Did you encounter people who had no questions at all after the tragedy, rather only answers? Do you feel as I do that such people are absolutely insufferable and can go f–k themselves?
Am I the only cynic who thinks the hyperbolic acrimony between the pro-gun lobby and gun control advocates will prevent the two sides from finding any meaningful common ground in our lifetime? Do you think it’s because representatives from both sides already think they have all the damn answers?
Would you like to hear some of my questions? Do you think I really care one way or the other?
Why isn’t the NRA lobbying for us to use the ideal weapon to combat a claustrophobic zombie apocalypse?
For starters, why can’t I own a sawed-off shotgun, at least not without a special tax-paid registration from the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as well as a requisite background check?
Why is the government infringing on my Second Amendment right to own a shotgun just because it has a barrel shorter than 18 inches? And why isn’t the National Rifle Association fighting on behalf of all Americans to possess and use the perfect weapon for close-quarters fighting against a room full of zombies?
Why are such weapons illegal, but have been so only since 1934 (thanks to the National Firearms Act)? Is it because they became synonymous with gangsters during prohibition? Is it because they’re too dangerous? Isn’t the latter reason exactly what gun control advocates say about weapons like the AR-15 and high-capacity ammunition clips?
If sawed-off shotguns (aka “short-barreled shotguns”) really are so dangerous that they need to be banned, why are they still being used by military forces and police agencies worldwide? Isn’t the fact that the military and tactical police units use assault rifles like the AR-15 the very selling point that gun manufacturers have employed since 2004 to market such firearms to the American gun-loving public?
Where the hell is my sawed-off shotgun? Why isn’t the NRA lobbying for us to use the ideal weapon to combat a claustrophobic zombie apocalypse?
What about high-capacity magazines? Does the Second Amendment guarantee access to ammunition clips of unlimited capacity, despite the fact they may hold a seemingly ridiculous amount of ammo for civilian use?
If so and the Second Amendment should be strictly interpreted in a such a purist manner, what about the matter of handheld rocket launchers, which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said could be constitutional on Fox News last summer? If the founding fathers said I have the “right to bear arms,” and a rocket launcher is “bearable” (i.e., can be carried), doesn’t the Constitution guarantee me the right to carry one wherever I please, like near an airport?
If you don’t mind me asking, how many rounds do you plan to fire at a time without having to worry about changing clips? Thirty? Fifty? A hundred?
How many deer HAVE you ever seen within firing distance at any given time? Won’t the other 99 simply take off running once you fire the first round?
What do you plan on shooting at? How many deer HAVE you ever seen within firing distance at any given time? Won’t the other 99 simply take off running once you fire the first round?
Am I being an a–hole for asking why you need a 100-round magazine for your semi-automatic rifle? Do you think I’m one of those fanatics who hates guns and thinks they should be banned altogether? Do you think I’d be an easy target for a burglar? Did you know I own multiple guns and keep them loaded in my childless home?
If requiring background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases is an unconstitutional infringement by the government and/or won’t reduce gun violence, why can’t I buy as much Sudafed at the drugstore as I want? If convicted felons and suspected terrorists on the FBI’s no-fly list can effectively have unfettered access to high-capacity magazines and military-style firearms, why do I need to show ID to buy something to clear my congested nasal passages?
After all, if people really want to make crystal meth, won’t they just find a way to circumvent restrictions on acquiring its key ingredient? Don’t such restrictions mean that only criminals will have unrestricted access to Sudafed?
So why can’t I buy as much as I want at any given time and without showing my ID? It’s a legal, over-the-counter drug, isn’t it? Why can’t I stockpile it in case of a cold or flu epidemic? Why is the government infringing on my right to protect my family from dangerous cold and flu symptoms?
Are you getting pissed off reading this? Do you realize that I’m just asking questions?
Were you surprised by the NRA’s statement that we need more guns in schools? Do you think the answer is putting armed guards at every school?
What about schools with multiple buildings? Should there be an armed guard in each one? With ever-shrinking school budgets, would that mean we’d pay teachers even less to baby-sit your terrible kids?
When he made that statement, did NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre just happen to forget that there were two armed guards at Columbine High School when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold started shooting up the place, or did he know that fact full well and neglect to mention it because it doesn’t fit his organization’s narrative?
Why is the government infringing on my right to protect my family from dangerous cold and flu symptoms?
Are you surprised the spokesperson for arguably the most powerful special interest group would engage in intellectual dishonesty? Are you upset I called the NRA a “special interest group”?
