« Heavy Handed, Cold Hearted | Main | I Question The Timing, Part II »

Anti-gun activist stabbed to death

Prominent British anti-gun activist Pat Regan was found dead in her home, having been stabbed to death, allegedly by her grandson. This is just such a tragedy... why, if only she'd had some way of defending herself!!

The grandson of prominent anti-gun campaigner Pat Regan has been arrested on suspicion of stabbing her to death.

Mrs Regan, 53, was discovered at the property on Marlborough Grange in the Hyde Park area of Leeds on Sunday.

The mother-of-six started campaigning against gun crime when her son Danny was shot dead in 2002.


Mrs Regan set up a Leeds branch of Mothers Against Guns after her son Danny, 25, was shot at his home in Haydock, near St Helens, Merseyside in December 2002. His killer has not been found.

She had met government officials to discuss how to tackle the problems of guns and gang-related crime.

I thought that crime would disappear if guns were outlawed, though! Well, I guess this just goes to show us that what we really need to do is outlaw ALL weapons. Here's a list to start us off:
  • knives (obvious)
  • rope (you can strangle someone with it)
  • pillows (you can smother someone with a pillow)
  • candlesticks (you can bludgeon someone with it)
  • hammers (see candlesticks)
  • crowbars (see candlesticks)
  • baseball bats (see candlesticks)
  • flamethrowers (burn someone alive)
  • cars (you can run someone over with a car, AND as a bonus, it'd be more environmentally friendly!)
  • clothing (can be used for smothering, suffocating, or strangling)
  • forks (can be used to gouge someone's eyes out)

    And really, this is just a partial list. Feel free to add your own suggestions to possible weapons. There are so many things that people can use to murder people, that the only really and truly way to have a perfect, safe utopia is to outlaw anything that a bad guy can use as a weapon. I mean, it only makes sense, because if the government outlaws it, then everyone will immediately stop using it. Banning weapons means that all crime will come to a halt!!

    Now, does anyone think that this logic makes any sense whatsoever?


    Then explain to me how banning guns makes sense, as it's exactly the same thing.

    I really don't understand the logic behind "gun control". Making guns illegal takes them out of the hands of law-abiding citizens... and leaves them in the hands of criminals, who won't care about breaking the law. They'll love it, having a world of defenseless victims at their mercy.

    Take me for example, or this woman -- a grandmother. Being unarmed means that you are always a potential victim, especially being a woman. No matter how much I may fight or struggle, a man will ultimately win in a battle of brute force. Having a gun means that I can fight back, defend myself, and keep myself safe. If this woman had possessed a gun, she could've shot the person who killed her and still be alive today. Now, this does not mean that owning a gun means that you'll never be robbed or raped or murdered, but it does give you a much better chance at survival than if you were simply unarmed. And don't anyone say that mase or pepper spray can do the same thing. It can't, and that's the stupidest comparison anyone could possibly make.

    This woman's death is an example of why law-abiding citizens need guns. Of course, I wouldn't force anyone to own one, but I sure as hell won't let them tell me I can't have one, either. It's not my problem if you can't understand the benefits of being able to defend yourself if anyone ever attacks you, breaks into your house, or tries to hurt you somehow.

    This is why (and this especially goes out to all you liberals out there) guns are a good thing. Guns are our friends. If you're a gun owner, you have a very good chance of keeping senseless tragedies like this from happening.

    Hat Tip: Moonbattery

  • TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:

    Comments (51)

    Heck, we might as well Fish... (Below threshold)

    Heck, we might as well Fisher-Price the whole damned planet...

    On the other hand, we could just round them all up, the Green Peacers, the Global Warming Luddites, the Vegans, the Pacifists, liberals, the PETA types, the gun grabbers, the enviro-whackos, the tree huggers and force them to agree with each other for once. They'll start killing each other off within an hour or so.

    Natural Selection in its purest form. Peace, love and harmony returns. Free beer for everyone.

    My work here is done.

    Home cooking needs to be ba... (Below threshold)

    Home cooking needs to be banned. It requires demonstrably deadly tools, such as knives, but provides opportunities for poisoning. State cafeterias would provide a clean, safe place to eat.

