So much statist mewling, so little time

Fisking something like this steaming pile of . . . "journalism" isn't difficult, but it's rather a lot of work, by virtue of the sheer volume of idiocy to debunk. Being lazy, I was not particularly looking forward to the endeavor. It was, therefore, with great appreciation that I saw that Nicki had already done the work, and done so vastly more effectively than I would have managed.

Just as I was thinking I was off the hook, though, I encountered another pro-tyranny screed, perhaps more abjectly, more contemptibly, more boot-lickingly in favor of the surrender of the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms than even the one that Nicki so efficiently dismantled. I realize, by the way, that "boot-lickingly" is not a real adverb, but consider that fact to be more an example of the limitations of the English language than an indication of my admittedly weak writing skills.

Since I hadn't noticed any other pro-rights bloggers dealing with it (they probably don't stoop to reading such things--I, however, have no such standards), I guess the task falls on my inadequate (and lazy) shoulders. This will be quick and dirty, and will lack the eloquence of the work of my betters, but what's a pro-gun rights Neanderthal to do?

When authorities thwarted 14-year-old Dillon Cossey’s planned massacre at Plymouth-Whitemarsh High School, the community of Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania—a forgettable Philadelphia suburb best known for its mall—shivered in terror upon realizing its own mortality.

"Shivered in terror," over a potential tragedy that had already been averted? I, for some reason, cannot stop thinking about Brave Sir Robin--it sounds as if he would have fit in fine in Plymouth Meeting, PA.

But now it seems that unspeakable tragedy was imminent.

"Unspeakable," eh? As evidenced by the utter silence about it, I suppose.

Along with a cache of pellet guns, swords, and grenades, the kid had a handgun, a rifle, and an assault rifle, all of which were bought for him by his mother

The kid did not have an "assault rifle," which is a rifle capable of fully-automatic fire, and which is thus extremely heavily regulated under a federal law that is over seventy years old. His other rifle (called simply a "rifle" by Mr. Manfred, apparently in order to distinguish it from the "assault rifle"--which, as just mentioned, is not an assault rifle) was a .22--capable of killing, certainly, but of more utility in a massacre of squirrels than in producing the kind of carnage from which the Brady Campaign tries to profit. As for the pellet guns and swords, are we "shivering in terror" over those, too?

Tony now gets to the heart of the matter:

Though the mother is obviously at fault for being crazy enough to buy her son these weapons, the larger issue is whether or not anyone should be able to buy guns in this country.

Ah--now I understand, since a parental skills-challenged woman bought her messed-up kid some weapons, including a few firearms, with which he planned to go on a rampage, the entire nation should be rendered defenseless (unable, I suppose, even to buy swords and pellet guns).

I can go to a store right now and buy an AK-47; is there not something incredibly disturbing about that?

Frankly, I would be more disturbed to think that you might reproduce, but that's probably just me.

Allowing people to run around with machine guns in order to maintain the integrity of the Bill of Rights is a sickening display of blind faith.

Again with the machine guns? What machine guns? The ones that since 1934 have been illegal for civilians to obtain without jumping through a draconian array of bureaucratic hoops? The ones that if built within the last twenty-one years, are unavailable to private citizens no matter what hoops they're willing to jump through?

The Second Amendment was drafted in the infancy of our nation and is not just inapplicable to our contemporary nation but detrimental to our contemporary nation.

I don't know if you've noticed, Tony, but quite a lot of the Constitution was drafted "in the infancy of our nation"--tyranny, and the threat of tyranny, existed then, requiring a free people to have at their disposal the means to resist it, and it exists now.

People aren’t keeping muskets in their cupboards in case the government comes and tries to take their land; they are stockpiling assault rifles so they can go out and murder dozens of little kids before anyone can even reach for their cell phone to call 911.

"Muskets in their cupboards"? Those must have been mighty big cupboards. I'm getting a little tired of pointing out that "assault rifles" are the almost exclusive province of the government, which I imagine is just how you like it, Tony (Ladd Everitt would be so proud). If you insist on using emotionally charged sensationalist terms to describe the firearms that so frighten you, at least be (nominally) accurate, and call them "assault weapons." I know quite a few people who own such guns, by the way, and own one myself. Oddly enough, I've never known anyone who has displayed any propensity for murdering little kids.

Our loyalty to the Constitution is killing thousands of Americans a year.

Our loyalty to the Constitution is what separates us from dictatorships, genius.

To Tony's credit, he at least does not try to divide gun owners against each other, pitting Second Amendment activists against those who would throw the meaningful part of the right to keep and bear arms under the bus, if only they could keep their hunting rifles and shotguns--he has decided to take the hunters on, as well.

And for those who want to keep guns legal so that they can fulfill some twisted fetish by murdering defenseless animals, I’m deeply sorry. I know that hunting is a popular hobby in this country but allowing people the pleasure of slaughtering animals at the expense of human lives is unacceptable.

I suppose the deer populations will limit themselves to sustainable levels (in the absence of useful numbers of predators) by a program of condom distribution, or something.

What would an attack on gun ownership be without an ad hominem attack? Fear not, here it is.

The delusional Neanderthals at the National Rifle Association should be charged as accomplices in every gun-related murder since 1871.

Tell me, is there an Somalian equivalent to the NRA, or is our own NRA somehow responsible for the killings in Darfour? By the way, the NRA didn't get seriously involved with gun politics until the 1970's.

I'm running out of time here, but you get the idea. For irony's sake, I do have to include one more particularly priceless line:

I’m all for individual liberty, but giving 300 million people the option to murder each other is not an inalienable right.

I guess it's only the police that should have "the option to murder," right, Tony? Police officers like Tyler Peterson, right, Tony? Certainly sounds like the position of someone who is "all for individual liberty."

I think Tony has earned the right to be recognized as a Hero of the Police State. Maybe Ladd Everitt will come up with an appropriately gaudy medal for him.