How Many More Times?

The sound of humanity scraping bottom…..

BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — A pair of teenagers was arrested Friday and accused of fatally shooting a 13-month-old baby in the face and wounding his mother during their morning stroll through a leafy, historic neighborhood in southeast Georgia.

Sherry West had just been to the post office a few blocks from her apartment Thursday morning and was pushing her son, Antonio, in his stroller as they walked past gnarled oak trees and blooming azaleas in the coastal city of Brunswick.

Authorities said one of the teens fired four shots, grazing West’s ear and striking her in the leg, before he walked around to the stroller and shot the baby in the face. — Houston Chronicle

Yet again we see just how exactly dead-on (sorry) Wayne Le Pee-Air and the National Rifle Selling Association are when they proclaim, over and over, that the “only defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

gunsdontkillpeopleIn plain English: why was this 13 month old NOT CARRYING?

Where were his two shotguns?

Had that baby in the stroller been carrying, it could have defended itself.  Once again, it’s demonstrated at too high a cost that MORE guns, not FEWER, make us safer.

The NRA wants us to protect ourselves and one another, creating a safer society.  It’s these goddam liberals and their contempt for the 2nd Amendment that killed this innocent babe.  They want to abort babies.  The NRA demand arms usage and safety instruction for every fetus.

How many more times?

[photo credit]

Advertisements
This entry was posted in NIMBY. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to How Many More Times?

  1. Huckleberry says:

    Random and instant death is the price we all pay so that Americans who are addicted to the perceived power and authority that a piece of steel that fires a bullet brings them can be happy.

    It’s the U.S. of A…..love it or leave it.

    • Miami Harold says:

      @Huckleberry:

      An entire society is somehow obligated
      to entertain the addictions (your term)
      of peen-challenged death fetishists
      in the name of freedom?
      I think not.
      That’s not Our Way
      despite the wails of those who gain their lucre
      insisting that it is.

      • Huckleberry says:

        Harold: I don’t agree with it. I’m just telling like it is.

        You are so right with one thing: it is not Our Way. It is the NRA’s way…and that of its mindless followers.

        And don’t you ever forget it.

  2. Wonton Amaro says:

    We’re just not safe with as many guns as there are in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them. As obvious as that is, gunnies don’t accept it, and even among the few who do, there’s no agreement as to what to do about it. So babies get shot dead, sometimes by other babies.

  3. syrbal says:

    And yet, at my own blog, I got told this week how good it was that I did NOT want weapons taken or assault rifles banned. The other side can mis-read anything, I tell you. I think it is a kind of contagious madness…

  4. C. Howard Fields says:

    How about, “Who were the murderers?”
    Two Black boys murdered a White infant. Where’s the wall to wall coverage (a la Travon Martin) about this racist, hate crime?
    What if the boys had been White and the murdered baby were Black?
    Where’s the national outrage?

  5. Da Gun Nut says:

    We need to pass more gun laws!
    Let’s make it illegal for guns to be used to murder babies!
    Let’s make armed robbery with a gun a crime!
    It should be against the law for guns to be owned by people under 21 years old!
    Background checks for guns should be started in kindergarten!
    Any gun used in a crime should suffer the ultimate punishment!
    We’ll show these damned guns that they can’t get away with this kind of stuff!

    • 'Nonymous says:

      Hey Duh Gun Nut: Only a libtard blames the gun for something like this, and most of your suggestions here are already on the books. What we need is more cops on the street — cops with guns — and more, not less, of the proactive kind of stop-and-frisk enforcement that NYC implemented (and is in trouble for doing — from libtrards). Then maybe this little murdering hoodlum doesn’t get a chance to do his damage.

      • Da Gun Nut says:

        The Libtards and the Demoncraps just want more laws. They don’t want them enforced.
        And, everyone knows people don’t commit gun crimes, the guns do it all by themselves.