    Rocks......for obvio... (Below threshold)

    Rocks......for obvious reason
    Dirt........suffocation by burying alive
    Food.......use to hide posion or can be spoiled
    Gravity....throw someone off a building

    Liberals....stupidity kills....okay, this one isn't a bad idea.

    The dreaded flatus, of cour... (Below threshold)
    Master Shake:

    The dreaded flatus, of course - they don't call it "silent but deadly" for nothing!

    Plus, it contributes to global warmening!!1!1!!

    Gun control means being abl... (Below threshold)

    Gun control means being able to hit your target.

    In that sense I am all for gun control.

    I'm not sure a gun would ha... (Below threshold)
    Mac Lorry:

    I'm not sure a gun would have worked in this case. It might be too hard for a grandma to kill her grandson. Not saying no grandma could kill a grandchild, but it's not something anyone can accurately predict until they are in that position.

    That said, those who choose to disarm themselves have already decided they won't or can't use deadly force under any circumstance against any perpetrator to protect themselves or their family. I prefer to defer the final decision on using deadly force until I know who I need to kill and for what purpose. I can always decide not to use a weapon, but if I don't have one handy I can't choose to use one.

    The mother-of-six ... (Below threshold)
    Anon Y. Mous:
    The mother-of-six started campaigning against gun crime when her son Danny was shot dead in 2002.
    The grandson of prominent anti-gun campaigner Pat Regan has been arrested on suspicion of stabbing her to death. [...] The 20-year-old man was being held on suspicion of murder, police said. It is thought he had been arrested earlier in the day over another stabbing.
    Anyone know if the grandson had access to a firearm in 2002.... and if he has an alibi?
    Sharp pasties that Madonna ... (Below threshold)

    Sharp pasties that Madonna had several tours ago, they could poke somebody's eyes out.

    This is just such a trag... (Below threshold)
    mantis (gun owner):

    This is just such a tragedy... why, if only she'd had some way of defending herself!!

    Nothing like finding enjoyment in someone else's death, eh Cassy? A bit of a contrast from your outrage earlier today though, isn't it? I guess it all depends on who gets killed (death of marine in Iraq = not funny; death of grandma in England = hilarious irony!).

    Stay classy, Cassy.

    Why don't you spend five se... (Below threshold)

    Why don't you spend five seconds comparing murder rates, by firearm or otherwise, between countries with restrictive gun policies (Scandinavia, England, Canada, Japan) and the United States? Finding an anecdote every few days or weeks of a defenseless person being gunned down does not speak to the overall question of whether or not gun laws are too restrictive, though it sure is fun to wave the article around like a scalp, isn't it? For f**k's sake, somebody was murdered, you ghoul.

    If you sincerely believe that homicide rates in the U.S. would plummet if everyone walked around with a sidearm, then you're hopelessly retarded.

    We should outlaw spoons als... (Below threshold)

    We should outlaw spoons also, as they will hurt more

    hyperbolist, you can find t... (Below threshold)

    hyperbolist, you can find those stats yourself, in just a few minutes, by comparing gun deaths in U.S. cities with restricted gun control (Washington D.C., Cleveland,) and cities with concealed carry (Dallas, Denver.) The F.B.I. provides all those stats on their website.

    Of course if one of us patient gunowners did your homework for you, you'd ignore our work and scream and rant about guns, because logic and reason are not where you operate. So I'm not going to waste my time and yours.

    Homocide rates in the U.S would plummet if everyone walked around with a sidearm. That is the truth, and the more states that adopt concealed carry the more obvious it is.

    If only she had been able t... (Below threshold)

    If only she had been able to gun down her own grandson everything would be right with the world. Poetic justice, huh Cassy?

    I pity you.

    Yeah, Dallas has the ideal ... (Below threshold)

    Yeah, Dallas has the ideal murder rate. Not Amsterdam, or Stockholm, or Tokyo, or Seoul, or Montreal...

    Nice benchmark (D.C.). Why not Baghdad? Guns don't make people safe. Guns create a perception of safety when everybody has resigned themselves to everybody else maybe carrying one.

