Lynn Swann is a Moron
I'm sincerely troubled by the way Lynn Swann's mind works. It's very upsetting to think this moron could be our next Governor. Let me explain....
This weekend saw two tragic deaths on the streets of Reading due to gun violence. One was police officer Scott Wertz. The other man was shot in a park and then died outside the home of a good friend and City Councilwoman. The entire city and county are in mourning from this senseless violence. Then we awaken this morning to this article in the Reading Eagle and this quote from Lynn Swann:
"It's not the gun that kills." Hey moron, if the criminal doesn't HAVE the gun he can't use it to kill. Not only is this logical, it's borne out by the facts. In countries like Canada, Japan, Great Britain and the rest of Western Europe, gun ownership is severely restricted. They don't have these problems because the criminals don't have guns. It's that simple: no handguns, no gunshot deaths. Why is this so difficult to comprehend unless you're a complete moron?
Handguns have only one purpose: to shoot people. No sane person goes hunting with a Glock. Few people are gunned downon the streets with hunting rifles. Yes, we sometimes see serial killers using them but, overall that's rare compared to the epidemic of deaths from handguns.
We aren't trying to take your right to hunt from you. We aren't trying to take your hunting guns. We must do something about handguns though. Laws in Pennsylvania are stupid and insane. Anyone can get a gun anytime they please, whether on the mean streets or through straw buyers, or at gun shows. Scott Wertz didn't die because of the mindset of the career criminal who shot him, he died because Mr. Rivera had a gun. Without that gun Scott Wertz would be alive.
It's the handguns stupid!
If this shows how Lynn Swann's mind works we're in very serious trouble if he pulls a miracle and wins. The man can't think logically or rationally. He's a moron.
The very least we MUST do is pass meaningful gun safety legislation. Restricting access to handguns is essential.
A child is killed by gunfire every three hours.
There are 65 million handguns in this country.
Trigger locks, requiring guns be kept in secured lockers, technology allowing only the owner of the gun to fire it, waiting periods and restrictions on the number of handguns purchased in any one period are all essential.
But Mr. Swann still thinks it's all the person's fault who has the gun. Guns don't kill, people do, is the mantra we constantly hear. Without the gun though, they don't kill. It's that simple. Only a moron could conclude otherwise. When you remove the handgun you remove the gunshots. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this. Mr. Swann is obviously a LONG way from being a rocket scientist. Or a Governor, thank God.
Pennsylvania men keep voting against their own economic interests because they've been led to believe we Democrats are going to take away their guns. While getting rid of handguns would greatly lessen the slaughter on our streets and in our communities it isn't going to happen. With 65 million of them that simply isn't possible. We are dedicated to making them as safe as possible though and mitigate the senseless violence they cause.
We aren't going to take your hunting rifles. Hunting, especially in this state, is a time honored tradition of sportsmen. In fact it's often the sportsmen who are in the forefront of conservation efforts so they can keep and maintain the environment that's essential to wildlife and their sport.
They also keep voting for what are called "strict constructionist judges" though. This is a contradiction I've never understood. If those "strict constructionists" read the Second Amendment according to your standards you'll lose your guns. They're the ones you must worry about, not us.
Liberals consider the Second Amendment rights for average citizens to bear arms as settled law. If you actually read the Amendment though, and apply it on a "strict constructionist" basis, gun owners are screwed. Here is the Amendment:
A strict constructionist interpretation of this is obvious: only those in a "well regulated militia" i.e. the national guard, can own guns. Be careful what you wish for folks. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is prefaced by the well regulated militia qualifier. It isn't a separate sentence so a strict constructionist can interpret this literally. That's the meaning of a strict constructionist after all.
Alright, no one is going to abolish your constitutional civil rights are they? That cannot be done can it? Wait a second, read this in the Fourth Amendment:
General Michael Hayden, defending Bush's warrantless wiretapping of Americans, conveniently omitted the section about probable cause. As far as Bush and Congress are concerned probable cause need not exist anymore before they can search your home.
Then there are the Fifth and Sixth:
The new legislation proposed last week would allow trials in absentia and prevent citizens from seeing evidence used against them or to confront witnesses against them.
Then we get to the First Amendment, your right to free speech. Have you been to a Bush or Cheney speech the past six years? Did you see the "free speech zone" where dissenters MUST remain? Yes, free speech rights are now restricted to certain small zones. The media and press are being threatened with treason and imprisonment for reprting abuses of these constitutional rights.
Do you really think your Second Amendment rights are safe? Get real. That's next. It's not us liberals you should be worried about.
This weekend saw two tragic deaths on the streets of Reading due to gun violence. One was police officer Scott Wertz. The other man was shot in a park and then died outside the home of a good friend and City Councilwoman. The entire city and county are in mourning from this senseless violence. Then we awaken this morning to this article in the Reading Eagle and this quote from Lynn Swann:
“A lot of people tend to believe that the gun laws need to be changed,” Swann said while campaigning at the Reading Fair in Bern Township. “My opinion as someone who believes in the right to carry guns is that it's not the gun that kills. It's what was in the mindset of the young person that they would do that.”
"It's not the gun that kills." Hey moron, if the criminal doesn't HAVE the gun he can't use it to kill. Not only is this logical, it's borne out by the facts. In countries like Canada, Japan, Great Britain and the rest of Western Europe, gun ownership is severely restricted. They don't have these problems because the criminals don't have guns. It's that simple: no handguns, no gunshot deaths. Why is this so difficult to comprehend unless you're a complete moron?
In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 9,390 in the United States.
Handguns have only one purpose: to shoot people. No sane person goes hunting with a Glock. Few people are gunned downon the streets with hunting rifles. Yes, we sometimes see serial killers using them but, overall that's rare compared to the epidemic of deaths from handguns.
We aren't trying to take your right to hunt from you. We aren't trying to take your hunting guns. We must do something about handguns though. Laws in Pennsylvania are stupid and insane. Anyone can get a gun anytime they please, whether on the mean streets or through straw buyers, or at gun shows. Scott Wertz didn't die because of the mindset of the career criminal who shot him, he died because Mr. Rivera had a gun. Without that gun Scott Wertz would be alive.
It's the handguns stupid!
If this shows how Lynn Swann's mind works we're in very serious trouble if he pulls a miracle and wins. The man can't think logically or rationally. He's a moron.
The very least we MUST do is pass meaningful gun safety legislation. Restricting access to handguns is essential.
A child is killed by gunfire every three hours.
There are 65 million handguns in this country.
Trigger locks, requiring guns be kept in secured lockers, technology allowing only the owner of the gun to fire it, waiting periods and restrictions on the number of handguns purchased in any one period are all essential.
But Mr. Swann still thinks it's all the person's fault who has the gun. Guns don't kill, people do, is the mantra we constantly hear. Without the gun though, they don't kill. It's that simple. Only a moron could conclude otherwise. When you remove the handgun you remove the gunshots. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this. Mr. Swann is obviously a LONG way from being a rocket scientist. Or a Governor, thank God.
Pennsylvania men keep voting against their own economic interests because they've been led to believe we Democrats are going to take away their guns. While getting rid of handguns would greatly lessen the slaughter on our streets and in our communities it isn't going to happen. With 65 million of them that simply isn't possible. We are dedicated to making them as safe as possible though and mitigate the senseless violence they cause.
We aren't going to take your hunting rifles. Hunting, especially in this state, is a time honored tradition of sportsmen. In fact it's often the sportsmen who are in the forefront of conservation efforts so they can keep and maintain the environment that's essential to wildlife and their sport.
They also keep voting for what are called "strict constructionist judges" though. This is a contradiction I've never understood. If those "strict constructionists" read the Second Amendment according to your standards you'll lose your guns. They're the ones you must worry about, not us.
Liberals consider the Second Amendment rights for average citizens to bear arms as settled law. If you actually read the Amendment though, and apply it on a "strict constructionist" basis, gun owners are screwed. Here is the Amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
A strict constructionist interpretation of this is obvious: only those in a "well regulated militia" i.e. the national guard, can own guns. Be careful what you wish for folks. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is prefaced by the well regulated militia qualifier. It isn't a separate sentence so a strict constructionist can interpret this literally. That's the meaning of a strict constructionist after all.
Alright, no one is going to abolish your constitutional civil rights are they? That cannot be done can it? Wait a second, read this in the Fourth Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
General Michael Hayden, defending Bush's warrantless wiretapping of Americans, conveniently omitted the section about probable cause. As far as Bush and Congress are concerned probable cause need not exist anymore before they can search your home.
Then there are the Fifth and Sixth:
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The new legislation proposed last week would allow trials in absentia and prevent citizens from seeing evidence used against them or to confront witnesses against them.
Then we get to the First Amendment, your right to free speech. Have you been to a Bush or Cheney speech the past six years? Did you see the "free speech zone" where dissenters MUST remain? Yes, free speech rights are now restricted to certain small zones. The media and press are being threatened with treason and imprisonment for reprting abuses of these constitutional rights.
Do you really think your Second Amendment rights are safe? Get real. That's next. It's not us liberals you should be worried about.
posted by PA progressive @ Tuesday, August 08, 2006
<< Home