More Philadelphia Media Nonsense

This time from Annette John-Hall.

As expected, the NRA continues to cling to the age-old argument that guns are the least of the problem.

“It’s the same song-and-dance out of Ramsey, focusing on the firearm and not at the root of the problem,” NRA spokesman John Hohenwarter said. “The problem is the revolving door of the courtroom and the lack of intervention for these kids who grow up to be criminals.”

But none of those things killed Liczbinski. A criminal armed with a body-armor-penetrating weapon did.

Ms. John-Hall, if you can read this post here, and tell me that one more gun law is going to matter, you’re either a fool, or worse.  Let’s stop pretending here.  The city isn’t even enforcing the laws we already have.  So why do we have them?  You should  be making the city politicians answer for this, not the NRA.

4 thoughts on “More Philadelphia Media Nonsense”

  1. “But none of those things killed Liczbinski. A criminal armed with a body-armor-penetrating weapon did.”

    Let’s see, a criminal with a body-armor-penetrating weapon did. There are lots of non-criminals with body-armor-penetrating weapons who never have, and never will, murder police officers. Perhaps the difference is the criminal, not the weapon, eh?

  2. Hmm…a sharp knife or an ice-pick will penetrate a bulletproof vest easier than a bullet. So the next time a cop gets killed with a knife or ice-pick, will they blame the knife or ice-pick? These liberals idiots were the ones who started the “hug them and hope the criminals reform” movement back in the 70’s. See how well that bullshit worked out? Yet another failed 30-year experiment, but these idiots can’t see that. They’ll never learn. Let’s round them all up and stick them in NYC, since they love all this huggy-feely bullshit, then they should have no problem living all together on their own little islands.

  3. “…one of the perps oh so willing to fire back was the all-powerful National Rifle Association.”

    She is calling the National Rifle Association a “perpetrator” of the act of opposing/overturning unconstitutional law. Of course “perpetrator” connotes someone or something committing or undertaking wrongdoing or a criminal act.

    Who the *!&# does this woman think she is!? Talk about turning the rule of law on it’s head….where the legal are illegitimate, and the illegal are legitimate.

  4. Remember, it can never be the criminal’s fault. He was a victim of society, he had a troubled childhood, his father abused him, advertisements took advantage of him, he was pushed to do it, he was not emotionally stable, the government should have done something to stop him, he was not loved as a child, his mother did not give him enough breast milk, he was a victim of circumstances… does that about cover it?

    The fact is, to morons like the one who wrote this article, guns are evil. Period. Full stop. End of story. It does not matter that lawful users outnumber unlawful ones 99-to-1, it does not matter that a firearm is nothing more than an inanimate, unthinking piece of metal, and it certainly does not matter that people lead their own lives, make their own choices, and are responsible for them (whoops, I used the “r” word!). All that matters is guns are evil, and if we got rid of them, the world would suddenly and mysteriously be crime-free.

    There is no reasoning with these people, at least not directly. With them, the best tactic is to demonstrate the fallacy of their “arguments” to the general public, and let them make up their minds. I like to believe that reason and logic will win out in the end, but you and I both know how arguments go when emotional leverage is deployed.

Comments are closed.