Weaponizing Tragedy

16 Comments

Every time a violent deviant takes innocent lives with a firearm, the first reaction of the friends and family of the victims is to punish those of us who didn’t do it. We’ve seen it time and time again, from the late Sarah Brady, to Gabrielle Giffords and her hypocrite husband‘s efforts to disarm those who have committed no crime, to the latest frothing troll in the gun grabber movement Andy Parker – the father of Alison Parker, who was murdered by a disgruntled, deranged cretin last year – these people are using their own tragedies as weapons against law-abiding citizens.

I’ll be honest, it is difficult to feel sorry for people like Mark Kelly, who is using his wife’s shooting to pad his career ladder. It becomes even more difficult to feel sorry for this jerk Parker, who actually threatened a state senator for refusing to be clubbed over the head with Parker’s tragedy, and who is using his daughter’s death to screw Virginians out of their rights.

It strikes me as opportunistic, given the fact that there’s not a single law that would have stopped his daughter’s murder. Vester Lee Flanagan did not have a criminal record of any kind. He had no history of mental illness. He was black and gay – certainly not disqualifying factors when purchasing a firearm. And he was an entitled social justice warrior douche nugget, who was in the habit of filing grievances against his employers. Should he somehow been prevented from buying guns, because he was a jerk?

Any sane person would answer “no.”

Well, Parker won’t take “no” for an answer, so he has once again decided to use his tragedy to beat the rest of us over the head – to guilt us into bowing to his political agenda.

 

Well, that act is getting stale.

Oh, hell, what am I saying? That act IS stale, and has been stale for decades! And yet, here’s Parker, first threatening those who disagree with his political agenda, and then trying to passively aggressively shame them with a newspaper editorial.

It is a parent’s worst nightmare to get that call that your child has been killed. Barbara and I, our son Drew, and Alison’s boyfriend Chris Hurst are members of a club no one ever wants to join. You never imagine something like this could happen to you, or to someone you love – but it can and it did. Not a single day goes by that we don’t feel the devastation and void in our souls. Our lives will never be the same.

Translation: I experienced a tragedy. I experienced pain. Therefore you must bow to my demands and give up your rights.

It happened not quite five months ago. First we were numb. Then we grieved. And as we grieved, we got angry. While my emotions were still raw, I vowed on national television to do “whatever it takes” to end gun violence. Little did I know when I uttered those words it would become a national rallying cry.

Don’t kid yourself, Parker. You’re just a Johnny Come Lately to a long and undistinguished (bowel) movement of opportunistic swine who dance in the blood of their loved ones to push their political agenda. You’re a slightly less crazy Cindy Sheehan, although given your physical threat to a state legislator, you just may be in the team photo of Sheehan’s nuttery. Maybe you’re the one who should be prevented from purchasing a firearm…

So what does it mean? It means speaking out for sensible gun laws. It also means standing up for political leaders willing to do the right thing, like our governor Terry McAuliffe, and calling out the ones that don’t. Americans are standing up and demanding that their leaders take action to reduce gun violence. We are going to continue speaking out across the country and we’re not going away.

Actually, Americans (save for the fruitcakes in California) do not support new gun control laws, and they certainly don’t trust the federal government to fairly enforce them! And no amount of screeching you do is going to change that.

This issue is finally a part of the national conversation, and change is happening. Barbara and I were honored this week to be at the White House with other survivors and victims to hear the president announce his executive actions to reduce gun violence. And it was exciting to be in the audience for CNN’s exclusive town hall meeting with President Obama, the first time a sitting president has engaged on the issue of gun violence in this way. You know that real change is happening when even Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly calls out the NRA.

Actually O’Reilly has been a statist creep for years when it comes to guns. That’s nothing new and different about that. And the fact that you were invited to the White House along with other survivors and loved ones simply means that you are being used as propaganda tools for the White House’s political agenda. The White House is using you, just like you’re using your dead daughter.

The NRA, however, continues their message that gun sense advocates want to assault the Second Amendment. How many times does it take to say, “no one is coming to take your guns away, and if you can pass a background check, you can buy a firearm”?

