Who's Happy that the SC Favored Guns over Lives? Why Freepers, Gun Nuts, and Murderers of course!

[Herman74]

But let's get more specific:

Chimpy is quite happy:

"I applaud the Supreme Court's historic decision today confirming what has always been clear in the Constitution: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear firearms," Bush said today.

And you know that the NRA and this guy here are also very happy:



You might guess that crazy Son of Sam is happy, but from what I understand he's feeling pretty guilty nowadays about all the people he shot:



Never mind him. With all the guns in American society, and too many people indifferent to the carnage, we're just bound to get more of the following situations in our future! First something like this guy:



then followed by the candlelight vigils for the dead:



What’s that screaming that you hear now? Gun nuts yelling about just how wonderful guns are in self-defense? Let’s look into this matter. Consider the following case: “Miami-Dade police said that four officers were shot Thursday morning after stopping a man who was driving erratically.” (see http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/bulletins_read/131334.html ). Alas, one of these officers died. What you and I can figure out, but what the gun nuts have so much difficulty with, is the fact that the criminal having foreknowledge that a crime is about to be committed draws his gun first. And a gun isn’t really of much use for self-defense if it’s still in the holster, even if it’s in the holster of someone well trained with guns, right?

Ah, but we can still hear the gun nuts screaming: “That doesn’t mean anything! Murderers might still think twice if they thought there was any possibility at all of getting shot at, so in our wonderful gun-saturated country murder rates are low.” But they’re not low. The U.S. homicide rate is easily the highest in the industrialized West, almost three times that of gun-scarce Britain, and much higher than that for all the other industrialized countries (France, Netherlands, Canada, Germany, etc.) where guns are scarce. In Japan guns are basically illegal, and the murder rate is easily less than 20 percent of what it is here. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_murder_rate )

The gun nuts will at this point undoubtedly try to compare DC’s murder rate with some other U.S. locale lacking gun control laws. But such comparisons are, of course, worthless, for the criminals in DC can just take the subway to get their guns from nearby Virginia!! No, until the entire country bans the sale, possession, and manufacture of guns and bullets, we really can’t see the effect of what a gun ban would do by looking at particular gun bans that merely have a tiny (though likely positive) impact.

WELL THEN, WHO EXACTLY IS OPPOSED TO TODAY’S SUPREME COURT RULING?

Why the liberals of course, starting with the liberals on the Supreme Court! Let’s look at the dissenters:
Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter. All of the Court’s liberal wing.

And what Supremes made up the majority?

Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, “Machine Gun Sammy” Alito, and Roberts. All conservative, all appointed by Republicans. Which way to go? Hmm. Scalia or Ginsburg, Scalia or Ginsburg? I’ll go with Ginsburg, and let the gun nuts side with Scalia.

Yeah, it’s basically a no-brainer determining what the true progressive position is. The true progressive values human life over his or her own material possessions. The true liberal gladly relinquishes his right to one means of self-protection (there are others) if it means that a CRAZED NUT CAN NO LONGER WALK INTO A CLASSROOM AND SHOOT TEN AMISH SCHOOLGIRLS IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD AS THEY BEG FOR THEIR LIVES, WITH BLOOD FLYING EVERYWHERE.

Sorry if some of you found that last part a bit graphic, but somebody’s got to wipe the faces of the gun nuts in the blood of the victims. Maybe, just maybe, a few of them will then start giving a damn.