Naturally, fringe-left outfits like the scum running the democratian are going to take every opportunity to engage in rank partisanship on any issue confronting the nation, particularly during an election... and an election with the variety of partisan overtones such as the one confronting us locally is no exception.
Locally, State Rep. Lynda Wilson (R-17) put together a letter that went to the governor with some 30 odd (If memory serves) signatures urging Inslee to allow members of the National Guard to be armed at military facilities in the name of their security.
As muslim attacks ramp up far faster than the requisite security measures to keep our men and women safe, arming these trained members of the military becomes increasingly important... and the reasons are obvious.
What happened a few days ago at that recruiting station and elsewhere was not an anomaly. It's happened before: soldiers have been shot at other recruiting stations in the past because those people were just as soft a target as any kindergarten class.
Like most leftists, Inslee loathes the military: that particular fish rots from the head down and in this case, he's merely emulating the Great Black Hope running this country into the ground from Washington, D.C., therefore not an object to be blamed as much as an object to be pitied.
Meanwhile, the fringe-leftists infesting us of course, bristle at the very idea of soldiers being allowed to protect themselves from jihadists with weapons they're trained to use.
God forbid.
But then, for the most part, their hatred of the military exceeds that of the president, so what can we expect?
The fact is that something like 8 states allow this policy to be in place; the world continues to spin on its axis, more or less, and these Guard members have some level of security that, perhaps, their Reserve brethren do not share.
For those who've never felt strongly enough about their country to wear it's uniforms (Yes, we're looking at you, any reporter working for the democratian, including whichever clown it was that wrote this hideous editorial) it's easy to presuppose or believe anything. You can be a gigantic hypocrite about it as the test-tube military is rotted from within while you decide not to soil YOUR hands in this country's defense (Like you, Molehill Moeller) you can claim some level of non-existent expertise in matters related to security, weapons, logistics, use of weapons in the civilian environment and so forth (That's a euphemism for talking out your ass about stuff you know nothing about) you can make the obvious claim that the Guard in this state will echo their boss's sentiment (of course arming the Guard in non-secure environments is necessary: that someone from the Inslee Administration would claim otherwise, a pure political reflection of their governor's position should neither be particularly surprising nor relevant... what would you expect them to say?) and you can then use this as yet another opportunity to attack those you disagree with, all without providing one shred of evidence to back your "not-necessary position"... (although certainly, no information has been provided to indicate WHY it's not necessary and how, for example, were such an attack to take place here, the outcome would be particularly different than it was in Tennessee) and you can quote obviously faulty, self-serving claims such as that by the Washington Post (uncited) that this country has an undefined (and unlinked) "mass shooting every 8 days."
You can attempt to deflect blame for this policy to Bush; after all, to the leftist, EVERYTHING is Bush's fault: and you can overlook the fact that the slimeball-in-chief has been in office since January, 2009, and that EVERY policy now in effect is HIS policy, regardless of when... or who... started it.... an equally irrelevant observation to the problem: how do we provide a secure environment for our non-electric pop-up targets?
But you see, this is like every other leftist anti-gun argument: at the end, it fails to solve anything.
It's like their whining and bitching and moaning about arming teachers, or the so-called gun show loophole. They FEEL badly about a situation which they, again, typically know nothing about, they arrive at the typically leftist solution which is we MUST do something about a given situation, even if it has outrageous costs attached (Inslee's carbon cap fetish comes to mind) even if, having wasted all that money, time, energy and effort, it accomplishes absolutely nothing towards the stated goal and is frequently causing more harm than good.
Wilson's letter certainly does not make the Guard members invulnerable. But what it does, were such a policy to be implemented, is to at least give them a fighting chance instead of making their status not unlike that of a duck in a shooting gallery. And, as always, this leftist snivelfest is long on partisanship, long on complaint, but very short (Nonexistent, actually) on solutions to the problem; in this case, that of security for the members of the Guard who are so exposed and such tempting targets because of the attitudes manifested here that... and the common fringe-left thread that all guns are bad, no matter why they're carried.
The irony of this is obvious: the 2nd Amendment argument these clowns use is to point to is typically the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." and yet, here we have this state's actual National Guard, perhaps the BEST "regulated militia" in Washington and these very same clowns STILL do NOT want them armed.
Locally, State Rep. Lynda Wilson (R-17) put together a letter that went to the governor with some 30 odd (If memory serves) signatures urging Inslee to allow members of the National Guard to be armed at military facilities in the name of their security.
As muslim attacks ramp up far faster than the requisite security measures to keep our men and women safe, arming these trained members of the military becomes increasingly important... and the reasons are obvious.
What happened a few days ago at that recruiting station and elsewhere was not an anomaly. It's happened before: soldiers have been shot at other recruiting stations in the past because those people were just as soft a target as any kindergarten class.
Like most leftists, Inslee loathes the military: that particular fish rots from the head down and in this case, he's merely emulating the Great Black Hope running this country into the ground from Washington, D.C., therefore not an object to be blamed as much as an object to be pitied.
Meanwhile, the fringe-leftists infesting us of course, bristle at the very idea of soldiers being allowed to protect themselves from jihadists with weapons they're trained to use.
God forbid.
But then, for the most part, their hatred of the military exceeds that of the president, so what can we expect?
The fact is that something like 8 states allow this policy to be in place; the world continues to spin on its axis, more or less, and these Guard members have some level of security that, perhaps, their Reserve brethren do not share.
