Can we Think of Anything MORE Tangential?

“Cop Killer Feared Obama Gun Ban.”

Have you ever seen a dumber headline?

I just read up on Richard Poplawski, the guy who gunned down three cops after his mother threatened to throw him out of her house. To look at the stupid, misleading headlines, you would think this poor fool shot three innocent people because he was upset about Obama’s gun-grabbing ways. The stories show that isn’t true. He was just a jerk. His mom was angry because his dog was urinating in her house, and there was an argument, and when she called the police, he decided to suit up in body armor and shoot them. Explain what that has to do with gun control. This nut was just trying to show his mommy she couldn’t push him around.

The stories say he didn’t like Obama’s gun-control policies. Show me a gun-owning civilian who does. You know the Vietnamese guy who shot up the immigration center? He didn’t like those policies, either. How do I know? I don’t, to be honest. But it’s a safe bet. Did objections to gun control have anything to do with either set of shootings? Clearly not. These men didn’t shoot up the Brady Center. They didn’t shoot up the offices of Democrat politicians or the BATF. One shot cops, and the other shot former coworkers at a business where he was systematically humiliated. These killers had problems completely unrelated to gun control, and there is no reason to believe that gun control was on their minds when they decided to commit murder.

I’m angry about Obama’s indisputable disregard for the Bill of Rights. No doubt about it. But I’m not going to shoot anyone over it. I’m not crazy, for one thing. For another, how is committing a massacre supposed to advance your civil rights as a gun owner? I can’t see the logical connection, and I think most rational, law-abiding gun owners, and even most homicidal loonies–including Richard Poplawski–would agree with me.

It’s disgusting that the press is making an obvious push to use this pathetic worm of a man as justification for banning guns. He is utterly atypical. And the harm done by banning guns far outweighs the good. Admittedly, privately owned guns could not have prevented or mitigated this slaughter. But that’s unusual. They could have put a stop to Jiverly Wong in a New York minute. He went into a place where he knew he would be the only armed person, and the results were exactly what you would expect. Contrast him with the idiot Jean Assam shot at New Life Church. Matthew Murray killed four people and shot three others, but the first armed citizen he encountered put him on the ground and rendered him helpless, and his only recourse was to shoot himself. And what about Charles Whitman, the famous University of Texas shooter who was pinned down by civilian fire until the police blew his brains out? What about the millions of gun crimes that are prevented every year by civilians? Finally, what about the fact that the cops are JUST TOO SLOW? In the time it takes to get a 911 operator on the line, a civilian with a gun can kill several criminals.

Do you know how long a Jiverly Wong would last in my presence? Exactly as long as I permitted him to last, and not one minute more. That’s the difference between me and an unarmed person, and it is a precious difference.

Get yourself a copy of the NRA’s monthly magazine, America’s First Freedom, and read the Armed Citizen feature. Our lying press buries these stories, but every month, several make it to print. Criminals try to take on armed civilians, and they end up wounded or dead. It happens over and over and over in America, and in order to hear about it, you have to look at an obscure magazine published by a nonprofit organization. Meanwhile, a man who shot three cops for reasons utterly unrelated to gun control is portrayed in headlines as a second amendment crusader.

If Richard Poplawski were a Buddhist, would we see “New York Buddhist Kills Three”? If he were a vegetarian, would we see “Cops Slaughtered by Angry Vegan”? Of course not. Those things are irrelevant to his crime. And so is his support for the right to bear arms. It was not part of his motivation for committing this crime. He’s just an immature, underdeveloped, gutless half-man who blames the world for his glaring inadequacy and can’t stand to be told what to do. Just like Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski and Lee Harvey Oswald.

The issue of whether the laws preventing nuts like this from getting guns are adequate is a separate matter. The press tells us he was dishonorably discharged from the military. That’s one of the things they ask you about during a background check. So why did he have guns? A dishonorable discharge makes you ineligible to buy guns; presumably, it makes you ineligible to possess them. Sounds like the laws needed to protect his victims were already in place. If we don’t apply the laws we already have, what is the point of passing new ones? Wouldn’t enforcement of existing laws make more sense? How many laws do we need to NOT enforce before we’ll be safe?

Here’s a headline for you. “COPS MASSACRED DUE TO FAILURE TO ENFORCE EXISTING GUN LAWS.” You won’t see that one any time soon.

I don’t think Obama has the muscle to take our guns, but it’s still important to support the NRA and speak out against dishonest reporting. We are going to be buried in new taxes soon. The seeds of socialism are in the ground, and they are so big, there is probably no way to keep them from growing to maturity. Our lifestyle is never going to be what it used to be, except perhaps for temporary respites paid for by selling out generations yet to be born. If the US is going to shrivel and pucker until it resembles Europe, we should at least try to retain the ability to defend ourselves.