Sunday, October 10, 2004
AWB Relic
This is a late one, but I don't often do the Boston Globe. And when I do, it is a reminder of why I generally don't.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/09/15/victims_of_the_gun_lobby/
This starts with the normal drivel about this being an issue that Americans coalesce around, and that most people don't think machine guns should be readily available. Where this fucker pisses me off is when he brings in 9/11:
Only two days after the nation noted the third anniversary of Sept. 11 and the murders of nearly 3,000 Americans by a foreign terrorist network, Congress turned right around and invited an increase in local terror.
This poor plebian has no clue. That comparison should shock and enrage anybody who took 9/11 seriously, and, increasingly, we are starting to realize the legion that don't. Now damn near half the people I know own a rifle that could be considered an "assault weapon." Most of them are quite useless outside of punching paper. As a home defense, 7-11 robbing, revenge, shooting into a crowd type gun, I think we can all agree the shotgun offers the widest range of anti-personnel utility.
And the sniveling twerp won't rest; he brings it up again:
Yet a Democratic Party that is running scared and a Republican Party that is hiding behind protocol let the NRA do everything it could to destroy the ban in a nation where nearly 30,000 lives a year are destroyed by guns, 10 times more than 9/11.
Now, what is the point? Does the NRA want to kill people? Are Americans more dangerous than terrorists? Or are liberal gun statistics more horrifying than 9/11?
Using 9/11 as some kind of political "zinger" is both disrespectful and appalling. Were assholes like this guy likening homeless figures to Pearl Harbor back in the day? I doubt it.
Anyway, here's his grand wrap-up:
The NRA kept Bush from speaking his mind. It made Kerry lose his mind. It stripped Congress of any spine. Nearly nine in 10 Americans wanted gun laws to stay the same or become more strict. This week they became less strict. The invariable result will be more cold, dead hands.
That schtick about the cold, dead hands is pretty witty. I wonder where he came up with that one?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/09/15/victims_of_the_gun_lobby/
This starts with the normal drivel about this being an issue that Americans coalesce around, and that most people don't think machine guns should be readily available. Where this fucker pisses me off is when he brings in 9/11:
Only two days after the nation noted the third anniversary of Sept. 11 and the murders of nearly 3,000 Americans by a foreign terrorist network, Congress turned right around and invited an increase in local terror.
This poor plebian has no clue. That comparison should shock and enrage anybody who took 9/11 seriously, and, increasingly, we are starting to realize the legion that don't. Now damn near half the people I know own a rifle that could be considered an "assault weapon." Most of them are quite useless outside of punching paper. As a home defense, 7-11 robbing, revenge, shooting into a crowd type gun, I think we can all agree the shotgun offers the widest range of anti-personnel utility.
And the sniveling twerp won't rest; he brings it up again:
Yet a Democratic Party that is running scared and a Republican Party that is hiding behind protocol let the NRA do everything it could to destroy the ban in a nation where nearly 30,000 lives a year are destroyed by guns, 10 times more than 9/11.
Now, what is the point? Does the NRA want to kill people? Are Americans more dangerous than terrorists? Or are liberal gun statistics more horrifying than 9/11?
Using 9/11 as some kind of political "zinger" is both disrespectful and appalling. Were assholes like this guy likening homeless figures to Pearl Harbor back in the day? I doubt it.
Anyway, here's his grand wrap-up:
The NRA kept Bush from speaking his mind. It made Kerry lose his mind. It stripped Congress of any spine. Nearly nine in 10 Americans wanted gun laws to stay the same or become more strict. This week they became less strict. The invariable result will be more cold, dead hands.
That schtick about the cold, dead hands is pretty witty. I wonder where he came up with that one?
