search
top

Turning Point: Election 2016

Despite Sebastian’s early read that, as an unambiguously terroristic act, the massacre in the Pulse nightclub in Orlando would not cause the same level of blame as Sandy Hook, my Facebook feed this AM tends to disagree. While that’s a pile of anecdotes rather than data, the blood was still warm when the dance started, and it started with the old classic tune of “This Was The NRA’s Fault,” and the chorus is “AR-15s should be banned and all other firearms strictly restricted, because nothing less will work.” They’re either attacking the BG check system because the shooter was allegedly a wife-beater and mentally unstable and still was able to get a firearm, or ignoring that he passed a BG check in the first place. And pointing out that he was investigated by the FBI for terroristic ties (without mentioning that the investigation was dropped for lack of evidence).

(All are ignoring that he passed separate BG checks to become a licensed armed security guard – a BG check that should have been more in-depth than the NICS check, I would expect. OTOH, I don’t know FL law and company policy there; perhaps all they do is a NICS-equivalent check. Which seems sloppy).

The result is that the Democratic Party has increased their bet on “gun control is a winner!” By doing so, they’ve put defenders of the Second Amendment on deadly ground. My gut read is that Trump’s chances just got better.

45 Responses to “Turning Point: Election 2016”

  1. Mike V. says:

    A Florida Armed Guard license requires a fingerprint and local background check. I’ve read he also has a Florida CCW license which also requires a fingerprint check.

  2. Fred says:

    +1 on the bump up to Trump.

  3. Other Steve says:

    Expect spin!

    “Terrorist attack” won’t play for Hillary. But “Hate crime” does.

    They’ll talk about the gun being too dangerous and ignore the tens of millions out there already. It doesn’t matter he passed a background check, this object is too dangerous for people because they could kill the gays with it and Hillary loves gays.

    Expect to see Hillary rainbow logos pop up soon.

  4. IF civilians didn’t have access to “military weapons” or even handguns fails when you consider the guy was a licensed security guard. He would have gotten a firearm by hook or by crook through his employer.

    • harp1034 says:

      He would not need to get one through his company. Plenty available on the street.

  5. Zundfolge says:

    I’ve been responding to people who believe this event is best responded to with more gun laws with the following:

    “I see, so you’re saying that if a small number of people abuse a basic constitutional right we should eliminate that right for everyone? Ok, then lets outlaw Islam and deport all foreign Muslims? No, that would be ridiculous wouldn’t it. How about this? How about we outlaw homosexuality then there will be no gays for Muslims to hate? That’s ridiculous too? Well that’s exactly what you’re proposing when you propose gun control as a response to this type of event.”

    • Matt says:

      I think it is high time we applied the scrutiny two-step to the 1st Amendment’s “freedom of religion” clause. After all, if the government can argue compelling public safety interest to abridge one enumerated right, we should be able to do the same for others.

      Not arguing we ban radical Islam and other violent religious beliefs held by a minority but rather just some common sense, reasonable regulation on keeping track of dangerous beliefs and its adherents. Perhaps a national registry? A worship license?

      Goose, gander, than sort of thing.

  6. Some random reader says:

    This guy mowed down over 100 people, killing 50 of them, most in the time it took to play a single nightclub song, from what I read in the news reports.

    This is in the presence of an armed guard, an off-duty police officer who was moonlighting, who *tried* to fight him off. It took a group of armored police, with an armored police vehicle backing them, to finally defuse the situation by killing the guy.

    Who in their right mind thinks that the kind of firepower employed by this shooter is anything that someone who isn’t a well-trained specialist should own? (News reports indicate that the shooter was armed with multiple military-style semi-automatic rifles, which I’m taking to be AR-15s or equivalent.)

    A lot of people question why a weapon designed to be effective for warfare should be appropriate for easy civilian purchase and ownership, with good reason:

    Without proper training, armor and armament, it’s *too* *hard* to defend yourself against somebody who’s armed with these weapons.

    So it begs the question as to why aren’t these considered to be specialized tools only owned by the professionals who require them, train with them regularly, and keep them carefully?

    Like the mother of the shooter in Newtown, MA, this guy had no business owning such things. (For God’s sake, in Newtown, the owner of the guns *knew* her son was violently crazy and owned them anyway! How could that even be possible?)

