When newspapers get stupid: the Seattle Times on gun control.

Like many leftists, ignorant of what firearms are and what they can do; the Times would have us confuse motion (Passing a bunch of idiotic laws that would have made no difference in Newtown as part of a broader, anti-freedom agenda) with action (passing laws and rules that WOULD have made a difference in Newtown.

Before I ginzu the Time's stupidity, let me tell you what I want for our children:

The same security the president's children get.

That's not too much to ask, is it?

OK, on to the Times idiocy.

Once again, the whack-job ignorants who know as much about weaponry as they do about performing an abdominal re-section, demand that the law-abiding be punished for the acts of the law-breaking.

It's the kind of stupidity that results, in some states, in a requirement of a prescription to get cold medicine. And who pays for that?  The law abiding citizen and health care insurance premium payer, who takes hours of their time, has to typically come up with a co-pay, waste the time of doctors, nurses and administrative staff... which typically means they won't buy it because the process is more painful than the malady? 

Or the meth cooker who just goes somewhere else on those infrequent occasions they, say, buy a package of Sudafed to make meth with it?

As leftist sycophants, it's not surprising that the Times employs the "watch the shiny object" school of thought when they babble about issues they know nothing about.  In their editorial, they advocate the entirety of the First Moron's gun-grabbing stupidity... like any of it makes any difference.

It doesn't.

The 2nd Amendment says, rather clearly, that the "...right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The imperative of the word "shall" was made clear by Thomas Jefferson, who told us: "There's no need for the 2nd Amendment until they try and take it away from you."

The gun-grabbers like that blithering idiot Cuomo, who's surrounded by more guns than Ft. Knox, tell us that as a gun owner, I don't need a magazine that can carry more then 7 rounds, or 10, or whatever their magic number happens to be this week.

I've got problems with that, of course.  The size of the magazines I want to use are really no one's business.  Slime like Cuomo tell us we don't need assault weapons for "hunting and target shooting."

Well, the 2nd Amendment isn't ABOUT "hunting or target shooting."  It's about standing as a defense against government tyranny.  If I want 10 or 100 rounds in my weapon, it's not the government's business.

Everything this nation does concerning firearms MUST be done through the prism of the 2nd Amendment.  It's not the 2nd Suggestion.

For example, this idiocy:

Start with universal background checks on all gun sales. End the loopholes for sales at gun shows or private sales via the Internet or classified ads.

Every transaction must include a background check. Congress has to make this happen, but the president can use executive orders to maximize access to criminal and mental-health information, and make it available to designated screeners.

How?

If I want to sell one of my guns to say, my neighbor, how would government know?

They wouldn't.  Unless the lesser, included aspect of this becomes gun registration.

And I will not register my guns.

Remember: the 2nd Amendment is about government tyranny.  Why on earth would I make it easier for the fed to take the Marc Boldt approach of confiscating our weapons whenever they feel like it?

Reinstate the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004, and renew a 10-round limit on the size of ammunition magazines. The gunmen in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., massacres used 30-round and 100-round magazines.

America is awash in firearms and ammunition. No civilian has a need for armor-piercing bullets.

Cars don't "need" to go faster than 70 mph.  Does that mean we restrict the ownership of those cars?

The gunmen in those locations also used multiple weapons.  The same day of the Newtown killings, a Chinese whackjob stabbed 22 children in China.  Does that mean we have to limit knives?

Does that mean that the next step is to limit the NUMBER of weapons we have?  After all, if I have 4 weapons, what's to keep the fed from telling me I can only have 3?  These same slimeballs can make up any number they like, whenever they like.

Why,. for example, a 7 round limit on magazines?  Why not an 8?  Or 11?

This rag has no problem telling me what I don't need.  What would their response be if, to save resources, the Times were restricted to the number of pages they could print in their newspaper and limited to two colors?

Would that be OK?  Or is that "different" somehow?

Like a gun owner, we can still own guns and bullets.  The paper can still print, just cut down fewer trees in the process and use less ink.  After all, that carbon footprint crap is really big on the left.... isn't it?

The rag is all about violating the Constitution by specifically doing that which the Constitution forbids: infringing on my right to bear arms.

"Infringed" means different things to different people.

in·fringe  (n-frnj)

v. in·fringed, in·fring·ing, in·fring·es

v.tr.

1. To transgress or exceed the limits of; violate: infringe a contract; infringe a patent.

2. Obsolete To defeat; invalidate.

v.intr.

To encroach on someone or something; engage in trespassing: an increased workload that infringed on his personal life.

In this case, the people being infringed upon are those who follow the law.

Requiring gun owners to have "liability" insurance makes no more sense than having KNIFE owners have it, or FIST owners have it.

The rag tapped down this garbage with this:

Public expectations for rational, coherent rules for gun sales and ownership are not radical threats to the Second Amendment. Indeed, the First Amendment offers no protection for all speech.

But it sure does for the press, right?

The problem here is the faulty premise the rag is using here.  These ideas are not rational, coherent OR even relevant.  Passage of these rules would stop no one from doing anything, and if these very same laws had been passed a year ago... those children would be just as dead today.

Innocent people are literally dying for lack of responsible gun-safety laws in a country that can do much more to protect its citizens, while respecting the right to own firearms.

And these bizarre ideas masquerading as effective controls on guns will save none of them.  Further, these clowns are pissing on our legs and telling us it's raining.

We are told we can't find and deport 12 million illegal aliens... but we can deal with 300 million guns?

What these things do is what they always do: Penalize those of us who follow the law as a result of the actions of those who despise it... like the leftists despise gun owners.