Tuesday, April 2, 2013


Americans favor working background checks, but the NRA opposes them, so we're not likely to take any concrete step to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and unstable people.

That means we have to imagine this happening to other families:

In addition to the tragic loss of her playmates, friends, and teachers, my first grader suffers from PTSD. She was in the first room by the entrance to the school. Her teacher was able to gather the children into the tiny bathroom inside the classroom. There she stood, with 14 of her classmates and her teacher, all of them crying. You see, she heard what was happening on the other side of the wall. She heard everything. Shooting. Screaming. Pleading. She was sure she was going to die that day and did not want to die for Christmas. Imagine what this must have been like. With PTSD comes fear – all kinds of fear. Each time she hears a loud or unfamiliar noise, she experiences the fear she had in that bathroom. She is not alone. All of her classmates have PTSD. She struggles nightly with nightmares, difficulty falling asleep, and being afraid to go anywhere in her own home. At school she becomes withdrawn, crying daily, covering her ears when it gets too loud and waiting for this to happen again. She is 6.

Imagine being this age and living like this. My children face their fears every day by getting on the bus and going to school. Would you be able to do the same? How would you feel if these were your children?
It's obvious from events since the Newtown massacre that Wayne LaPierre and his merry band of sociopathic fucks are so opposed to any measures against guns that they are willing to accept mass murder of children as collateral damage in the name of something they believe to be more important.

Imagine a world in which that obscenity were not possible.


Anonymous said...

wow, came back, read 3 paragraphs and already learned that people who hold a different opinion want children to die. I'll be back, confident in the hope that you will grow. - flyguy

lovable liberal said...

Typically, you can't make fine distinctions.

Want deaths? Of course not.

Willing to tolerate mass shootings to avoid very minor gun restrictions? Obviously.

You think it's more important to maintain the gun show loophole in background checks - which leads to easy access by criminals to guns - than it is to keep Jared Loughner from getting a gun.

Own it or deny it, your choice.

Anonymous said...

If all of the current gun “control” bills were law at the time Adam Lanza went on his spree, the result would have been the same. Adam Lanza broke 41 laws when he committed his crimes. Only a certifiable fool would think that the 42’nd law would have stopped him. The ONLY thing that would have stopped him was a good guy with a gun. The Liberal, anti-gun politicos have done a good job setting up gun free zones across America so whackos know just where to go to inflict the most death and misery with the least amount of resistance. This, of course, serves the liberals well giving them even more ammunition for the continued debasement of our Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Liberals resist armed guards in schools because that would reduce the killing and limit their emotion driven rhetoric. Gun free zones = defenseless, dead citizens.
It’s a new low, even for liberals, to stand on a pile of dead grade school children to further a political agenda. They didn’t even wait until the crimes scene was processed before they started their song. Move to North Korea where all your dreams will come true in an instant you Communist.

lovable liberal said...

"The ONLY thing that would have stopped him was a good guy with a gun."

This is stupid bullshit that only the weak-minded could possibly believe.

If he hadn't had a gun, he could have still attacked the schools with a hammer. When was the last time you heard of a massacre done by hammer?

By the way, who stopped Jared Loughner? Were they armed?

Nope, he had to stop and reload, and they tackled him. How many more children would have escaped if Adam Lanza had had to reload more often?

More people die in states where guns are unrestricted. Just so you can keep shooting with your delusional paranoia intact.

Anonymous said...

"he could have still attacked the schools with a hammer"

I did not write this..are you on drugs?

"How many more children would have escaped if Adam Lanza had had to reload more often?"

None. All were in hiding because there were no armed guards present.

"More people die in states where guns are unrestricted"

Let's look at the most gun restricted gun places in America shall we? Chicago, NYC, Washington DC, LA. There is no denying that those cities have some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation AND they have the highest murder rates to go with it. Gun free zones make more victims. Period. Criminals don't get background checks dipshit.

lovable liberal said...

Trouble with sarcasm? Sorry, there's no cure for the terminally clueless.

In fact, some children did escape Victoria Soto's classroom, possibly because Adam Lanza was reloading or jammed his rifle.

Maybe the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a bad guy with a gun. That has happened over and over again, whereas your rescue fantasy hasn't.

You're (stupid, assholic) solution to gun violence is gunfights in the streets - actually, gunfights everywhere. Try Somalia.

You (stupidly, assholically) think that guns appear in criminals' hands out of thin air. Maybe you think they manufacture them in their basements. What actually happens is that they are laundered through gun shows, straw sales, and private sales.

The (stupid, assholic) argument that laws are bad because criminals disobey them fails on its face. Obviously, we can't limit ourselves to laws that everyone obeys - then why have even those?

Of course, you - with your tiny little inert penis - think you and your substitute expression of projectile power will be fine. Go try Somalia.