    Rest assured Her Grandson r... (Below threshold)

    Rest assured Her Grandson respected Her opinion and used a steak knife..

    Short and sweet comment. Go... (Below threshold)

    Short and sweet comment. Good!

    Sgt.:Pointed stick? ... (Below threshold)

    Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit...

    We done the passion fruit.

    A bit of Monty Python

    Hyperbolist:"Guns ... (Below threshold)


    "Guns don't make people safe."

    Neither do laws. Oddly enough, the criminal doesn't care about them. And there's no magical number where another law suddenly renders the whole concept self-enforcing.

    Criminals are always looking for an advantage over their victim. Making sure the victim is disarmed is a very good one.

    Guns create a perception... (Below threshold)

    Guns create a perception of safety when everybody has resigned themselves to everybody else maybe carrying one.

    Now, how could one begin to argue with this logic?

    "But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law--men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims--then money becomes its creators' avenger." Ayn Rand

    "Guns create a perception o... (Below threshold)
    GarandFan Author Profile Page:

    "Guns create a perception of safety"

    Too bad grandma didn't have that perception.

    "This is just such a traged... (Below threshold)

    "This is just such a tragedy... why, if only she'd had some way of defending herself!!"

    What a pitiful, petty and childish thing to say. Stay classy, Wizbang.

    Guns don't kill people, cra... (Below threshold)
    Mr Kennedy:

    Guns don't kill people, crazies with steak knives do.

    So are we confusing cause a... (Below threshold)

    So are we confusing cause and effect here. Maybe there have been two murders in this family because they are wackadoodle people. That might explain the most recent victims position on gun control.

    Biting Sarcasm... (Below threshold)
    John F Not Kerry:

    Biting Sarcasm

    Yea, see this <a href="http... (Below threshold)

    Yea, see this link to see how bunches of people owning a gun will turn the place into the wild west!

    We read "Snow Treasure" thi... (Below threshold)

    We read "Snow Treasure" this spring. (We read books out loud as a family in the evenings.) Snow Treasure is based on the true story of the brave Norwegians who smuggled gold out of occupied Norway.

    We just finished "Number the Stars" where brave Dane smuggled Jews to Sweden before the Nazis could kill them.

    Both brave little countries were unarmed in the face of the Nazis. They had no navies, no armies, no guns. Thus they were abused, tortured, humiliated and murdered.

    We should never forget what happened to those people. When an "anti gun activist" is murdered with a knife, we should never fail to point this out, as Cassy did, to remember what happens to gentle people who believe they are safe if they act like sheep.

    Yeah, I'm invoking Godwin's law. Whatever. Sometimes you gotta invoke the law.

    Czechoslovakia and France a... (Below threshold)

    Czechoslovakia and France and Poland had a lot of guns and they did just fine in WW II, so I see your point.

    Lots of developed countries with heavily restrictive gun laws have so many fewer gun homicides than the United States that it would be insane not to explore the reasons for this at a sociological level.

    A well-armed society is a p... (Below threshold)

    A well-armed society is a polite society.


    You liberals like to spew y... (Below threshold)

    You liberals like to spew your enlightened wisdom of "can't we all just get a long" but that pesky 2nd amendment gets in your way every time. Thank GOD for our founding fathers who had the wisdom to know honest citizens need to be armed. ww

    In Japan, where gun ownersh... (Below threshold)

    In Japan, where gun ownership is almost nil, the suicide rate is extraordinarily high. Wonder why?

    Because in Japan, if a man kills his kids, then his wife, then himself, they are all listed as suicides. Hey, presto, no homicides here.

    I love statistics. They are so fun to play with. The fact remains that in places where guns are plentiful in the hands of citizens the homicide rate is extremely low. In the United States our overall homicide rates are high because of our lawless, gun-restricted inner cities, perfect microcosms of the world the leftists want to impose on all of us.

    Now its they hadnt banned g... (Below threshold)
    Spurwing Plover:

    Now its they hadnt banned guns this antigun activst would be alive today the single most irony KNIFE CONTROL,15 DAY WAITING PERDIOD FOR THE PUCHASE OF A KNIFE and WHAT ABOUT DONNA DEES THOMAS and another MILLION MOM MARCH FOR MORE KNIFE CONTROL LAWS

    You're full of it, Frazetta... (Below threshold)

    You're full of it, Frazetta Girl:

    The fact remains that in places where guns are plentiful in the hands of citizens the homicide rate is extremely low.