How many times? Until you realize that repeating a lie will not make it true, especially when the list of statist swamp donkeys who do advocate taking away our guns is long and growing.

We already have background checks. The derelict shitbag who killed your daughter passed one. How did that work out?

I think Mark Kelly, astronaut and husband of former Representative Gabby Giffords, who was shot five years ago at her town hall meeting in Tucson, Arizona, hit the nail on the head with his question of all at the town hall. He asked the president, how, with the 350 million guns in circulation at more than 65 million locations from Alaska to Hawaii, could the government possibly take all of these guns away? A rhetorical question of course, but it underscores the absurdity of the gun lobby’s argument.

It’s not the “ability” of the government to take guns away from law-abiding citizens. It’s the civil war this act would undoubtedly cause. It’s the rights it would violate by attempting to do so. It’s the immediate transformation of law-abiding citizens into criminals merely by owning a firearm and the felony record if caught trying to sell their own property to another human being. It’s the prosecution of peaceable citizens for accidentally exercising their rights at the wrong time and place.

But I wouldn’t expect someone who has so little respect for his murdered child, that he would use her blood and his own suffering to deprive others of their fundamental rights to even understand what he is advocating.

We also continue to hear, “nothing could have saved your daughter.” Perhaps that’s true. But is that a reason to do nothing to prevent the next child from being killed? We don’t think so, and that’s why we will continue to fight to save lives.

Name one law that would have prevented Newtown. Name one law that could have prevented San Bernardino. Name one law that prevents criminals from committing crimes! You can’t, because by the very nature of a criminal, there’s no law they will obey. Even if you impose the strictest background checks on every gun purchase possible, how are you going to prevent the criminals from getting their guns from black market dealers, or friends, or family, or simply stealing them?

516px-Firearmsources.svg

BJSSo whom do you hope to prevent from purchasing firearms, Parker?

How are you planning to close nonexistent “loopholes” that do not prevent any criminals from getting their hands on firearms? Oh, by pressuring legislators? Or by threatening yet another politician with violence?

Now we turn to all of our political leaders – particularly those in our state legislatures – to take action to close the loopholes that make it easy for dangerous people to get guns. It’s time for them to step up to the plate to help save lives.

In other words, Parker will shove his suffering into people’s faces. Parker will demand ineffective legislation that will do nothing to save lives, but will make it more costly and cumbersome for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights.

And he will do all this by shamelessly dancing in his daughter’s blood. He will scream about his tragedy. He will cry and threaten. He will make demands as if he’s the only one who has suffered from senseless violence. He will club us across our faces with his anguish, as if it is we – the law abiding, peaceable citizens – who are responsible for the death of his daughter, because we treasure and want to preserve our fundamental rights. He will lash out at us with his misery and demand that we surrender our rights and our personal safety to his tragedy as sacrifices – as payment to him for his loss. As if we’re responsible for his pain.

Wrong. Answer.

I refuse to be held accountable for the actions of relatively few derelicts.

I refuse to be relieved of my rights, because a criminal abused his.

And I refuse to bow down to opportunistic swine who expect me to genuflect before their anguish.

Their pain is not a claim check to my rights.

Dear Hashem, here’s a bit of news for you…

13 Comments

We don’t give a rat’s flying fuck if posting a photo of that Jihadist sow Tafsheen Malik without the veil over her face is disrespectful.

The Al Jazeera America producer Hashem Said tweeted exactly this at ABC news when they ran a photo of the murdering helltwat and showed her face. Trust me, Sparky – most of us wish that fugly pig left her foul grill covered, but that said, respect toward a murdering hog is the last thing on our minds.

Said then proceeded, in true SJW form, to berate Twitter users who called him out on his lunacy by accusing them of racism ht_tashfeen_malik_float_jc_151204_12x5_1600and bigotry, because apparently they didn’t know the difference between disrespect of the culture and disrespect of the individual. He claimed that showing that filthy swine’s face was disrespectful to her family.

