WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGE
The first thing that must be determined is the IDEOLOGY of the murderer. (Remember, guns don’t kill people; bullets hitting people really fast in vital areas kill people.)
The teenage gunman who entered Arapahoe High School on Friday afternoon and shot two fellow students with a shotgun was outspoken about politics, was a gifted debater and might have been bullied for his beliefs, according to students who knew him….
click to enlarge; click link above for original
And the ball has not moved an inch since that day, one year ago, when the Sandy Hook Massacre took place at another school.
Gun murder HAS no ideology. It is just easy murder, with a gun.
And the yowling madness of Birtherism that is Joe Farah’s WorldNetDaily presciently spoke on the subject just a couple of days ago:
THE TED OFFENSIVE
DON’T LET THOSE KIDS DIE IN VAIN
Exclusive: Ted Nugent hopes we’ve learned lessons from Sandy Hook massacre
December 11, 2013
Some people are painfully slow to learn. Others are actually resistant to learn and to accept the truth and facts, because it is either uncomfortable or does not meet their distorted view of reality.
Either way, when teachable moments occur we should permit learning to occur. Such was the case of the heartbreaking Sandy Hook massacre a year ago.
The Sandy Hook massacre was not the first mass shooting in the world, and it won’t be the last. Fortunately, the likelihood that you or your child will be part of such a massacre is extremely remote. Even so, that is no reason not to be prepared. If we fail to be better prepared to stop the next mass murderer, then those precious little 20 children and their six teachers and faculty members at Sandy Hook Elementary died for nothing.
The first lesson we should take away from the Sandy Hook massacre is that the self-inflicted scourge of political correctness has dumbed down America enough to allow the conditions to continue to exist that will facilitate another twisted individual capable of doing the same thing to flounder about our society. In fact, it already happened at the Washington Naval Yard. It is going to happen again. And again.
The only way to stop a madman with a gun is a good guy or two with guns. Nothing else will work….
The Great Meeting of the Dumbasses
Although, as MediaMatters notes:
In fact, an analysis of public mass shootings by Mother Jones that covered the past 30 years did not find a single mass shooting ended by an armed civilian. While the Obama administration and the National Education Association have supported funding for placing more armed members of law enforcement in schools, there is no evidence that the NRA and Nugent’s unpopular proposal to arm teachers would prevent shootings.
According to research and past incidents, it is unclear if armed guards in general prevent mass shootings. An armed guard exchanged fire with the shooters during the 1999 Columbine High School massacre but waspinned down by the shooters’ superior firepower, and the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre occurred at a school that had an emergency response team described as “like a SWAT team.” […]
Etcetera. Whilst waxing their flaccid ‘eloquence,’ WorldNutDaily writers have a tendency to ignore facts in favor of hateitudes:
Farah moderates a GOP presidential debate
BETWEEN THE LINES
GUN GRAB: IT’S ABOUT FREEDOM’S END
Exclusive: Joseph Farah is no longer confident Americans will fight for their liberty
Published: 01/17/2013 at 8:28 PM
If the U.S. government renders its citizens as subjects by disarming them, it will be the end of the dream of liberty that drove our founders to arms to fight for self-government and independence.
In fact, that was what precipitated the War of Independence. When British occupying forces set out to seize New Englanders’ arms depots at Lexington and Concord, the colonists drew a line in the sand. They understood that without firearms, they would lose any leverage they might have with their masters. They understood that without firearms, they would be hapless subjects of tyrannical government forever.
A new generation of Americans find themselves in just that predicament again, as Barack Obama puts on a full-court press to ban entire classifications of firearms leading inevitably to a government monopoly on force.
He’s appealing to emotion, and, for many Americans, dumbed down by government education and cultural institutions that place no value on freedom and personal responsibility, it’s working.
Yes, children were slaughtered at Newtown, Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School. But not one of those children would have been saved by Obama’s gun grab.
To many Americans, that doesn’t matter. They just feel that something must be done.
What they don’t understand is that they are helping to set up more carnage, more Sandy Hooks, more bloodshed and, ultimately, the end of government accountability to its citizenry.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or a Ph.D. in history to know that every mass-murdering tyranny in the history of the world started like this. They began with a government monopoly on force. Once that is established, the citizenry is no longer served by government, government is served by its subjects….
Which is, frankly, more an indication that “Crazy Joe” Farah is off his meds again than any rational policy proposal. The problem with these apologists for murder is that each and every one of them only seem to understand the world as a ALL GUNS versus NO GUNS question, which they defend with irrational and angry illogic.
The Sandy Hook results speak for themselves. Buy one TODAY!
The last persons, in other words — or, to paraphrase Nugent, the twisted individuals capable of [creating more New Town massacres] floundering about in our society — you’d want owning guns of any sort, but, at a minimum, those who you wouldn’t want to have hollowpoint bullets, assault rifles and extended magazines.