Since the two armed guards at Columbine were less than effective in mitigating the slaughter because Harris and Klebold outgunned them, would LaPierre insist his proposed school armed guards carry assault weapons with high-capacity magazines to help ensure they won’t be outgunned by future shooters? Do we want to live a country where 6-year-olds attend schools guarded by people carrying AR-15s with 100-round clips? Doesn’t that sound like something you’d see in the Middle East?
What about arming the teachers, as some people have suggested? Is that a good idea? Do you really want the underpaid person baby-sitting your terrible kids to be armed? I mean, if you occasionally feel like killing your own offspring, why tempt fate?
But if arming teachers is the answer to stopping gun violence in schools, why stop there? If there are people capable of massacring a bunch of 6- and 7-year-olds, who’s to say someone isn’t depraved enough to walk into a hospital nursery and start mowing down newborn babies? Why aren’t we arming neonatal nurses? Who’s going to save all those infants from that madman? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WHY ISN’T EVERY NURSE PACKING HEAT?!?
Do you really think the answer to reducing gun violence is for EVERYONE to be armed? If so, is it safe to say you voted against Barack Obama? If the answer to both of those questions is “yes,” what makes you think every law-abiding American can carry a firearm responsibly if the majority of people in this country can’t even vote responsibly (i.e., against Obama)?
Speaking of government and mistrust, did you know that the ATF is legally forbidden from publishing even the most generic, aggregate data related to guns or gun violence? Did you know that the Centers for Disease Control is similarly legally forbidden from conducting studies involving firearm injuries or deaths?
So why the hell are these government agencies restricted from performing even such basic tasks? Have you ever heard of the Tihart Amendment, which was originally sponsored by Kansas Republican Congressman Todd Tihart in 2003 and has become a routine legislative instrument attached to federal spending bills that prohibit the ATF and CDC from appropriating one red cent for the aforementioned endeavors?
Do you really want the underpaid person baby-sitting your terrible kids to be armed? I mean, if you occasionally feel like killing your own offspring, why tempt fate?
Now who the hell would not only benefit from a government blackout on gun violence data, but also have the lobbying prowess to have one instituted for nearly ten years running? Remember when I earlier called the NRA “arguably the most powerful special interest group”? Should I have omitted the word “arguably”?
What would you say if the tire industry had coerced Congress into quashing all public data concerning deaths and injuries caused by defective tires? What would you say if the big pharma lobby had done the same with pharmaceuticals? Would you say that people who’d subsequently clamor for such data to be published are a bunch of liberal nuts who want to take away our tires and drugs?
Why did I only learn about the Tihart Amendment within the last couple weeks? How come the media hasn’t made a bigger deal (or any size deal, for that matter) about restoring government transparency regarding gun violence statistics? Are they just as intimidated by the NRA as most of Congress, or are they simply more interested in conflating the animosity between the most extreme factions of both sides of this argument because that’s what garners ratings?
How could the media get so many things wrong (i.e., naming Adam Lanza’s brother as the suspect, identifying the wrong Adam Lanza, reporting that Adam Lanza’s mother taught at Sandy Hook Elementary) in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown shooting? Was it because they felt compelled to give answers (that proved to be dreadfully wrong) rather than asking more questions? Sound familiar?
Why do some media outlets insist on giving crazed lunatics that commit such horrific acts so much damn publicity, both posthumously and otherwise? Why would a paper like the New York Post print photos of mass shooting suspects on its front page day after day when it knows damn well that could very well inspire other crazed lunatics with homicidal tendencies?
Seriously, if TV networks in this country universally refuse to show even fully clothed idiots running onto the field during sporting event broadcasts because they don’t want to give the dumbasses the undeserved attention they desire, nor inspire future game-disrupting morons, why the hell can’t the American tabloid press abstain from splashing images of depraved killers all over their goddam front pages?
Am I the only one who thought it was impossible for Piers Morgan to be an even more insufferable, more pompous douche nozzle?
Furthermore, to the same end of denying mass shooters the fame they may or may not crave, why doesn’t the media start referring to them by arbitrarily assigned, derogatory epithets? For instance, why not hereafter refer to Adam Lanza as the “Newtown Turdmuncher” or the “Sandy Hook Sh-tlicker”? Why can’t we refer to Harris and Klebold as the “Columbine Cockcheese Eaters”?
If we assign names to typhoons, hurricanes, and now winter storms, why can’t we assign unattractive monikers to monsters that kill more people than most weather events?
Finally, am I the only one who thought it was impossible for Piers Morgan to be an even more insufferable, more pompous douche nozzle? Did he really think he was helping by zealously berating and badgering a pro-gun spokesman on TV?
Have you heard about the petition calling on President Obama to deport the British citizen because of his outspoken stance on gun control? Though I couldn’t care less about what Piers Morgan thinks about frankly anything, where do I sign?