Not that he would understand either logic or practicality.
Following the mass shooting in Las Vegas the Amerikan Sovinformburo has swung into high gear. Ban the guns! (Ban the private guns – government guns, as everyone knows, have never killed anyone. Trust us.)
An example: the local fish wrapper in Tampa ran a panic editorial piece yesterday: Las Vegas massacre cries out for response.
Paddock reportedly had 19 rifles with him at the hotel. Experts said the rapid gunfire sounded as though it came from automatic weapons, which are heavily regulated, or from semi-automatic weapons altered to keep firing with one squeeze of the trigger. Law-abiding citizens have no need to carry such firepower, and magazines that hold 30 rounds or more only make it easier to take more innocent lives.
The death tolls in these mass shootings are escalating at a rapid pace in recent years, and they are occurring in places that are part of the natural fabric of life. A movie theater. An elementary school. A university campus. A nightclub. Now an outdoor country concert attended by more than 20,000 people. There are again remarkable stories of heroic efforts by first responders and by citizens helping the injured and guiding the terrified to safety. But this time, there is no talk of how more guns could have saved lives.
The issues Congress should address are well-known: Ban assault-style rifles and limit the size of magazines. Expand background checks on guns purchased in so-called private sales, such as gun shows and over the Internet. Make it more difficult for people with mental health issues to buy guns. Flag anyone attempting to purchase a gun who is or has been under investigation for terrorism by any federal agency.
Hear that? You have no need for assault weapons. A
propaganda organ newspaper says so. No need. And contrary to the experience of more than a few of you using larger magazines to fight off multiple attackers, those mags are only good for taking innocent lives. (Makes one wonder why even the government needs them, then.)
They may (or may not) finally have the angry white male shooter of their dreams. And, they may be correct that guns on the ground would not have made any positive difference – at least not the variety normally toted CCW. One size fits all, based on this (and only this) case.
No mention of the TN church shooting stopped by a good guy with a gun. Certainly no mention of who and what the shooter there was. No mention period. Like it never even happened. The other 1-2 million firearm defenses each year don’t happen either.
And they kind of slipped, I think, by throwing in the other recent high-profile shootings: those committed by ISIS soldiers, immigrants, and MK-Ultra descendant patients. No mind. Never let the truth get in the way of good communism.
And, for Gawd’s sake, never mention the 488 shooting murders in Chicago during the first nine months of this year alone – nor the 1,000’s of attendant non-lethal but illegal shootings. No Chicago. No Baltimore. No Atlanta. No LA. No Miami. Nor any of the other rapidly deteriorating third world ghettos. Those lives must not matter. Those gun laws certainly did not work. The possibility that something other than the inanimate guns themselves might cause the evil must never be consider or even mentioned.
We know three things about SJW types:
1) They always lie;
2) They always double down; and
3) They always project.
Here’s the prelude to a living example: “Brutus813” (likely not a real name) wrote the following comment on the Tampa editorial:
Ok with all due respect here. To the people who don’t think banning Semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines is a good idea please give me one logical or practical reason for anyone other than police or military to have them. You can’t use them for hunting so that’s a no. I am not against people owning handguns for self protection and grew up in a hunting community so even though I don’t hunt I am fine with the true hunters owning their hunting rifles. Just one good reason for semi-automatic(which can be converted to automatic) and large capacity mags please.
Tampa Bay Times.
They lie: “Brutus” effectively says what they all say: “you don’t need guns.” A lie demonstrated by 1,000,000+ logical reasons. I’ll give him his one in a moment.
They double down: Nationwide they’ve reached the Nth degree of downs. In his one paragraph alone Brutus gives us: “other than police or military” and “can’t use them” – a lie and a doubling down within consecutive sentences. Impressive.
They project: These people are unstable. Deep down inside they know that they should never be trusted with guns – not personally nor through their beloved government agents. They’re the type of people who ultimately beget gulags, concentration camps, and killing fields. To sooth themselves psychologically, they project their dangerous deviance onto everyone else.
One logical or practical reason for anyone other than police or military to have them? Because the police and military have them. You’re welcome. With all due respect here.
There is that remote, yet possible chance that a government goes rogue. It happens every now and then. The police and military have been known throughout recent history to load unarmed citizens onto box cars and murder them. Little things like that. If it got bad enough even our government might someday: regulate everything under the sun; tax people’s’ incomes; steal property; send American kids off to war for profits; bomb foreign kids for profit; ban the possession of “short” lobsters – whatever the hell those are; destroy the healthcare industry; turn Congressionally mandated monetary policy over to a private corporation; facilitate the wholesale invasion of the USA, or; even stage false flags events just to ban guns or justify more war profiteering. It’s crazy, I know. But it could happen; they could become tyrannical. Knowing that I’d rather keep the martial odds at least nominally equal.
Mind you there is no interest in logic or practical application or respect with the anti-freedom crowd. No notion of history. No regard for liberty, responsibility, or real safety. And they have no consistency either.
The Times talks about people on terror watch lists. Yet these same kinds are prone to sue to halt bans, however minor, on the importation of terrorists. When any non-white, male, dream terrorist commits a crime, they immediately tell us that the event is in no way representative of the larger community (usually Muslim). They may be right. Why then, do they immediately assign blame for any narrative-conforming attack to all gun owners and freedom lovers? Bigot much?
A few of these folks are decent people – people who actually want to solve real problems. That’s good as we have more than a few of those issues around us. The rest of them literally have mental deficiencies which go beyond mere functional mid-wittery. Cut into their heads or run a CT scan and one finds their brains are actually deformed physically. They may deserve sympathy and even help. They do not deserve to dictate terms.
That’s logical and practical.