29 October 2009

Zero

That's the number of times the words "gun," guns" or "firearms" came up during the much-ballyhooed "final" debate last night between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Never mind the carnage on our streets, in our shopping malls, on our campuses, in our homes. Never mind that the radical right's candidates keep promising to protect our right to own howitzers. Never mind that the NRA's handmaidens in Congress keep assaulting what few gun control laws are on the books (the latest, to let would-be poachers and rapists carry loaded weapons into national parks on the specious theory that we'll all be safer, even though it's a well-established fact that guns are far, far more likely to be used to commit crimes than to defend victims ... and the probable reality that folks out enjoying nature probably don't really want to pack heat in case they meet well-armed criminals on the trail).

Never mind all that. The "courageous" "liberals" running for President aren't paying attention. Seemingly, all they want is the White House as a resume item.

[Note: President Obama signed the appalling national parks amendment into law.]

Note: this was originally posted on ketches, yaks & hawks, 27 February 2008
Posted by at
Labels: ,

4 comments:

sanderling said...

i know this is a waste of time. but thank god that most of us do not drink the same cool aide as you. you are wrong guns prevent much more crimes then they commit. look it up. and tagging on rapist and poachers in the same catagory ?. just shows how out of touch you really are. then putting it in the same context as people are allowed to carry guns into national parks is just nuts. all i can say is that it is because of the right to bear arms is the reason you can make cracked up statements like this. remember the 2nd amendment was designed to give the people the ability to defend themselfs from both people who would take away there property or their lives or a government who would do the same. it is also one of the main reasons no other country has tried to invade us. also try singing your crap to a woman who stoped a would be rapist or murderer by just simply brandishing her weapon. i think you will get more then just kicked between the legs. one more thing. america is all about self relience and hard work and pursuing happiness and prosperity. not the government making this happen. same goes for defending yourself against crime. the police do not stop crime they arrest or persue criminals after the fact!. it is up to you to defend yourself, your loved ones, and your property. i hope this never happens to you or your family. but if someone pulls a gun or knife on one of your family members. you could either do one of two things call the police and wait till they get there ( and i am sure the criminal will wait ) . or you could pull your gun and shoot him before the criminal kills your loved one. one way you have a living family member the other way you and your family will be going to your loved ones funural. think about it.

Note: this was originally submitted by Pat, 27 February 2008

29 October, 2009
sanderling said...

I think the comment from “pat” rather speaks for itself, albeit not in the way “pat” probably intended, so I’ll limit myself to repeating one key set of statistics mentioned in my post of August 29 (“Do guns make us safer?”) which nicely illustrates the sort of egregious errors in the above comment:

In 2004 private citizens used gunfire to kill 170 criminals. In the same year, there were 11,624 murders and non-negligent homicides by gun. Put another way, 68 times more innocent people than criminals were killed by privately owned guns.

So, no, “pat,” I’m afraid that it is you who is out of touch with reality. Also out of touch with the English language, but that’s another story.

Note: this was originally submitted by Sanderling, 27 February 2008

29 October, 2009
sanderling said...

You mean our inalienable right to kill our own family members is not enshrined in the Constitution? Somebushy oughta get an executive order out on that right away.

Note: this was originally submitted by AK, 27 February 2008

29 October, 2009
sanderling said...

Nah, I think all we need is a signing statement.

Note: this was originally submitted by Sanderling, 27 February 2008

29 October, 2009

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)