Quote of the day—David Fallick

Michael Hammond, legislative counsel for Gun Owners of America, claimed that “he’s ‘probably’ the guy who, after the Newtown massacre, killed the bipartisan bill that would’ve required background checks on commercial sales of guns. He had ‘a very big role’ in designing opposition in the Senate.” That’s too bad. I would have preferred a guy who “probably” pushed through legislation so that not one more person since that massacre was ever shot in the United States. Let’s work toward that — keeping everyone safe and preventing any danger of anyone being shot ever again. We need gun control.

David Fallick
July 24, 2017
We need gun control
[If Fallick believes there is legislative action possible such that “not one more person since that massacre was ever shot in the United States” he has to be the all-time winner of the Crap for Brains award.

That is industrial grade stupidity.—Joe]

8 thoughts on “Quote of the day—David Fallick

  1. Give the military a bit of credit…

    Call it “industrial” grade stupidity.

    Jeff B.

  2. If we just legislatively acted on illicit drugs, rape, and murder we would have no more problems with them.

    The stupid he spouted is at a toxic or lethal dose.

  3. Believing it was the GOA who killed the bill isn’t quite as dumb as what you called out but it isn’t brilliant either. The GOA is useful to keep the NRA’s feet to the fire but the NRA is the 800 lb gorilla.

  4. Never mind that background checks have been a long-standing requirement on all commercial sales and the bill wouldn’t have changed that. Too bad that was a quote from a previous article, it’s still completely untrue.

  5. And there’s ignoring that Federal law /already/ requires background checks on commercial sales of guns.

    And ignoring that in Newtown the killer stole the guns used by murdering a family member.

    So a background law would be extra ineffective. But the writer lets it slip given he openly states his goal is working towards a total gun ban and confiscation (given he’s demanding no gun deaths).

  6. “I would have preferred a guy who “probably” pushed through legislation so that not one more person since that massacre was ever shot in legal self defense in the United States.

    There. Fixed it for him.

    Criminals of course will always be armed, and so we are only talking about the law abiding when we discuss legal restrictions on guns. And of course the worst of the criminals, including those in official government positions, will be the most well armed. And so Mr. Fallick (really?) is calling for disarming the law abiding so the criminals can have total control.

    Go ahead and call it stupid, but it’s worked enough times throughout history and around the world that is it’s a decently good bet. I think you’re misleading yourself to call it stupid, or to sat that he has crap for brains. He has a criminal mind, and that is precisely how a well-functioning criminal mind works.

    In general then, we tend to make the mistake of considering the criminal mind to be a mind that fails to function properly. You may say that, but then you’d have to explain why such people have managed to gain such tremendous powder even in the Untied States where it is forbidden by the constitution. They’ve been winning for over a hundred years, and that’s no really so stupid after all, is it? They have you paying their salaries, while you thank them for not taking too much of your time during your compliance inspections. Methinks that you have a distorted perception of “stupid”.

    No; I would call it a matter of allegiance only. Smarts (brain power) is another subject.

Comments are closed.