From Huffington Post, of course
Just as absurd as you might think based on the headline alone.
“I’m old enough to remember when the NRA was invited into our schools to educate students on gun safety. Yes, I’m old, and I grew up in rural Alaska, but the NRA as an institution has changed as much as everything else has since then. It now operates as a lobby for gun manufacturers rather than for responsible gun owners who grew up with the traditions of hunting and shooting.”
Not sure what the point here is, is she saying that legal lobbying of all kinds is bad or just legal lobbying by the NRA, an organization that looney lefties are required to hate? Also, is it the responsibility of the NRA to educate people on gun safety as if educating people on gun safety will eliminate all possibility of a gun being used for a crime? The massacres mentioned in the article have nothing to do with people being unsafe with their guns and everything to do with evil lawbreakers who willfully and purposely murdered people despite NRA sponsored school gun safety seminars, regulations, laws…
“It [NRA] has blamed everything from video games, to Hollywood to “gun-free zones” for escalating gun violence in the country.”
It [NRA] is going out of its way to blame everything but guns for the problem of gun violence because everything but guns is the problem. Look at Chicago with among the toughest gun laws in the country and how is that working out with 446 school age children shot so far this year and 700 last year. Do we really need more restrictions when it is a fact that criminals do not abide by them? Are Hollywood, video games, and gun-free zones the entire problem? No, but is excluding them from the discussion altogether to solely blame the NRA the solution?
“Autism and mental health have been blamed. A godless tolerance for homosexuals has been faulted. Several people have said God wouldn’t show up in public schools where he’s not wanted. Apparently, he’s still smarting from the lack of audible prayer, so he allowed the shooting to happen.”
Mental health has been blamed because it is a factor. For example, what is the one thing the following infamous gunmen have in common?
- Newtown, Conn., shooter Adam Lanza
- Virginia Tech shooter Cho Seung-Hui
- Aurora, Colo., shooter James Holmes
- Tuscon, Ariz., shooter Jared Loughner
- Columbine High School shooters Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
Right, it has been reported that all of these fine upstanding citizens were mentally ill.
And, who exactly is blaming autism specifically, for mass shootings, did I miss that somewhere?
“A godless tolerance for homosexuals has been faulted.”
This has been faulted by the Westboro Baptist Church who is loathed by 99 percent of the public. To include them in the debate is absurd and the author knows better. Or maybe she doesn’t know better at all based on the shameless attack and mocking of God himself for allowing this because He is smarting from the lack of audible prayer.
Is she really reducing a decades long assault on all things religious to the lack of audible prayer? This is the most petty and trivial form of condescending elitist assery I have seen in a long time, even on HuffPo.
The author also mockingly cites one conservative article that blames the brutal mass murder in Newtown, Conn., on a lack of men and the “over-feminization” of our school system which, on its face, seems a bit out of left field but may not be as invalid as HuffPo thinks. We can never know the truth about why Lanza singled out an elementary school but, is it outside the realm of possibility that he did it because his victims would be little more than sitting ducks? Did he do it because she knew there would be no men there? Could the presence of a man have done any good, even possibly?
“One week after the massacre, the NRA, in a paranoid fit, proposed changes. Let’s have more guns in schools! Armed guards have been present at many massacres and haven’t been able to stop them.”
Accusing to NRA of a paranoid fit while disregarding the paranoid fits of lefties is so far beyond absurd, its not even fit for HuffPo, come on. David Gregory, Toure, Michael Moore, gun owners are like child molesters, shooting NRA members, Republicans are responsible, etc. Which side of the debate has gone off the rails here?
Does the author also forget that Bill Clinton was in favor of asking for more guns in public schools? Barack Obama has increased the national debt by more than every other president combined in four years, spent $90 Billion on failed green energy initiatives, and a failed stimulus that cost more than all nine years of the Iraq war in total. Surely if protecting our kids is important enough, the money is there for armed guards in the schools.
Any argument against the effectiveness of armed guards in the schools is an argument against all armed guards everywhere, no exceptions.
There are no exceptions because, just like the NRA said, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” Liberals who fail to believe this make the simple act of calling the police if they are victims or they believe they are about to become victims of a crime the definition of hypocrisy. If you do not believe the NRA quote than DO NOT call good guys with guns.
“In Alaska, many of us need guns to fill our freezers, but if you need a 30-round clip you’re a pretty poor hunter. If you are hoarding automatic (yes, they are legal) or semi-automatic weapons, you need Viagra.”
What this says is that hunting is the only reason any person should own guns, ever. The part about Viagra is absurd, and the part about automatic weapons is even more absurd. Yes, automatic weapons are legal but the process to get one and the cost are so prohibitive most people never bother so they are very, very rare. And, when was the last time an automatic weapon was used in a mass shooting?
And then there’s this full frontal assault on intelligence and reason.
“Oh, that’s right, it’s about the “well-regulated militia.” The Second Amendment was written by men who had fought alongside men who didn’t survive their revolt against tyranny. They had the assistance of the French government. They used muskets. If you think it is your right or duty to overthrow the government at this point in time, you’re going to need more than a few guns and monster clips. You’ll need weapons-grade uranium, a few tanks, a submarine and an army of your own to go up against our 3 million strong military. You very well may need the aid of another country. Good luck with that, and I think your three-cornered hat may be on a little too tight. The same founders who thought a militia was a good idea would never have expanded gun ownership to blacks. The whole slavery situation could have gotten awkward quickly.”
Oh, that’s right, more bitter and sarcastic mocking of everyone who believes in the Constitution while painting them all as triangle hat wearing militia type fanatics, well played.
The author also makes the ridiculous assertion that American Revolutionaries did not survive their revolt against tyranny without the French, a statement that cannot be historically validated in any way. While the French did contribute to the war, they did not do so, as the author would like us to believe, because we were floundering and would have surely lost if the French did not take it upon themselves to bail us out. When including the involvement of the French in the American Revolution, the author should have mentioned their own selfishly political motivation to enter the conflict in the first place.
“In fact, the disasters of the Seven Years’ War had created a desire in the French mind for a new war, in which old defeats might be avenged and old disgraces wiped out. The Treaty of Paris, in 1763, not only stripped France of a large part of her foreign possessions, but contained provisions that were especially ignominious. It ceded to England Canada and all the French possessions in North America except those transferred to Spain.” (americanrevolution.org)
And maybe even mentioned their military contribution specifically.
Red the rest here.Follow @Panic_Report