Guess what!

Nope. Still don’t care.

When a filthy troglodyte launches a terrorist attack against my fellow Americans, giving a crap about her or her family’s alleged “dignity” is the furthest from my mind.

You know what’s disrespectful? Killing a bunch of civilians at a holiday party.

You know what’s disrespectful? Coming to this country, enjoying our rights and freedoms, being afforded opportunities you couldn’t even begin to have in that shithole you left, and repaying said debt with murder.

You know what else is disrespectful? Demanding any kind of consideration for that vile, murdering whore’s family, dog, culture, or anything else after she murdered – MURDERED – 14 innocent people along with that impotent neckbeard she married.

A couple of days later, after being hammered on Twitter by people with a sense of human decency and decorum, and after whining about feeling all victimized, he finally issued an apology.

TAFmPn48pAssGwLfCpxkGtKoPPGboIs5fFke1fxqkEdvRR1RV2-aStkpaCHdsf8zwfoc1gBvUp52jbaJPdCWRLbbDgr8=s2048hat was the last thing he tweeted out before slinking away in shame. Oh, he also deleted the original tweet, but the Internet does not forget.

 

So what do we know? It appears to be a case of premature detonation.

83 Comments

Note to some readers, whose attention span is that of gnats on meth: I wrote this piece as events were unfolding. I also tried to take everything we knew then and know now into account when examining the events in San Bernardino. There are some strange details about this attack that make it seem like it was a bit more spontaneous than a normal jihadist attack. And if you actually read to the end, my assessment is that there may have been a bigger attack planned, but Farook probably lost his temper at the party and launched an unplanned, spontaneous attack on his coworkers, rather than waiting to execute a bigger event elsewhere that he and Malik probably planned. In essence, this is my attempt to analyze the actual details of the event and provide a deeper analysis than just “OMG JIHAD!”


 

Yesterday’s shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, CA remains full of questions. We now know both shooters were Muslims, and they’re currently warming a slab at the morgue. The nauseating rampage led to the parade of the usual suspects calling for more gun control on the left, and more Muslim control on the right. What I’d like to do is step back and examine what we do know as objectively as I can. According to NPR, this is what we know:

Syed Farook, an environmental specialist who was born in the U.S., has worked for the San Bernardino County health department for five years.

Tashfeen Malik was Farook’s wife, says Hussam Ayloush of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Malik was born in Pakistan and lived in Saudi Arabia before she married Farook about two years ago, according to Ayloush.

The couple had a 6-month-old daughter, whom they left with Farook’s mother on the morning of the attack, Ayloush says.

Say "hi" to the murderous bag of shit.

Say “hi” to the murderous bag of shit.

The shooting was concentrated at an office party at the Inland Regional Center – a place that provides social services to people with developmental disabilities. We know that Farook attended the party as a county employee and left in anger at some point during the event, according to police.

We also know that the firearms used in the shooting were purchased legally. That means neither Farook nor his wife were prohibited from owning them, law enforcement officials told NPR. We also know now that police believe there was no third shooter.

And we know that police have not ruled out traditional Islamic terrorism, and one coworker described Farook as pretty quiet and reserved, but did note that he had recently begun to grow a beard. He did visit Saudi Arabia for about a month, and brought back Malik.

Farook’s father also told press that his son was “very religious,” and an individual who had been working in the area noted a half a dozen Middle Eastern men hanging around, but didn’t want to say anything, because he didn’t want to appear racist.

And there’s another weird component to this – mental issues. The Telegraph reports that Farook’s mother filed for divorce from his father in 2006, nothing multiple instances of physical abuse. It sounds like daddy dearest was a wife-beating fuckstain, which would also explain the hate-filled bloodlust.

She enumerated multiple instances of domestic abuse in the legal filing, and said her husband “threatens to kill himself on a daily basis”. During one incident, she said in a court filing, her son came between them “to save me.”

