The shooting renewed debate about a federal law that made it legal to take loaded weapons into national parks. The 2010 law made possession of firearms subject to state gun laws.
Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision.
"The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now," Wade said.
This piece of jackassery is in response to the sociopathic gunman who shot and killed a Park Ranger at Mount Rainier park shortly before stripping off what little protective clothing he had and wandering around until he died from exposure. The madman obviously didn't read the law, as shooting up house parties and federal agents and blowing through police checkpoints is illegal. If we are to take Mr. Wade seriously, the gunman may still have left the scene of his previous shooting with his guns, but would have stopped cold when he reached the boundary of the park, as violating firearms law is all illegal and shit.
It's a wonder why his "misconduct discharge", domestic violence charges, pending mental health evaluation, and restraining order didn't bar him from owning firearms. Maybe there should be some laws there which would certainly have prevented this tragedy just like keeping parks gun free would have. It's only common sense.
***ETA: Great minds think alike! A post at Hell in a Handbasket discusses the same shooting and the same moronic statement from Mr. Wade.
MCALLEN, Texas (Reuters) - U.S. Border Patrol agents found a rocket launcher, assault rifles and explosives near the Rio Grande river in Texas, the agency said on Wednesday, a discovery that suggests a link to Mexico's drug wars.
[snip]
Officials theorized that the guns were waiting to be smuggled across the border into Mexico, but said that was just speculation.
So a cache of weapons including grenade launchers, rocket launchers, and C-4 explosives were "intended to go South" based on aforementioned speculation and past cases? Whatever. No doubt these items were bought at the local gunshow for next to nothing with no background check.
If these weapons weren't being transported North by cartel members who got them from the Mexican government, then they had to have been provided by a US government entity that has the ability to acquire them. Wonder who that could be.
There is more and more evidence coming out that the ATF was using Project Fast and Furious as a means for fluffing up the numbers of weapons going to Mexico in order to give US lawmakers a chance to push more gun control. If you notice, there's a name of an ATF Special Agent that keeps popping up - Agent Bill Newell, whom I've mentioned a few times before as one who is on the front lines to convince the US public that we're the cause of the cartels having weapons.
Reportercreature: "It doesn't seem like it's that difficult for them to get these guns."
ATF Special Agent Bill Newell Mangan: "It's uh, it's as easy as crossing the border."
With the help of our government, apparently.
This is going to be a major scandal, with or without the help of our shit media organizations. Good on the ATF agents and other ABC agents who have come out against Project Fast and Furious, and shame on agents like Newell who carry the water for gun controllers through lies and deceit.
**Update: A letter from Senator Grassley to ATF Director Kenneth Melson. All I can say about that is OUCH!! If you read nothing else on this page or from the links I have provided, check out Senator Grassley's questions at the bottom of his letter. They are covered from point to hilt in barbs.
***Update: The video I posted above was not Special Agent Newell. You can see him here in the video on this page talking about straw buyers, concealing the fact that he had a large hand in allowing those very guns be sold to criminals.
I did pick up on this article warning America of the obvious dangers of barring doctors from counciling you on having guns in the home where your children are. It's so full of the same ignorant anti-gun rhetoric that has been going on for decades that it could have been written in 1971 and just reposted. It's that bad.
I'm too lazy to fisk the whole thing, but here's a little bit of fun anyways:
Florida is set to become the first state to pass a law that would limit doctors' ability to council parents about gun safety in the home. Pediatricians decry the law as wrongheaded, and they're backed by statistics that suggest the law will kill kids.
This is the part that I'm going to attack most viciously - "backed by statistics." So if all of these studies that you claim really do back your story with statistics and all, then where the fuck are they? The first link you have in the article, in the paragraph where you say that the Florida Pediatric Society "expects" an increase in injury and death from having guns in the home with children, links to "The Top 10 Leading Causes of Death." Wanna guess what's not on that list? Yeah, anything at all to do with guns. Bummer.
