Amy Goodman is on full auto:
Another mass murder, another shooting spree, leaving bodies bullet-riddled by a legally obtained weapon.
And another ‘Guardian’ article on ‘gun control’ (or ‘Why can’t those wretched Americans disarm themselves and be more like us Europeans, where shootings are unheard of and unicorns gambol in the streets?’)….
With an average of 32 people killed by guns in this country every day – the equivalent of five Wisconsin massacres per day – both major parties refuse to deal with gun control. It's the consensus, not the gridlock, that's the problem.
I thought the left loved consensus?
Amidst the carnage, platitudes.
Oh, boy…
The president's press secretary, Jay Carney, said: "We need to take common-sense measures that protect second amendment rights and make it harder for those who should not have weapons under existing law from obtaining weapons."
It's important to note where Jay Carney made that point, reiterating the phrase "common sense" five times in relation to the president's intransigence against strengthening gun laws, and invoking "second amendment" a stunning eight times.
How
awful of him to abide by the Constitution, eh?
The day after the Wisconsin shooting, I spoke with Gurcharan Grewal, president of the Sikh Religious Society of Wisconsin. He told me: "Ultimately, the problem comes to gun control. I don't know when we're going to get serious about all this, and I don't know how many more lives it will take before something will be done."
Neither Obama nor Romney agrees that gun control is the answer. It will take a movement to make it happen.
Well, we know you haven’t got the guns. Have you got the numbers, though?
12 comments:
There would be no need for gun control in the USA if the Founding Father whose job it was to write down the Declaration of Independence had learned how to spell. At the time the Declaration was being discussed and agreed, the weather was hot and humid and the clothing worn at that time was thick, heavy, wool and serge. Because of this, it was agreed that jackets could be removed and the participants could be in shirt sleeves. Even this was oppressive as the shirts were made of heavy cotton, so someone suggested they be allowed to roll up their sleeves, allowing a little more air to their bodies. This motion was agreed with one of the committee replying something like, "It shall be the right of all Americans to bare arms." The scribe duly wrote this down and thus was born one of the biggest mistakes of American civilisation.
Penseivat
No, it all arose from confusion:
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?VISuperSize&item=190694021312
I recall that it is the religious duty of Sikhs to carry a knife on their belts.
This chap Grewal seems to forget that. He also forgets that to get round offensive weapon laws, many Sikhs carry knives with no blade or point.
So that, when the temple president tried to protect his congregation by using his useless blade on the murderer, all he got for his heroic trouble was a fatal bullet.
There is a reason spree shooters choose churches, schools and colleges, even countries where the population is effectively disarmed...
I'm firmly with Anon on this one.
Sikhs are meant to be warriors. Many of the soundest blokes I've ever met have been from among their ranks. But when confronted with a guy wielding a gun, the best the temple leader had to defend himself with was a butter knife (his kirpan being solely ceremonial and about as much use as a butter knife.) Why? Because the decision had been made to ban guns in the temple. Now imagine if instead of a bunch of people the gunman knew to be unarmed, he had been confronted with a group of tooled-up, aggressive, free citizens willing to shoot him in the head until major skull plates flew off. Same goes for the Aurora shooting, notwithstanding the media hyperventilating about 'body armour'. Or Virginia Tech. Or Hungerford, for that matter.
In an odd way the right to bear arms probably protects the Americans against an oppresive Govt. Just saying.....
A right to bear arms - but is there any promise of ammunition?
Could the arab spring have happened without guns?
Could the arab spring have happened without guns?
"The scribe duly wrote this down and thus was born one of the biggest mistakes of American civilisation."
LOL!
"There is a reason spree shooters choose churches, schools and colleges, even countries where the population is effectively disarmed..."
Well, indeed. They might be bonkers, but that doesn't mean they're stupid.
"Same goes for the Aurora shooting, notwithstanding the media hyperventilating about 'body armour'."
Which just stops the bullet penetrating. The energy's got to go somewhere, and that might give even an unarmed victim the moment they need.
not fair julia.i neva get a LOL ora snork ora heh like wen i mispell and you gave it for an old joke somebody else thought of
Aonymous - "Could the arab spring have happened without guns?
One (or two ?) of the most deadly weapons ever is your own two hands so yes.
Though, in an arab country, I guess the level of success rather depends on how many convicted thieves you have on your side...
Post a Comment