When your organizations consider the death of an innocent man to be beneficial to your cause and thus a “good” thing, there is something very wrong with both your organization and your cause.
Additionally, here are a few more things for you to consider:
Murder is against the law.
Assaulting other people with a firearm is against the law.
Injuring other people with a firearm is against the law.
Endangering other people is against the law.
Threatening other people with a firearm is against the law.
Carrying a long arm in public in the District of Columbia is against the law.
Carrying a firearm into the Holocaust Museum is against the law.
Discharging a firearm in the District of Columbia is against the law.
Destruction of federal property is against the law.
Felon possession of firearms is against the law.
This murderous whackjob decided to break all of these laws, and probably more I cannot think of, in order to try and accomplish whatever the hell it was he wanted to accomplish. So explain to me how, exactly, more laws would have prevented this tragedy?
And another thing, in closing: categorizing this nutcase as “right-wing” is outright deception, at best:
“Inconvenient facts have come up. Oh, no question Mr. Von Brunn is apparently a hater. Mr. Von Brunn hated President Bush, he hated Dick Cheny, he hated Republicans, as well as Democrats. He hated Jews, he hated Catholics, he hated a lot of people. Apparently he has some on-line essays…Von Brunn is not the stereotypical, mythical hater of the right.”
- Roger Hedgecock
Of course, those inconvenient facts will serve as no deterrent to morons preaching their lies…
recent comments