« The Proper Definition of "Swiftboat" the Verb | Main | A declaration of dependence »

If Only Bush Weren't President

If only the Evil Bush Cheney Halliburton administration had not stolen the election twice, all would be right with the world. No hurricanes or melting ice caps because President Gore/Kerry would have signed Kyoto and probably passed a carbon tax by now. There would be no one in a wheelchair because Vice President Edwards would have caused those in wheelchairs to get up and walk by now because the Gore/Kerry administration would be federally funding embryonic stem cell research. There would be no terrorism because the Democrat administration would not be torturing innocent people at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo so there would be no reason for anyone to hate us. There would be no ban on partial birth abortion and no mass murder at Virginia Tech, either. At least that is what Martin Lewis at the Huffington Post says -- just the VT shooting and abortion parts. I came up with the others on my own. (Hat tip to Tom Elia.)


Comments (60)

...and now with cell phones... (Below threshold)

...and now with cell phones killing all the honey bees, Al Gore is hitting the Global Swarming circuit...

And the left still claims t... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

And the left still claims to care about soldiers lives, all the while ignoring the fact that 3500 innocent babies are murdered every day.

Hell, we cant even get that gorilla faced speaker of the house to get her troops to work a 5 day workweek, nor to take action to boot William Jefferson. Should we expect anymore from the corrupt dems??

If only Bush weren't Presid... (Below threshold)
Peter F.:

If only Bush weren't President...the Yankees would've won 7 World Series in a row by now.

(Gotta give The Boss somebody else to blame other than himself, ya know.)

Martin and Lewis were prett... (Below threshold)
drjohn:

Martin and Lewis were pretty funny for a while.

Wait......

the polar icecaps on MARS w... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

the polar icecaps on MARS wouldn't be melting...

the Arabs, Iranians, and French would have stopped trying wipe Israel off the map...

The Angels wouldn't ... (Below threshold)
macofromooc:


The Angels wouldn't be on that 6 game losing streak either. It can't be a coincidence that GW was part owner of the Rangers and the Angels have gone on this losing streak. For those doubters the Rangers are in the same division.

Oh yeah, and what about Sanjia from American Idol??? Was he a Rovian plant?? Thinkaboutit

If only Bush weren't Presi... (Below threshold)
Lee:

If only Bush weren't President we'd be more concerned about the victims of the Virgina Tech tragedy, and about protecting others from meeting that same fate, than we are about protecting the 2nd amendment rights of a sick F*ck like Cho.

That isn't going to change until we elect a Democrat to the White House.

You forgot, no Gonzales!</p... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

You forgot, no Gonzales!

If only Bush were... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:
If only Bush weren't President we'd be more concerned about the victims of the Virgina Tech tragedy, and about protecting others from meeting that same fate, than we are about protecting the 2nd amendment rights of a sick F*ck like Cho. That isn't going to change until we elect a Democrat to the White House.

I agree. The Constitution is much safer without a Democrat in the White House.

Lee,Banning guns doe... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Lee,
Banning guns does not solve the problem. Guns were already banned at this school. Due to this fact, nobody could defend themselves at that school. Properly trained citizenry with CCW's and handguns would have been more effective than waiting for the police to show up to a "no gun zone" where there was a shooting going on. Now i hate to admit this Lee, but sometimes you have the appearance of rational thought and you can put the triangle in the triangle slot as far as pre-school problems go, but something like this, it obviously is over your head.

I agree. The Constituti... (Below threshold)
Jo:

I agree. The Constitution is much safer without a Democrat in the White House

Bwhahahaahahah.... good one. Lee is too easy.

Banning's worked very well ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Banning's worked very well in England.

Violent crime went up considerably after the LAW ABIDING population was disarmed. It's worked out very well indeed for the criminals!

"The Constitution is muc... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"The Constitution is much safer without a Democrat in the White House."

We abridged the constitutional right to bear arms for convicted felons, and can do the same here.

This issue is not about protecting the constitution, it's about the Republicans in Washington wanting to protect the votes of the southern gun-loving thumb-suckers that think guys like Cho should have the right to bear arms.

