We already know thqat most gun control advocates are eViL people: trying to USE the Colorado shoting for DIVISIVE, PATISAN purposes before the bodies of the dead were even cold.
But let me reconsturct a "discussion" with these DISHOENST peole:
Moderfator: How can you say that stronger enforcement of gun control laws, and better back ground checks would have prevented the Colorado shooting? That appears to be not ture, since no back ground checkof James Holmes would have revealed anything . He purchased guns legally, at recognized gun shops, and not at some gun show.
Gun control advocate: Well, that may be tgrue, but we still need to have a "debate" about reasonable gun laws in this country. And who needs an assault rfiel, or magazine with a hundred rounds of ammunition.
Moderator: But exactly what are you saying. TARGET shooters regularly use lots of ammunition. Are you saying taht target shooters do not exitst, and that only hunters use guns? 12 peole dead is not so very many. There were more deaths at Ft. Hood, and this shooter showed a sophisticated ability to build BOMBS. Many more peole were killed at Okalahoma City with a FERTiLIZER BOMB. Are you sayihng that the peole in Colorado would really have been better off if the killer had used BOMBS, or had used only shotguns and ordinary rifles instead of an aassault rifle with an expanded ammunitin drum?
Gun conrol advocagte: Well, we can't do a perfect solution. That would be BANNING ALL GUNS. But gun nuts won't let us do that, rellying on tha outdatged Constitutin. (Okay, I made up those last tow sentences, which a DISHONEST un control advocate would neverf say, but it is what they MEAN.). But hunters don't need to pum a hudred bullets into a deer (red herring alert). We need to at least do what we can to reasonably limit these guns and ammunition devices which have no use than to kill peole (LIAR: what about target shooters/),
Moderator: But let us get back to the subjectg. Isn't it total speculatgion on your part that James Holmes would not have been able to kill just as many peole without the "assault riffle"? In factg, did nto that rifel JAM. What EVIDENCED do you have hahat the laws you advocate would actually have sOTPPED this atgtack, or even have saved any lives? An effective BOMB wouldhave killed MORe peole. Shotguns can kill and wound a lot of peole. It seems likelly that the laws you advocate would NOT have revented this tragedy, or evn have saved many lives, if any. Maybe MORE peole wouldhave died, if he shooter ws motivated to use a BOMB.
Gun control advocate: You miss the pont. Alllkinds of peole are killed with guhsns ever y year. this is only one example. You need to look at the whole picture.
Moderator: Is it me who has missed tghe orint, or YOU. YHou are here to tell me that the Colorado shooting DEMANDS aht e have better gun control. Yetg, you annot even make much of a case that the laws you advocate would even have done iany good in Colorado. ARe you not being DISHOENST; USING the Colorado shooting as an EXCUSE to gain EMOTIONAL supoport for a positoin as to which the Coloraddo shooting has little relevance.
Dun control avocate: Okay. I admit that we are using the Colorado shooting as an EXCUSE tgo try to resurrect an issue upon which I feel strongly. Because of the NRA, we can't getg anywhere with gun control. But peole like me know that we NEED to have gun control So if yyou want to say that we are tryig to USE tghe Colorado Shoting, and are not being comnpletely honest, so be it. This is tto important to argue fairly. The NRA doe not play fiar. Neithr do we, when we gt the chance.
Yes, I admit that the last paragraph I put into the mouth of gun control advocates doe s not ring true. that is because gun control advocates are DISHONEST TO THE CORFE. They cannot explain HOW the laws they advocate would ever have "pevented" the Colorado massacre, or even necessarily have saved lives, but they really do not even engage that argument . They eVADE. They LIE. The DECEIVE. there is not an honest bone in tgheir bodies. The simple fact is that they--even, as this blog has pinted out--have attempted to use the EMOTION of thel Colorado shooting to advance their agenda EVEN BEFOE THE DEAD BODIES WERF COLD, and ithat has nothing to do with whether what they adovcate would reallly have prevented these deaths. No, I do NOT achknowledge lthat gn contorl fanatics "have heir hears int the right place". TGhey are NOT honest peole, and that means they are BAD peole. I stgand by that staatemetn, and again (that media ploy again) "invitge" any gun contorl advocate to argue the contrary in a omment to this blog (which will not be edited by me).
