Only a gun

Does Lorraine Devon Wilke live on planet Nerf where the bats can break Nerf desks and Nerf windows but not a head?

The student in Roswell might have picked up a bat and smashed a few desks, knocked over some chairs or even broken a few bones. He might have trashed a locker, broken a window or spewed graffiti across a wall. But leaving a child critically wounded with a shot to the face? Only a gun can inflict that result.

Only a gun? Wow!

Wilke goes on to say:

It appears we care more about owning guns than saving ourselves from them. We care more about being able to carry them, defend them, shoot them, and justify the damage caused by them. We care so much about all that, wrapped in arguments of outdated constitutional amendments, that we’ve basically agreed, tacitly or otherwise, that we will live in a society where an irate moviegoer can kill someone for texting, an angry child can destroy a classmate out of anger, and a distraught father can end his life out of despair.

I do not want to live in that kind of society. Do you?

“Outdated constitutional amendments”? She has to have the 2nd Amendment as one of those. I wonder what other specific enumerated rights she thinks is outdated? The rights that would inhibit the confiscation of all firearms in the hands of private citizens?

Ms Wilke, if you don’t want to live in a society that respects our preexisting, specific, enumerated, rights then I suggest you to move to a different society. You won’t be taking my guns and my rights from me during my lifetime in this society.

I have to conclude these type of people have crap for brains.


13 thoughts on “Only a gun

  1. “I do not want to live in that kind of society.”


    Certainly no human ever killed another human before the invention of gunpowder. Cain would have killed Able with a Tommy-gun or an Uzi.

      • Search “bat bombs WW II japan”. No kidding. It’s at least been seriously considered and tested.

        • Ah, yes, forgot about those. Don’t know of any fatalities, though IIRC there was some property damage.

  2. The irate moviegoer was a police officer, a child can destroy a classroom out of anger more effectively without a gun, and with a can of gasoline, and distraught people can end their lives out of despair with all sorts of items: guns, knives, pills, tall buildings, or even fast cars.
    You can’t stop humans from doing things by banning the tools that they use to do them.

  3. “I have to conclude these type of people have crap for brains.”

    You give them too much credit. It’d be good if they could work up to crap for brains.

  4. As I recall, the deadliest school massacre in US history was committed with a bomb, in the 1930s.
    “It appears we care more about owning guns than saving ourselves from them” says Wilke. Not exactly. The correct statement would be “we care more about the pretense of saving ourselves from guns than we care about protecting our children”. What else can you call a policy that turns every school into a defenseless victim zone?

  5. “I do not want to live in that kind of society. Do you?”

    I DO live in that kind of society. And it won’t go away through wishful thinking or idiotic, nanny-state legislation. (ref: Great Britain). Which is why I carry a gun.

  6. Heh. My first thought was “wonder how long it would have taken him to move from destruction of property (which is typically frowned upon) to beating someone’s head in, had he not been stopped?” Blame the tool which ended the rampage, not the one actually performing the rampage. :sigh: Typical liberal.

  7. Pingback: Alberta Clipper Edition News Links | Shall Not Be Questioned

  8. I only read the earlier post of that hysteric Wilke, where she demanded immediate “action” on guns instead of mere talk.

    As is typical of such cranks as Wilke, they only have the shallowest and (not coincidentally) most emotionally colored understanding about the gun issue. Wilke the crank doesn’t seem to realize that all kinds of action HAS taken place since Newton, of expanded gun-control legislation passed in several blue states. Of course only in Wilke the cranks imagination is there any connection between “gun deaths” and gun-control. America could have British level gun-control it wouldn’t make a difference in “gun deaths”.

    Of course an attempt to enforce British level controls here could spark the second American Civil War. I doubt Wilke the crank would like the outcome of such an conflict, even though demagogues such as her keep asking for one.

Comments are closed.