I caution doctors and journalists from hanging too much of their hope on expectations, as reality can be a real drag. Expectations are also not solid conclusions to draw from a study.
Next up you cite the infamous Kellerman study from 1986 (and I notice that you don't link to that one. I don't blame you) where Dr. Kellerman found that having a gun in the home makes you 43 times more likely to be killed by some shit or something. It's been years since I read that piece, but I recall his statistics also came to the conclusion that innocuous stuff like having a garage or PeeWee Herman doll makes you about certain to be killed by something. That study has been so thoroughly debunked that it's almost laughable that the author even mentions it.
The next link about doctors "decrying" not being able to warn incompetent parents about guns in the home - the one hyperlinking over the words "injury and death in children" - links to a health article talking about running related injuries in active kids. Do doctors warn parents about the dangers of their kids running? If it's so dangerous and all, maybe it's a good idea for doctors to council all of us dumbass parents about the hazards of life. Do doctors even get training on how to council people? Are they like Chaplains, but with medical skills? I can identify so many dangers to kids from where I sit right now that maybe I should sign up for my pediatrician to council me every single day, that my kids might live longer than I did. . . . .oh, wait.
"For pediatricians, prevention is the name of the game," St. Petery said.
Huh. To think that this whole time I've been taking my tribe of ankle biters to the doctor for vaccines and illness related stuff, when it's now quite obvious I should be bombarding him with questions regarding the dangers of running, septicemia, and Alzheimer's. Aggghhhh, I feel so silly right now.
More than one-third of American homes have at least one gun at home, but a 2007 study found 70 percent of guns are not stored safely.
Oooooh. . . .another study. Check that one out for details of how a survey about how guns were stored in homes was construed by one pediatrician to mean that 70 percent of those guns were stored improperly. Doctor DuRant knows this shit for real Yo, because of that huge block of training he went through in medical school that covered how to properly store firearms in the home in every situation; you know, that instruction you get in your third year right in between lessons on how to council people and the one on how to conduct years long studies about such things like gun violence and autoerotic asphyxiation. Doctors are like Jack Bauer, but with stethoscopes and latex gloves instead of Sigs and H&Ks.
"I would think there should be a law that says if you don’t [council parents about gun safety], that should be malpractice," said David Hemenway, a professor of health policy at the Harvard School of Public Health who studies injury prevention.
Cool! I'm down with that, because if parents have a claim that you didn't council them about the dangers of guns in the home with their children and they got hurt, then they will also have remedy when their kids impail themselves on a pair of scissors, tumble down the stairs and bust their dome-piece, choke to death on a hermit crab, or wash their intestines out with peroxide. Does your doctor council you about every danger your kid could encounter in the home? Cause what your sayin is that you consider a doctor to be at fault for not giving parents fair warning about common hazards.
Children in the United States are 11 times more likely to die accidentally from a gun injury compared with children in other developed countries, he said.
Oh come on! You know that's bullshit right there; you don't even offer a link or the name of a study. But while we're on it, did you know that MyHealthNewsDaily writers and AAP doctors in the United States are 43 times more likely to die from a rare venereal disease they caught from licking their stamp collection than are MyHealthNewsDaily writers and AAP doctors from Botswana? Honest Abe!
The writer goes on to try and link child suicides using firearms to a study about the dangers of the internet - no guns mentioned in there. Here's the gist of the entire article summed up for you:
The best way to keep children safe from gun injury is not to own one, Hemenway said. This is also the position of the AAP.
Yup. We got that from you, boss. But I have to ask you: in your professional experience, what's the best way keep children safe from violent scumbags, home intruders, or dangerous animals? Counciling?
***Update: Ricky the doctor chips in to say that counciling you about everything imaginable because he thinks it's dangerous is "within the scope of his practice." Hey Ricky, does that include medical malpractice? Last I heard, doctors kill far more people every year from negligence than every firearm death combined. Is it absurd to suggest a law making it so doctors start their counciling with a disclaimer to stay the hell away from doctors because they are known to be extremely hazardous to your health?
