Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Explain to me how that would have worked, Arlen

U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (R . . . um, D-PA), when asked about a renewed "assault weapons" ban, bravely ran away from stating what he thought should be done, and instead gave the easy answer about it not being politically feasible at the moment. Not exactly encouraging when one wonders what he might do to impress his new friends when a new ban is thought to be politically feasible.

Instead, he went with the NRA's (and Nancy Pelosi's, and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs', etc.) "enforce existing gun laws" approach to that which shall not be infringed.


This is the part that grabbed my attention:

. . . what needs to be done is to crack down on violent criminals who have weapons, with sentencing. The culprit in that Pittsburgh incident involving the murders of those three policemen was under a court restraining order. They knew he was a violent guy, and they should have taken steps. That whole situation could have been prevented.
Let me make sure I'm following the good (and flexible) senator. To prevent this neo-Nazi loser, who was supposedly pushed over the edge by fears of government gun confiscations, the government should have . . . come to confiscate his guns?

I'm not defending the punk, and I agree that a tragedy would have been averted had he not been armed, but I'm at a loss to see how one can conclude that a police disarmament raid would have been any less likely to result in murdered cops.

3 comments:

straightarrow said...

I have no respect for Arlen Specter, but, credit where credit is due.

His defection to the Democratic Party, may well help lower medical care costs in the U.S. If the nation would follow his example many medical specialties, procedures, tests, etc. could be done away with. Having only proctologists as medical care givers would considerably streamline care, lower costs, and eliminate confusion in diagnoses.

This could not have been done as long as he was a Republican because they didn't have to the votes to legislate mandatory rectumness of the entire human organism. Now, as a Democrat with their mostly already qualified homo rectum sapiens status and an unassailable majority in Congress with the addition of the overly qualified homo rectum sapien Specter, they can mandate the same status for everyone.

Now national health care can be advanced from its position of being a little behind to being forced through the big behinds.

45superman said...

Having only proctologists as medical care givers would considerably streamline care, lower costs, and eliminate confusion in diagnoses.With friends like that, who needs enemas?

Sorry--I've been looking for an appropriate opportunity to use that line for years, now. This wasn't that "appropriate opportunity," but I suspect it's about as close as I'm going to get any time soon.

straightarrow said...

works for me.