    That "fact" does not remain. I live in Canada. We have a lot of guns. (My dad has a cabinet full of them! Likes shooting clay pigeons! He's a very boring man.) But our gun homicide rates are far lower than yours, even in our inner cities. (Toronto does not compare to Philadelphia/D.C./Atlanta/Baltimore/New Orleans/etc.) Our gun laws are more restrictive than yours. Korea experiences almost no gun violence, and their laws are far more restrictive than ours and yours. Do you think their society would be even safer if every man who finishes his mandatory military service was then issued a sidearm to carry around?

    Is an unarmed civilian thereby a dishonest civilian, WildWillie? Or an irresponsible one? You might very well be a refined, civilized person, but from what you write on the internetz, you sure come across as a reactionary hick.

    Hyperbolist, do your own re... (Below threshold)

    Hyperbolist, do your own research. It's all there for you but you don't want to look because you know you'll be proven wrong. And I'm not doing it for you.

    We have the God-given right to bear arms in this country -- not granted by any government, but enshrined in our Bill of Rights as something the government cannot take from us. The reason for it is clear, as well as all the stats that prove how positive and beneficial it is.

    A bow and arrows have been ... (Below threshold)

    A bow and arrows have been used to kill people a long time before guns were invented, yet these weapons have not been banned.

    Guess I will have to hide my bow and arrows from the next phase of violence crackdown. That is the next thing that will be on the hit list.

    We have the God-given ri... (Below threshold)

    We have the God-given right to bear arms in this country -- not granted by any government, but enshrined in our Bill of Rights as something the government cannot take from us.

    What an incredibly stupid thing to write. You don't understand our Constitution at all.

    Just think of all the money... (Below threshold)

    Just think of all the money saved in court costs if potential victims blew away their attackers.

    Mantis, you're either not a... (Below threshold)

    Mantis, you're either not an American.... or you've been sadly subjected to a poor public education.

    The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights granted to the people by the government, but a list of rights the government cannot infringe upon. These rights are "self-evident", in other words, they are granted by God and not by any court, law, or person. They cannot be taken away.

    This is why America is the greatest country on earth, in the history of earth. We the People, baby.

    And the Second Amendment, as someone said once, is simply the essence of: "And we mean it!"

    You are one daft person. "S... (Below threshold)

    You are one daft person. "Self-evident" does not mean granted by God. Something is self-evident if it is true by definition/tautologically true. The Constitution hasn't got f***-all to do with the will of your favourite supernatural entity, because if it did, then it wouldn't apply to atheists who don't care what your God has to say about anything.

    The Bill of Rights is no... (Below threshold)

    The Bill of Rights is not a list of rights granted to the people by the government, but a list of rights the government cannot infringe upon.

    The Bill of Rights is a list of amendments to the Constitution limiting the powers of the government. Amendments to the Constitution can be changed or abolished by further amendments (see the 18th and 21st Amendments).

    These rights are "self-evident", in other words, they are granted by God and not by any court, law, or person. They cannot be taken away.

    Absurd. They can be changed, or abridged, by actions of the government. If the people find that such actions constitute a progression to despotism, it is their right and duty to throw off the government.

    As for being granted by God, do you really believe that reserving powers not delegated to the federal government to the states is something God came up with, and not a unique feature of our government? How about quartering of troops?

    Do you really think that the right to bear arms (as in firearms) is granted by God? Did he grant us that right before or after guns were invented (by people)?

    In answer to the argument t... (Below threshold)

    In answer to the argument that if they didn't have guns, killers would use knives, bats, etc.

    People who (try to ) shoot people in street aren't the type who go to NRA safety programs or regularly spend time at the pistol range. They are idiots who can't shoot worth crap.

    It'll take her a while to g... (Below threshold)

    It'll take her a while to get back to you. She's got to consult her Constitutional expert/spiritual advisor/NRA spokesperson before explaining to you how the 2nd Amendment, and firearms, are evidence of intelligent design.