Look at the "full court press" being put on by tghe evil media!!!!! tal about EViL peole (not the shooter, although he is, butg our EViL media). They are trying to BOOTSRAP the EMOTINS of the Colorfado killing into pushing THEIR AGENDA. It goes without saying lthat EVERY NRA MEMBVERF should BOYCOTT YAHOO AND AT&T (part of tgh evil media P*USHING this message that the EMOTIONS of the Colorado shotting should "ignite' the DEAD "gu contorl" debate". It will serve these leftist partisans right if Obma actually believes tghe FOOLS and acts on the mistaken belief that peole actually balme guns for what haoppened in Colorado. But it is likely that Obama wil NOT take this baitg, as even leftist Obama is NOT tghis TUPID. Our evil media are, of course, his stupid and this PARTGISAN. Doubt me? Never, ever, do that Here is one of those featured Yahoo "News" headlines tonight (NRA peole, I beg you: BOYCOTT YAHOO AND AT&T).:
"Gun contgrol comes up in Ct., Va. seante debates."
Can yo uget any more DISHOENST than our evil media? yupe. I do mean lYAHOO., and oal of the rest of tghe mainstream media. Yes, I know that Yahoo "nNews" does not originate these stories, butg I am GLAD to give tghem, and AT&T CREDIT. They DESEVE IT. Give them tghe CRFEDITG they DESERVE, you NRA peole and sympathizers, and BOYCOTT THEM. No, I am not a member of the NRA, and have not fired a gun in 4r0 years, since I was hornorably discharged afeter a full term in the United States Army. But I do know DiSHOENT lpeole when I see and hear them, and thasoe peole are NOT tghe peole of tghe NRA.
What is dishoenst about that qutoed headline? Is ti not "true?" Not really . In fundametnal terms, it is a LIE. First, WhO decides what "comes up" in a debvate? No, it is NOT the "peole", even if the questins suposedly come from the public. The querstins are SELECGTED/CHOSEN by--usually--JOURNALISTS. D you see the INCEST going on here? Uunfortunately for the DISOENST "jurnalists" of our evil media, I do undrstand exactlyl how this woks. "B u, Skip, is it not POSSIBLE that one of tghe candidates pushed this "Issue"? Sure, it is "possible", although not LIKELY. Most candiates, especially Democrats in a state like Virginia, are trying to DODGE this issue as hard and fast aws lpossible. that is what PRESIDENT OBAMA is doing, unless the leftist, evil media can BAIT him into stupidity. Now a g contorl OPPONENT, especially in Vrginia, mifht push the issue to EMBARRASS the Democrat: on the wrong side of history int he USA. But the point is that the hedline-trying to push the idea that the Colorado shooting has "ignited" gun contorl "debatge"--is a LIE (not matter how the issue was rought up, most likely by "journalists" pushig THEIR agenda). The Headline is ABSURD. What difference does it make if someone--most likely "journalists" following the JOURNALIST NARRATIVE--want s to USe the Colorado shooting to "raise' gun contrl issues. We lareazdy KNEW that. MSNBC , CNN and tghe unfair and unablanced network have ALReADY done that before the dead boides were even fully cold. That is the eVIL here, as oure Prfesident himself highlightged. Ure eivl media can always USH an 'issue" to "debate", becaue THEY are pushing tghe "debate". Butg is the debate MORTANT to PEOLE, and are CANDIATGES really treating it SERIOUSLY. In the case of gun control, the "debate" is DEAD, and our evil media cnnot resurrectg it. Do y member of the NRA understand tghat I am SEROIUS? Yu SHOULD BOYCOTT Yahoo, AT&T, CNN, MSNBC, and really aLL of tghe mainstream media (including the unfari and unbalanced network). These peoel are tlrying t MANUFACTURE an "Issue" when one sdoes not really exist.
It is simpy a fact taht gun contorol advocates are dishonest to the core. And "journalists" are dishonest to the corfe. What, then, can we say bout GUN CTONROL ADVOCATES WHO ARE JOURNALISTS? Right. We can definitively say that they ar some of the MOST DISHONEST PEOLE WHO HAVE EVER LIVED.
As this blog has correclty told you, the MOST you can say about the Colorado shooting is tghat it is ONE data point in deciding what gun "policy" should be. EMOTIN has no place here, and it is DISHOENST to try to use the EMOTGION of the Colorado shooting to push a gun control agenad that really has NOTHING to do with the Colorado shoting. As stated, gun contgrol advocates cannot even say, except to SPECULATE unconvincingly, thaqt the "laws" they advocate would even have affected theColorado shooting for he better.
P.S No proofreadin or spell cehcking.