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.”NOTE TO IVORY TOWER EGGHEAD: Nowhere that any of your proposed gun laws would have stopped them.
“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?”
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.