Calderon's office on Saturday said U.S.-Mexico relations remained solid despite Pascual's resignation and the two nations would continue working together to deepen their relationship "as neighbors and friends."
But the alliance has recently been soured by the public dispute between Calderon and Pascual and Washington's failure to stop weapons smuggling into Mexico.
"Clever girl" - Muldoon, Jurassic Park
So now we have the ATF Project Gunrunner scandal -- in which federal agents were ordered to basically facilitate the smuggling of weapons into Mexico -- being sold as "Washington's failure to stop weapons smuggling." B.E.A.U.Tiful wordsmithing! I would have never thought to put it like that.
ISLAMABAD — An American CIA contractor facing murder charges in Pakistan has been released after the payment of "blood money" to the relatives of the victims, local officials said Wednesday.
Raymond Allen Davis has been in jail since Jan. 27, seriously straining ties between Pakistan and the United States.
Good for him that he's been turned loose and will not die in that country. It's unfortunate that he spent a month and a half in prison in Pakistan because he had to shoot two robbers, and that the Pakistani media made him out to be the villain. Of course, Davis doesn't get a warm welcome from our media either; read that first sentence above again. Still don't see? How about this one:
Pakistani law allows murder suspects to be set free if they compensate the heirs of their victims.
This is a common tactic amongst the disingenuous hacks that make up 99% of our media, both the newspapers and TV news: calling the shootees who were killed due to their own violent actions the "victims," which makes the shooter the aggressor. And "Blood Money?" What happend to "settlement," like it is here when some coked up lesbian actor destroys some innocent person's life with the hood of her Escalade? Nice try fuckers.
I get that Pakistani people are going to be pissed regardless of what the facts are; they watch the local news just like we do, and it's apparent that word smithing and fact twisting in journalism is a global phenomenon, like a big bolus of hippie is injected into the frontal lobe of every journalism grad. The Pakistani government is between a rock and a hard ass, as even our Head of State publically called Davis a diplomat, which seals the deal, leaving the Pakistani government having to face their own angry people. Bad place to be and all. Overall it was worked out peacefully, thankfully, but I just wish the douchebags working in front of cameras here in the states would do something honest for once in their lives and call a spade a spade. How hard is that?
This week in Washington, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey introduced three very modest gun regulation bills, including one making it more difficult to sell guns to people on the terror watch list.
Jeez, I would hate to see what you consider a radical proposal. Oh yeah, this:
Meanwhile, in Salt Lake City, the State Legislature is considering a bill to honor the Browning M1911 pistol by making it the official state firearm.
Gail Collins considers a law that impacts no one in any substantive way at all an absurd idea, yet thinks that a law that would impact Americans for years to come is modest. Pretty backwards if you ask me, but then again, I'm talking about a woman who is confused about the meaning of the word "terror:"
The terror of the National Rifle Association is so pervasive that President Obama did not want to poison the mood of his State of the Union address by suggesting that when somebody on the terror watch list tries to buy a gun, maybe we should do an extra check.
So a group of people who advocate the peaceable ownership of arms are terror[ists]? That puts a qualifier on exactly who she believes should be on a secret government list, no? I guess this prophetic understanding that she has in that branding non-violent people with a dark label and forever restricting or taking away their rights is "extremely mild," while ensuring a dead man who designed a bad-ass nine shot pistol is honored in his state is radical somehow leads us to want to send her nice comments on her shit article telling her about how smart she is.
The rest of the article is disgusting, and one can see right away how partisan she is.
As you can read in the story, Goddard survived the gunman's attack at Virginia Tech, and the point is pushed that he carries more weight in the gun control argument because he knows first hand what it's like to be shot by an armed lunatic while at school, and the rest of us don't. There is no mention at all about why Goddard also carries weight to the argument that packing thousands of unarmed people in a small area with minimal security attracts armed lunatics of all types, and the outcome of an event like that will be the same despite whatever law gets passed to prevent it.