    Most reasonable people think it’s fine to own handguns for self defense, and hunting rifles/shotguns for hunting. However weaponry that in semi-capable hands gives an individual the power to wreak the kind of bloodshed that this guy wrought in such a short time isn’t a weapon of defense, or of hunting, unless it’s human beings that you’re hunting.

    Have compassion. Have a realistic picture of what’s actually possible when trying to defend yourself against someone with a rifle like an AR-15. Can widespread civilian availability and ownership of such specialized and dangerous weaponry be reasonable without completely militarizing a society?

    What makes me uncomfortable is to read posts that are so caught up in the specialized gun interest as to lose all humanity and compassion.

    So, please, think about what I’ve said in more than a superficial way. And maybe have some compassion for the suffering that’s going on here and for the reasonable (and unreasonable) questions that people will have in this situation.

    Give careful thought to how people could *realistically* defend themselves from someone like this–after all, an armed, off-duty police officer couldn’t stop this guy.

    Speak about *that*. Speak about how people can make themselves safe against a *that*.

    Thanks.

    • JeffinCA says:

      @Some random reader – So essentially a “won’t someone think of the children” argument?

      Many of your key facts are wrong:
      The AR-15 platform rifle isn’t more powerful than other rifles.
      The AR-15 platform rifle isn’t equivalent to what is used in warfare.
      Pistols are also issued to soldiers in warfare.
      The AR-15 platform rifle can be used in hunting.

      This is what Obama said on June 2: “What I have said is precisely what you suggested, which is, why don’t we treat this like every other thing that we use? I just came from a meeting today in the Situation Room in which I got people who we know have been on ISIL Web sites, living here in the United States, U.S. citizens, and we’re allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines, but because of the National Rifle Association, I cannot prohibit those people from buying a gun.”

      No, the reason isn’t because of the NRA – it’s because of the Constitution. Pesky little thing.

      • Ian Argent says:

        “we’re allowed to put them on the no-fly list when it comes to airlines”

        Just because you’ve been allowed to breach basic rights once, doesn’t mean you should be able to breach them in another area.

      • Thirdpower says:

        This is the kind of uninformed nonsense I’ve been reading from media pundits and ‘random readers’, short on facts but long on moral grandstanding.

        “Who in their right mind thinks”…

        So if we disagree w/ you we’re ‘not in our right mind’

        “A lot of people question”….

        A lot of people are as ignorant as this commentor.

        “So it begs the question…”

        No it doesn’t because the statement presented is not factual…. therefore a strawman argument.

        “Most reasonable people think ”

        So if we disagree w/ your non-fact based opinion, we’re ‘not reasonable’.

        ” unless it’s human beings that you’re hunting.”

        So if we own one of these, in you’re mind we want to go out and kill people.

        Have compassion….Have a realistic picture….be reasonable….as to lose all humanity and compassion.

        Over and over again… if we don’t agree w/ the writer, gun owners are unreasonable, compassion less monsters who only care about our guns.

        And that’s why we will oppose any of your ‘reasonable’, ‘common-sense’ ideas.

    • Fred says:

      So, How are going to get them? Are you personally coming to my area to take them? But of course you aren’t. Some of us know how to use them and are even a decent shot. So, you must be proposing to to pay some of your neighbors to arm themselves to take the arms of your other neighbors? If, that is your plan, that would be STEEEEYOUPIT!

      • mike w. says:

        There are, conservative estimate, maybe 10 million AR-15’s in the hands of armed citizens. They’re also in the armories of nearly every police agency in the U.S.

        So what’s the anti-gun play here?

        1. Ban them
        2. Get SCOTUS to say they aren’t protected under the 2A / Amend 2A.

        3….. Confiscate?

        you will see massive (say 95+% non-compliance) with any laws requiring turning them in / confiscation. What then?

    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

      Let the fisking commence:

      This guy mowed down over 100 people, killing 50 of them, most in the time it took to play a single nightclub song, from what I read in the news reports.
      This is in the presence of an armed guard, an off-duty police officer who was moonlighting, who *tried* to fight him off. It took a group of armored police, with an armored police vehicle backing them, to finally defuse the situation by killing the guy.

      The armed guard was only a single person among 300, and apparently only engaged him outside. The cops did not enter sooner because they though he had a bomb.

      Who in their right mind thinks that the kind of firepower employed by this shooter is anything that someone who isn’t a well-trained specialist should own? (News reports indicate that the shooter was armed with multiple military-style semi-automatic rifles, which I’m taking to be AR-15s or equivalent.)