Can we have a show of thumbs, please - - underscoreMikeunderscore, Jo, Dave -- all interested in protecting Cho's right to murder.

Nicely done, asshats. Let's hope your friends, relatives or loved ones never fall victim to your childish gun fetishes...

bush is the kewlest preznit... (Below threshold)
average wizbang poster:

bush is the kewlest preznit evr. dims r traytorz.
kerry looks french, and edwards is pretty. huh huh huh. 24 is awesome. the surge is working. mission accomplished. thugs and deadenders. 6 more months.
the oil will pay for the war. 100k troops is wildly off the mark. chalabi is our man....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

This issue is not about ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

This issue is not about protecting the constitution

I'm fairly sure you're in poor position to make any determination as to what the issue is.

it's about the Republicans in Washington wanting to protect the votes of the southern gun-loving thumb-suckers that think guys like Cho should have the right to bear arms.

And supporting free speech means you support Don Imus blindly, right? Supporting the 5th Amendment means you support criminals getting away with crimes, right?

Nice logic there.

Good God, have you gotten dumber recently? Have you suffered head trauma?

Can we have a show of thumbs, please - - underscoreMikeunderscore, Jo, Dave -- all interested in protecting Cho's right to murder.

Nah. I fervently support allowing people to protect themselves.

People like you prefer allowing people like Cho to kill anybody they want.

Nicely done, asshats. Let's hope your friends, relatives or loved ones never fall victim to your childish gun fetishes...

Let's pray that when your wife gets held up at gunpoint, a real man actually tries to help her while you sit on the sidelines carping about how mean we are for interfering.
-=Mike

....out of my cold, dead ha... (Below threshold)
Actual:

....out of my cold, dead hands, Lee.

Geez Lee, I hope to hell th... (Below threshold)
stan25:

Geez Lee, I hope to hell that you are someplace where there is policeman standing right beside you when you are mugged, stabbed or shot. That way the cop could arrest the guy right there. Oh yeah, if the cop was attacked by the perp that attacked you and the cop killed him, you would have the cop brought up on charges of excessive force, even while you are bleeding to death. That would be one less cop on the street to protect someone else. So as Mr Spock would say, that is illogical, Lee

Gladly, Actual - hopefully ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Gladly, Actual - hopefully you won't take any innocent parties with you.

So, Lee, you think soldiers... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

So, Lee, you think soldiers are psychopathic, knuckle-dragging, gun-toting morons?

Seems like you do.
-=Mike

you think soldiers are p... (Below threshold)
average wizbang poster:

you think soldiers are psychopathic, knuckle-dragging, gun-toting morons

Too many of them are.

I have a CCW permit, and ve... (Below threshold)
Allen:

I have a CCW permit, and very seldom carry it in public, however break into my "castle" (home) and I'll blow you away. When will these nuts realize that guns don't kill, people kill. Yes a gun can kill a whole bunch of people real fast. But one bullet will end a sick a--hole's life if he tries that.

It's also what we should have done with Saddam, one bullet, not the whole military invading Iraq. Until the left wing nuts realize that not one American that has weapons is going to surrender their arms if they are declared illegal. We will become like the crooks are today, having illegal weapons.

Wake up Lee, on this matter you are full of manure. And yes, Bush will go down in history as the worst president we will ever have, in fact, he is worse than Carter was.

Lee,Let's revisit ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Lee,

Let's revisit your original half-witted statement.

If only Bush weren't President we'd be more concerned about the victims of the Virgina Tech tragedy, and about protecting others from meeting that same fate, than we are about protecting the 2nd amendment rights of a sick F*ck like Cho. That isn't going to change until we elect a Democrat to the White House.

Do you even understand what it takes to amend the constitution ? Here's a hint: The President isn't the obstacle. So, please share with us precisely how you would have a Democrat President remove the constitutional right to bear arms.

Also, since every action has a cost as well as a benefit, how many people per year defend themselves using a firearm that would now become victims if you had your way.