None of this is addressed in the article, nor is there any mention of potential unintended consequences. It seems that the sum of the story is that Goddard has an edge because he's been the unarmed victim getting bullets pumped into him while he lies defenseless on the ground, and that should be the best policy. He's also a fudd, so there's that too.
Arguments based entirely on emotion don't get much pull with me. How about putting some facts in there somewhere for the people who aren't so naive.
My-oh-my has this country come a long way in such a short period of time. In the wake of the Tucson shooting, all of the predictable cries by the usual suspects for more gun control have been largely met with shoulder shrugs and silence from the majority of lawmakers.
"Loughner, for one, reportedly used an extended magazine carrying 31 rounds. (Congress outlawed such magazines in 1994, but let the ban lapse in 2004.)"
Aaaahhnnnggt!! Wrong answer sport. Congress temporarily stopped the new manufacture of magazines like the one scumbag-shooty-guy from AZ used; they didn't ban them. Don't worry though, I expected y'all media types to expend yet more of your credibility (isn't it in the red these days) buhleeeet buhleeeet buhleeeting about what you know nothing of in order to push your agenda. It's what you do, and I love pointing it out and doing my small part to make you all look like jackasses.
As for bearing the blame, I'm happy to see that the bulk of its weight rests so well on such petite shoulders, despite it being a juvenile accusation. Not that I'm saying it's right, mind you; I'm just happy that it's not placed on all of us; and something also tells me that there's an unintended consequence of the Palin haters throwing this mess at her, there being no such thing as bad press and all.
Now for the fun stuff.
Back to this article, do yourself a favor and scroll down to the video and watch it. We have the National Urban League's Marc Morial saying, and I quote:
"With respect to gun control, there is no doubt. . .ah. . .that. . .ah. . .the Assault Weapon Ban and the repeal of the Assault Weapon ban was probably a mistake for the nation."
Hmmmmmm, you see. . . .about that. . . . I don't see how such a presumably smart man can say in the same sentence that it's "no doubt" that "probably" something is bad. Mr. Morial, would you also say that there's no doubt that syphilis is probably bad for tigers? Is it your position that ninjas are no doubt, probably bad news for the samurai? That's awesome! I feel the same way too! - (about the tigers, ninja, and samurai, not the Assault Thingie Ban)
I do support his position though that a knee jerk reaction by lawmakers to strip rights from an already agitated populace - who are flocking to buy firearms at the moment - in the wake of a violent shooting is probably no doubt a bad thing to do, especially considering that a great deal of the people buying the guns are doing it not so much in the interest of one day stopping a spree shooter, but because they don't trust lawmakers.
Now go to this link and scroll down to watch the video about the popularity of Glock pistols. This one, for me, defines how utterly stupid newscreatures are. Witness the raw footage of a bona fide dumb ass attack:
Chris Jansing, to guest Jose Diaz-Balart - " I know that in your years of reporting you've had alot of years of experience with all different types of weaponry."
Diaz-Balart - "Sure"
Jansing - "Help us understand the popularity of this type of gun because I think if you're not part of the gun culture for a lot of people this is a weapon that is used to kill people. . ."
Diaz-Balart - "yes"
Jansing - ". . .we've heard it's used to kill people."
Injecting myself into the discussion here, what the hell does this chic mean by "for a lot of people this is a weapon that is used to kill people"? Is that something like "tell me now Rosie, for a lot of people, mayonnaise is a product used to fatten people. . . .we've heard it's used to fatten people." Or, "tell me Chuck, for a lot of people, ninjas are weapons used to kill people. . . .we've heard they're used to kill people." Is that what she's talking about? You can see that I've used Rosie [O'Donnell] and Chuck [Norris] there as an example because they are, presumably, because of their vaguely associated credentials, known as being part of the fat and ninja culture, respectively. Rosie more so considering that she is known to be the size of a barge, so she might be a little more authoritative.
