Friday, December 14, 2012

Hurry Up, Please. It's Time. UPDATED

(Editorial cartoon by Lee Judge / The Kansas City Star (December 13, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC.  Click on image to enlarge and then please return your backside to this post.  Thank you.)

So, another shooting, this time at a shopping mall at the height of the holiday shopping season.  I suppose we should be grateful that the death toll this time is in single digits, but I don't take much comfort in that.  It's another one of those cases of  "it should never have happened."

I do, however, take some comfort that the governor of Colorado is finally willing to speak out against the ease with which people can obtain the kinds of weapon that wreak this kind of madness.  Gov. Hickenlooper, a Democrat, refused any kind of call for a change in gun laws after the Aurora shooting, but apparently he's had a change of heart.

From an AP report published in the Denver Post.

Five months after a movie theater massacre in suburban Denver shocked the nation, Colorado's Gov. John Hickenlooper now says "the time is right" for state lawmakers to consider gun control measures.

The Democratic governor has until now resisted calls to review state gun laws after the shootings in Aurora. Hickenlooper upset some in his party when he said last summer that stricter laws would not have prevented the massacre.

In an interview with The Associated Press Wednesday, Hickenlooper said enough time has passed since the tragedy and that the legislative session in January would be an appropriate time to take up a debate gun control measures.

Now Gov. Hickenlooper is not exactly the wild-eyed radical bent on wresting 2nd Amendment rights from all right-thinking citizens.  In fact, he's one of those "go along to get along" Dems we've been blessed with.  In other words, he's a DINO.

From the same AP report not reproduced in the initial Denver Post report:

Hickenlooper said the issues that merit discussion include "things like, do we all need assault weapons?" which he said are "designed for warfare" and "designed to pierce bulletproof vests and body armor." ...

Hickenlooper has long prided himself on being a moderate who tries to forge compromises between Republicans and Democrats. But the upcoming session could pose challenges to Hickenlooper with Democrats controlling both chambers of the Legislature, unlike the previous two years of split legislative control. Now legislation that Republicans heavily oppose can actually get to Hickenlooper's desk, forcing him to take difficult stances.   [Emphasis added]

Rubber, meet road.


A shooting at a Connecticut elementary school Friday left 27 people dead, including 18 children, an official said.

Kyrie Eleison

Labels: ,


Anonymous someofparts said...

must be a trend

5:23 AM  
Blogger John Gardner said...

As your nitpicking nephew...

1) an AR-15 isn't an assault weapon. People like to call it that because it "assault" is a scary word that's scary. an AR15 is a semi-automatic rifle. An assault rifle has "select fire" capability, either burst or full auto, which the AR doesn't have. (although contrary to what politicians say, burst+full auto are not illegal at the federal level, they simply require forms and a $200 tax. they are legal to own in many states)

2) the .223 cal or 5.56mm cartridge fired by an AR was not "designed to pierce bullet proof vests". was designed in the 1960's to be smaller and lighter than the more common 7.62mm bullets in use at the time. The purpose was so that soldiers could carry more lighter ammo (almost 2x a much!) and be more effective, before body armor was common. The bullet is designed to "tumble" once it hits something soft, which doesn't work against body armor.

That design also means that it isn't as powerful at long distances as the 7.62x39mm bullet fired by the AK, leading to it being less useful at long range and especially longer ranges with body armored opponents, which has become an issue in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Recent improvements ~2010 have made better 5.56mm ammo, but it isn't very common outside the military. And it would be much more expensive than standard ball ammo.

3) using the "designed for warfare" designation, which may be partially true, is a little nebulous. Aside from those that are specialized for hunting, almost every sword, bow and gun was designed for warfare at some point in history. So were jet engines, rockets, jeeps, radios, GPS, etc.

9:41 AM  
Blogger John Gardner said...

Although, with today's news. Ug.

What father is crazy + mad enough to shoot a bunch of elementary school kids. That's just f'd up.

10:30 AM  
Blogger Diane said...

You are still a brat, John! You are just lucky I love you dearly.

10:30 AM  
Blogger chicago dyke said...

john, you are a fool.

for the primary reason that you don't support, worship and otherwise listen to you aunt D. who is one of the most special and important people you will ever know.

secondly: i'm sorry about your penis. it's not a crime or a sin to have a small one. accept this. the quality of your lovers in your life will improve, when you do.

maybe you served, maybe you did not. i have. fourth generation in my family. here's what you should understand: there's a difference between understanding how to operate a weapon, and worshiping one. people who have killed others aren't proud of it, and don't talk about it, unless they are sociopaths.

finally: there are no roving bands of zombies, niggers, homosexuals, feminazis, socialists or eco-terrorists coming to take away Your FreedDumb. really, you can relax and get on with the business of living life. peacefully.

grow up. read a book. listen to D. understand that you will never, ever be a billionaire. you might even be talented enough to warrant that, but the ones who exist today won't let you, because you're not one of them right now.

think about that. and think about why you defend what protects them, but literally kills the children of people like you. it may even kill you, someday, if you don't wake up.

11:56 AM  
Blogger John Gardner said...

Wow. just wow.

by pointing out the incorrectness of the reasons that people use to try to ban guns, I get a giant tirade of racist homophobic slurs and misandry. nice. quality discussion, there.

I understand when people have specific reasons for banning things like high capacity magazines. But generic reasons like "designed for warfare" just aren't useful in the discussion. In order to ban anything, you need specifics. Not rhetoric.

If "Chicago dyke" had their way, I have a feeling there would be a roving gang coming to take away my freedoms. But such is the beauty of freedom of speech.

3:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home