And as a final note, you can tell a lot about someone by the company that they keep. Lee and 'average wizbang poster' - like peas in a pod.

I have proof that Bush is a... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

I have proof that Bush is a clueless as the Wizbang submissives who think they got a winner in the White House.

Press release from WH today:

"President Bush was pleased with the Attorney General's testimony today. After hours of testimony in which he answered all of the Senators' questions and provided thousands of pages of documents, he again showed that nothing improper occurred. He admitted the matter could have been handled much better, and he apologized for the disruption to the lives of the U.S. Attorneys involved, as well as for the lack of clarity in his initial responses.

The Attorney General has the full confidence of the President, and he appreciates the work he is doing at the Department of Justice to help keep our citizens safe from terrorists, our children safe from predators, our government safe from corruption, and our streets free from gang violence."


He really doesn't have a clue that Gonzo will be gone in a matter of days. And you folks actualy voted for this fool twice??

if only Bush weren't presid... (Below threshold)
slingshot:

if only Bush weren't president the national IQ would be at least (at LEAST!) 10 points higher. the moment he leaves office, we will all be smarter. except, paradoxically, maybe for the Bush supporters, who will be so lost without the leader that all of their remaining intellectual capacity (which is not much) will simply cease to exist. sorry guys.

If Bush wasn't President, A... (Below threshold)
Rodney Dill:

If Bush wasn't President, Al Gore would be finishing his second Term. Saddam would still be in power in Iraq, Bin Laden and the Taliban would still be in power in Afghanistan. Bin Laden would have in his possession, a letter from Al Gore condemning Osama for the environmental damage that occured when Al Qaeda brought down the twin towers... and the UN would still be a bunch of pussies.

If only Bush wasn't Preside... (Below threshold)
Usful Ijit:

If only Bush wasn't President, everything would be as cute as puppies, and sufferers of BDS would be at peace with themselves, settling into the comfortable confines of Sharia. Or something like that.

I was wrong about the democ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

I was wrong about the democrat party. They did accomplish a lot in the first 100 days. They have surrendered to the terrorists in Iraq, Got hundreds killed in Iraq by providing aid to the enemy, Surrendered to Syria, who we aren't/weren't at war with, Spread their hate far and wide and hyped the talking points that the rich are evil got a man (nut) at VT to kill 32 students. On top of that after the report on PAC's came out we find they have sold their soul to every special interest group in the world. Ethical my a**, who will be the first in congress to demand that Dirty Harry Reid resign? Crickets chirping? The don't mind demanding Gonzales resign and he's as clean as a freshly bathed baby compared to Dirty Harry, DiFi and every other dhimmi in congress.

MikeSC, lol. ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

MikeSC, lol.

Completely off topic, but l... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Completely off topic, but look how hard line partisan liberals (who hate Bush) treat their own children. Nice!

http://www.tmz.com/2007/04/19/alec-baldwins-threatening-message-to-daughter/

Sean Hannity will have a field day with this one.

Dirty Harry Reid, the comic... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Dirty Harry Reid, the comical leader of the senate is bashing the SCOTUS for upholding the ban on partial birth abortions. Does anyone know for sure, the rumor is that he actually voted 'for' the bill when passed? If so, shouldn't we now demand he resign his position and check into the closest mental health facility?

Live in a hurricane prone a... (Below threshold)

Live in a hurricane prone area, you go from the "Crazy guy with the guns" to the "Can I drink your water, eat your food, and be protected by you if I need help?" guy a day before the hurricane.

"Do you even understand ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Do you even understand what it takes to amend the constitution ? Here's a hint: The President isn't the obstacle. So, please share with us precisely how you would have a Democrat President remove the constitutional right to bear arms."

Thanks for the hint, underscoreMikenderscore --if you had half a clue as to what you were talking about it might matter.

Who said anything about amending the constitution? This is just another example of your ignorance showing, underscoreMikeunderscore. Was the constitution amended to prohibit felons from the right to buy a gun, Mike?

Nope.

There are lot of precedents that for setting limits to fun ownership - and a new one along the lines I've suggested would have stopped Cho from murdering 32 people -- without amending the Constitution, and without abridging yours or anyone else's right to bear arms.