      Because that kind of “firepower” is actually not a lot. Its a medium power rifle that’s semi automatic. There is nothing about being a “well trained specialist” that would be needed to use the rifle. Its just a rifle, and not close to being the most powerful one out there. There is nothing extra dangerous about it.

      A lot of people question why a weapon designed to be effective for warfare should be appropriate for easy civilian purchase and ownership, with good reason:

      Almost ALL firearms were designed for warfare, which isn’t much different than designing for self defense: able to stop a human quickly. The only ones you could argue are designed for warfare are large caliber cannons and belt fed rifles.

      Without proper training, armor and armament, it’s *too* *hard* to defend yourself against somebody who’s armed with these weapons.

      No its not. He had no armor, and a single person could have taken him down, and more than two would have been easy. Just because a single guard failed to take him down, doesn’t mean other couldn’t have.

      So it begs the question as to why aren’t these considered to be specialized tools only owned by the professionals who require them, train with them regularly, and keep them carefully?

      Because they aren’t that specialized, you don’t need a lot of training, and you don’t need to keep them any more carefully than any other firearm. Its just a rifle. And besides, even if we did that, it would stop shootings like this. A handgun could have been just as effective.

      Like the mother of the shooter in Newtown, MA, this guy had no business owning such things. (For God’s sake, in Newtown, the owner of the guns *knew* her son was violently crazy and owned them anyway! How could that even be possible?)

      Its called freedom. Sometimes bad things happen by bad people. Its unfortunate, but the alternative is worse.

      Most reasonable people think it’s fine to own handguns for self defense, and hunting rifles/shotguns for hunting. However weaponry that in semi-capable hands gives an individual the power to wreak the kind of bloodshed that this guy wrought in such a short time isn’t a weapon of defense, or of hunting, unless it’s human beings that you’re hunting.

      It can be argued that rifles are better for home defense, because they are more accurate and have higher capacities. The AR15 is a perfect home defense weapon. Again, any of those handguns or hunting rifles/shotguns are the same type of “weaponry that in semi-capable hands gives an individual the power to wreak the kind of bloodshed that this guy wrought in such a short time”. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM IN REGARDS TO THAT.

      Have compassion. Have a realistic picture of what’s actually possible when trying to defend yourself against someone with a rifle like an AR-15. Can widespread civilian availability and ownership of such specialized and dangerous weaponry be reasonable without completely militarizing a society?

      We do have compassion. We have compassion that people should not be defenseless. The nightclub was a gun free zone. We also have a realistic picture of defending against someone who has an AR-15. That’s why we support allowing more people to carry, because they could stop that person.

      Again, its not a “specialized and (more) dangerous” weapon- its the same as other rifles and not any more dangerous than other handguns or rifles or shotguns. It does not militarize a society any more then they do.

      What makes me uncomfortable is to read posts that are so caught up in the specialized gun interest as to lose all humanity and compassion.

      What makes me uncomfortable is you don’t realize all the humanity and compassion we have, and you don’t understand what you are talking about.

      So, please, think about what I’ve said in more than a superficial way.

      We have, many many many times. And we deeply understand how wrong you are.

      And maybe have some compassion for the suffering that’s going on here and for the reasonable (and unreasonable) questions that people will have in this situation.

      We have more compassion than you know. Maybe have some compassion for us and not require us to give up our rights or leave us defenseless too.

      Give careful thought to how people could *realistically* defend themselves from someone like this–after all, an armed, off-duty police officer couldn’t stop this guy.

      WE HAVE. Realistically many of has thought about it. We know what we would do. And we know that the alternative (banning AR-15s) would not solve a thing, but leaves us more defenseless. We know the best solution- end gun free zones. More people would have realistically stopped him sooner. And police don’t have much more training than civilians, so the comparison isn’t that apt.

      Speak about *that*. Speak about how people can make themselves safe against a *that*.

      WE HAVE. You just don’t like our answer.

      • Sebastian says:

        Well, any rifle is more powerful than any handgun generally speaking, but it’s worth noting that the previous record holder, as much as I hate saying that, was the Virginia Tech killer, who used two ordinary handguns.

        • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

          Yeah I know, general it is more powerful, but in the scheme of a mass shooting, its not that relevant. And that’s a good example of how even handguns can kill a lot.

