Sunday, July 22, 2012

More guns not less would have minimized CO massacre deaths

Today New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg asked the two candidates for president how they were going to address the massacre in Colorado:

"I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day, it's just got to stop. And instead of the two people – President Obama and [Gov.] Romney – talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place, [OK], tell us how."

Here's how - start by making it easier (not harder) for law abiding citizens to obtain and carry weapons AT ALL TIMES. My point is - How many would have died in the Aurora massacre if just 1% of the moviegoers were exercising their second amendment rights and packing heat? As it was, the gunman had absolutely no resistance at all. He had a theater full of sheep.

But the liberals' answer - in typical knee-jerk simpleton reaction - is to 'ban all the guns' and the problem will be solved. Of course, this course of action has been proven wrong over and over and over again. Just ask Mayor Rahm Emanuel in Chicago. DC? Since their enforcement of more stringent gun ownership (effectively making it virtually impossible for citizens to obtain weapons) gun related murder rates have skyrocketed.

The answer is more armed citizens not less but this will never be an option for the liberals. Why? because it puts the citizen in control and not the government and that just can't happen. The liberals would much rather sacrifice a few of the electorate than relinquish one iota of control over our lives. Their goal is nothing less than utter and total gun ban. And as usual they are 180 degrees off (just like their view on raising taxes during a recession).

If Romney really wanted to make this event into something positive he should embrace making it easier for citizens to get weapons not harder. It may not be popular with the MSM but it would certainly draw a surefire difference between his vision of America and his opponents'. 

For more evidence that more guns are better see the post right before this one

Exit question: Which of the two gun related events this week will get the most play from the MSM?


  1. WOW!!! You are FUCKING IDIOT!!!!!
    First of all, do you ever know the word FEWER?
    Every single wacko like you is an illiterate. I have never seen one exception.
    It makes sense that a dumbfuck like you has to own a truck.
    How the fuck would more guns prevent this shooting?? People are supposed to bring guns to theaters? Are they suppsed to hold them pointed through the entire movie and walking in and out? Holding a gun STILL doesn't prevent you from getting shot- DUH. There is ONE WAY to prevent getting shot: BAN GUNS!!!!
    It is a simple statistical fact that more guns causes more deaths.
    It is complete redneck morons like you in this country that always prevents any progress.
    The real problem in this country is a growing STUPIDITY.

    1. Anon - First of all I would be remiss if I didn't chide you on your language. We here at 6079 are a PG site so try to keep you comments to the point you want to make. I am certain you can get your point across without making them offensive.

      That being said, thank you for dropping by and thank you for pointing out that I am, let's see here, an idiot, a wacko, illiterate, a dumbf****, a redneck, a moron and of course stupid. My ex-wife has been saying just those things for sometime now. It's nice to get a second opinion.

      Anyway, I just reread my post and am stunned to find that I did not (as you suggested) indicate that if the patrons at the theater were packing heat, the incident would have been 'prevented'. However, it appears that I did insinuate that if said patrons were packing heat they could have 'prevented' the level of bloodshed.

      You see my liberal friend, it is my contention that if more law abiding citizens were packing heat, then the ratio of good guys to bad guys would improve. You see the bad guys are already carrying weapons. But according to you all we have to do is 'ban guns' and suddenly the bad guys will what? Turn in their guns. REALLY, you actually believe this?

      If you think this is true then I do agree with your last sentence - there is a growing stupidity problem in this country.

      Thanks again for dropping by.

    2. Oopsie! Your Stats are completely wrong. More guns means fewer deaths. I have a concealed carry permit and always have my gun. To date, I have managed NOT to kill anyone and my gun has not done so on its own. Wow, your language betrays your IQ!

    3. Anon - thanks for the comment. But I want to be sure - you are saying that your gun has not killed anyone one its' own. That's NOT what the Liberals would have me believe!

  2. Notice how this happens WAY more in this country (with ll the guns) than anywhere else? Why are people here so DUMB???

    1. Anon - thanks for dropping by. actually the number of these types of attacks are down, we just live in a 24 hour news cycle that makes it appear more frequent.

      I'm not sure what the rest of your comment means but thank you for dropping by.

  3. And, by the way, why would the woman in the picture ever need to be disarmed??
    All anyone would have to do is shoot her.

    Because of all you GUN MORONS, it is going to just get way worse in this country before all the idiots WAKE UP and see the obvious.

    1. Anon - thanks for your comment. Not sure what you mean - I assume that it is your contention that if we take all the guns from law abiding citizens then the criminals will put theirs away to make it a fair fight? Is that truly what you mean? Below there is a comment deriding me because I think liberals are naive. Thank you very much for making my case for me.

      Cheers mate.

  4. Oh, I forgot. All you truckfuck gun-nut retards are "tough guys" (with beer guts) so no one could ever shoot you.
    Nevermind that it happens all the time.

    And "Liberals" are all naive pussies. Also, all critical thinking is just "whining" to the "Conservatives" who believe in no conservation.

    The United States of Stupid People

    1. Anon - first of all I must warn you on your language. We here at 6079 try to keep it strictly PG - that being said thank you for dropping by even if you are being rude.

      Now to your comment. Your comment is a bit of a nonsequitur but since all I have to do today is clean my Ruger .38 I'll spare the time.

      I'm not sure where you got the caricature of 'gun-nuts' I can only assume from your liberal support groups and the President's gun clinging/bible toting description so I guess I can forgive you since your idea comes more from your ignorance than experience.

      It has been my experience that the gun 'clingers' I've known are oddly enough regular law abiding citizens. In fact you've probably met them yourself and have had no idea (gasp).

      Finally I do agree that all Liberals are naive. what you call critical thinking is little more than further attempts to erode my rights as prescribed by the Constitution. If that makes me 'stupid' count me in.

      Thank you again for stopping by, please next time check the foul language at the door, it weakens you argument and makes you sound like you are ranting rather than debating.

  5. Please tell me how your guns will defend against chemical and radiological "dirty bomb" weapons???

    1. Anon- Thank you for your comment and debate. The second amendment was not designed to deter terrorist (home grown or otherwise) only give individuals the right to protect themselves from other citizens.

      As it stands now, tt is my understanding that it is currently illegal to posses chemical, radiological and dirty weapons.

      However, you bring up a good point. Since you think my fellow citizens will have the ability to have these weapons perhaps we should amend the constitution to give me the rights to have them too. Thanks for the suggestion.


I will leave it up to those leaving comments to moderate themselves. Keep in mind that this site is PG and comments should reflect this.