    Self-Evident? Granted by Go... (Below threshold)

    Self-Evident? Granted by God?

    No, those rights WERE granted by our Government, at the time of its founding.

    The only rights that are TRULY self-evident are those of life-liberty-pursuit of happiness. All the other rights are considered the blessings of living in such a wonderful nation. I don't see many of OUR rights listed as rights in many other countries (or even the UN "Human Rights).

    That being said it IS a right given to us by our Constitution, written by men of the early United States of American Government.

    Wow you just posted yesterd... (Below threshold)

    Wow you just posted yesterday condemning appalling remarks made against a shooting death of a marine (which of course I fully agree with you). Then, the VERY next day you post an off color joke about someone being killed because she didn't own a gun. If that wasn't your intention, it certainly came across that way. Especially when followed up with a list of any item that can wielded to kill a human. I would guess that even if she owned a gun, she probably doesn't expect to be stabbed by her own family member, and more than likely wouldn't be walking around the house strapped with sidearms. So, yeah, maybe if she kept a gun insta-handy in case her grandson went apesh#t, I guess her chances are better. If everyone walked around with that mindset though, I think there would be a lot more unnecessary killings that not. I'm also not saying people on this thread can't responsibly handle guns. I'm sure you all can, and you bear that right. I do worry about the other 250 + million people that may or may not be able to handle such a critical responsibility.

    Ooh, ooh, I said the "God" ... (Below threshold)

    Ooh, ooh, I said the "God" word, which brought the athiest barbarians out of the woodwork.

    Of course the God of which you do not speak (because you believe you are nothing but a bag of meat) is the Deity in whose belief this country was founded. This country, founded on Christian principles that are enshrined in our Constitution, allows you barbarians to live among us and act like barbarians with only the barest minimum of standards to which you have to live up to -- not killing, stealing, and raping.

    And that's all for this thread -- athiests are uninteresting, dull, and self-involved. Since they have no God to worship, they end up worshipping themselves. And nothing is more boring than that.

    Thank you for admitting you... (Below threshold)

    Thank you for admitting you don't know what you're talking about by abandoning the thread and ignoring my argument.

    Yeah, the atheist barbar... (Below threshold)

    Yeah, the atheist barbarians. Scientists! Professors! Writers! Artists! Savages! We're lucky you let us dwell among you, Frazetta Girl, what with all the feces stuck to our animal pelts.

    I don't know you, but you appear to be a very poorly educated person with a flawed grasp of concepts including but not limited to a) the Constitution; b) the Bill of Rights; c) atheism; and d) barbarism.

    I understand Christianity, Frazetta, as I came from it. You, on the other hand, do not understand atheism. You have probably never read Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, or Saramago. Self-worship is not a feature of any sort of atheism of which I would consider ascribing to. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to which particular modalities of atheistic reasoning you had in mind when you leveled that criticism. I'll wait while you try to remember the URL for Wikipedia.

    You have probably never ... (Below threshold)

    You have probably never read Nietzsche, Camus, Sartre, or Saramago.

    Or Kant, or Hume, or Heidegger (old or new?)...ad infinitum.

    Yeah, yeah, yeah...drop a few names of dead philosophers to appear learned. Actually, now you just look like a poser.

    The bottom-line is that the individual's right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. That's really all that needs to be said. You could talk about repealing the amendment, but talking about sleeping with Jessica Alba takes about as much breath...and you would have about the same chance.

    BTW, if you believe that you have near the same rights as a gun owner in Canada, I'd love to have that conversation. My wife is Canadian. Every time I talk to my father-in-law he says he wishes they had an NRA-like organization there. His shotguns have to be registered for cryin' out loud.

    Some things to think about:... (Below threshold)

    Some things to think about:

    In Canada, a 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law (Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted weapons," defined to include semi-automatic rifles legislatively attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer, "assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003. C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of protection.

    From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes, compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm laws.