    • mike w. says:

      My mother, who has zero specialized firearms training, having never shot a rifle in her life, never touched an AR-15 before, was able to pick up my AR and put her 1st group within the size of a silver dollar at “longest hallway in your house” range.

      Point being, an AR-15 is an excellent defensive long gun for an average citizen with minimal training, especially if they’re older, like my mother, or if, like myself, they have a physical disability.

      As for rate of fire, a terrorist could shoot 100 people in ~5 minutes armed with a WWII rifle that holds under 10 rounds…

    • Scott Connors says:

      To “Some random reader:” Interesting that you’re too gutless to use your real name. Big shock, that.

      • Sebastian says:

        Says a guy who reads a blog written by three people who are not using their real names :)

        • Scott Connors says:

          Your identity is known to others. I use my own name openly. Also, it’s your blog: cathedra mea, regulus mea.

    • Sebastian says:

      With the three hours of time he had in the night club with a facsimile suicide vest and using that to create a hostage situation, he could have accomplished it with any kind of firearm.

  7. Bram says:

    Big bump for Trump. Obama helped by blaming guns instead of the Islamic terrorist.

  8. Some random reader says:

    Not going to argue gun minutiae with you beyond noting that the AR-15 is the civilian designation for M-16 variants, and indeed you could go hunting with them, just as you could go hunting with a .50cal asniper rifle (if you didn’t mind the loss of meat). As to your objection over “power”, I was using that term not one of the power of the round, but a colloquial notion of the weapon’s military effectiveness.

    As to the “take my guns” related arguments, I really don’t give a rat’s ass as to whether you have one. I want to be safe from it.

    Somehow the ability of some deranged, wife-beating, two-times terrorism-investigated individual to blithely walk into some store and buy that level of weaponry the week before seems nonsensical.

    But you guys are the experts right? You tell me, how can I have a reasonable expectation of safety from that. Assume for the sake of argument I’ve got a decent handgun and I know how to use it.

    My argument is that, based on the difficulty of defending yourself from that sort of weaponry (as demonstrated the armed police officer the club hired couldn’t do it), that you can’t be expected to.

    So what do you suggest, beyond “a few more people packing” in the crowd? (I’m discounting “a few more people packing” because it took a militarised response to end the situation.) That sort of realistic thinking, and some level of compassion, is what’s missing in this discussion.

    • Scott Connors says:

      You are responsible for your own safety and your own fears. Your dread of living in an armed society is no more reason for disarming those who have done nothing to warrant such treatment than is the existential panic that Muslims have directed at LGBT, Jews, and Christians. And you still haven’t identified yourself.

    • Thirdpower says:

      “Not going to argue gun minutiae”

      Translation… you read some ‘facts’ from some news site and are still completely ignorant… as your next statement proves.

      ” I want to be safe from it.”

      Then don’t break into my home.

      “Somehow the ability of some deranged, wife-beating, two-times terrorism-investigated individual to blithely walk into some store and buy that level of weaponry the week before seems nonsensical.”

      So ask the FBI why they dropped the investigations or ask his ex why she never pressed charges. Both disqualifying events.

      “That sort of realistic thinking, and some level of compassion, is what’s missing in this discussion.”

      Again we return to the trite moral grandstanding. You have no clue as to what you’re talking about outside of what you’ve read on a few online ‘news’ sites and then come here demanding answers to your ignorant statements and questions. Answers you’ve already ignored because you have your trope in your head and won’t let it go no matter what.

    • The_Jack says:

      So you want to ban all self-loading rifles then?

      “”
      Somehow the ability of some deranged, wife-beating, two-times terrorism-investigated individual to blithely walk into some store and buy that level of weaponry the week before seems nonsensical.
      “”

      So you want to live in a country where someone who is “investigated” but not charged with a crime has their rights removed?

      As for the wife beating, again, the bastard wasn’t charged, convicted, or even had a restraining order against him. How would the State *know* to put him on a prohibited person’s list then?

    • Weer'd Beard says:

      “As to the “take my guns” related arguments, I really don’t give a rat’s ass as to whether you have one. I want to be safe from it.”

      First up, you may not, but the people who are drafting legislation and in political power talking about gun regulation 100% hate guns, all guns. They WOULD confiscate them all, or most if they could get it done, but they can’t, so instead they feign respect for the 2nd Amendment.

