Posted on 02/01/2013 7:30:49 PM PST by John Semmens
Vice-President Joe Biden, the man tapped by President Obama to lead his Administrations efforts to push gun control legislation, acknowledged that Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down.
Biden insisted that critics contention gun control laws are, therefore, useless or counterproductive represents a short-sighted view. While the projected impact on criminals is likely to be minor, the number of firearm fatalities at the hands of the law-abiding will go down. To the extent that the laws deter or delay access to weapons by those willing to conform to the rules, fewer people will be shot by these persons.
Look, everybody with any sense knows that your hardcore criminal isnt going to be swayed by any rules we can enact, Biden added. Case in point, Chicago has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. In fact, many of the measures were looking at for a nationwide program are modeled on what Chicago has already done. Yet Chicago has one of the worse murder rates in the country precisely because criminals there dont obey the Citys laws. But just because we cant keep guns out of the hands of these outlaws doesnt mean we have to give up on the idea of disarming as many others as we can.
Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill) took issue with Bidens perspective saying that the Vice-Presidents distinction between criminals and the so-called law-abiding is flawed. If we do it right, mere possession of a gun will be a criminal offense. So by definition the number of criminals we will be able to crackdown on will be expanded. If police are the only ones allowed to legally have weapons the whole job of enforcing gun control would be simplifiedanyone else brandishing a gun would automatically be classified as an armed and dangerous felon and could be legitimately shot on sight.
Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif) asserted that while Senator Durbin is, I think, on the right track. I believe that there may be a need for persons other than the police to be authorized to carry weapons. Those of us in government who may be targeted by extremists should be permitted to defend ourselves. Tragic as it may be for a private citizen to be victimized by a gun-toting assailant, it cannot compare with the threat to our whole social and political system that an assault on a member of our government poses. There is a paramount need for us to prevent such a possibility in any way that we can.
In related news, the Department of Homeland Securitys stockpile of bullets reached the two billion round mark this past week. Quizzed as to why her Department would need six times as many rounds as the entire population, Secretary Napolitano pointed out that while it would take only a single bullet to the head to dispatch a person, we cannot rely upon those who pose a threat to the government to be so accommodating as to just line up to be shot. We need the firepower to overcome any resistance or, better still, to project an image so daunting that none would dare rise up against us.
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
http://azconservative.org/2013/02/02/democrats-debate-nuances-of-gun-control/
ping
ping
ping
I dont think that this is very funny...
There is no "nuance".
Any gun control legislation is nothing more than a bloody-minded and bloody-handed attempt to place honest citizens naked and defenseless in the face of violent criminals and violent tyrants.
Durbin and Feinstein are of the same substance as Hitler and Stalin.
Now it all makes sense!
Unless I take my meds.
Satire does not necessarily have to be funny to be satirical. In this case there is some humor in the plausibility of some of the dialogue.
Congrats John. You really know how the Leftist mind works.
That’s actually so not funny because that is how they think.
“I dont think that this is very funny...”
But, that’s an actual quote from Joe Biden. The rest flows from that.
“Nothing we are going to do is fundamentally going to alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down,” is just what he said.
Fake, but accurate.
Then why the {expletive} would you even consider taking action you know and acknowledge will be ineffective? Ooh, that's right, it isn't about safety, that's just a line. It is about control. ESAD you fascist.
People are KILLED by guns BECAUSE they are UNARMED... mostly...
Perfect semi-satire..as always.
Semi-news...it’s what these overlords really think!
Thanks for the ping.
Unfortunately, this too close to the truth.
You perfectly capture the screwed up logic. Thanks again for the ping.
Thanks for the ping.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.