Diaz-Balart, being a journalist and all and highly trained in the art of the gun culture, is no doubt probably the best bet to be on a national news network chatting with a fellow journalist about something he knows so much about. I mean he knows two people who have Glocks - one a law enforcement officer, and another a friendly gun collector - and these two individuals know without a doubt why Glocks are probably popular, because one of them dropped theirs down some stairs and the other dropped his out the window of a car at 60 miles per hour.
That makes Diaz-Balart a fucking Glock savant!
I guess that since I dropped my Glock yesterday, that qualifies me to say that both of these retards wouldn't make a pimple on a gun owners ass (don't ask, it's not my saying), and I offer to you more evidence to support my claim:
Diaz-Balart - ". . . .there's a number of different millimeters available in weapon sizes. . ."
Looking at the handy chart on Gaston's website, I direct you to the "models" tab, and ask you if they are listed by caliber, or are they listed by millimeters? It must be a hidden language no doubt that can only probably be decoded by gun culture experts well skilled in the art:
Standard model? Lots of millimeters.
Compact model? Not so many millimeters.
Subcompact model? A few millimeters.
Competition model? Huge number of millimeters, like totally a bunch of them n' stuff.
Man though, all this talk about Glocks, heatahs, and millimeatahs makes me want to take a ride to the range and bust me some caps, after I throw my Glock 17 out the window of my truck and make myself a gun culture jedi knight, of course.
And the hits keep on comin'
Diaz-Balart - ". . .it's [Glocks] a natural pistol to get if you're not an expert on weapons."
And again, he later backs that claim up by offering his law enforcement buddy's experience tossing them down stairs and all; you can't claim to be an expert unless you drop the thing down some flights of stairs, and to be able to master this feat, you have to have Glock perfection. It's that simple. So if you've never handled a gun before, and consider yourself to not be an expert, you need to get a Glock first, and then drop it to become a master. Taking what he says literally, one can only deduct that the reason 65% of law enforcement choses Glock is because cops suck with firearms.
I'll have to ask my friends in law enforcement if they learned Glock dropping at the academy. One of them is issued a Sig, a fore-tay millimeter I hear, so he must suck - I don't think they drop test those - but I did personally witness him shoot expert with a rifle once on an Army range, so who knows.
Diaz-Balart goes on to say that the reason for 30 round "clips" (magazines) are popular for the non-gun tossing/dropping/mass murdering population is so that at the shooting range, you don't have to reload as much. That's probably an accurate statement, no doubt, but I would also add that people keep 30 round magazines for their nightstands, glove boxes, and also for competition. I'm an expert, remember, so I know. Of note though is that he says to reload the gun with regular clips, you have to take the clip out of the gun and manually load it with "bullets" using your thumb, and doesn't mention that most shooters have many of these clips, and that they can be used to charge the gun with "bullets" very rapidly. Like this guy:
Fast, huh!!
Ultimately, these two MSNBC people are trying to be honest in that they are doing their best to tell the world why Glock pistols are not the choice of crazies, but are in fact popular to cops and every one else. They would have been better served though giving this task of explaining these truths to someone of more experience than a journalist, but it no doubt would have probably been less entertaining. Admit it!
"To gain entry to the store, which is on a secure military base, customers must present valid identification, pass through a metal detector, yield to the security wand and surrender cellphones and cameras.
To buy a gun, clients must submit references and prove that their income is honestly earned, that their record is free of criminal charges and that their military obligations, if any, have been fulfilled with honor. They are fingerprinted and photographed. Finally, if judged worthy of owning a small-caliber weapon to protect home and hearth, they are allowed to buy just one. And a box of bullets."
There are lots of things to be critical about in this article, the first of which is the claim by the author William Booth that Mexico's ridiculous gun laws are "a matter of pride" for Mexican citizens. How the hell does he know that? Did he do a survey? How can he say that with any authority when he claims later that legal gun sales are declining, but the black market is booming? Sounds to me like the proud Mexican citizens are doing an end run around the shenanigans and getting guns however they want.
