Rarely can anything bring out the weird, goofy and just plain stupid - and normal - like a public shooting; if it involves a politician or a kid it's worse...this Tucson thing included both and so is comparable to the lightening round on a game show. Any who know me know I'm more liberal than not on most things, and I'm generally a fan of Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and a couple other MSNBC shows. I've had to lay off watching them for the most part for the past week, cuz I just can't stomach that much self-righteous ignorance.
Looky, as far as I can tell this feller Loughner had some amount of mental or psychological problems and they may or may not have affected this incident or lead up to it. In any case, a guy goes on a rampage and kills 6 people and wounds about 14 others. Okay. It happens. Of course it's a terrible tragedy for those wounded and for their loved ones and the loved ones of those killed. When is that not the case? Isn't it always a terrible tragedy when loved ones get hurt or killed? Does it really matter that much whether it was a bad guy with a gun or a car wreck or an earthquake. Dead is dead, isn't it? Hurt is hurt, isn't it?
But here we go again with all the "gun control" nuts and their incessant urges to always pass a law against something they don't like. Happens every time. After each one of the school shootings, after the thing at Virginia Tech...on and on ad nauseum. In some of those cases the shooter acquired the guns and ammo used totally legally, others not. By what Orwellian gymnastics of speech does it matter to the killed and wounded whether the shooter had the guns and ammo legally or not? It's a little like thinking a serial killer has to look like me instead of being a nice looking all American boy like Ted Bundy
Bill Maher said on Leno, "Nobody needs a clip that can shoot that many times". This is not a relevant point whether they do or don't. The point is that those who want such ammo clips will have them. If they can't get them legally, they will get them illegally. If they can't get them in the commercial "mainstream" they will get them underground...or they will make them themselves. It is just the height of stupid to think that passing laws against guns and ammo will stop anyone who wants them from having them. It's also not relevant whether or not wearing seat belts saves lives...the relevant thing is whether or not it's your choice to wear one or not. It ain't your choice. I freely acknowledge I'm a house nigger on this one...just cuz it's easier. I'm too old and broke down to fight an unwinnable battle. No, it's not "the n word", it's nigger, and it's not necessarily derogatory and it does not apply exclusively to black people; and no, a rebel flag doesn't necessarily equal race hatred, nor does a swastika necessarily equal Nazi.
On the political right, I agree that the original intent of the Second Amendment was (partly) to enable the citizenry to overthrow a tyrannical government if necessary...but that ship sailed about a century ago. Anyone who seriously thinks "we the people" could overthrow the American government by force of arms is seriously delusional. Hey, even if you know lots of folks with AK 47's and maybe some grenade launchers, etc., that ain't spit against tanks, unmanned drones, fighter jets and aircraft carriers, helicopter gun ships, microwave weapons that can be adjusted to fry hundreds or thousands at a time, nuclear submarines, etc. And those are what we know about.
Most of the folk on the left tend to support "a woman's right to choose", and I will hear them sometimes say to those who oppose abortion, "If you don't want one don't have one!" I totally agree. But precisely the same applies to guns...you don't want one, don't have one! This doesn't give you the right to try to prevent those who do from having them. Some on the right might think if almost everyone were armed, you might have less gun violence; that if potential thieves, home invaders, rapists, etc., knew their planned victims probably had guns they would be less likely to try it. I don't think so. There's a helluva lot more to it than merely having a gun, or even knowing how and when to use it properly. Knowing how and when, doesn't necessarily mean you CAN. The will to use it when necessary has to be there, otherwise the gun is useless, or may even get you killed. If you are faced with a situation in which you don't have time to think things through, to try to talk your way out, to try to run, but have a fraction of a second in which to either fire or not fire, if you hesitate you are dead. Having fear or such goofiness as "sanctity of human life" and such happy horseshit in yer head will get you real dead, real quick. Gun or no gun, if you are not mentally prepared to instantly treat your assailant as a deadly snake about to strike you, you will likely soon be wormfood.
I think the left is deeply embarrassing themselves, well, me anyway, by jumping all over Sarah Palin and what she said. "Blood libel" seems to be a phrase that got some panties in a wad. Yeah, so that phrase probably was not the technically correct one (though some - like Alan Dershowitz - think it was correct), maybe she might have intended or better meant "vendetta". Hey, if sister Sarah murders someone, I'll say treat her like any other murderer, but to insinuate she had any responsibility whatever for this shooting because she put a crosshairs on AZ in reference to politically defeating Gabrielle Giffords is just nuts. The good news for Ms. Giffords is that she seems to be recovering remarkably well considering the injury. A .50 calibur ought to leave one helluva exit wound. I think I will construct a letter to Sarah Palin, encouraging her to run for president. There is zero chance she would win if she did, but if some actual miracle happened and she did win, it would be fascinating to see how long she lasted. After all, it ain't like a president actually runs things, is it?
Okay, it's after midnight now; Dear Sarah...
TRB
No comments:
Post a Comment