The biggest obstacle seems to be uniformed people like yourself, underscoreMikeunderscore, who are literally up in arms about the gun issue when they don't have a clue as to what they're talking about. Read the link, Mike, there are lots of legal precedents to curbing gun ownership.

Cho should not have been able to buy a gun.

Lee, this is all so touchin... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Lee, this is all so touching coming from a guy whose party sits around all day agonizing about the poor souls at Guantanamo, and all the rights taken away from would be terrorists by the Patriot Act.

Your words here ring soooo hollow. But do keep amusing us.

*snicker*

Lee,obviously you do... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Lee,
obviously you don't understand thatlink you provided showed what is and isn't allowed by EVERY STATE!!

Not by the Constitution of the United States of America...

The 2nd amendment allows for guns.

um, hold on Lee.. THE 2ND AMANEDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS...

I must have said it wrong Lee, because i thinkyou still don't understand. THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!
Lee, I am going to copy and paste that same phrase a few more times so you can beat it into your simple liberal mind..

THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!
THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!

Buying a gun? I've got no ... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Buying a gun? I've got no problems with Cho BUYING a gun.

But USING it was another matter. The priveledge of gun ownership also implies a responsibility to know when you can legally use it, for target shooting or self defense, and a responsibility to use it appropriately. You can't have the one without the other. If you use it irresponsibly, then you should be stopped by whatever means necessary.

And if that means another legally carrying gun owner shooting you - well, that's the consequence of your choice to misuse what you bought legally.

First Cho was not a legal c... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

First Cho was not a legal citizen of the United States so he is not protected by second amendment rights. Second, he was menally ill, therefore he should not have been able to purchase a gun. Third, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are called the bill of rights. They are not amendable. It would be necessary to hold a constitutional convention, to rewrite the Constitution. Lee, I wonder how many of your rights would survive such actions. You are free to speak your diseased mind because of the right to keep and bear arms. It is not a hunting guarantee, it is to insure against a tyranical goverment. Lee, if Bush is a tyrant, why are you still alive? You are a complete idiot, shut up.

Check third from last sente... (Below threshold)
E. T.:

Check third from last sentence for typo. I think you meant to say "There would be (NO) ban on partial birth..."

I worked for President Nixo... (Below threshold)

I worked for President Nixon as a young guy. With the exception of Watergate, that was at least a professionally run administration. The problem with this Bush Administration is that Bush has surrounded himself with persons much like himself; largely inept, in way over their heads, and their feet just not reaching the petals. With the exception of 9/11 where Bush proved decisive leadership for a short period of a few months, there has been very few good moments in this adminstration as a whole.

In 2004, Bush won only a very narrow re-election against a very weak Demcratic opponent instead of the usual wide re-election wins by the likes of Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan or Clinton because this administration has never really sold itself to a majoritty of Americans. There were many more Republicans or Democrats who could have done a far better job as President I think. Since Nixon, I haven't seen as good as presidents as I would have hoped, regardless of their political party, but next to Carter, this is probably the weakest administration in recent times, and history books will likely reflect this mostly failed prseidency with Iraq a major note.

If Goracle was prezident, e... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

If Goracle was prezident, everyone would have a pony, and unicorns would still roam free. If Lurch and the Breck Girl were prezident, everyone would have $700 haircutz. And the whole world, especially gay Frenchmen, would love us....

Sincerely
American Lefty and "Clydesdale" Rosie O'Donnell

What's really telling, Lee,... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

What's really telling, Lee, is that you mention the removal of a convicted felon's rights as a template for how you'd have the rest of us treated - like convicted felons. Typical Democrat.

In 2004, Bush won only a... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

In 2004, Bush won only a very narrow re-election against a very weak Demcratic opponent instead of the usual wide re-election wins by the likes of Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan or Clinton because this administration has never really sold itself to a majoritty of Americans.