Those are the facts, and so far, as I see it, the evidence points to either traditional Islamic terrorism, or workplace violence. I wouldn’t rule out gang-related activity either, to be frank. I’m not ready to pass judgment on which yet.

That said, I’d like to note a few things.

There doesn’t seem to be any attached symbolism to this attack. I can’t imagine that a terrorist gets pissed off at work and decides to launch a terror attack. It’s weird. It was a center for disabled people, not anything symbolic of Western culture or military might. Terrorist attacks are meant as symbols to both cause fear and communicate.

… [T]he terrorist needs to publicize his attack. If no one knows about it, it will not produce fear. The need for publicity often drives target selection; the greater the symbolic value of the target, the more publicity the attack brings to the terrorists and the more fear it generates.

We all know the symbolism behind attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. It’s possible that the November 13 attacks in Paris were significant because of the date. Educational institutions – children – are powerful symbolic targets that evoke an emotional response. Beslan, Peshawar, Toulouse, Garissa… Where’s the symbolism in attacking a bunch of adults at a holiday party who work with disabled kids?

There doesn’t seem to be any symbolic value in what Farook and his whore have done. That makes me think that either they had been planning an attack at another site on another date, and just got so angry, that they decided, “Oh what the fuck! We’ll just make a go of it early,” or it really was a workplace incident.

It’s also curious that Daeshbags didn’t take credit for this. They celebrated all over social media, sure, but they’re normally pretty quick to claim the murdering shitstains as their own, and they haven’t claimed credit for this, which is weird.

I also don’t know if the police found anything that confirms a motive and are keeping it quiet, or whether there really was nothing. If it’s the latter, that’s kind of surprising. Generally jihadists like to leave declarations, letters, videos… something, anything that confirms the violent jihad. They don’t like to leave doubt as to their mission. As far as I know there is nothing. That may change in the future, but the fact that there was no note, no declaration, no video, or anything else that celebrates the glory of murdering infidels and giving themselves to their god is a bit odd.

And San Bernardino is home to some pretty severe gang violence. I keep wondering if that’s why this bag of rancid effluvia and his cuntastic whore had all that gear ready to go.

That said, a CNN update today says:

Syed Rizwan Farook — one-half of the couple behind the San Bernardino shooting massacre — was apparently radicalized and in touch with people being investigated by the FBI for international terrorism, law enforcement officials said Thursday.

Farook’s apparent radicalization contributed to his role in the mass shooting, with his wife Tashfeen Malik, of 14 people Wednesday during a holiday party for the San Bernardino County health department, where Farook worked, sources said.

At this point I’m thinking the theory that they were, in fact, Islamic jihadists who were planning an attack at another time and place seems pretty correct. Police found more pipe bombs, materials to make IEDs, and a lot of ammunition at the home of these apparently jihadist fucks. This certainly makes it seem like there was another – much bigger, more significant – attack planned, and that for some reason Farook lost his shit and decided to shoot up his co-workers in a fit of rage. That also makes it believable that this was a case of premature detonation.

Cue the self-anointed terrorism / security experts in 3…2…1…

17 Comments

There was an attack today in San Bernardino. Details are sketchy, but here’s what we know so far.

  • Around 11 a.m., at least one shooter opened fire in San Bernardino at the Inland Regional Center, a facility that serves people with developmental disabilities.

  • Preliminary numbers: At least 14 people were killed and 17 wounded, San Bernardino police said.

  • Police said there were one to three assailants, who were heavily armed and possibly wearing body armor.

  • After a car chase, one suspect has been shot by police, and authorities said one might be at large. The status of another person seen in a vehicle at the end of the chase is unclear.

  • Investigators are not sure whether the shooting was an act of terrorism, an FBI official said.

This is awful. It’s horrible. Fourteen people died at a place that works with disabled people, ferfuckssake! How twisted and gnarled with hate do you have to be to shoot up a place such as this?

And yet, three sub-human savages wearing masks, possibly sporting body armor, and carrying long guns decided a holiday party was the prime place to take out their tiny-dicked, impotent rage on a bunch of folks who work with some of the most vulnerable people in our society! What kind of demented, rabid bag of fug do you have to be to have so much hatred and poison on your heart?

