Tiny Man
I saw Dennis Kucinich the other day. He walked past me in a hallway. He is a tiny, tiny man. Granted, in my heels, I’m about 5′11″, but he was short. It’s a good thing he didn’t bump into me, or his head would land somewhere that would make his wife (barely older than me) a little jealous.
Anyway, in thinking about Kucinich, I happened to notice that he is planning to offer a “comprehensive plan to address violence in America” soon. Being the Dennis Kucinich who is concerned about space weapons and wants a Deparment of Peace and Nonviolence, he also wants a handgun ban. But, wait, he’s got good news for gun owners! He’ll do a buy back program for all of you evil heathens who own one.
No word yet on whether or not he’ll provide full value for the guns or just offer up a $50 gift card to Target.
No obviously related posts.
“No word yet on whether or not he’ll provide full value for the guns or just offer up a $50 gift card to Target.”
Hehe, “target”
Be sure to turn in your ammunition first.
The only way he can pay full value for firearms that have been in my family for five generations is with my blood ….. or his.
Well if he had banged into you then he would have been a very lucky man
Heck, I’m jealous (of his notional good fortune) just thinking about it.
It’s a very good thing that Kucinich is utterly unelectable.
He is a tiny man in more than physical stature.
I have a grown son who is rather short. He is the shortest in the family, all but one of his sister are taller than he, and one brother is nearly a foot taller. Yet I managed to make him understand that you measure a man on the inside. Using that yardstick, Kucinich is microscopic.
Well at least he has a plan to address the issue, or would you prefer the massacres to keep happening..?
William Calley,
I have a plan to address the issue. Remove the “gun free school zone” which was directly responsible for the number of people killed in VA Tech. “Your” policies are directly responsible for the deaths because you made the school a victim disarmament zone. If you had listened to the reasonable and removed the restriction on the law abiding; that massacre would never happened. Or would you prefer the massacres to keep happening?
Mark, a student shot those people at Virginia tech. How on earth would allowing every student a gun on campus cut down on the number of death from shooting? That is bizarre logic.
William Calley,
Bizarre logic? First, I never said “allow every student”. Secondly, bizarre logic is the logic that banning guns from campus would keep killers from taking guns on campus. That certainly worked, didn’t it? My “bizarre logic” has already proven itself true when law abiding citizens with ccw stopped mass shootings with their firearms on campus. Your “logic” has never worked. Never. It never will. It only allows for those criminals to do exactly what Cho did.
Mark, the opposite of ‘banning’ students from bringing firearms on campus is ‘allowing’ them to. If there is more than one disturbed individual on campus, which is more than likely, why provide them easy access to guns?
“Secondly, bizarre logic is the logic that banning guns from campus would keep killers from taking guns on campus. That certainly worked, didn’t it?”
No, it didn’t work, because he could go into town and legally buy all the firepower he needed!
“William Calley”,
“Mark, the opposite of ‘banning’ students from bringing firearms on campus is ‘allowing’ them to. If there is more than one disturbed individual on campus, which is more than likely, why provide them easy access to guns?”
See… this is the problem. You can’t follow simple logic from point A to point B. How does “allowing” turn to “provid[ing]“?
Since we know that “William” is only seeking to “troll”…. let’s address this to those who may be undecided.
Suppose I’m a “disturbed individual on campus”. I decide I’m going to carry a gun to class. What is going to stop me? I already have the gun. I can read the regulations and rules, but what do they mean to me? I know the rules against harassing other students and teachers. I know the rules against setting fire to dorms. But, none of those things matter to me so I just go ahead and take my gun to class with me anyway. Point 1: I have a gun on campus.
Now, suppose I’m a law abiding permit holder. I pay attention to the rules, which is a reason I got my permit. I, likewise, know the rules against having a gun on campus. I don’t take my gun. Point 2: I don’t have a gun on campus. (Because the law-abiding abide the rules.)
The “disturbed” decides that Elvis instructed him to kill his classmates. The law abiding is one of his classmates. The loon is armed… the law abiding disarmed. Who wins?
The most revealing thing in this debate is that the liberals think that they are the only ones who want to keep loons from having guns. They actually think that the conservatives **want** to arm loons. The reality is that you liberals don’t own the desire to disarm loons and criminals.
Has nobody else figured out that Dennis is a presidential candidate only for the money, same as Reverend Al and “Haircut” Edwards? These campaigns collect money – without a chance in hell of them being elected President. And they get to keep the leftovers when they lose, along with the added respect of having been a “Presidential contender.” Not a bad (fake) job, if you can get it.
“See… this is the problem. You can’t follow simple logic from point A to point B. How does “allowing” turn to “provid[ing]”?”
Okay, if you want to hide the bankruptcy of your argument behind semantics then go for it. Change the “provide” to “allow” and the argument still stands.
I think it interesting that the pro-gun lobby is restricting the argument to the topic of firearms of argument. Yes, Cho brought a gun onto campus…one he bought legally down the road. Gun control doesn’t work if it isn’t universal.
And really, this whole, arm all the students because then it’ll end up in a huge Mexican stand-off situation and no-one will get hurt…you HAVE the access to guns, that’s why these massacres can happen!
“They actually think that the conservatives **want** to arm loons.”
But the laws they push for do, so yes, conservatives do want to arm loons, which is lunacy in itself.
“The reality is that you liberals don’t own the desire to disarm loons and criminals.”
Well, it would seem we do.
Easy access? Hahaha! “Hey dude, man I was like so totally wasted I forgot where I put my HK man – dude, can I borrow yours for class?” What exactly is so “easy” about the access? It’s a fantasy projection.
Mark, William, as much as I hate to interrupt this cute little dance you two are doing. I feel that I must, even though this will amount to nothing more than making me feel better. Both of you have made points, as the past has proven. Great Britian has no more school shootings because they have banned guns from their citizens. On the flip side gun crimes are up an average of 130%. I am a registered gun owner and I strongly disagree with disarming the citizenry. With that being said if I had even the inkling of an idea that the criminals would play by your rules and disarmament would work I would do so gladly. Unfortunately CRIMINAL = RULE BREAKER, consequentially disarmament will not work.