The very last paragraph says that if you want a gun, just ask a Mexican police officer to provide you with an illegal one, the easiest way:
"The cop will bring it to your house and show you how to load it," Islas said. "Of course, it is technically illegal."
Well, no shit! There's about the only truth you will find in this whole article. Do notice the use of the word "technically," as in it's not really illegal despite being, you know, illegal. Kinda like 'rape-rape:' the police officer is friendly and providing you with a weapon that's not on Mexico's only gun store's precise list, so it's "technically" totally OK and stuff, and not at all a bad thing; and if you have sex with a girl that's under the age of consent, who's too drugged up to consent even if she legally could, and it like happened a long time ago and stuff, and you're popular, than it's OK too.
I'm starting to get the hang of the leftist ideology that breaking the law is cool as long as it's done properly.
As an afterthought, I wonder how many of those weapons handled in "strict military fashion" are handed to the ordinary citizens by friendly police officers -- who are only breaking the law out of the sheer goodness of their hearts -- and don't make it onto the list of extreme precision. You know the ones I'm talking about:
"Police Sales Only," is filled with weapons that ordinary citizens cannot legally buy - the heavy stuff, such as Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifles and Israeli Galil machine guns, plus gas and concussion grenades, as well as bulletproof vests and helmets.
Rest assured that those friendly police officers do not sell them illegally to the bad men who are flooding the US with narcotics. Nooosirrrreeeebob! It's odd though that I've actually seen pictures somewhere of weapons taken from Mexican drug cartel members' cold dead hands. Come to think of it, I've seen all of that stuff exactly as Booth has stated here, taken from criminals, and a lot of those weapons look just like the hardware that the Mexican military and police forces use.
Hmmmm. I'm thinkin that this gun store may keep precise records of firearms sold over the counter, but isn't keeping the most meticulous count of what gets sold under it. Must be easy to keep track when you're running the only store in an entire nation.
I've picked through this article and its sources a bit, and I note that there is a glaring error, among others, from one part to the next part to the next.
In elementary school, this phenomenon was demonstrated to me and my class in the game called Telephone; whereas the teacher whispers instructions in the form of a couple of sentences in a student's ear, and then that student whispers it into another student's ear, and so on and so forth until the message makes it all the way through the class. The last student to hear the message speaks it out loud, which always ends up making the class roar with laughter as the message is butchered out of proportion to what the teacher initially had said. This game is a great demonstration of the human factor, which is the element of error applied in a situation from a well intentioned but error prone human.
Back to the article, let me show you where the human factor has skewed the facts from what was originally a statement made by Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
Sayeth the above linked article:
"One recently released study by the Woodrow Wilson Center and the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego found that out of 75,000 firearms confiscated by Mexican authorities in the last three years, 60,000 of them — or 80 percent — had come from the U.S."
To start with, I went to the Woodrow Wilson Center's website and browsed through their material to find the particular study that claims this; something you would expect National Investigative Correspondent Michael Isikoff to have done, considering he quoted them. Turns out that he did in fact quote them, though not word for word:
"According to information provided by the Mexican government, which has received training from ATF on identifying firearms, U.S.-origin firearms account for the vast majority of firearms seized in Mexico over the last few years. In May 2010, for example, President Calderon said that of the 75,000 firearms Mexico has seized in the last three years an estimated 80 percent or 60,000 firearms came from the United States." - U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico: New Data and Insights Illuminate Key Trends and Challenges Colby Goodman Michel Marizco
Not the same, but close; Isikoff didn't skew the facts though. So now the question remains: did Felipe Calderon say that? I don't have an degree in investigative journalism, so it was incredibly hard for me to click the link cited in that study to find the news article with the quote.
Here's what Calderon actually said:
"Calderón said his government had seized 75,000 guns in Mexico in a three-year period and found that 80 percent of those whose origin could be traced were bought in the United States."