For those who've never felt strongly enough about their country to wear it's uniforms (Yes, we're looking at you, any reporter working for the democratian, including whichever clown it was that wrote this hideous editorial) it's easy to presuppose or believe anything. You can be a gigantic hypocrite about it as the test-tube military is rotted from within while you decide not to soil YOUR hands in this country's defense (Like you, Molehill Moeller) you can claim some level of non-existent expertise in matters related to security, weapons, logistics, use of weapons in the civilian environment and so forth (That's a euphemism for talking out your ass about stuff you know nothing about) you can make the obvious claim that the Guard in this state will echo their boss's sentiment (of course arming the Guard in non-secure environments is necessary: that someone from the Inslee Administration would claim otherwise, a pure political reflection of their governor's position should neither be particularly surprising nor relevant... what would you expect them to say?) and you can then use this as yet another opportunity to attack those you disagree with, all without providing one shred of evidence to back your "not-necessary position"... (although certainly, no information has been provided to indicate WHY it's not necessary and how, for example, were such an attack to take place here, the outcome would be particularly different than it was in Tennessee) and you can quote obviously faulty, self-serving claims such as that by the Washington Post (uncited) that this country has an undefined (and unlinked) "mass shooting every 8 days."
You can attempt to deflect blame for this policy to Bush; after all, to the leftist, EVERYTHING is Bush's fault: and you can overlook the fact that the slimeball-in-chief has been in office since January, 2009, and that EVERY policy now in effect is HIS policy, regardless of when... or who... started it.... an equally irrelevant observation to the problem: how do we provide a secure environment for our non-electric pop-up targets?
But you see, this is like every other leftist anti-gun argument: at the end, it fails to solve anything.
It's like their whining and bitching and moaning about arming teachers, or the so-called gun show loophole. They FEEL badly about a situation which they, again, typically know nothing about, they arrive at the typically leftist solution which is we MUST do something about a given situation, even if it has outrageous costs attached (Inslee's carbon cap fetish comes to mind) even if, having wasted all that money, time, energy and effort, it accomplishes absolutely nothing towards the stated goal and is frequently causing more harm than good.
Wilson's letter certainly does not make the Guard members invulnerable. But what it does, were such a policy to be implemented, is to at least give them a fighting chance instead of making their status not unlike that of a duck in a shooting gallery. And, as always, this leftist snivelfest is long on partisanship, long on complaint, but very short (Nonexistent, actually) on solutions to the problem; in this case, that of security for the members of the Guard who are so exposed and such tempting targets because of the attitudes manifested here that... and the common fringe-left thread that all guns are bad, no matter why they're carried.
The irony of this is obvious: the 2nd Amendment argument these clowns use is to point to is typically the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." and yet, here we have this state's actual National Guard, perhaps the BEST "regulated militia" in Washington and these very same clowns STILL do NOT want them armed.
You just can't win with these idiots.
The subject of "gun violence" has a place in A discussion... just not THIS discussion. But the slaughter of these Marines and the Sailor was not a typical Chicago weekend, a town where gun ownership and use is among the most heavily regulated in the country but which still doesn't bat an eyelid if 20 people are shot in a given weekend.
The left never seems to foam at the mouth over primarily black men shooting other primarily black men, for example.
No, this was about a terrorist muslim slaughtering unarmed members of the Armed Forces of the United States.
But leave it to a fringe-left nutburger like the clown who wrote this editorial to fail to understand the nuances and to make the abortive attempt to meld his anti-gun fetish in the name of "gun violence" into this discussion... when that issue has nothing to do with these assassinations, save for the manner of the delivery.
If you're going to babble about the efforts of the security of the exposed members of the Guard, try and understand that this isn't about a gun show loop hole or a lack of gun registration or background checks. After all the recent slaughter in a movie theater had every element the left whines about in place and they DID NOT WORK... since the nut job who fired those rounds CLEARED a background check and would have been in full-compliance with the idiotic feel-good gun grabber initiative just passed here.
The deaths of those slaughtered in Tennessee were, essentially and realistically, likely unpreventable. Arming these Marines and the sailor would have only provided them with a fighting chance of survival. But the idea that keeping our recruiters and members of the Guard unarmed somehow INCREASES their chance of survival in an attack like this?
And that must be the goal, right? Shouldn't any discussion about arming members of the Guard and other soft, military trained targets be focused primarily on their security? And does the decision by the moron who wrote this ignorant editorial, and the governor and the Guard spokesman make our Guard members MORE secure... or less?
Had these troops in Tennessee been armed, it's hard to say if the outcome would have been different.
But it could have been. Maybe. And that's a hell of a lot more than we've got now.
Because we need to know that in so many instances such as this, the discussion here was NOT about how to increase the Guard's security, but instead, only what the left could accomplish to, in this instance, change nothing... leaving them just a vulnerable to jihadi attack as they were last year at this time.
I carry a weapon everywhere I go. I was a soldier for a long time, and a large part of that time was as an Infantry weapons instructor as an NCO and also as the officer in charge of the 104th Division crew-served weapons branch. I know what the level of training was then, and we've had a decade-long war since then, meaning the level of training is better... much better... then when I implemented it for the division.
The idea that these trained members of the "well regulated militia" the left whines about when it comes to the idea of carrying a weapon CANNOT do what I do... is sheer, unadulterated, leftist idiocy and hypocrisy.
All of the rest of it is irrelevant, feel-good, partisan leftist eye-wash. Meanwhile, no solutions were offered.
Just another opportunity to take a shot at those who HAVE offered a solution... that even at it's worst, is far better than either what the left has offered... or in the alternative, far better than nothing. (Think in terms of Madore's 3rd Bridge idea.)
And "nothing" is what this idiocy in today's democratian offers us to address this problem.
Again.
And this irony is the worst of all:
Having just engaged in a major part of the partisan "cacophony," the rag then pleads that we end it in favor of "more listening."
If their fringe-left effort is the result of "more listening?"
Give me noise, instead.
No comments:
Post a Comment