Making our Arguments for Us

Thanks Dennis. We didn’t want to get out there and jump right in with the public policy implications, but we do appreciate you letting everyone know that Norway has strong gun laws, and that they have pretty clearly failed in this instance. I’m going to guess the vast majority of the American public has no idea that Norway has “strong gun laws” that “don’t work.” We do appreciate you helping get that message out there. Keep up the good work.

Related posts (automatically generated):

  1. Obvious Headline of the Day
  2. Random Conversation About Fingerprinting
  3. Stratfor’s Lessons on Norway Attack

7 thoughts on “Making our Arguments for Us”

  4. If the source of ‘s firearm is true, even a complete bash wouldn’t have stopped him; a he obtained it in another country from a criminal. Hardly “legally purchased.” And I have to wonder, barf on his father’s statements, whether this will turn out to be another case of “known but not acted on” mental oddness/illness.

  6. One wonders, if Hinckley had tried to run down Reagan in a car, and Brady was hurt in that attempt, if he would be out there campaigning against cheap cars, and public access to the gasoline engine?

    Somehow, i doubt it.

  7. “…and public access to the gasoline engine?”

    Markie Marxist sez: “Of course, not. It’s weapons that we commies want to take away from private citizens because after we’ve done that, we can then take whatever else we want to take. We don’t care if private citizens merely have transportation, it’s their ability to use weapons in armed resistance to the totalitarian government that we mean to force down their throats that we have a problem with. We like people to be cooperative, whether they want to be or not. If our government agents have all the guns, then private citizens can have all the cars they want to have. Have 2 or 3 cars if you like, I mean, if we let you after we take your guns. Ha! Ha! All your gun are belong to us! Eventually. Ha! Ha!”

Comments are closed.