It's ironic you reference Clinton, since Bush actually got a majority, which Clinton never managed to pull off.
-=Mike

This line of lee's tells us... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

This line of lee's tells us everything we need to know about how his "logic" works:

"Can we have a show of thumbs, please...all interested in protecting Cho's right to murder."

Somehow protecting our Second Amendment right to bear arms means that we support the "right to murder". Ridiculous, yet not surprising. Further lee is actually dumb enough to think that only southerners own guns.

"Republicans in Washington wanting to protect the votes of the southern gun-loving thumb-suckers"

Once again, ridiculous, yet not surprising that lee takes the typical leftist stance on the "stupid south". lee, as far as I know, there is no constitutional right to NASCAR, let's get rid of that shit NOW!!!

lee finally speaks what he ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

lee finally speaks what he really means:

"There are lot of precedents that for setting limits to fun ownership"

NO FUN FOR ANYONE!!!!!

lee, while I agree that the... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

lee, while I agree that there are some common sense measures that could keep guns out of the hands of maniacs like cho, specifically, sharing of psychiatric information, I have a feeling that your precious ACLU might (has) take issue with allowing us to do that.

What's really telling, L... (Below threshold)
Lee:

What's really telling, Lee, is that you mention the removal of a convicted felon's rights as a template for how you'd have the rest of us treated - like convicted felons. Typical Democrat."

Blow it out your *ss, Mike. This kind of bullshit is typical of you conservatives - you can't argue a point with any intelligence (like your moronic screed about changing the constitution above) so you just lie and distort what your opponent is saying.

I'm not suggesting taking away the barrel-licking rights of people like you, underscoreMikeunderscore.. even idiots and morons like you are protected by the constitution and I'm not suggesting that should change -- I'm talking about someone who has come to the attention of the authorities FOUR times in the last two years *being questioned* before being allowed to purchase a gun.

Lee we do not have to lie t... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Lee we do not have to lie to distort anything you say. It is distorted all by itself. If you don't like it here in America, move.

you're right lee, so why do... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

you're right lee, so why don't the liberals and the ACLU allow us to share that psychiatric information?

"you can't argue a point wi... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

"you can't argue a point with any intelligence (like your moronic screed about changing the constitution above) so you just lie and distort what your opponent is saying."

You mean kind of like saying that since we support our second amendment right to bear arms that we are supporting a "right to murder"? Kind of like that lee? Is that the kind of bullshit distorted lie you are talkinng about?

"Can we have a show of thumbs, please...all interested in protecting Cho's right to murder." --lee

"You mean kind of like s... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"You mean kind of like saying that since we support our second amendment right to bear arms that we are supporting a "right to murder"? Kind of like that lee? Is that the kind of bullshit distorted lie you are talkinng about?".

Precisely, hoggy - that's absolutely correct. At no time do anyone suggest taking away your second amendment rights - I''m talking about someone who came to the attention of the authorities four times in the last two year! Get a grip - and argue against that if you can, but quit lying about your rights being in danger, or the constituion needing to be changed, etc.

I'm talking about abridging the rights of sickos like Cho, and no one else - so the question has to be raised as to why are you so damned interested in protecting the second amendment rights of murderers?

No, no, no lee. Unsurprisin... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

No, no, no lee. Unsurprisingly you are avoiding your own hypocritical stance. You specifically stated that those of us here that support OUR RIGHT to BEAR arms, are supporting a "RIGHT TO MURDER".

"Can we have a show of thumbs, please...all interested in protecting Cho's right to murder." --lee

Our right to bear arms DOES NOT give us a "right to murder", and NOT ONE person here has stated that we should have that right. Ergo, you yourself fall under the category of:

"you can't argue a point with any intelligence...so you just lie and distort what your opponent is saying."

Now stop spinning your garbage and answer for your lies and distortions. Why are you distorting what we are saying into saying we support a "right to murder"? If you're going to call out others for what you perceive to be distortions of what you are saying, look in the fucking mirror.

As far as coming to the attention of the authorities/administration, I don't know why nobody did anything, I do know it was a lack of psychiatric information sharing most likely due to the ACLU and/or other liberal orgs screaming bloody murder if we gave out that information.