As predicted, two things happened shortly after the shooting became part of the news cycle:

  1. Social media terrorism and security experts began shrieking about a terrorism attack;
  2. Opportunistic politician swine began calling for gun control.

And yes, I felt the need to respond. It shouldn’t surprise me that a manipulative whore such as O’Malley would cover himself in the blood of innocent victims and do the Macarena, but it galls me more than anything to see someone who wants to lead this nation spew without having facts, cast aspersions on an organization that exists to protect the fundamental rights of Americans, and blame millions of gun owners (after all, the NRA consists millions of law-abiding citizens) for the slaughter committed by three shitslurping asstorches, two of whom are currently approaching room temperature, according to latest reporting.

KABC_suv_bullets_cf_151202_4x3_992Let me also specify – it’s not that police are unsure whether this was an act of terrorism. They say they have “no information at this point to indicate that this is terrorist related in the traditional sense that people may be thinking.” It’s simply too early to tell. And yet, the usual shitsharks are already trying to advance a Muslim terrorism narrative. Hate to say this, but it’s just as malevolent to immediately blame the NRA without having facts as it is to instantly assume Islamic terrorism.

Oh, but we heard the name Farooq Saeed on the radio!

Oh, but they’ve chosen a soft target!

We don’t know. We won’t know for a while, I’m thinking.

What we do know is that California has stringent gun control and is beloved by the Brady Center, which holds that state as pretty much an ideal, and yet three cocknuggets got themselves some guns and killed innocent people with them.

Guns are banned in government buildings, and the only thing that accomplished is to make those inside easy targets for murderous savages.

And no matter how much the douchetastic turdcutter politicians use this tragedy to push for more gun control, it’s not going to prevent the bad guys from obtaining weapons.

So let’s stop with the assumptions and wait until the facts are released.

What Do They Have in Common?

14 Comments

The New York Times published an interesting piece a couple of days ago, detailing “Criminal histories and documented mental health problems” of eight of the gunmen in recent shootings. While the NYT does its usual “fear the big, bad, black glock_19gun” thing, with close-ups and scary pictures of scary firearms, there’s something else that’s notable in this report: the vast majority of the shooters listed passed background checks and purchased firearms legally. They passed background checks that are supposed to keep bad guys from getting guns. None of the jackwagons listed had criminal records, the majority bought guns legally after having passed a background check, and one (Lanza) simply stole legally-purchased weapons from his mother. The majority were also not under the care of a mental health professional… hell, Nidal Hasan WAS a mental health professional!

I also note the Times’ froth-flecked zeal to paint the Roanoke shooting of two reporters as a “mass shooting,” but hey… it advances the narrative, so why not, right?

Several of these malcontents should have been prohibited under current law. John Hauser, who opened fire in a Louisiana theater was ordered into a psychiatric hospital by a judge and had been denied a concealed carry permit. Bureaucracy FAIL.

The white supremacist maggot who killed nine people in a church in South Carolina should have been barred from buying a gun because he had admitted to possessing drugs, but the F.B.I. examiner conducting the required background check failed to obtain the police report from that incident. Bureaucracy FAIL.

The father of the kid who used his dad’s gun to shoot up his school in Washington state, should have been prohibited as well, since he was the subject of a permanent domestic violence protection order, which should have been entered into the federal criminal background database. But he bought the gun legally, a background check failed to come up with the protection order as it was never entered into the system. Bureaucracy FAIL.

The dildo who shot up disarmed victims at the Washington Navy Yard passed local and state background checks, even though he was nuttier than squirrel shit and twice sought treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs for psychiatric issues. Bureaucracy FAIL.

And despite the fact that he communicated with a terrorist and advocated terrorist acts in his presentations, authorities were apparently too scared of being accused of cultural insensitivity or something to actually take action on Nidal Hasan. He wasn’t under the care of a psychiatrist. He was a psychiatrist and an Army Major with a clean criminal record. But apparently the exchanges with a radical cleric  and attempts to contact al Q’aida, weren’t enough to give the feds a clue that maybe something wasn’t quite right in Hasanland. Bureaucracy FAIL.

