Here's the reason:
And when they do get there, they still do nothing for a while, because what counts to them far more than saving innocent lives is procedure. Did they follow it? That's what counts.
No doubt this chap knows that all too well, and knows that if he doesn't act, it'll be too late:
And that's why people like the barber won't give up their guns.
Not at anyone's behest, and certainly not at the behest of a President who spends his time in the company of armed men ready to protect him with their lives without hesitation.
9 comments:
The inevitable gun debate just gets tedious after stuff like this. It's always about disarming the victims rather than seriously trying to get to the bottom of why people do this stuff in the first place
For a lesson in gun control, see Australia. Within ten years, number of such rampages had dwindled to nothing.
Mark - And the number of home invasions, something that never used to happen, had shot up. And there really weren't that many mass shootings in the previous history
Of overriding importance to Americans, is the matter of preserving their cruel heritage. They know and don't need to be reminded, that proper gun control will abruptly end the mass shootings.
But America has decided to live alongside school massacres because giving up guns is too high a price to pay, anytime soon.
Purely coincidentally I’m sure, a known person with mental health issues, of a poor, drug addict single parent family, working a minimum wage job who … drives a $70000 vehicle and uses $5000+ weapons to commit a crime ….
Hmm? Sounds just a bit like the three ‘incidents’ here used to remove yet more of our rights, whilst ignoring the actual criminals as usual (known to police -check, mental health issues – check, multiple ‘warning signs’ and ‘openly/publicly stated aims’ – check, authorities not only ignoring, but actively assisting by returning seized weapons, here, or allowing with history/circumstances the passing of two background checks – check, calls to ban everyone 'but' the people committing the crimes - check).
Again coincidentally, just in time to take coof fiasco/corruption, Hellary corruption, Ukraine corruption, trans fiasco, school grooming fiasco (I could go on, and on, but this maladministration is a never ending disaster area) and as a ‘motivation’ for their base with elections.
Yeh, nothing to see here.
My American friend reckons that 'acceptable casualties" are just part of the Obama/Biden plan to seize the firearms of ordinary Americans so they will be unable to fight back against the 'New World Order' of Schwab, Obama, Gates, et al.
Allegedly, false flag operations have been part of the American Democrat politically funded CIA operations for years. At first, I thought he was a conspiracy theorist until Americans were arrested , imprisoned without trial, in shit hole prisons, after being invited into official buildings by Washington Police.
Even situations like Sandy Hook have been questioned regarding the facts.
MTG
“proper gun control”
You mean like here in The UK? Where all private ownership of any weapon with calibre >.22 is utterly banned? Yet where I can, should I so wish, go into any pub in a major city and within an hour have a semi-automatic and ammunition? (or explosives or grenades, yes, they’re openly available to certain types here) Hint: Criminals don’t obey laws, that’s why they’re called criminals.
Yes, there are differences between the rates of gun crime throughout the world. One could argue homogeneous societies show least, but in truth that’s fallacious since even in ‘diverse’ societies only ‘certain demographics’ commit the overwhelming bulk of these crimes.
I realise you’re an indoctrinated ideologue with an agenda, but for everybody else … Most of (flyover) America has, not only a lower gun crime rate than The UK (as a whole), but a lower overall crime rate of any sort. Just like here, take out certain cities (and to be specific, the actions of one or two very specific demographics even within those cities) and the crime rates here and there are both comparable, and miniscule.
Guns were banned here completely. Did it stop the crime? We now have a knife (and gun) crime rate that has increased massively compared to decades ago when guns and knives were freely available. So what changed? We got a lot more ‘enriched’ by diversity.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
FYI, The 2nd Amendment is specifically, and only, for that direst of situations … when your own government decides to become tyrannical. To allow you to protect your inherent rights. Very appropriate at the moment, you think? (or do you -hypocritically: rhetorical question - believe only people like you, with your views, should be allowed to dissent?)
"It's always about disarming the victims rather than seriously trying to get to the bottom of why people do this stuff in the first place"
Because that way lies some very uncomfortable questions...
"For a lesson in gun control, see Australia. Within ten years, number of such rampages had dwindled to nothing."
And other crimes increased as a result, as Bucko points out.
"They know and don't need to be reminded, that proper gun control will abruptly end the mass shootings."
Yes, it will; if by 'proper gun control' you mean breaking in the door and doing their job with minimum inaccuracy.
"Purely coincidentally I’m sure, a known person with mental health issues, of a poor, drug addict single parent family, working a minimum wage job who … drives a $70000 vehicle and uses $5000+ weapons to commit a crime …."
It's unclear how he paid for the guns, but reports indicate he stole the vehicle.
" At first, I thought he was a conspiracy theorist ..."
They do seem to be right about quite a lot lately, don't they? Except chemtrails, that's nonsense!
"Hint: Criminals don’t obey laws, that’s why they’re called criminals."
If only lawmakers would remember that. But their job seems to be based on never remembering it.
"FYI, The 2nd Amendment is specifically, and only, for that direst of situations … when your own government decides to become tyrannical. To allow you to protect your inherent rights. Very appropriate at the moment, you think?"
Very much so!
The core question is quite simple: why are law abiding Americans who just happen to own guns so intransigent to allowing "reasonable" gun laws? The answer is equally simple, they simply do not trust those pushing for such laws to stop at banning so-called assault weapons, they believe this will quickly move onto all other firearms starting with handguns. And just to underline exactly why they are right, Canada's Justin Trudeau has actually used this US crime to start pushing to ban handguns.
Post a Comment