Further lee, you go on to D... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

Further lee, you go on to DISTORT, " so the question has to be raised as to why are you so damned interested in protecting the second amendment rights of murderers?"

Who here has said they are trying to protect 2nd amendment rights of murderers? NOT...ONE...PERSON. We are trying to protect The Second Amendment rights of OUR OWN, from the liberal whackos who want them gone. So once again the question becomes, why lee, are you distorting what everyone here has said into us saying we are supporting rights of murderers? Why lee? Why are you doing precisely what you accuse others of? And why can you not answer this question? Something tells me you will either dissapear or change the subject. Typical.

Settled law (for 61 tears) ... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Settled law (for 61 tears) holds that the Second Amendment creates a right held by the States rather than an individual's right to bear arms.

you are a complete idiot</p... (Below threshold)
Emma:

you are a complete idiot

"Who here has said they ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Who here has said they are trying to protect 2nd amendment rights of murderers?"

Every reply to my comments is doing that, hoggy, because that's al I'm talking about.

"We are trying to protect The Second Amendment rights of OUR OWN, from the liberal whackos who want them gone."

Nope I've to suggested a total ban on guns, not once, and I dont' see where anyone else has either - so thanks for admitting theatyou're arguments have nothign to do with the issues being diuscussed and are just distortions of what I
ve been saying.

Every one of the reponses to my comments have been you nutcakes standing up for the rights of Cho and other would-be murderers like him - because that's all I've suggested we change -- and after pointing this out you still don't have the intellectual honesty to admit that, so you distort again - whine about some question that wasn't answered, and duck the issue again.

I don't have the intellectu... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

I don't have the intellectual honesty lee? You are so intellectually dishonest, so blinded by rage that you actually believe that people here are trying to argue for this "right to murder" you keep mentioning. Arguing for the right to bear arms is NOT arguing for some mysterious "right to murder" like YOU SAY over and over lee. YOu still have yet to provide one instance where any person here says they think we, and cho, has a "right to murder". It hasn't happened, and you know it, but you are such a motherfucking liar that you will never admit it. You're a pathetic piece of garbage lee.

lee-- here is basically eve... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

lee-- here is basically every response to all of your comments that you claim are standing up for cho's "right to murder". Please read them again. I see NOT ONE person, NOT ONE comment, standing up for whatever this "right to murder" is you keep placing on us. Once again, you are a fucking liar and a hypocrite...
"you can't argue a point with any intelligence (like your moronic screed about changing the constitution above) so you just lie and distort what your opponent is saying."--lee

"Banning guns does not solve the problem. Guns were already banned at this school. Due to this fact, nobody could defend themselves at that school. Properly trained citizenry with CCW's and handguns would have been more effective than waiting for the police to show up to a "no gun zone" where there was a shooting going on."

"Banning's worked very well in England.
Violent crime went up considerably after the LAW ABIDING population was disarmed. It's worked out very well indeed for the criminals!"

"Nah. I fervently support allowing people to protect themselves.
People like you prefer allowing people like Cho to kill anybody they want."

"....out of my cold, dead hands, Lee."

"When will these nuts realize that guns don't kill, people kill."

"Also, since every action has a cost as well as a benefit, how many people per year defend themselves using a firearm that would now become victims if you had your way."

"The 2nd amendment allows for guns.
um, hold on Lee.. THE 2ND AMANEDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS...
I must have said it wrong Lee, because i thinkyou still don't understand. THE 2ND AMENDMENT ALLOWS FOR GUNS!!!"

"The priveledge of gun ownership also implies a responsibility to know when you can legally use it, for target shooting or self defense, and a responsibility to use it appropriately. You can't have the one without the other. If you use it irresponsibly, then you should be stopped by whatever means necessary."

"You are free to speak your diseased mind because of the right to keep and bear arms. It is not a hunting guarantee, it is to insure against a tyranical goverment. Lee, if Bush is a tyrant, why are you still alive? You are a complete idiot, shut up."