So what is it that Uncle Fester and other gun grabbing shitbirds think enhanced background checks and increased gun control will do in light of the fact that the bureaucracy can’t even handle current standard background checks correctly? How would banning private sales have stopped any of these murders, in which the perps easily walked into a store, passed a background check, and waltzed off with a gun? And more importantly, what kind of law would stop any criminal from obtaining a gun on the black market, avoiding a background check altogether?

And yet, the first words out of the maw of the White House spokeshole after last week’s tragedy were lies about public support for more gun control, including the hackneyed mantra about the nonexistent “gun-show loophole.”

Here’s a clue: no law would have done so. None. No law would have prevented the bureaucratic failures that resulted in the legal purchase of firearms by these violent fruitcakes. And yet, every time one of these yambags loses his shit and proceeds to kill innocent people, opportunistic swine all over the nation try to put limits on those of us who committed no crime.

In their zeal to foment fear of the big, black, scary guns, the NYT pointed out something most don’t think about: the failure and inadequacy of the background checks system that was supposed to prevent violent scum from purchasing firearms and the folly of growing said bureaucracy.

Newsflash! Oregon Shooter’s Dad is a Jackass!

11 Comments

After finding out that his abominable offspring, in whose life he apparently didn’t participate all that much, shot and killed a bunch of innocent people, Ian Mercer has decided that inanimate objects, i.e. guns, are to blame for the massacre.

Ian Mercer, during an interview outside his California home Saturday, told CNN that he didn’t know his son had a single gun, let alone 13. He asked, “How on earth could he compile 13 guns? How could that happen?”

Well, shitstick. Had you actually been in his life, instead of somewhere on the periphery, you would have known the answer to that question, but since cowards like him would never accept responsibility for the fuckups in their lives, blaming the gun not only allows them to shirk that responsibility yet again, but also promote their pusillanimous political philosophy.

Mercer said he has never held a gun. He doesn’t want to, he said. He laid out his personal philosophy on the issue: “I’m a great believer (in) you don’t buy guns, don’t buy guns, you don’t buy guns.”

I’m imagining this petty, testicle-deficient invertebrate running away from the responsibility of being a positive influence in his son’s life. I’m picturing him whimpering on his knees, begging for his pathetic life as an armed thug victimizes him and his family. Amoeba like him would never actually take a positive step to defend himself and his family. They consider it a lot more virtuous to beg and plead in front of monsters.

And then, as the interview wore on, he doubled and tripled up on the stupid.

“It has to change. How can it not? Even people that believe in the right to bear arms, what right do you have to take people’s lives? That’s what guns are, the killers. Simple as that. Simple as that. It’s black and white. What do you want a gun for?”

There’s so much fail in this incoherent rambling, I’m having trouble finding the right words to properly convey the level of stupid! He equates the right to own a tool with a nonexistent right to kill people, which no one claimed exists. He appoints himself the arbiter of other people’s wants and needs. He ascribes human qualities to guns.

It’s not difficult to picture someone this irrational spawning a psychotic murderer.

And then, there’s this asshole…

Yep, Uncle Fester is at it again, scrambling for relevance in a world that has long ago recognized his hypocrisy.

fester

Kelly said lawmakers in Washington need “to close these loopholes that make it very easy for the mentally ill to get firearms.”

Interesting. Was the Oregon shooter in psychiatric care? Did he have mental issues? Was he seeing a mental health professional? Is Uncle Fester a mental health professional in his own right?

He noted that there are fewer deaths from gun violence in states that have strong laws restricting firearm sales and ownership.

“The idea is where there are more guns, people are less safe. If you have a gun in any kind of situation where things start to get heated, there’s a higher likelihood that somebody’s going to get shot,” he said.”