      What guns have politicians who demand “Common Sense” gun laws specifically mentioned as Kosher for civilian ownership. They best you can MAYBE get is somebody making some concession about hunting, or Joe Biden’s illegal and insane statements about double-barrel shotguns.

      You may not agree with these sentiments, but you have the ear of the gun banners as much as I do.

      “But you guys are the experts right? You tell me, how can I have a reasonable expectation of safety from that. Assume for the sake of argument I’ve got a decent handgun and I know how to use it.
      My argument is that, based on the difficulty of defending yourself from that sort of weaponry (as demonstrated the armed police officer the club hired couldn’t do it), that you can’t be expected to.”

      The officer was allegedly in full uniform as security, chances are the killer was aware an officer was present, and that person can be quickly identified and planned around.

      Somebody with a concealed handgun…or even openly carried plain clothes, is NOT obvious, and a single, or even a small group of shooters cannot focus on EVERYBODY. Look at news stories from various terrorist shootings (Charlie Hebdo, and the Mumbai attacks come to the top of my mind) where victims managed to get some really good shots at close range of the attackers with CAMERAS….substitute a gun and a novice skill level and you have a SERIOUS change of the scenario.

      Also, thanks for responding to the comments here. So many people from the other side don’t reach out to try and understand why we view laws and regulations 180 degrees different than the political opposition.

    • “as demonstrated the armed police officer the club hired couldn’t do it”

      We don’t know yet, because the investigation isn’t done, but it’s most likely that he got caught by surprise, so that he was able to get some shots off, but was in a bad position. Having a gun doesn’t guarantee that you will succeed in stopping the attacker, only that you will have a better chance than if you were unarmed.

      “it took a militarised response to end the situation”

      A militarized response was used, because by the time the police arrived it had become a hostage situation, rather than an active shooter situation. Hostage situations are almost always handled that way once the SWAT team has been mobilized.

      Again, we don’t know all the facts yet, but it’s more likely than not that all it would have taken to stop him would have been one person with a concealed handgun in a position to shoot back.

    • “Somehow the ability of some deranged, wife-beating, two-times terrorism-investigated individual to blithely walk into some store and buy that level of weaponry the week before seems nonsensical”

      Because you don’t appear to understand the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”.

    • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

      Not going to argue gun minutiae with you beyond noting that the AR-15 is the civilian designation for M-16 variants, and indeed you could go hunting with them, just as you could go hunting with a .50cal asniper rifle (if you didn’t mind the loss of meat). As to your objection over “power”, I was using that term not one of the power of the round, but a colloquial notion of the weapon’s military effectiveness.

      Which again is not correct. The effectiveness is the same as any other rifle. That’s what you fail to understand.

      As to the “take my guns” related arguments, I really don’t give a rat’s ass as to whether you have one. I want to be safe from it.

      And you are as safe as you can be. Any other proposal will take away rights without affecting how safe you are from it.

      Somehow the ability of some deranged, wife-beating, two-times terrorism-investigated individual to blithely walk into some store and buy that level of weaponry the week before seems nonsensical.

      Hey, none of us like the fact a jihadist or a nutball can get a gun and kill people. But, we understand that we can’t just violate rights because of what one nutball did. We understand that solutions like bans or background checks will do nothing to stop them, but only harm law abiding people. We understand the best solution is to allow people to have the tools to defend themselves.

      But you guys are the experts right? You tell me, how can I have a reasonable expectation of safety from that. Assume for the sake of argument I’ve got a decent handgun and I know how to use it.

      Because mass shootings are exceedingly rare, and no proposal out there would stop them, short of using that handgun. Its pretty simple- see a guy with an AR killing people, get some cover, and shoot back.

      My argument is that, based on the difficulty of defending yourself from that sort of weaponry (as demonstrated the armed police officer the club hired couldn’t do it), that you can’t be expected to.

      Again with “that type of weaponry”. Its not any harder facing a guy with an AR vs a guy with a handgun. Sure, the rifle is more accurate, but in the end its still a gun shooting at you. Its not that much more difficult trained vs untrained. You aim, you shoot, and hopefully you are behind cover.

      If you are that worried about it, take some training classes. Plenty of us have.

      So what do you suggest, beyond “a few more people packing” in the crowd? (I’m discounting “a few more people packing” because it took a militarised response to end the situation.) That sort of realistic thinking, and some level of compassion, is what’s missing in this discussion.

