The New York Times editorial on the need for “gun control” is Exhibit A. These people obviously have a set of values, priorities, and visions for the future so alien from the rest of us that it serves neither party to carry on pretending we belong to the same nation.
All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California.And if a significant subset of the Islamic community is celebrating the tragedy, you’ll make sure to do everything you can to conceal that fact and attack those who brought it up.
Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.That’s very magnanimous that you, after careful consideration, have given us permission to consider that maybe perhaps the Islamic radicals who went on a killing spree are perhaps connected in some way to “international” terrorism.
But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places.Wait. If motives do not matter in South Carolina, can we have our Confederate flags back? Just last week in Colorado, you were all about the anti-abortion motive. Forgive me if I’m being presumptuous, but it seems like when White Americans kill people, then our identities and motives killed people. And when it’s not a White American, then the guns are what killed people.
The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.Let me rephrase that: “The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of a lobby dedicated to profiting from the unfettered immigration of ever more alien and dangerous migrants.”
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.The thing is, pajama boy, we believe the Second Amendment was put in place so that citizens could acquire weapons of war. The wording and context has nothing to do with hobby collectors, game hunters, or wildlife defense. The amendment exists as a check to weigh against the threat of a tyrannical government. It was created by and for hard men who can be trusted with firearms. And if America’s become a nation of soft men who can’t be trusted with firearms, then that’s all the more reason for us to stock up.
America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday.I know how much prayers and Christmas trees upset your gluten-intolerant anti-White secular and/or Jewish sensibilities, and I apologize in advance for any indigestion my hate speech may cause you. But when you come for out triggers, we’re left with no choice but to trigger you. Since the politicians fear being so blunt, allow me to level with you; I don’t care how many innocent lives are lost to gun violence, we’re not handing over our weapons to you. The more shooting that’s going on, the more imperative it is that we’re able to protect ourselves and our loved ones.
They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.
But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.If trying has been shown time and time again to not work, then perhaps we should try something else, mayhaps?
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.That goes for your right to impose your will on a people you have lost your fellow-feeling for, and who’ve increasingly grown to despise you and your cosmopolitan clique. That right has its limited and is not immune to reasonable resistance.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.It’s easier than ever for international terrorists to improvise weapons if they can’t access ordinary firearms, and they quite often do use weapons which are impossible to regulate like firearms, even when they have ready access to firearms. Guns are entirely beside the point. What’s happening in America is a people problem, not a contraption regulation problem.
What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?You’ve got it completely upside-down. Presidential election years are when gun control weasels do well to lay low and bide their time. As with amnesty, bailouts, abortion, and everything else you and your oligarch overlords truly want to happen, you have your ways of circumventing and subverting the democratic process to get your way.