    And these are just some of the reasons we don't live in Canada. I've relayed many other reasons in other threads over the years. Suffice it to say that any government that negates my self-evident right to self-defense (I can't even use Mace?). The Canadian government gets property taxes from me, but that's about all they'll get from me. They got some major f'd up policies in the land of the great white. My wife and her family will be quick to tell you.

    I wasn't name dropping dead... (Below threshold)

    I wasn't name dropping dead philosophers, Clay. I was telling someone that if she wants to give atheism a fair shake, she has some reading to do, because her Bill O'Reilly caricature is about as fair and informed as Heidegger's opinion of his Jewish colleagues.

    Oh boo effing hoo, having to register hunting weapons. Canadians can still kill small animals, don't get your knickers in a knot. As for self-defense, no, we cannot own Mace. We can own pepper spray, though, and baseball bats and knives.

    I'm not a gun owner in Canada, by the way. No interest in ever acquiring one. My parents were burglarized twice in Montréal from 1980 to 1982. Both times, some guys opened their screen door, took shit, and ran off with it. My father owned guns at the time, and could have grabbed one and threatened the kids, but as he's not a lunatic, he didn't feel that pointing a shotgun at some 19 year old for nabbing a television set was an appropriate reaction. They got a new TV through their insurance. Nobody got killed. Seriously, would you shoot somebody for burglarizing your house? Talk about overkill.

    Hey, still waiting (with bated breath) for you to explain to me how you're not a racist for defending Scrapiron's racist insanity a few threads back.

    We can own pepper spray,... (Below threshold)

    We can own pepper spray, though, and baseball bats and knives
    "Isn't that just like a wop? Brings a knife to a gun fight." (Name the movie)

    I read some of the comments further up, and thought I should expound on what I've previously said. While the right to own guns is guaranteed by the second amendment, the basis for the right is not found there. If there were no second amendment in the Constitution, one would still possess a right to own a weapon of self-defense. In today's context, that weapon would be a gun.

    The right to own a firearm is based on the right to self-defense. One naturally has a right to the resources to defend oneself against those who wish to cause one injury. The right to self-defense is itself is a consequence of the general principle of the right to one's life.

    How should one judge the statement that one has the right to life, but does not have the right to the resources necessary to protect that life? It would be like saying one has the right to life, but not the right to obtain food. Yet, actually, the challengers of the right to own a gun are really against the right to life, just as good collectivists should be.

    Unfortunately, it's the right to life that is completely disregarded in the debate over the right to keep and bear arms, both by its opponents, and by its so-called defenders. Both sides use statistics to protect their position (as did I earlier), but as was stated earlier by Frazetta_girl, "I love statistics. They are so fun to play with." But, really, statistics are ancillary while discussing natural rights. As someone else said:

    "The field of battle on which gun control should be fought is exactly on this issue: man's rights. Statistical arguments on gun control are a red herring -- as the leftists' appeals to hungry children or the environmentalists' appeals to clean parks are also meant to distract their opponents from the fundamental issues at stake. While the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other defenders of the right to bear arms argue over statistics and interpreting the Constitution, the real issues remain untouched and are sacrificed to the enemies of our freedom."

    still waiting (with bated breath) for you to explain to me how you're not a racist for defending Scrapiron...
    Oh, dear me. How insensitive of me. The fact is you didn't answer my questions. But, the truth is that I made my point and was quite through with the topic. You added nothing more to the matter. But, let me summarize my point and you can comment if you wish. My comment will be on the other thread, since it is OT here. Sometime before EOT.

    Frazetta, you are an abomin... (Below threshold)

    Frazetta, you are an abomination to not only your own political viewpoint but also to the idea of what it means to be a citizen of the United States. Get a civics lesson you ignorant fool. It's brainless idiots like you who make conservatives look bad. Part of enjoying the freedoms we have is a responsibility to know what/who gave you those freedoms.

    And I take extreme offense to this post in general, on principle. There is a time and place for debating gun control. Using the death of a prominent gun control advocate whose son was killed with a firearm is not an opportunity to do so. You don't know the circumstances of her killing - perhaps a gun would have saved her but perhaps it would not have. Cassy, you should be ashamed of yourself.






    Follow Wizbang

    Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


    Send e-mail tips to us:

    [email protected]

    Fresh Links


    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