Now that Representative Gabrielle Giffords is back on the job (and as disappointingly “progressive” as ever), all of the usual useful idiots are clamoring about how her return should give Congress all the motivation it needs to start passing more/stronger “gun control”. That is great, except for one small question:
If the obviously-stronger “gun control” in Norway did not stop that particular spree shooter, why would stronger “gun control” here in America stop the spree shooter who injured Representative Giffords and murdered all those other people?
Gun control has failed, time and time again, and it takes a special kind of person to return to the scene of an abject failure, and almost literally say, “This has never worked before, but it will work now!” Like I say, there is a reason I refer to these people as “anti-rights cultists”.
And since those “gun control” supporters seem to have absolutely no problems exploiting the tragedy of a person who has yet to come forward on the topic, I have absolutely no problems reminding everyone of the words of John Green, who lost his six-year-old shooting to the Tucson murderer:
It shouldn’t happen in this country or anywhere else. but, you know, it’s a free society, we’re going to be subject to people like this, so I prefer this to the alternative.
… and the words of George Morris, who lost his wife of 50 years to the same, and was wounded in the process:
I will be your spokesman, as my wife would wish, to be your spokesman, to tell everyone that it wasn’t a gun that killed my wife. I will be your spokesperson in protecting the Second Amendment going forward.
So even if Representative Giffords were to come out in support of increased “gun control” – like the “gun control” that failed to stop the Norway shooter – why should her words count any more than the above two gentlemen’s? Or are some animals more equal than others?
No matter the status of the people involved, one thing remains true throughout: “gun control” is what you do instead of something. It has not worked in the past, it is not working now, and there is absolutely no rational, logical reason to expect “gun control” to work in the future… so how about we start considering other alternatives, eh?
Now is it just me, or is her appearance in Congress yesterday just a little too… convenient?
I mean, it’s good that she’s recovered, but do we really need a human interest story popping up in the middle of the biggest debt shitstorm we’ve ever had? Shouldn’t we be spending more time wondering why our government is so hopelessly inept they can’t work within limits instead of “Oh look, that chick that got shot in the head’s back! Yay!”
I’m breaking out my tinfoil hat on this one. Just seems too convenient to be coincidence this time.
The opinions of the victims only count when they agree with the gun control meme. Otherwise they are clearly not victims, see?
@ the Dude: Seems my guest author shares your distrust, and I cannot say as though I blame either of you… it did seem more than a bit contrived, especially since she immediately returned to her hospital afterwards for further treatment, and doubly-especially since her vote really did not matter.
Gotta love grandstanding, but it makes you wonder what they were hiding…
@ Heather: Ayup, the “not black enough” fallacy… kind of pathetic the depths the anti-rights cultists are willing to stoop to.
The Dude. I actually see it as the left dragging out the sick and dying Robert “Grand Dragon” Byrd, and Teddy “Blond in the Pond” Kennedy out of their respective hospice beds to give a feeble vote for Dear Leader on Obama Care.
With severe damage to the left frontal and temporal lobe, I wonder how much of Gabby Giffords is left. I hope she can live a happy and healthy life, still I wonder about her mental abilities with such brain damage.
The left has no shame, a vote is a vote.
Well, being dead has never stopped the Left from counting a person’s vote, so no matter how functional Giffords is or not, I get the feeling she will be paraded around regardless.
After all, if you cannot convince people you are right the old-fashioned way, you can always go for the pity-vote!
The concept of gun control to protect us from each other and ourselves is simply obfuscation of the truth. Gun control is truly about protecting the politicians from those that put them in office.
I honestly think it can be phrased in an even more general fashion, yet still be just as accurate… Gun control is all about giving certain people control over all other people, and then guaranteeing they keep it. Those in control do not necessarily need to be politicians, but it works out that way for the most part.