Thursday, April 25, 2013

Now That's A Special Kinda Stupid...

(image courtesy of Robb Allen)

New Yorker editor: Gun control would have made bombing harder to pull off
Editor of The New Yorker and former Washington Post reporter David Remnick suggested Monday night that the Senate gun control legislation would have made the Boston Marathon bombing “a hell of a lot more difficult to pull off.”

“I think a domestic question has to be asked is how do kids like [the Tsarnaev brothers] get guns?” Mr. Remnick asked host Charlie Rose. “Where are they getting side arms from?”
NOTE TO IVORY TOWER EGGHEAD: Nowhere that any of your proposed gun laws would have stopped them.

I really can't tell which scares me more: The thought that he might be using this as a fig leaf for more and more gun control that will eventually lead to disarmament, or that he's so stupid he really believes this crap. What's he's saying is "We need more laws to stop people from breaking laws we passed to stop people from breaking laws." They lived in MA. We have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. One brother was ineligible to own a handgun because of his age, the other for a domestic violence charge. Yet they still got guns. But had the Senate passed a background check bill, this wouldn't have happened.

Because people selling guns to ineligible persons in a state that REQUIRES a permit TO OWN will magically stop breaking laws.

IDIOTS. Intellectual pygmies.

Here's another fact, Einstein: 75% of the deaths were caused by the bombs they built. And the explosives they used? Oh, they weren't gunpowder like Frank "Replacement" Lautenberg wants background checks to buy. Oh no. It was the propellant in fireworks. Is Harry Reid going to propose that we get a background check to buy bottle rockets now? Oh, and fireworks are illegal in Massachusetts. So, no, you fucking dolt, this act WOULDN'T have been stopped by more gun control laws.

It really is amazing that some people can live to adulthood without drinking out of a bottle with a skull and crossbones on it, it really is...

That is all.


Anonymous said...

so they must have bought them at gun shows?

Bubblehead Les. said...

So the Boston Bombers needed a Second Gun.

So they decided to find a Cop. Ambush him from behind, and steal his Service Weapon.

Except that they couldn't figure out how to work the Security Holster, so they left it.

Which delayed them enough where they got into a Firefight where they threw Homemade Explosives at the Cops.

All because they couldn't pass CURRENT Gun Laws.

So this Fucking Stupid Taxpayer-Fed Ivory Tower Idiot wants something that did work against the Bombers and make it tougher?

Uh, they KILLED a Cop to get a GUN. One of the Guys who Guards HIS Ass while he's spouting Nonsense on His Campus.

Dumb. Just Fucking Dumb.

Anonymous said...

Odd question here....

The bombers planned, purchased, built, and deployed explosive devices without showing or requiring use of firearms.
The bombers purchased large quantities of fireworks (but not firearms) for use in the manufacture of aforementioned bombs.


How does banning firearms change any of these primary attacks?

They would still be able to purchase large quantities of fireworks and modify them to their nefarious ends. They would still be able to purchase or find various bits of items for use as shrapnel (ball bearings work just as well as BBs). They would still be able to purchase the high capacity, assault pressure cookers.

If stupid hurt (and it should), the person suggesting that more gun laws would stop this should be writhing in pain on the ground.

Joseph in IL

Jay G said...


Sure, they might have purchased the firearm at a gun show.

If they could find someone willing to break Federal law, that is.

They are ineligible to own handguns in MA. One is ineligible to own anywhere because of the domestic violence issue.

Therefore, *ANYONE* that sold they a pistol would be breaking either state law (if in MA, because they're tranfering to an ineligible person) or Federal Law (if they're at a gun show out of state).

We have tons of laws already. We don't need more.

Dirk said...

I'm sure bringing fireworks into the state is also illegal - so chalk up yet another law they broke...

It's almost like laws don't matter to criminals, or something.

Stretch said...

Editor of The New Yorker and former Washington Post reporter David Remnick is a prime example of why we need to do away with helmet, seat-belt, and other "safety" laws. They have allowed the stupid to live to breeding age thus producing a high level of idiot.

Daniel in Brookline said...

I think some people just don't get the idea that some problems cannot be solved by passing more laws. (Generally these people are lawyers, I once thought -- you know, when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and so forth -- but I can't believe all the pass-more-gun-laws crowd are lawyers.)

I like Jay's reductio ad absurdum, though. "Hey, here's a great idea -- let's pass a law that makes breaking the law ILLEGAL!"

I'm reminded of the old joke about the minutes from a town meeting:
1. Resolved: the town jail is old and obsolete; we will build a new town jail.
2. Resolved: to save money, we will build the new jail using the materials of the old jail.
3. Resolved: we will use the old jail until the new jail is finished.

You see, there's just a basic comprehension problem there...

Ed said...

There appears to be a basic problem in comprehending how laws work. To use the First Amendment example, you have the right to free speech, but you cannot falsely yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater lacking any indication of a fire. There essentially is nothing to stop you from falsely yelling "Fire!", but there is a law to arrest, indict, prosecute, convict and incarcerate those who do.
There already exists many gun control laws, but these laws are worthless if the lawful arrest, indict, prosecute, convict and incarcerate process is not followed uniformly. If the laws are Unconstitutional and will not withstand the complete process then they are a waste of resources and damaging for both the government and those the government would govern. If those in government want to "do something", then they should thoroughly review existing law and repeal all laws that are not consistently applied to the entire process described above. If you cannot get a jury to convict anyone under a current law, then the law is worthless and should be repealed.