Guns N Sh*t


After a brief moment of silence comemorating the dead of America’s most recent demonstration of irresponsible gun ownership, the 2nd Amendment brigade are now letting their freak flags fly.  All of the usual “guns don’t kill” disclaimers, plus a few creative additions—thank you Breitbartlets!—are zipping around the net-o-sphere as we speak.

From the Pundit Class, we have Joe and Mika:

Joe: I think we can wait a day or two before talking about, having these politicians and these bloggers trying to get political points.

Mika: It’s very frustrating to watch these things happen again and again and again and for it to be kind of obvious what the problem is.

Good point, Mika . . . unfortunately this is now the “problem” that dare not speak its name BECAUSE—“well regulated militia!”

But, sometimes, ol’ conservative Joe just can’t help himself when life is so unfair:

On the day where people were hiding, people were bleeding, while people were dying, while the nation was locked in on this, he’s talking about hard partisanship and Republican wanting to hurt people.

Can you imagine what certain people at this network would have said?  Mika would be killing George W., everyone here on this network would be killing George W.

I have to assume that Joe’s talking about the same George W. who politicized 9/11 into an invasion of Iraq?  Do we really believe these two things are equivalent?

Next up?  FOX &Friends new ornament, Elizabeth Hasselbeck spending lots of airtime trying to round-up support for a national video game registry, teeing up that topic with this:

You know, certainly, this topic has already taken a turn again, the left’s already making this about gun control.

What are they, CRAZY, Betts?  Controlling guns? in America?

Whereupon Brian Kilmeade lobbed her the video game lifeline that concerned conservative mothers seem to resonate to:

But you talk about this guy’s background, as we look into it. He’s got a friend, who said, “Yeah, he had an obsession with video games, shooting video games. In fact, he would come over and he would be playing so long — these video games, these shooting games — we’d have to give him dinner, we’d have to feed him while he continued to stay on them.

Ah, yes, that old journalistic standby “the authoritative, anonymous source”—“he’s got a friend!”  Now we’ll get to the bottom of this!

Ms H took that and ran with it:

What about frequency testing?  How often has this game been played? I’m not one to get in there and say, monitor everything, but if this, indeed, is a strong link, right, to mass killings then why aren’t we looking at frequency of purchases per person? And also, how often they’re playing and maybe they time out after a certain hour.

That ought to save lives, by gum!  and keep us all busy.

Stand down, Betts.

The Breitbartlets—in a class of their own [not quite pundits, not entirely human], came up with a novel twist but, sadly, failed to stick the landing.  One of the dead-heads, one AWR Hawkins spent a little time on the Google, made a little back-of-the-envelope timeline and discovered that Bill Clinton was to blame for the DC tragedy.

Hawkins cites the Washington Times editorial page as his “authoritative source” claiming that one of Clinton’s “first acts upon taking office… was to disarm U.S. soldiers on military bases.”

According to Mr. Hawkins:

. . . thanks to Clinton, citizens who join the military to use guns to defend liberty abroad cannot practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms while on active duty at home.

As the Times editorial board put it: “Because of Mr. Clinton, terrorists would face more return fire if they attacked a Texas Wal-Mart than the gunman faced at Fort Hood.

Well, he’s a little right.  As the tireless research of Wonkette’s Fakakta South uncovers:

. . . all President Clinton did was happen to be the president when a directive of the Department of Defense that had been put into place in February of 1992 was legally enacted. This little directive here, which we found our ownselves by finger punching the information box (a lot) has on its fourth page something about how carrying your gun on a military base is a big old no-no, because the Department of Defense does not want for you to. The Department of Defense. In 1992, when George Herbert Walker Bush was the president. Not Bill Clinton, who in 1992 was still in Arkansas banging that Paula Jones chick, and calling himself “The Comeback Kid” (yeah he is) for winning the New Hampshire primary.

Thanks for the facts, Fakakta!  Looks like you’re off the hook, Bill.

Moving even further out into the wingnutosphere, I’ve harvested a few of Alex Jones’ initial reactions which, while always amusing, are somewhat thematically tired out.  Mr Jones, one of America’s foremost conspiracy theorists, predictably concludes that the DC Navy Yard attack was actually a false-flag operation kicked off by the White House to distract the masses from President Obama’s failure to bomb Syria back into the Stone Age.

Also, too, it’s quite obvious to Alex that the political agenda of the gun grabbers is in sore need of a propaganda infusion to juice it up after background check legislation went down so ignominiously.

Of course no round-up of gun-nuttery would be complete without a few words from Rep. Louis Gohmert:

The congressman said that he would be “all for everybody keeping their sidearms if they’re in the military and on a military installation. That’s something we need to get back to.”

I see a lot of problems here and blaming this on guns is like saying the big problem with obesity is we’ve got too many spoons.  It’s not the spoons, it’s not the guns. It’s the people who have them.

Sounds like a rerun but, hell, Louis is just back from a long hard slog through Texas Town Halls, give him a break.

And finally, John Q Public weighs in on the “real problem” that precipitated the DC shootings—RACE! with some choice bits culled from the ever-articulate commenters at FOXNation sprinkled with a few tidbits from the followers of Chairman Breitbart.

The only outfit we haven’t really heard from, aside from a terse call to prayer, is the N fking R A.  Guess they figure their work here is done.

My editorial conclusion regarding the foregoing? we are royally screwed and doomed to get better and better at destroying ourselves and each other.

Matter of time . . .


Posted by Bette Noir on 09/18/13 at 10:17 AM • Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBedwettersNuttersTeabaggery

Share this post:  Share via Twitter   Share via BlinkList   Share via   Share via Digg   Share via Email   Share via Facebook   Share via Fark   Share via NewsVine   Share via Propeller   Share via Reddit   Share via StumbleUpon   Share via Technorati  

Elizabeth Hasselbeck spending lots of airtime trying to round-up support for a national video game registry

Holy shit, that really is what she’s arguing. I really thought you were kidding. It’s just one of the things that make our ongoing firearms debate so utterly surreal. For a certain group of individuals, killing fictional people with fictional firearms is a vile offense that must be stopped at all costs, while killing actual people with actual firearms is a sad but ultimately acceptable part of life in these United States.

And I’m not even going to get in to the racial crap. I always assumed that in the Internet age, those people had all found bridges to skulk under, but they’re just everywhere, aren’t they? It’s almost as though something was calling them back to the surface…

You know, I will say there is something about that video game argument, because you know what? If there was alien centipedes or asteroids or like, a big-ass monkey throwing barrels in my neighborhood? I would get on it like an Easter bonnet, and make no mistake. I’m also insatiable about trying to locate various jewels and keys and acquiring assorted weapons of power because of…

The fuck is that logic? So, let’s say some odd number of folks in the hundreds played City of Heroes—do they then become caped or at least spandexed crusaders? This is very rare behavior. Whereas I do not think Jack the Ripper played any video games at all. It’s as if there was an impulse for people to do violent things that they normally sublimate through other outlets, that a small portion of the population might just do regardless. Huh.

What I think we have here is a mentally unbalanced young man with access to weapons of far-too-much destruction, and that seems to be a story that isn’t bound by race, so much as little to no access to good mental health treatment and easy access to high-powered weapons. Our high capacity for changing the subject is a thing we need to regulate.

It’s not the spoons, it’s not the guns. It’s the people who have them.

Why does he oppose background checks if he believes this?

Page 1 of 1 pages

Sorry, commenting is closed for this post.

<< Back to main