See that? "Whose origin could be traced." So we went from "80% were bought in the US" to "80% whose origin could be traced were bought in the US." That is not insignificant. What has happend here is that the authors of the study saw '75,000' and '80 percent', and they did some quick math and ran with that, instead of taking in what was actually said.
The difference is that of the alleged 75,000 guns confiscated in three years, not all of them were submitted for tracing to the ATF. If Mexican authorities had confiscated a hundred weapons from a drug bust, and fifty of them were full auto AK-47s with Russian and Chinese emblems stamped all over the receiver, twenty were RPGs and 40mm grenades, and the rest were AR-15 or M16 rifles, than why would they bother handing the whole lot over to the ATF when it's obvious that some of them didn't come from the US? The AR/M16 rifles and the 40mm grenades would be handed over to the ATF, as it's well known where they probably came from.
But that doesn't mean that they were purchased by the cartels from a gun store in the US, nor does it mean that they were all made there. What Calderon essentially said was that out of, say, 100 AR-15 or M-16 rifles confiscated, that 80 of those rifles originated in the US. Not surprising is that that family of rifles are generally - not always - but generally, made in the US of A, so no duh that they would be traceable back here. If I were an ATF agent and a Mexican Army Captain handed me a truck full of worn full-auto Galils and RPGs for tracing, I'd think he was a moron. They aren't manufactured in the US, and are not readily available. I would instead tell that Captain to submit them to an agent for the country where those weapons were made. It's common sense.
Back to the article, I found this little tidbit interesting:
"The report also faults a timid investigative strategy by ATF that concentrates on low level “straw purchasers” of illegal firearms rather than high level weapons trafficking organizations."
You don't say? Well, that makes sense too. Busting an element of a major cartel takes lots of time, effort, and danger, I would imagine. Monthly low risk busts would look great on the resume', and you have way less chance of getting into a Blackhawk down type shootout if you call in the SWAT team on Bubba John's trailer at 3am. I mean, who doesn't fear the Reaper, right?
I found lots more stuff that doesn't make the papers because it would be bad for the Mexican Drug Farce meme. It's not hard to find. One would think that an "authorized journalist" would take the ten minutes out of his morning and track down the quote that is the main thrust of his article.
But that's just not how humans roll.
The class is laughing now, so perhaps you reporter-like critters should use some sort of editorial oversight or something to cut down on the human factor.
I haven't commented on the shooting in Hartford, Connecticut because I saw little to write about, but after I half heartedly clicked a link at CNN on it, I was treated to a pathetically poo-drenched story about racism.
Was the douchebag discriminated against? Who was responsible? What does his mother think about all the racism? Are unions in Connecticut really racist, and did the douchebag file a formal complaint? Did I mention racism? Racism? Say it with me: rrrrrraaaaaaccccciiiiiiisssssssmmmmmm.
I got your message CNN. I understand.
This is what I think about that. I think that CNN could care less about passing factual information in any article that they produce; this is abundantly clear. The reason, I gather, is because since CNN is a corporation that strives to collect dollars from the public, they have to whore themselves out to get them, and that means publishing articles that get traction by pulling on people's emotions. Articles like the piece of shit I read this morning.
So here I am standing in the middle of the park pointing at this steaming turd: hey y'all, there's some shit here. So what's up with that? I didn't link to the article because I don't want anyone to step in it. That's about it.
As for the douchebag gunman, anyone who willingly takes people's life deserves no sympathy. They get no love. Outside of self defense anyways. That's how it's supposed to work. Whether there was racism or not is insignificant because normal human beings do not shoot one another over something so trivial. Reality says that the gunman committed a disgusting act because he felt that he was mistreated, or that he wasn't promoted fast enough, or perhaps because his panties were riding up that day. In the end, he was a disgusting man that should be shamed, not propped up on some pedestal of excuses.
Shame on you CNN for entertaining such a disgusting angle.
That is no accident. In case you're wondering what the hell I'm talking about, the commercial at the beginning of the video is a cyber-stealing awareness video that has two masked men with rifles walking into a bank while firing on full auto.