  6. Barbara Ganousch says:

    Was there a full moon this weekend? Some of the stupidest statements I’ve ever seen found their way here. Like “It’s the U.S. of A…..love it or leave it.” Who’s still deluded enough to say that in this day and age and thinks it means anything? But my fave is “The Libtards and the Demoncraps just want more laws. They don’t want them enforced.” This goes past delusional and paranoid into slobbering idiocy. If any of my 4th graders said something that foolish I’d suspect of them of inhaling chalk dust.

    It must have been a FOOL moon.

    • Da Gun Nut says:

      Then you would agree on capital punishment for any person that commits a crime with a gun?

      • Barbara Ganousch says:

        I don’t know where you get THAT conclusion, but no, I don’t. By and large I don’t think you improve civilization by executing your own citizens, even if they’re gun-wielding criminals. I don’t believe in cutting off thieves’ hands, either, or branding adulterers. There are more civilized and enlightened approaches to justice than Old Testament eye-for-an-eye violence.

    • One Man's Opinion says:

      Barb, the full moon is tonight.

  7. Dawgbowl says:

    The only people stupider than the ones who blame guns for crime are the ones who believe those of us who want better regulation actually blame guns. But as I see here as I did on SFDB for a while there, there’s a lot of stupid people.

  8. Da Gun Nut says:

    Barbara Ganousch says:
    March 26, 2013 at 9:30 am

    I don’t know where you get THAT conclusion, but no, I don’t. By and large I don’t think you improve civilization by executing your own citizens, even if they’re gun-wielding criminals. I don’t believe in cutting off thieves’ hands, either, or branding adulterers. There are more civilized and enlightened approaches to justice than Old Testament eye-for-an-eye violence.
    ===============================================================
    So, I’m guessing you are a pro-life individual? Mayhaps you would be willing to have the gun murderers be released to your custody and they could live with you so you could rehabilitate them. That way the rest of us wouldn’t have to bear the expense of keeping these worthless individuals alive and incarcerated.
    I don’t see capital punishment as “an eye for an eye.” I’m not a big Bible person.
    I see capital punishment as a pragmatic answer to removing diseased vermin from our society.

    • Barbara Ganousch says:

      Dear Gun Nut: As a teacher I read and mark a lot of students’ papers, so I’ve become rather adept at detecting patterns. The one I detect in your remarks is the refusal — I won’t say “inability” because I don’t know you personally — to see between the ends of the extremes. If something isn’t black, that doesn’t make it white.

      So first — No, I would not characterize myself as “pro-life” because that term has taken on a specific meaning relative to abortion issues, and describes a position I don’t favor.

      Second, you’ve changed your example from “using guns to commit a crime” to “gun murderers.” In your first example, to which I responded above, you could have armed robbers executed even if the gun they used wasn’t loaded. You could have muggers and burglars executed simply for possessing a gun at the time they committed crimes. As I stated, I don’t find this useful or civilized.

      Third, and most relevant, there are alternatives besides execution and releasing criminals into my custody. There are prisons, for example. There are sentencing guidelines that fit punishments to crimes. No, it’s not perfect — what is? But I would urge the judicial system to work diligently toward matching punishments to crimes, possibly including, in certain instances, the death penalty, although my thoughts on that are not fully developed.

      You may not see capital punishment as an Eye for an Eye, but that’s precisely what it is, a death in return for a death exclusively because of the death. But I, too, approve of removing vermin, as you put it. Charles Manson has been removed, as has Jerry Sandusky. But both live and, hopefully, suffer their regrets.

  9. Anonymous says:

    I just “borrowed” the first line. See my blog! 😉

  10. I just borrowed the first line of this post…

    see my blog. 🙂

    • Squathole says:

      Anonymous: By “borrow” I presume you mean “steal.” Nice of you to ‘fess up, but it doesn’t change the crime. Meanwhile, since you don’t provide a link, it’s all kind of futile, innit? Maybe you need to go back to spam school.

      Thanks for stopping by.

      Oh, wait! Is this the link?

      Note: Anonymous comment has since been modified by the Omniscient Editor

      • Ted End says:

        That’s not the link, Squathole. It’s some kind of flash vid which I watched it for about 5 minutes and didn’t see any part of your post. Whatever your trying to pull this time you can’t fool me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s