Dispatch from Planet Dennis
Jeff Soyer has a post up linking to this brilliant "solution" to gun-related violence, courtesy of "Quadrennial White House loser", Dennis Kucinich.
Because, faced with a choice between using Vermont or Washington, DC as a model for common-sense gun laws, the choice is clear.
Can't you just smell the safety in the air?
"Let's see...a $3,000 custom-built 1911? Here, have a Target gift card."
That whistling sound you're hearing is the crime rate falling from the sky.
Also, what Kucinich, and every other head-in-the-sand liberal out there, can't seem to wrap their heads around is this. That deranged little speck of subhuman fecal scrapings was going to kill a lot of people. One way or another, he was going to wipe out as many innocent people as he possibly could. It's what deranged little specks of subhuman fecal scrapings do.
Say a judge had, in fact, had him committed to a psychiatric hospital a couple years back, and such an event had triggered a "no" response on his NICS background check. It's quite possible he could have found himself unable to purchase the handguns he used in his killing spree.
I doubt that would have mattered much.
He was going to kill.
Perhaps, he'd have been equally unsuccessful at obtaining a handgun on the street.
Would that have stopped him from killing?
I highly doubt it.
He was going to kill.
And, he, like every American citizen, had easy access to any number of potentially lethal instruments. In his letter to the Boston Globe this week, David A. Kiolbasa of Whitman, Massachusetts asks:
Actually, David, that would be the legislatures of the 50 states, which set their states' age limits for individuals seeking to obtain a driver's license. Like it or not, when you hand a 16-year-old the keys to the family station wagon, you are making the decision that he or she has "the reason and self-control to be trusted to exercise the use of deadly force."
Has anyone asked what kind of bodycount Mr. Fecal Scrapings could have racked up with a couple five-gallon cans of gasoline and a match? Or a backpack full of pipe bombs made with readily available components?
Yet, despite these uncomfortable realities, we're still forced to share the planet with such budding little Einsteins as Kucinich, who honestly believe that having the government take away my firearms and my right to self-defense is going to make the world a safer place to live.
"If it saves just one carjacker's life...", I guess.
Washington, Apr 18 - WASHINGTON, D.C. (April 18) — In the aftermath of Monday’s deadly shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia, Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) is proposing a comprehensive, three-point plan to deal with the violence plaguing America, including a ban on handguns.
Because, faced with a choice between using Vermont or Washington, DC as a model for common-sense gun laws, the choice is clear.
Kucinich is currently drafting legislation that would ban the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.
Can't you just smell the safety in the air?
A gun buy-back provision will be included in the bill.
"Let's see...a $3,000 custom-built 1911? Here, have a Target gift card."
That whistling sound you're hearing is the crime rate falling from the sky.
Also, what Kucinich, and every other head-in-the-sand liberal out there, can't seem to wrap their heads around is this. That deranged little speck of subhuman fecal scrapings was going to kill a lot of people. One way or another, he was going to wipe out as many innocent people as he possibly could. It's what deranged little specks of subhuman fecal scrapings do.
Say a judge had, in fact, had him committed to a psychiatric hospital a couple years back, and such an event had triggered a "no" response on his NICS background check. It's quite possible he could have found himself unable to purchase the handguns he used in his killing spree.
I doubt that would have mattered much.
He was going to kill.
Perhaps, he'd have been equally unsuccessful at obtaining a handgun on the street.
Would that have stopped him from killing?
I highly doubt it.
He was going to kill.
And, he, like every American citizen, had easy access to any number of potentially lethal instruments. In his letter to the Boston Globe this week, David A. Kiolbasa of Whitman, Massachusetts asks:
Who is to decide which law-abiding citizens have the reason and self-control to be trusted to exercise the use of deadly force?
Actually, David, that would be the legislatures of the 50 states, which set their states' age limits for individuals seeking to obtain a driver's license. Like it or not, when you hand a 16-year-old the keys to the family station wagon, you are making the decision that he or she has "the reason and self-control to be trusted to exercise the use of deadly force."
Has anyone asked what kind of bodycount Mr. Fecal Scrapings could have racked up with a couple five-gallon cans of gasoline and a match? Or a backpack full of pipe bombs made with readily available components?
Yet, despite these uncomfortable realities, we're still forced to share the planet with such budding little Einsteins as Kucinich, who honestly believe that having the government take away my firearms and my right to self-defense is going to make the world a safer place to live.
"If it saves just one carjacker's life...", I guess.