Jackie Bensen is the reporter in the video, and whether or not this is her doing, she is still accountable.
She did give Jim Snyder of the VCDL a crack at his take on the law, which he helped push through. Still, there's just no covering up the bias.
Oh, and by the way, did I mention that the smuggler is Iranian, here illegally, and was caught smuggling weapons fromCanadainto the US? Yup, and to top it all off, the guy was caught from his own incompetence, and not by Jack and Cloe.
Nothing to see here.
Running a business selling "Police Supplies" one has to wonder if these rifles qualify as "patrol rifles." Also, who would be stupid enough to fire a .50 caliber rifle at a tank?
Really though, this story should be all over the news.
Veterinarians have to first go to medical school, and I hear that's where they also get 1st class firearms training. Everyone knows schools of higher learnin' have constitutional gun professors on staff to pass such knowledge on to our youth.
So I kinda doubt that the man intended to kill the animal considering he shot it with a pellet pistol. To all you ignorant, loathsome journalists out there, I would appreciate it if you would stop tacking pointless terms like "high powered" onto things that you have no knowledge about. It was a freaking airgun for pete's sake, one that has a barrel like four inches long. I guess "high powered" is subjective and all, but y'all sound like pants wetting morons when you state things like that.
Yes, the guy is kinda a scumbag for killing a family pet, I agree. I do not agree with the two douchebag writers Alan Gathright and Lance Hernandez digging up dirt on the man with the obvious intent of making him out to be a villain. He did quite enough of that himself, and without the help of self righteous pricks.
I really can't bring myself to blame the media or angry citizens; the whole history of the Civil War and Confederate States of America is shrouded by a smokescreen generated from our public education system. The visceral reaction from many is the outcry against slavery, when in reality slavery only played a mild part in the war. The anger and hatred towards the mere sight of the Confederate flag is telling. Americans really are blinded.
There are people in this country who enjoy celebrating their heritage. That does not mean that they want to relive slavery any more than they want to relive firing volleys of mini balls at their brother.
What I find to be disgusting, but not at all shocking, is that the media is having a field day smearing militias and Christians over this one incident. The linked piece even shows the Minutemen that I talked about yesterday, which are not at all violent and haven't been involved in the first shooting. Christians make up like 80 percent of the US population - hundreds of millions of people - and all of a sudden nine people in a violent group represent all of them?
Simply disgusting, and just what I would expect to hear in the news.
What the media doesn't give a moments focus on is the prolific urban militia that murder people every single day. Last night in DC, ten people were shot by these types from a moving vehicle: four of them died. The rhetoric is all about the "AK47 type weapon" and "guns and violence," ad nauseum.
Where is the journalistic angst towards the perpetrators of this type of violence? Not a single solitary word about the trigger pullers, just harsh words about the type of trigger. That's all that matters. If only there were more laws, then gang bangers wouldn't do drive bys. It's common sense and all.
What I'm saying here is that nine self described Christians plan a horrific murder, fortunately a rarity, and it gets a week worth of front page play, but when several young criminals actually carry out a horrific murder, a day to day event, the talk goes to the NRA and how we need gun laws - nowhere near to the heart of the matter.
To be quite frank, one doesn't have to think too hard to come up with a visualization of the shooters in DC last night. I would bet a shiny paycheck or two it wasn't rural country boys wearing face paint and momma's rosary. When their faces come to light, you can count on the discussion to continue to head elsewhere, and not on the facts of the matter. At some point, the discussion has got to happen. Pay now or pay later, but at some point you have to pay.
I see it as two fun filled weekends of shooting for some Texan was spared from being shot at the Federales by scumbags. Hopefully the ammo gets returned to its rightful owner.
This is just another way of pushing for a ban of gun shows.
My question is: what would they have the police to do with confiscated guns? Lose them? I would imagine that that would place them into criminal hands more readily than selling them to licensed gun dealers.
Of course no research went into how many guns across the US are sold by police agencies to peaceable citizens and not used in crime. That would be hard.
