Friday, January 11, 2013

More democratian idiocy about a subject they know absolutely nothing about: guns.

So, which one will be banned again?

This is the problem when you're dealing with the ignorant and those who lie, such as this newspaper, on any number of issues.  The CRC, for example, where the lie by the Columbian is editorial policy.


But for the non-serving-in-the-military pogues like Lou Brancaccio and Obama, these things are completely different.

So, in today's lies, the rag babbles to us with their frightening ignorance:
An Associated Press story on Thursday mentioned three possible recommendations, all of which should be endorsed by right-thinking and resolute Americans: banning assault weapons (actually reinstating the ban that expired in 2004), prohibiting high-capacity ammunition magazines and tightening background checks on gun purchases.

Note that none of these three would inhibit the rights of hunters and recreational target shooters, rights that we fully support. Nor, as gun-control foes continually point out, would any of these three measures solve the problem. But we believe they would help reduce the chance of mass killings. Enacting reasonable restrictions also could help lower this terrifying estimate: about 85 shootings daily in America (about 53 in suicides), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
This kind of writing serves as just another reminder that when you have a newspaper owned and operated by scum, garbage is typically going to be the result. In this instance, it's a re-packaging of false, distorted and exaggerated nonsense put out by Obama and the rest of the fringe leftists that naturally, this equally fringe-left rag laps up like a hungry kitten around a saucer of milk.

What these dangerous idiots should be concentrating on is this: WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE TO STOP NEWTOWN.


Even the morons who wrote this garbage admit these things won't "solve the problem."  When this idiocy was in place before, how'd that Columbine thing work out for you?

So, why aren't we focusing on changes that will?

Well, here's my take:

First and foremost, as I've stated, if every one of these idiotic ideas had been implemented, how many of the kids in that classroom would still be alive?



It's about going to war to keep our government from turning into the totalitarian state they so clearly long for.

Additional proof is contained in THIS drivel:
Perhaps the Founding Fathers could not envision a society where up to 60 shots could be fired from a high-capacity weapon in a crowded movie theater. But it happened in Aurora, Colo. last July. The Newtown school tragedy reminds us of the sole function of an assault weapon, one that should belong solely to the military. It is to maximize human deaths in just a minute or so. This horrific intent strays far beyond the standards of hunting or target shooting.
Again, the ignorant ass who wrote this garbage does not understand that the Constitution is the Constitution:

The 2nd Amendment is not the 2nd Suggestion:

If I want a 30 round mag or a 3000 round mag on my rifle it's NONE OF YOUR FRICKING BUSINESS.

But the dogged reliance on the idea of the 2nd Amendment is "hunting and target shooting" instead of addressing the REAL reason it's there... to keep government tyranny in check.... goes directly to the pattern of lies this cancer on our society is known for.

These morons start that paragraph off by bleating: "Perhaps the Founding Fathers could not envision a society where up to 60 shots could be fired from a high-capacity weapon in a crowded movie theater."

To the ignorant, non-serving asswipe who wrote that spew, let me help you with that sentiment:  This is 2013.  While you, of course, would have the citizenry climb back to the days of musketry, the military has made advances in weaponry which, in many respects, the people should match.

The Founding Fathers COULD envision a day like this, where fringe-left slime like Lou Brancaccio would cheerlead for an unconstitutional violation of our rights by a government friendly to THEIR perspective and unfriendly to the rights of the people.

For example, what part of "shall not be infringed." don't you get?

And are these same restrictions these scumwads advocate going to be implemented in the security details of those in government pushing this the hardest?

How 'bout it, Mr. President?  Gonna have your Secret Service people disarm?  Gonna have the soldiers guarding your kid's school disarm?

No?  Why is that, you fricking hypocrites?

Why is the security of the president's kids any more important then the security of any one of those babies blown to pieces by that nut in Newtown?

You know, I can just envision editorials in newspapers back in the day when repeating rifles were widely used outside the military, babbling the same kind of nonsense when the military shifted from single-shot carbines to multiple-round loads... actually lagging behind the rest of the civilian populace.

"The very idea that the civilian populace would have better armament than our soldiers?  Why, THAT MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY!  DISARM THE CIVILIANS!"


NO WHERE does this hysterical garbage from Brancaccio address the true reasons why we must be an armed population.

I may, or may not own an assault rifle or rifles.  But if I do, it's none of the rag's business and it's none of the government's. either.

Once again, this despicable rag advocates punishing the law-abiding for the acts of the guilty.  Because when these "bans" are implemented, what are the criminals going to do?

That those who break our laws every day will be made more powerful by these nonsensical bans which.... have I mentioned that even this zit on our community recognizes won't "solve the problem?"... while those who follow the laws will be made weaker as a result.... is apparently never considered.

Our ability to keep our freedom is far more important than any idiotic confusion between "motion" (In this case, the passage of more stupid, irrelevant restrictions on our rights)  and "action" (Actually making changes that will result in a POSITIVE DIFFERENCE.)

At the end of the day, the rag and the rest of the Obama surrogates won't even mention WHY the 2nd Amendment is there (The Goebbelian babble of the rag, for example, attempts to hypnotize  us by the idea that, apparently, the 2nd Amendment is ENTIRELY for "hunters and target shooters.") instead rabidly doing their best to draw the attention of those more ignorant, such as themselves, AWAY FROM ACTUALLY SOLVING THE PROBLEM.

We all know the rag supports leftist social engineering.  I'm sure the clouds of  pot smoke rolling out of Lou's office when he wrote this garbage serve as a brilliant example of just one of the impacts as he contemplates the upcoming gay marriages of his closest relatives.


One of the slimeballs that total scumbag Obama hired told us that they should "never let a crisis go to waste."

In failing to actually address the problems confronting us in protecting our children in the laughingly called "gun free zone," in failing to explain what Lou would have done in that classroom to stop the slaughter, except to die in a pool of his own crap, this despicable editorial once again has failed our community and just added to the cacophony of fringe-left garbage they spew on such a regular basis.

We all know, for example, how safe Chicago is with these kinds of laws in place, right?  Only 2 people a day, day in, day out, are getting slaughtered there.

How's these idiotic gun laws working there?

They've riveted the attention of the ignorant to irrelevant nonsense.  Meanwhile, our children are just as vulnerable now as they've ever been.  And as a result, MORE blood is likely to be spilled, and next time, it won't wash off the democratian's editorial hands so easily.

No comments: