And the president brought up gun control right away. You see, normal non gun nuts can understand that the instrument used in these mass killings are a problem....only uneducated stupid redneck mother fuckers can't grasp that concept.
So your only problem is guesser bringing up gun control and not Willie bringing up liberal policy. You area total fraud a piece of shit.
It's amazing. No "gun control nut" or other person that wishes the US had sane gun policies has said the Secret Service shoudn't have guns, or law enforcement shouldn't have guns. But when tragedies like this occur, the gun crazies will make all kinds of ridiculous comparisons and false equivalencies, in their quest to protect the precious gun. Next we'll hear this was a false flag operation, so Obama can come get everyone's guns.
So explain then, since you've had it figured out. If this guy hated all black people, why would he have any interaction with them at all? Doesn't that strike you as a little odd? I think there's a lot more to this story that we haven't heard yet, which is why I'm not ready for any knee-jerk reactions.
Congratulations on one thing, though. This is the day you've undoubtedly been waiting for. A white shooter killing black people. You get a 2 for 1...you can babble about both racism and gun control. I can only imagine how much you're enjoying basking in it.
Wish we could have arms in the UK. Wish we could defend ourselves, our homes, but we can't.
Criminals feel safer and more powerful when they know they are not likely to face any armed resistance.
That was certainly the view of Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano, an American Mafia turncoat who told Vanity Fair in 1999: 'Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always going to have a gun.'
His view has been backed up by American author John Lott, who found that many types of crime fell sharply in districts where law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry concealed weapons.
This was especially helpful to women, because the chance that they might have a gun in their handbags transformed them from being easy victims to tough propositions.
Criminals feel safer and more powerful when they know they are not likely to face any armed resistance.
That was certainly the view of Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano, an American Mafia turncoat who told Vanity Fair in 1999: 'Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always going to have a gun.'
His view has been backed up by American author John Lott, who found that many types of crime fell sharply in districts where law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry concealed weapons.
This was especially helpful to women, because the chance that they might have a gun in their handbags transformed them from being easy victims to tough propositions.
Wish we could have arms in the UK. Wish we could defend ourselves, our homes, but we can't.
We in Britain believe guns are so dangerous that only criminals should be allowed to have them. If you think this sounds unhinged, you are quite right. But, crazed as it is, such is the thinking behind this country's current law on firearms.
It is almost impossible for a law-abiding person to obtain or keep a gun, thanks to severe laws diligently enforced by a stern police force. Yet criminals, who care nothing for laws, can and do easily obtain guns and ammunition - which they use with increasing frequency.
We in Britain believe guns are so dangerous that only criminals should be allowed to have them. If you think this sounds unhinged, you are quite right. But, crazed as it is, such is the thinking behind this country's current law on firearms.
It is almost impossible for a law-abiding person to obtain or keep a gun, thanks to severe laws diligently enforced by a stern police force. Yet criminals, who care nothing for laws, can and do easily obtain guns and ammunition - which they use with increasing frequency.
Wish we could have arms in the UK. Wish we could defend ourselves, our homes, but we can't.
People in this country get emotional about guns but refuse to think about them. They run, squawking, from the subject as though it were perfectly obvious that the best response to anything that goes 'bang' is to ban it.
Those who own or keep guns are treated as only slightly less repellent than child molesters. In a perfect example of this silly frenzy, a Doncaster college lecturer was sacked last January for allowing a student to bring a toy plastic gun into class for use in a photography project.
If we ever did think about the subject, we should realise that something very strange indeed was going on and might begin to worry that we have gone seriously wrong.
Take a deep breath and consider what follows: I have never owned a gun and hope I never have to, but I want to have the right to do so if I wish - and the right to use a gun in defence of myself and my home. In fact, I do not think that I am a free citizen unless I have these rights.
This is not some wild idea imported from the badlands of North America. Until very recently, these were my rights under the ancient laws of England
People in this country get emotional about guns but refuse to think about them. They run, squawking, from the subject as though it were perfectly obvious that the best response to anything that goes 'bang' is to ban it.
Those who own or keep guns are treated as only slightly less repellent than child molesters. In a perfect example of this silly frenzy, a Doncaster college lecturer was sacked last January for allowing a student to bring a toy plastic gun into class for use in a photography project.
If we ever did think about the subject, we should realise that something very strange indeed was going on and might begin to worry that we have gone seriously wrong.
Take a deep breath and consider what follows: I have never owned a gun and hope I never have to, but I want to have the right to do so if I wish - and the right to use a gun in defence of myself and my home. In fact, I do not think that I am a free citizen unless I have these rights.
This is not some wild idea imported from the badlands of North America. Until very recently, these were my rights under the ancient laws of England
Wish we could have arms in the UK. Wish we could defend ourselves, our homes, but we can't.
Moreover, we were all actually obliged by law to keep weapons at home so that we could help the authorities in the fight against crime.
The English Bill of Rights of 1689 - on which its American equivalent was modelled 100 years later - enshrines the right of subjects to have arms for their defence. Sir William Blackstone's great summary of English law, the 'Commentaries' of 1765, also affirms the English people's 'right of having arms for their defence'.
Attempts to limit gun ownership in this country are very recent indeed. As late as 1909, when the police came under fire from a foreign anarchist gang in Tottenham, North London, they borrowed guns from the citizenry and appealed to members of the public to help them shoot back at the gang leaders.
And readers of the Sherlock Holmes stories, set around the same time, will have noticed that he and his assistant Dr Watson frequently go out on their expeditions armed with at least one revolver. The gun laws of Victorian England make modern-day Texas look effeminate.
Yet, though these stories are still widely read, almost nobody stops to wonder why what was legal in peaceful, well-ordered Edwardian London should be so illegal now. How and why is it that this freedom has been so abruptly and totally withdrawn?
One thing is for certain. It is not because tighter gun laws mean less gun crime. The more fiercely we have restricted private gun ownership in this country over the past century, the more armed crime there has been and the more the police have had to strap on holsters.
What should we learn from this? First, that criminals feel safer and more powerful when they know they are not likely to face any armed resistance.
That was certainly the view of Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano, an American Mafia turncoat who told Vanity Fair in 1999: 'Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always going to have a gun.'
His view has been backed up by American author John Lott, who found that many types of crime fell sharply in districts where law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry concealed weapons.
This was especially helpful to women, because the chance that they might have a gun in their handbags transformed them from being easy victims to tough propositions.
This practical form of sex equality is one of the things that does not compute in the world of the politically correct. Whoever heard of a British feminist with a gun? Can you imagine Germaine Greer keeping a revolver in her bedside table? Even so, what Lott says is undeniably true.
Moreover, we were all actually obliged by law to keep weapons at home so that we could help the authorities in the fight against crime.
The English Bill of Rights of 1689 - on which its American equivalent was modelled 100 years later - enshrines the right of subjects to have arms for their defence. Sir William Blackstone's great summary of English law, the 'Commentaries' of 1765, also affirms the English people's 'right of having arms for their defence'.
Attempts to limit gun ownership in this country are very recent indeed. As late as 1909, when the police came under fire from a foreign anarchist gang in Tottenham, North London, they borrowed guns from the citizenry and appealed to members of the public to help them shoot back at the gang leaders.
And readers of the Sherlock Holmes stories, set around the same time, will have noticed that he and his assistant Dr Watson frequently go out on their expeditions armed with at least one revolver. The gun laws of Victorian England make modern-day Texas look effeminate.
Yet, though these stories are still widely read, almost nobody stops to wonder why what was legal in peaceful, well-ordered Edwardian London should be so illegal now. How and why is it that this freedom has been so abruptly and totally withdrawn?
One thing is for certain. It is not because tighter gun laws mean less gun crime. The more fiercely we have restricted private gun ownership in this country over the past century, the more armed crime there has been and the more the police have had to strap on holsters.
What should we learn from this? First, that criminals feel safer and more powerful when they know they are not likely to face any armed resistance.
That was certainly the view of Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano, an American Mafia turncoat who told Vanity Fair in 1999: 'Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always going to have a gun.'
His view has been backed up by American author John Lott, who found that many types of crime fell sharply in districts where law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry concealed weapons.
This was especially helpful to women, because the chance that they might have a gun in their handbags transformed them from being easy victims to tough propositions.
This practical form of sex equality is one of the things that does not compute in the world of the politically correct. Whoever heard of a British feminist with a gun? Can you imagine Germaine Greer keeping a revolver in her bedside table? Even so, what Lott says is undeniably true.