"lee, while I agree that there are some common sense measures that could keep guns out of the hands of maniacs like cho, specifically, sharing of psychiatric information, I have a feeling that your precious ACLU might (has) take issue with allowing us to do that."

Tanks hoggy - here's my rep... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Tanks hoggy - here's my reply to your quotes:

"Banning guns does not solve the problem."

I never said guns should be banned in total - all I said was that Cho's ability to buy a gun should have been contingent upon a police investigation first as a resul tof the four red flags in the last two years.

"Banning's worked very well in England."

Ditto - see above.

"Nah. I fervently support allowing people to protect themselves."

Different subject - and one that allows the murdering Cho to buy a gun. See above.

"....out of my cold, dead hands, Lee.".

Another person who distorts the issue in support of the murdering Cho's right to buy a gun. See above.

"When will these nuts realize that guns don't kill, people kill."

Murdering Cho's right to buy a gun is defended again.

"Also, since every action has a cost as well as a benefit, how many people per year defend themselves using a firearm that would now become victims if you had your way."

None, I'm only talking about people who have four obvious red flags - like the murdering Cho. So this is another guy who distorts the subject in defense of the murderer Cho's right to buy a gun.

etc. etc. etc.

Don't you guys have anything better to do than to argue in favor of supporting the rights of people like Cho buying guns? It's amazing!

Come on Hoggy - distort some more - you're making my point quite well.

lee you have a stunning lac... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

lee you have a stunning lack of understanding. And once again you refuse to answer the question at hand. Why are you lying and saying that people here are fighting for cho's "RIGHT TO MURDER"?

That is what YOU said, "RIGHT TO MURDER". Not one person here has said anything about that but you, yet you put that on all of us, and refuse to answer to why you are distorting and lying. There is no such thing as a "RIGHT TO MURDER" and nobody here has argued for one.

Another point, when cho bought a gun, he wasn't a murderer, so nobody supported the right of a murderer to buy a gun as you infer. He made a concious decision to go ape shit and kill someone with a tool. If someone kills you with a hammer, should we blame the hardware store for selling a murderer a hammer? Further, not ONE person has supported the rights "OF A PERSON LIKE CHO" to buy a gun, quite the opposite. I myself said of course we could legislate some common sense laws to keep guns out of the hands of psychos, but your ACLU wouldn't let us share information like that so what's the use?! Where does anyone here state that we should sell murderers guns lee? Where? You have consistantly failed to show one instance yet you keep saying we are supporting this so called "RIGHT TO MURDER". Fucking pathetic lee. Truly pathetic. Lie your ass off, distort, yell that others are doing it, but you are such a god damned pussy that you can't be man enough to admit that you are wrong, that not one person here has said word one about a "RIGHT TO MURDER" except you lee. Whatever, everyone else here sees it, and you will still be forever pathetic.

You know lee, it's funny th... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

You know lee, it's funny that I pasted every comment that you claim everyone responded to with an argument for a "RIGHT TO MURDER", yet when you went through them to try to prove your point, you didn't point out ONE single comment that argues for a "RIGHT TO MURDER".

Putting aside the fact that you "think" they are arguing for the rights of a murderer to buy a gun, you fail to point out where they are arguing that anyone, including said murderer, has a "RIGHT TO MURDER". Can you even understand the difference lee?

I never said guns should... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I never said guns should be banned in total - all I said was that Cho's ability to buy a gun should have been contingent upon a police investigation first as a resul tof the four red flags in the last two years.

You couldn't search any sealed court records or psychological counselings, due to obvious privacy concerns.

But, hey, when current gun control laws aren't enforced, it seems silly to propose MORE laws rather than enforcing current ones.

Another person who distorts the issue in support of the murdering Cho's right to buy a gun. See above.

So, you'd die to protect somebody's right to free speech --- but NO other freedom explicitly listed in the Constitution? Is that your argument now?

None, I'm only talking about people who have four obvious red flags - like the murdering Cho. So this is another guy who distorts the subject in defense of the murderer Cho's right to buy a gun.

People commit slander. I guess we should limit free speech now.
-=Mike




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy