Hey, change the time period to make Wayne look stupid! Wayne was talking about people being armed in their homes so that they could protect themselves if the Tsarnaev's had tried a home invasion, not about them being armed at the marathon.
Just more manipulation and bad argument by the left.
As for the rest of this skreed, all I'll say is that Lawrence has been guilty of far more exploitation of the Boston Bombing than Wayne--before we even had an idea of who the brothers are, Lawrence was telling us how it was the NRA's fault that they were able to use untraceable gunpowder that needed to have taggants put into it. Of course, as we explained here, that's not a safe or feasible option, and besides, it turned out that the brothers didn't use reloading powder--they cut open fireworks, showing that a person with ingenuity can find many sources of explosives.
Being a good lock-step follower of Commandant La Pierre, you're doubling down on what he said. I don't believe he was limiting himself to Bostonians in their homes after the bombing. He certainly didn't say anything to indicate that. And even if he was, how was that going to help?
Oh, yes, I must be a Goose Stepping Nazi behind Wayne LaPierre. (I'm just going to pause for a moment here and note that YOU went Godwin first, Bucko.)
It can't be that my memory, unlike yours and Lawrence's, is longer than a gnat's, so I remember that the NRA started making this argument AFTER a Fox News poll came out saying that 69 percent of people would want a gun if there was a manhunt, like the one in Boston, in their neighborhood.
As for the question of how it would help--the primary reason someone might want a gun in such a situation is to avoid being taken hostage in their own home like the folks were in California when Dorner was on his spree.
1. The trouble with people like O'Donnell is that they never get out of their preferred echo chambers. They never speak to those who disagree. Mikeb, I'll give you this much credit: You do talk to your opponents. You don't listen much, but you do at least let the conversation happen.
2. No, a gun would do no good at the actual bombing, but if the suspects tried to enter my home, my guns would be highly useful.
3. The MIT officer was ambushed, so far as I understand the story. No one said that a gun is a guarantee. It's there to improve the odds.
4. What if that Chinese citizen had a gun? What if the Chinese person had used situational awareness and drove away? Gun control freaks want pliable people who depend totally on the government for their security.
5. Actually, it was the citizen who owned the boat who brought in the cops. Law enforcement locked down a big part of the city, but the suspect was already outside the zone.
6. More and more law enforcement officers are declaring that they won't comply with an unconstitutional order, so O'Donnell's glee is misplaced. If the government ever does try to take our guns, large numbers of cops and soldiers will be on the side of good citizens.
7. Massachusetts has strict gun control. If illegal guns can be brought into that state, they can be brought across any arbitrary line the government cares to draw.
Hey, change the time period to make Wayne look stupid! Wayne was talking about people being armed in their homes so that they could protect themselves if the Tsarnaev's had tried a home invasion, not about them being armed at the marathon.
ReplyDeleteJust more manipulation and bad argument by the left.
As for the rest of this skreed, all I'll say is that Lawrence has been guilty of far more exploitation of the Boston Bombing than Wayne--before we even had an idea of who the brothers are, Lawrence was telling us how it was the NRA's fault that they were able to use untraceable gunpowder that needed to have taggants put into it. Of course, as we explained here, that's not a safe or feasible option, and besides, it turned out that the brothers didn't use reloading powder--they cut open fireworks, showing that a person with ingenuity can find many sources of explosives.
Being a good lock-step follower of Commandant La Pierre, you're doubling down on what he said. I don't believe he was limiting himself to Bostonians in their homes after the bombing. He certainly didn't say anything to indicate that. And even if he was, how was that going to help?
DeleteKeep up the good job, T. Never give an inch.
Oh, yes, I must be a Goose Stepping Nazi behind Wayne LaPierre. (I'm just going to pause for a moment here and note that YOU went Godwin first, Bucko.)
DeleteIt can't be that my memory, unlike yours and Lawrence's, is longer than a gnat's, so I remember that the NRA started making this argument AFTER a Fox News poll came out saying that 69 percent of people would want a gun if there was a manhunt, like the one in Boston, in their neighborhood.
As for the question of how it would help--the primary reason someone might want a gun in such a situation is to avoid being taken hostage in their own home like the folks were in California when Dorner was on his spree.
1. The trouble with people like O'Donnell is that they never get out of their preferred echo chambers. They never speak to those who disagree. Mikeb, I'll give you this much credit: You do talk to your opponents. You don't listen much, but you do at least let the conversation happen.
ReplyDelete2. No, a gun would do no good at the actual bombing, but if the suspects tried to enter my home, my guns would be highly useful.
3. The MIT officer was ambushed, so far as I understand the story. No one said that a gun is a guarantee. It's there to improve the odds.
4. What if that Chinese citizen had a gun? What if the Chinese person had used situational awareness and drove away? Gun control freaks want pliable people who depend totally on the government for their security.
5. Actually, it was the citizen who owned the boat who brought in the cops. Law enforcement locked down a big part of the city, but the suspect was already outside the zone.
6. More and more law enforcement officers are declaring that they won't comply with an unconstitutional order, so O'Donnell's glee is misplaced. If the government ever does try to take our guns, large numbers of cops and soldiers will be on the side of good citizens.
7. Massachusetts has strict gun control. If illegal guns can be brought into that state, they can be brought across any arbitrary line the government cares to draw.