A psychopath has killed 19 people – most of them elementary school-age kids. Another psychopath – older, with wispy hair plugs, who likes to sniff kids – assumes the royal “we” and demands it be “dealt” with.
Not the kid-sniffing.
He also does not mean harshly dealing with those who harm other people. He means harming millions of people who’ve never harmed anyone – with guns or otherwise. Per the writer William Burroughs, who said: “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.”
It is interesting to note that after government shooters shot (and burned to death) a whole building full of mostly women and kids at Waco, Texas there were no calls to “deal” with it – by taking away the government’s guns.
Nor after every tiresomely repetitive unjustified shooting of harmless people by armed government workers; i.e., the “police.” Egregious examples include the 2016 murder – honest English – of unarmed and crawling on the floor Daniel Shaver by an AGW named Philip Brailsford at a La Quinta inn in Mesa, AZ. Brailsford was punished with lifetime disability payments for the “PTSD” he claimed he suffered as a result of shooting Shaver as he begged not to be.
It is not an “isolated case.”
Such cases occur with more regularity than those performed by the non-badged. More than 1,000 of them, every year to date. Even if “only” a fourth of those were “unjustified,” it is still a lot of them.
The Black Lives Matter people – who caused a great deal of harm – urged “defunding” of the police. No one urged they be disarmed – notwithstanding the harms they’ve caused. Indeed, armed government workers enjoy privileges the rest of us don’t – such as being able to carry their gun into a school or bar, for instance – which is an offense when we do it (even if we have a government permission slip to carry a gun otherwise).
Government says you must drive an electric car – assuming you can afford to – because the planet is being harmed by ”greenhouse gasses.” But government is the most profligate source of these “gasses” – and can afford to “emit” as much of them as it likes – because we’re paying for it. The military pilots burning holes in the sky with their afterburning jet engines that do not have to “comply” with fuel economy standards don’t have to worry about how much it costs to fill ‘er up before the next flight because they don’t have to put it on their debit card.
They put it on ours.
The Thing and his wispy hair plugs are driven hither and yon in the gas-guzzliest (and so greatest gaseous-emitting) vehicles conceivable – short of actually pouring fuel into an empty swimming pool and tossing a match on it. Custom-outiffted 747s with four thirsty jet engines. Two 747s, necessary for the entourage. Then via a 9,000-plus pound armored limousine based on a Chevy Suburban that uses twice as much gas as a Suburban – because it’s armored several inches thick.
But he is the president – and must be protected! This is understandable. A maniac might otherwise do him harm.
What is inexplicable is the contrary; i.e., that we are to accept being unprotected. Disarmed – so as to be unable to protect ourselves from maniacs – on account of the harm we have not caused.
What is styled “gun control” is true enough in the sense that it is about control, all right. Also that it “works” – in the manner that Face Diapers “work.” Both presume something to be the case that isn’t actually the case. As regards Face Diapers, the presumption is that the wearer might be sick or could get sick and therefore must be treated as sick, even in the ongoing absence of any reason other than fear (of the “might”) to believe he is actually sick.
And, of course, the Face Diapers do not “work” – in the sense of preventing sickness from being spread.
Yet the Thing urges that guns be taken away from us or otherwise “controlled” – on the basis of the presumption that we might cause harm, irrespective of no harm having actually been caused.
By people who actually have caused a great deal of harm, with guns and otherwise.
This disconnect flow from a defect of the mind, cognitive dissonance – i.e., the inability to recognize incongruity – and the related etiology of one-sided Safetyism. When it suits the government, “safety” is a kind of fetish object – one we’re expected to venerate and often punished if we do not. But when it suits us – as to be protected, by ourselves – the same government suddenly has a problem with it.
How much safer might that school have been had some of those teachers had the means to shoot back? How much less likely might the shooting have been if the shooter believed they had those means?
Ask the kid-sniffing Thing. He knows he’s safe.
And we know how much less safe we are – courtesy of these things.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)