Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Blood Dancing

Gun control advocates are such charming, considerate folks. This comment was left on the Starbucks FB page by a woman named Linda Gaither, chair of the National Executive Council, Episcopal Peace Fellowship, one of the originators of the failed 'boycott':
Another child has died in the Chardon, Ohio school shooting. May the family be sustained though this tragedy by our concern and care. We can exhibit our care by working for better gun laws: Ohio needs a Child Access Prevention Law. Help change the laws, Starbucks!
We see what she's 'concerned' and 'care's' about. Using this tragedy as a platform to push her political agenda. And who comments in support of her? Why Ladd Everitt, Comm. Dir. of the CSGV who spent a good part of yesterday attacking firearm owners for 'scoring points' and 'ugly comments' while he spent the rest of it using the tragedy to, you guessed it, score points to push for more gun laws. Of course it's not limited to these two, Weer'd has a post up on the ranting of Joan Peterson, Brady Campaign/Joyce Puppet board member, Sebastian TBFKASIH finds the 'tribute site' reposted by most anti-gunners, is actually run by a far left political advocacy group w/ no connection to the school or families that is likely name mining. It's also a strong supporter of gun control. The entire home page of Protest Easy Guns's FB page is currently filled w/ posts calling for more laws in the wake of this tragedy. And now the Brady Campaign is joining the fray.

They try and cover themselves w/ a veneer of 'caring' and 'concern' but they have shown themselves to be the most heartless, opportunistic political leeches one can imagine and they will stop at nothing (including libel and intimidation) to achieve their goals.

Are these the kind of people you think can make 'reasonable', 'common-sense' laws for the public good?

Unorganized Militia GearUnorganized Militia Gear
Follow TrailerDays on Twitter
Unorganized Militia Gear


Braden Lynch said...

Honestly, both sides use these types of incidents to promote their causes, but with different moral validity.

The difference is that firearms advocates work toward practical goals so these events are less likely to occur (e.g. CC on campus) and they do note the failure of gun free zones desired by gun control advocates. When they highlight a failed policy, that is not the same as requiring bloodshed to obtain their goals.

Instead, the gun control advocates need to justify all of their rules and regulations. Nearly all of them are USELESS for the reduction in criminal violence.

Meanwhile, gun control advocates use each awful event to demand more laws and regulations that are clearly ineffective. The gun free zone signs will not stop a killer. So, when they talk about a tragedy and offer a USELESS "solution" for it, there is no caring there. The only value they derive from these events is the platform to call for more firearm restrictions. That is blood dancing.

Kurt Bihler said...

All of the gun owners that I know are saddened by this event. Many of us are parents. This is a parents worst nightmare. Using this to further unrelated goals is just wrong. The media is also to blame. How many kids were killed in car accidents that day? Did those kids get this kind of news coverage? Why not?

45er said...

Talk about getting destroyed in social media. The only positive reply was from Ladd. Everyone else ripped her a new one. Talk about winning. :)

K. Rihanek said...

Their social contract is a law. They think good parenting can be created by passing laws. They fail to see the cause, only the effect. It started long before this person picked up a gun and headed to school.