Here’s another one, from Farah’s twisted bestiary of “commentators” best half-remembered from their cameo appearances in David Lynch’s “Eraserhead.” (Oh, and yes, he’s Rush’s more educated, more impoverished sibling.)
David’s older brother Rush, doing
lord-knows-what to a crippled child.
Liberals have an uncanny knack for designing solutions that do not address the problem at hand, and they’re doing it again in their current effort to use the Sandy Hook shootings as fodder for promoting stringent gun-control measures.
It’s as if President Obama and his fellow travelers lie in wait for the unfolding of big events they can use to incite the public’s passions and thereby gain popular support for otherwise unpopular government action.
Liberals aren’t just exploiting Sandy Hook to promote their unpopular gun agenda; some are now invoking false charges of racism to aid their cause, as well. Rep. Hank Johnson asserted that the National Rifle Association opposes Obama’s gun-control policies because it “still cannot get over” the fact that the president is “black.” Rep. Charles Rangel was a smidgeon more subtle, suggesting that while his state of New York is more progressive than other states (and has thus enacted strict gun control measures), some of the “Southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome.”
Whether these pernicious allegations proceed from malice or ignorance, one thing is undeniable: Democrats often seek to inflame our emotions to impede an honest, good-faith discussion on the merits of various issues….
Talk about ‘projection’!! Limbaugh then proceeds to list talking points that sound eerily like Ted Nugent’s a year later. Isn’t it weird that all these free-thinkers don’t have a single original thought in their heads or an original word on their lips? Hmmmm.
- How is your model city of Chicago working out for you?
- Why do you attempt to mislead the public with the term “assault weapon” and falsely imply that semiautomatic weapons can fire repeatedly and quickly when you hold down the trigger?
- Why do you pretend that semiautomatics are more powerful than other guns when power is a function of their caliber or gauge and not their capacity to reload automatically?
- How do you explain that as assault weapons and large magazines have become more prevalent violent crime has been cut in half?
- Since we have recent empirical evidence that “assault” weapons bans do not work, what unstated reasons could be behind Obama’s banning efforts? Why shouldn’t Second Amendment advocates be suspicious?
- Why do you propose measures that will do nothing to prevent Sandy Hook-type massacres but will impede the ability of innocent private citizens to defend themselves against criminal assailants?
- Why aren’t you sympathetic to the rights of ordinary citizens, whose home security is demonstrably enhanced by their right to own semiautomatic weapons?
- Why do you suppress news of the untold cases of innocent victims successfully defending themselves with firearms?
- Why do you focus all of your gun-policy energy on preventing mass shootings instead of other shootings, when the former constitute a small percentage of gun murders in this country? Why do you ignore that the vast majority of murders in the United States are committed with handguns?
- Why do you mock the constitutional right of citizens to bear arms not just for self-defense, which the Supreme Court affirmed in recent years, but as a fallback defense against a tyrannical government?
- Do you owe the public an apology for your unfulfilled, hysterical prophecies that conceal and carry laws would drive law-abiding citizens to Wild West violence?
- Why do you conveniently ignore the inconvenient fact that these mass shootings have mostly occurred in your beloved gun-free zones? If your driving goal is to prevent such massacres, why aren’t you trying to eliminate such zones?
- I know you abhor letting any crisis go to waste, but how do you respond to the truism that none of Obama’s main legislative proposals to control weapons would have prevented any of the recent massacres? Universal background checks wouldn’t have prevented Sandy Hook. The assault weapons ban would not have applied to the weapons used at Sandy Hook or Aurora. High-capacity magazine bans wouldn’t have deterred the massacres.
- Do you think liberals have any explaining to do about the fact that there may be a causal connection between their do-gooder laws concerning the incarceration of the mentally ill and these massacres?
- Why does the liberal mind always make a mad dash toward a federal government solution every time there’s a problem or tragedy in society? Explain, for example, how Obama’s proposal for 15,000 more law enforcement officers, 1,000 more “resource people” for schools and more federal dollars can help prevent violence in more than 100,000 schools. Why can’t state governments decide whether they want to take action themselves and pay for it themselves?
- When will you all quit embarrassing yourselves by talking about tanks?
Tanks a lot David. Hope your brother’s over his ass cyst. (Or perhaps he was referring to you?)
Because insults work. Insults are good. Insults move debate and policy along, as Mr. Limbaugh just proved, right?
In any event, that’s last year’s news and this year’s news on the latest mass shooting.
Another shooting; another NRA meeting
Only the victims change. The selfish, paranoid hatred remains the same.
See you on Bunker Hill, Crazy Joe. And bring your birth certificate with you.
Farah (r) and Limbaugh (l) celebrate the book
Farah ghost-wrote for Limbaugh, “See, I told
You So” while some unknown person (m)
And keep on defending the slaughterers of the innocent against all regulation. That’s bound to be a winning argument. Just you wait and see.
Sandy Hook medical examiner called the crime
scene “the worst I’ve ever seen.” This is much like what
Nugent, Farah and Limbaugh are really talking about.