Of course, he missed the part where some of the most violent states writ large are ones with strong gun control laws, as if deaths by other means don’t matter. Obviously, they don’t matter in Uncle Fester’s world, because that little fact doesn’t support his political agenda.

Fact is there was nothing in the shooters background that suggested he should have been prohibited from buying a gun. He did not have a criminal record, and he and his mother purchased guns legally, as it is every American’s right to do. There is no law and no background check that would have prevented this.

But that won’t stop Uncle Fester from pontificating on gun control, using his injured wife as a poster girl for his twisted agenda, and cashing in on yet another tragedy.

So Now What?

13 Comments

Well, if you aren’t aware, there was another campus shooting yesterday. An unhinged loon opened fire on unarmed students at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. I didn’t want to write anything about this yesterday, because details were scarce, and initial reports are almost always wrong.

Preliminary information indicates 10 people were killed and more than 20 others injured in a shooting at Oregon's Umpqua Community College on Thursday, said Oregon State Police spokesman Bill Fugate.

Of course, that didn’t stop the White House from doing a blood dance on top of the bodies of the victims before they were even cold. Spokeshole Josh Earnest spewed the usual “sensible gun laws” mantra before the details of the shooting were even revealed.

Earnest said the “vast majority of Americans” support stricter gun laws, including closing the so-called gun-show loophole. But he said Obama is “realistic” about the dim prospects of congressional action on gun control.

Dear Spokeshole – you might want to check your information before puking forth utter garbage.

Most Americans do NOT support stricter gun laws. This has been proven again and again by various polls. But in addition to that, Oregon already has universal background checks! That law has been in effect for two months, genius, and it did absolutely nothing to stop this shooting.

But hey, never let facts get in the way of a good panic mongering!

It doesn’t matter that we don’t know how Christopher Mercer-Harper got access to firearms.

We don’t know if he was in any way prohibited from owning them in the first place.

We don’t know his motives, and we don’t know how long he had planned this massacre.

This White House doesn’t care. It just continues to push the old, hackneyed “sensible gun control” mantra, disregarding the fact that it’s about as sensible as a football bat…

Ignoring – apparently willfully – the fact that this loon was specifically executing Christians (because apparently only minorities, non-Christians, and other “protected individuals” can be victims of discrimination and hate)…

Overlooking the fact that by the time police arrived at the scene, nine people were killed and several more wounded.

Dial 9-1-1 and wait.

I don’t mean to impugn police response to this tragedy. They got there quickly and took out the maggot efficiently. But the average police response time to an emergency in this country is nine minutes. Even if the cops had arrived at lightning speed, and even if they only took five minutes to get to the scene, it was too late. How many victims do you think could be shot in that awesome five minute time period?

I hurt for the victims and their families. What happened is a horrifying tragedy. My son is in college now, and I do think about what would happen if there was an active shooter on campus. Certainly, he has no access to firearms over there, and he’d have to cower under a desk with his fellow students should this ever happen, waiting for the police to arrive, and hoping against hope that they don’t take too long as he watches his fellow classmates get murdered.

Yes, these thoughts do stomp on my brain. He’s my child. He and his sister are my life. He’s the sweet, redheaded baby I held in my arms 18 years ago and whose little face I kissed as he grinned that toothless grin at me. Would I demand more disarmed victims should, dog forbid, something happen to him? Would I pressure the legislature into giving psychotic murderers more targets to shoot at with impunity?

No.

I’d want as many trained, law-abiding citizens as possible to be able to carry their tools of self defense in as many places as possible, including my son. I’d want him to be armed, trained, and ready. No, I wouldn’t want him to live his life in fear, but I would want him to be situationally aware and to know what to do in case tragedy strikes.

I will probably never see those common sense changes to this nation’s gun control mentality – at least not in my lifetime. After all, never one to let a crisis go to waste, Hillary Clinton is already making gun control part of her presidential platform. So I guess for now, I’ll settle for this administration shutting the fuck up until they get the facts, instead of rolling around naked in the blood of innocents and then doing a little dance on their graves.

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: