesterol would prevent heart attacks
    More homelessness would solve the homelessness epidemic

  2. Like so many others, I am sick of the rhetoric, sick of the homilies, sick of the excuses, and sick of the warped logic. As I have said a million and one times, hunting (if that is your desire) deer, elk, or whatever, does not take an assault rifle, or a semi-automatic weapon.

  3. You also have to take a look at the dangerous road we are walking down though.

    From the mouth of a historical giant – “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security”.

    These aren’t idle words, they are just as much relevant today as when they were spoken. I would wager they are more appropriate now than ever.

    I challenge you to dance around that one Winston. There is plenty of insanity on both sides of this debate; If I know you half as well as I think then you’re going to surprise me with rationale.

  4. I shall not try to surprise anyone. There isn’t much that would’ve stopped this particular tragedy that was the result of a purportedly crazy survivalist woman with lots of assault weapons, who chose to keep them around the house with a son who was severely psychologically compromised. What I wonder here is what “liberty” is being traded here if certain reasonable restrictions on things like assault weapons, high-volume magazines, etc. are enacted. We have concealed-carry laws everywhere that, thus far, have not once resulted in someone with a gun taking down a mass-murderer–largely because anyone who’d qualify for a concealed-carry permit would NEVER fire his/her weapon into a crowded theater, mall, or school with lots of frightened people running about (see the AZ shooting). I know a few people I’d trust to carry around firearms, and they’re all responsible enough not to do this.

    The purported rationale for the gun lobby is that citizens ought be armed not for hunting or simple home defense (if you need an AK-47 and extended clips to defend your home…MOVE), but to keep their government in check. This is madness. By that rationale, anyone should be able to own RPGs, tanks, jet fighters, and yes, nuclear weapons, because that is what it would take to mount an effective armed resistance. Most people don’t see a problem with such restrictions, for pretty obvious reasons.

    It is absolutely true that a crazed person who is determined to kill a large number of people and who has the means to do it will succeed–but reasonable regulation of weapons, ammo, and maybe most importantly the secondary market, would almost certainly make it harder.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: