I’ve not been ’round these parts lately—been working at Obitmagazine.com—come by and check us out, would you?—but reading a the President’s response to the Sutherland Springs tragedy and need to comment.
So Il Douché—who, of course, doesn’t want to politicize the issue—thinks the issue in Sutherland Springs was one of mental health? Given that his mental health is not exactly top-notch, not sure he should be making those judgements, but even if he’s right, that’s not the problem. The question is: should someone whose mental health was so suspect (I’d say crushing your infant son’s skull should raise warning flags), should he have been legally allowed to own guns? The NRA doesn’t seem to have a problem with it….does he?
I wrote an editorial on the most recent mass shooting—this time in Sutherland Springs Texas, with more than 20 dead, including infants—for Obitmagazine.com.
OK, Dana Loesch and the NRA. I’m quite willing to accept your (moronic) contention that feet are as must a threat as guns.
In return, I ask that we limit the number of guns each Second Amendment-loving American can own to exactly equal to the number of feet they possess. By agreeing to this (modest) proposal, I think all Americans will feel safer, knowing they are protected from stampedes. Especially of the gunman-related variety.
Yesterday, on the floor of the House, Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) asked for a moment of silence to honor the victims of the horrific massacre in San Bernardino. That’s nice, congressman, bit it’s a hollow gesture, especially when you remain silent on the epidemic of gun violence that’s afflicting our nation: 351 so far this year, according to the Washington Post. More than one each day. But the GOP insists there’s nothing they can do, more interested in stirring up fear about immigration and refugees than the real obscenity– the couple allegedly responsible for yesterday’s tragedy bought their military-grade assault weapons legally.