Blaming NRA over killings shows no amount of laws enough for anti-gunners

Spread the love

Loading

Examiner:

Misplacing blame for the killing of his son in the Isla Vista murders, the father of one of the victims issued a grief-stricken attack on the National Rifle Association Saturday, The Los Angeles Times reported.

“Why did Chris die? Chris died because of craven, irresponsible politicians and the NRA,” Richard Martinez told assembled reporters. “They talk about gun rights. What about Chris’ right to live? When will this insanity stop?”

The sentiments have been echoed by raving gun-grabbers on Twitter, where the tone is uglier. What’s emerging is something psychiatrist Sarah Thompson described as “Raging against Self-Defense,” that is, indignant slurs by people who bring neither facts nor logic nor anything but ignorance and hostility to the discussion. That said, those individuals have done gun owners an unintended service, because they clearly offer proof that no amount of “gun control,” for which California has been hailed as a leader by citizen disarmament groups, will ever be enough for them.

That everything currently being pushed on the national level as “common sense” and “reasonable” is already in place in California, that it proved wholly inadequate at stopping a determined, mad killer, and that this does not enter into what passes for their thought processes, shows they will not be satisfied until all guns are banned from private ownership. There can be no other conclusion.

It also shows they have no intention of actually engaging in that “national conversation on guns” the anti-gunners have fraudulently called for, when time after time they have demonstrated what they’re really interested in doing is dictating the terms of our surrender. That and being insulting.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

7 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

It’s sad when even those who have lost loved ones will use personal tragedy to promote a political agenda.

Richard, meet Cindy Sheehan. Cindy, Richard.

F-ck the NRA. The father is a gun owner. I’m a gun owner. They don’t represent him and they don’t represent me. They don’t represent the majority of Americans, and they sure as hell don’t represent a rational understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

@Greg: But they represent me. You have your opinion, I have mine and that, too, is still allowed.

But, the fact is, the NRA standing up for 2nd Amendment rights hasn’t killed anyone. People with no regard for the lives of others does.

@Bill Burris: and then at @Bill Burris: , I can’t help to wonder if you are truly unaware of your irony and hypocrisy and if so, if it even matters.

I’m no expert on how people handle the grieving process after such tragic events as the case with Sheehan or Martinez but I find it highly doubtful that either immediately pondered any political stratagems to exploit. I’d say that in both cases, it’s more of holding someone accountable for what they feel is an unjustified reason to destroy their lives along with a drive to insure others don’t have to go what they went though and still dealing with.

Regardless if you were an advocate of the Iraq invasion and regardless of your opinion on gun regulations, most people find flaws in both. If you recall, attacking Iraq was not an overly popular decision nor did it have popular outcomes. And that isn’t just here at home as both Bush and Cheney would be promptly arrested for war crimes should they visit certain areas of the world. You might also note that people supported background checks by 70% to 90% depending on polls. But like Dick Cheney’s “So?” response to Americans dissatisfaction on Iraq, the GOP promptly flipped the bird to the overwhelming number of voters wanting background checks.

Yet, you tell us your take on the NRA is your right whereas the frustration with the legislator’s kowtowing to the NRA from a father of a young man slain in a senseless shooting attack, as well as a mother who lost a son in a very controversial unpopular, and what many view as an unneeded war is just political theater stunt.

Do you people ever even consider what you write?

@Ronald J. Ward: “I’m no expert on how people handle the grieving process after such tragic events as the case with Sheehan or Martinez but I find it highly doubtful that either immediately pondered any political stratagems to exploit.” As far as Mr. Martinez is concerned, since there has been very little exploitation of his comments, his actual, true motives are unknown. While I appreciate his loss, blaming the NRA for his son’s unnecessary death is so stupid that it would be comparable to blaming the automobile manufacturing company of the car he drove to the killings for his death. It is not a logical, intuitive assumption to jump to; it has to be borne of some deep-seated and previously conceived prejudice. It is natural to want to condemn whomever would be responsible for the unnecessary deaths; blaming the NRA is nothing but political because, no matter how you want to try and spin it, the NRA has nothing to do with any gun violence. None.

As to Sheehan, she abandon her son and never had anything to do with him until he was killed in combat. However, she was a long time leftist and leftists are known for exploiting tragedy. She could not have cared less about her son’s well being; this much is fact. However, once he was dead, no sense in letting “a crisis (or tragedy) go to waste”, as Rahm put it.

The left cares so much about stopping violence and curbing crime that they pursue their traditional assaults on the very rights that Americans use to protect themselves as they watch crime and violence rise. Liberals are happy to sacrifice lives for a political end (though not their own) and they are happy to exploit any tragedy to gain political points.

Maybe Martinez had an agenda, maybe not, but he certainly used his moment in the spot light to promote one. Sheehan is nothing but a shameless fame-whore who cared more about promoting her personal agenda than she ever did for her son.

@Bill Burris: I rest my case.

@Ronald J. Ward:

Yet, you tell us your take on the NRA is your right whereas the frustration with the legislator’s kowtowing to the NRA from a father of a young man slain in a senseless shooting attack

,

Unlike you, RJW, I have a problem when someone who has just lost a loved one to violence, is so quick to shove their faces into the first TV camera they can find. If that had been my son, I would not want to talk to anyone I am not close to.

But where is that man’s outrage over the deaths of the three young men the killer stabbed to death? Where is his outrage against the knife company that made the knife, or the store that sold it, or the car manufacturer (BMW) that built the car that the killer used to drive around shooting people, or maybe the killer’s own father, who makes movies full of violence and although his son had been seeing shrinks since age 8, failed to control his own kid?

It says a lot about a person who allows their political agenda to overtake what should be their grief. Cindy Sheehan, media-whore, was exactly that. Once she decided she could capitalize on her son’s death, and linked arms with Medea Benjamin of CodePinko, she played it for all it was worth. Then, when we had a new president, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., Sheehan has served her usefulness as the village idiot and Benjamin dropped her like a hot potato, although we continue to lose soldiers in Afghanistan.

You can blame the gun, blame the NRA, blame the auto company, blame the knife company, blame the city for providing streets to drive on or blame any other absurd thing you can think of, but in the end, the blame lies with the killer, and nothing/no one else.