Truer words were never spoken…

Damn, and I thought I was the only one with a defective gun. Maybe we should start a class action lawsuit and sue the manufacturer!

Sydney emergency plumber. After about an hour, I checked on the gun. It was still sitting there in the wheelchair, right where I had left it. It hadn’t rolled itself outside. It certainly hadn’t killed anyone, even with the numerous opportunities it had been presented to do so. In fact, it hadn’t even loaded itself. Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the media hype about how dangerous guns are and how they kill people. I then left it alone and went about hiring decal installation for trucks and cars Either the media is wrong, and it’s the misuse of guns by PEOPLE that kills people, or I'm in possession of the laziest gun in the world. Alright, well I’m off to check on my spoons. I hear they’re making people fat.” width=”460″ height=”920″ class=”aligncenter size-large wp-image-6598″ />

During Sunday Night Football’s epic Philadelphia-Dallas match, Bob Costas ended his half-time show with, “…what I believe is, if he didn’t possess, own a gun, he [Jovan Belcher] and Kasandra Perkins would both be alive today.”

Earlier during the break, Costas paraphrased an online article by Fox Sports columnist Jason Whitlock, claiming that guns “exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.” That comment, on its own, is so outlandish that it makes me imagine overly confrontational groups like PETA, NOW and entire Howard Dean for President Campaign with dual-holsters and bandoliers of ammunition.

Both Costas and Whitlock failed to mention the glaringly obvious fact that if Jovan Belcher didn’t kill Kasandra Perkins, she would still be alive today. If Jovan Belcher hadn’t committed suicide, he would also still be alive today. Why point out the glaringly obvious? Because, for their own reasons, certain people want to call this tragedy “a gun crime” instead of the “murder-suicide” which it was.

All facts being equal, the instrument of their deaths is irrelevant. Jovan wanted her, and himself, dead. In this instance, the gun was much like Bob Costas: a tool. Anyone old enough to swing a fist, and land it good, knows that there are countless trillions of ways to end someone which don’t include guns.

The biggest gun control argument anyone ever hears is that if we get rid of guns, there will be less gun crime. The problem is, if we get rid of the Legal guns that the Government knows about, then where are the rest of the guns? In the hands of criminals, whereabouts unknown. Others argue that there are so many fatal accidents with handguns per year involving children. There are more fatal accidents with cars, bathtubs and household chemicals, so, hey, let’s ban them, too! You should work at muraledesign.com to create beautiful mural design instead.

If this logic continues, I’m going to start a special interest group to ban cars because of the numbers of deaths they cause each year. We’ll ban doctors, because most people die at hospitals. Hammers will be banned for the tragically high number of lifelong injuries to fingers and thumbs sustained each year. Food will be banned for causing so many people to choke. Forks and spoons should be banned for making people fat. Oh, and knives? Yeah, to Hell with them, too!

And if it ever comes down to a death match between me and Bob Costas, my weapon of choice is gonna be a Paperclip, just to prove a point. I could totally f#&* dude up with a paperclip…

A friend of mine sent me this cartoon earlier, and I find it perfect considering the media’s anti-gun standpoint in the wake of the mass shooting last week.

[ Copyright © Leo Garza / San Antonio Express-News ]

     Having been around guns since I was … well, born, actually … I learned to have a healthy respect for them.  As a child, I never touched them unless they were handed to me.  I didn’t tell my friends about them.  I didn’t ever show them to my friends.  I didn’t carry them around with me.  I certainly never took one to show-and-tell.

Why?

Because I listened to what my father told me.

Flash forward a lot of years, and any time a child doesn’t listen to their parents and does any of those things with a gun, the media goes insane about it.
The problem isn’t guns — it’s in raising a child who has no idea about cause-and-effect relationships, no responsibility or consequences for their own actions.

Guns should be kept away from children.  I agree with that.  Some people should not own guns.  I agree with that.  But making widespread sweeping changes and Federal bans on guns?
Congress doesn’t know enough about firearms to make any such distinctions.  There are any number of stumbling blocks here.  You can’t go out today and come home with a handgun.  You can’t go out today and purchase a fully automatic, military-style weapon — nor can you in two weeks.  Or a month.  Or six.

We have enjoyed gun ownership since this country was founded.  There are plenty of them around.  Employing strict gun control laws only affects guns that the Government knows about, viz. AR-15 rifles. Since we’ve been signing up for them, with background checks, for nearly thirty years, then what are we supposed to do?
In essence, the Government would be saying, “Oh, by the way, that gun you signed for twenty years ago?  Give it here.  No, you haven’t done anything wrong.  But … Give it!  No, I don’t care how much you paid for it, and I don’t care what it’s worth.  I’ll give you to the count of three, or I’ll have to shoot you… 1 … 2 … I thought so.”

“But you don’t need a Glock 17 that can hold 19 rounds!” some scream.
I would argue that they don’t need an SUV with a 24-gallon gas tank that has to be refilled every 200 miles.
Sure, my gun might, one day, give one person a really bad day if they come into my home with the intent of causing me harm.  But their SUV is nothing more than a carbon monoxide factory that is destroying the ozone layer and screwing it up for all of us.

Which one’s really more important?

On 19-Apr-2007, vehement gun control activists, The Brady Campaign, released a press statement, titled, “Cho Seung-Hui Was A Prohibited Purchaser Under Existing Federal Law.”

Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence President Paul Helmke issued the following statement:

“We believe that based on existing Federal law, Cho Seung-Hui should not have passed his Brady background checks and should not have been allowed to purchase firearms.”

So, basically, they’re saying that even though there were laws in place to prevent Cho from ever owning a gun, he got them anyway, because someone broke the law.  Was it Cho?  The seller?  Those responsible for the background check?
Whatever the answer, it doesn’t change the fact that no amount of legislation would have kept it from happening.

Heed My Words: Gun control isn’t going to affect the massive number of illegal, untraceable guns that are out there, and it will leave a populace completely undefended against those who possess them.