It happened again; some miscreant had some part of his brain slip into overload and decided to kill a bunch of people. And, as usual, he chose a place that he was certain he would meet with little or no resistance. And he was right. I don't know why this loon did what he did, and you know what? I don't care. This sorry pustule on the ass of humanity took it upon himself to murder 12 people and wound 58 others for no good reason, and as far as I'm concerned, we should save the taxpayers a bunch of money by marching him out behind the courthouse and putting a bullet in his brain.
I can hear it already, "But McWopski, what about due process?" Well, we know he did it, and we know people died at his hand. Seems pretty cut and dried to me. And if he's insane? All the more reason to kill him. The last thing we need is an insane, evil, genius sitting around in prison thinking up new ways to cause trouble.
And of course, the anti-gun crowd couldn't be happier.
Chuck Schumer oozed out from under whatever rock he's been residing under and immediately called for a ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. He was joined by The Usual Suspects, Diane Feinstein, Frank Lautenberg, and the rest of the "U.S. out of North America" crowd in attempting to control us. And make no mistake; gun control has nothing to do with wanting Americans to be safer. It has everything to do with control. Because if it were really about making us safer? They would work to see to it that every law-abiding citizen had access to, and training with, firearms. If guns are the problem, why is it that places where people are allowed, and even encouraged, to carry a firearm for self-defense have lower rates of violent crime than those places with Draconian gun laws?
I also find it a little odd that these guys always seem to flip out when there is some piece of anti-gun legislation up for a vote. This time, it happened to be the ill-fated UN Arms Trade Treaty. Interestingly, it also happened to coincide with the investigation into Fast and Furious; another botched attempt to gain some positive publicity for the BATFE.
Plus, I was reminded of another little tidbit by my good friend Kevin Starrett of the Oregon Firearms Federation; one of the worst mass murders committed by non-government entities in the United States was committed by one Julio Gonzales, who killed 87 people with about a dollar's worth of gasoline and a match. Yet there was no outcry to ban matches or limit the amount of gasoline one could purchase.
Of course, there is the endless mewling about how we can't be certain that an armed citizen could have stopped the shooter. My response is simple; we can be certain of what happens when no one is armed; we've seen it time and again. Someone in that theater that had been armed would have stood a greater chance of stopping the massacre than the bunch of unarmed movie goers did. If you need to see how effective one armed person can be, look no further than at Jeanne Assam. Had she not taken action to stop the shooter at New Life Church in Colorado Springs, he would have killed and wounded dozens. When an active shooter enters someplace populated by armed citizens, it is ludicrous to think that those that are armed won't act to stop him. Their lives are in as much danger as anyone else's, they just have the means to resist. Hopefully, they'll make a better account of themselves than the sorry eunuch that abandoned his fiance and children to their fate while he escaped.
Make no mistake; anti-gun politicians are the worst kind of scum. They are amoral opportunists that use other peoples' tragedies for their own political gain, and those that support them are just useful idiots. As soon as the election cycle comes around, we would do well to send these back to whatever steamy pile of excrement that spawned them.