      Oh you are discounting it because you are ignoring the facts of the situation? Sorry, reality doesn’t care what you like. The realistic and compassionate option is to allow people to have the tools to defend themselves.

      And what’s missing in this discussion is your level of knowledge.

    • Sebastian says:

      I certainly wouldn’t want to go up against an AR-15 wielding shooter with a handgun, but the trick would be surprise, and landing multiple good shots on the shooter such that he’s disabled before he can bring his weapon to bear.

      It comes down to hits. His individual hits are going to be harder because he has a rifle, but he still needs to land hits. We don’t yet know the circumstances by which the security guard was killed, but my guess is he was surprised. If he was in uniform, he would have been an obvious target. As a civilian, he’s not going to know I’m armed until he starts taking fire, unless I am quite unlucky to be an early victim and in the shooter’s line of sight.

      • Richard says:

        I wouldn’t want to either but once on the police simulator (Range 3000) I was confronted with an opponent who had a rifle, body armor and was 50 yards away. I had a simulated Glock 17. To solve the problem it required a head shot on a running target from 50 yards. I made the shot. I am no Jerry Mikulek and don’t think I could be consistently that good but I was that day. Most mass shooting events are at closer range, do not involve body armor, and do involve chaos, improving the defensive shooters chance of surprise. And in addition to the prospect of taking the terrorist out, one should factor in the possibility of driving him to cover and allow escape of potential victims.

        • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

          That’s another point I like to use: even if you don’t kill him, at the very least you are slowing him down and drawing his fire, allowing others to escape.

          Sure, going up against a person with a rifle with a pistol isn’t ideal, but its better than just hands.

  9. stephana says:

    They always blame the gun, NRA etc. What we the people should demand is criminal and terrorist control. The democrats will not do it because they would loose there voting base.

  10. Ian Argent says:

    http://www.remingtonle.com/rifles/7615.htm

    It takes STANAG magazines and is pump-action. It is a derivative of what is probably the platonic ideal of a hunting weapon (the Remington 870 shotgun).

    No proposed ban on “assault weapons” would prevent the ownership of this rifle.

    • Sebastian says:

      Unless the ban also included pump action, which Australia banned at the same time it banned semi-autos. That would be politically impossible in this country, in all likelihood, but these days there’s too many people with AR-15s out there already for even a semi-auto ban to be feasible.

      • Ian Argent says:

        Which is why I think going straight to the AWB playbook was a mistake. 1994 was over 20 years ago; it was a different time then.

  11. Weer'd Beard says:

    BTW from my readings even many of the usual suspects of the anti-gun world have been VERY quiet on this story.

    From a group who uses a playbook that DEMANDS followers inject their politics SPECIFICALLY before the facts are known, they are either changing tactics, or are frustrated by the facts of the case.

    • Ian Argent says:

      A little bit of both?

      There’s plenty of politics being injected already; with calls to enact a new Assault Weapons Ban, and to vote out politicians who have been donated to by the NRA.

      At the same time, the shooter was not a White Male Oppressor. Well, two out of three ain’t bad, though, and they’re pushing the Domestic Violator angle pretty hard.

      • Sebastian says:

        Was he ever in trouble with the cops for it? NICS can’t read minds. He has to earn a DV conviction or get a restraining order filed against him for NICS to flag him.

        • Ian Argent says:

          Doesn’t appear to have been reported to police; the one article I read noted that the ex-wife was removed from the situation by her family. DV is a crime that admits of no defense and an accusation is as good as a conviction in the minds of some.

  12. Lance Lot Link says:

    Its from an Anti Playbook to the T

    Ban assault weapons NOW! Nobody needs them. They are more dangerous than regular guns.

    Non assault weapons are just as dangerous as assault weapons. They just look different.

    Lather rinse repeat.

  13. Sprocket says:

    I have a modest proposal for our leftie friends. Let’s take as a given, for the sake of argument, that the nature of attacks such as these calls for the abridgement of some constitutional rights. Should not the onus fall on the groups that perpetrate the attacks? Why should tens of millions of Americans, who have not and will not commit a crime, have their rights curtailed? Is is it not more fair that this curtailment be limited to muslims and the mentally defective? Had the state locked Adam Lanza in an institution due to being mentally defective and had Omar Mateen been prohibited from owning weapons due to being a muslim, many would still be alive. If it saves just one life, isn’t it worth it. Think of the children.

top