Ron Johnson is a Republican Senator who is a coward. Sure, he supports my right — and yours — to own 100 round magazines for our semi-automatic rifles, as he told Chris Wallace, and I thank him for that in the face of all these gun control fascists that popped out of the woodwork after the “unimaginable” tragedy in Aurora, CO. I suppose I should give him some credit for that:
Tea party-backed Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) says that the right to own high-capacity ammunitions magazines like the 100-round drum that was used to kill at least a dozen people in Colorado last week is a “basic freedom” that is protected by the U.S. Constitution. […]
“Does something that would limit magazines that can carry 100 rounds, would that infringe on the constitutional right?” Wallace wondered.
“I believe so,” Johnson insisted. “There are magazines — 30-round magazines — that are just common all over the place. You simply can’t keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals that want to do harm.”
He’s got that part right. Hell, I remember all those muzzle loading muskets and rifles from the age of our Founders, and I’m certain multiple round magazines were covered in the discussions about the second amendment and it’s scope. But, he clearly hasn’t thought this one through enough, or he’s just being a flat out coward. Because if we can’t prevent “sick, demented individuals that want to do harm” from obtaining rifles with high capacity magazines, how the hell am I supposed to protect my family from their deranged killing sprees?
I’ll tell you how. I demand that Sen. Johnson and all those other craven second amendment big talkers to go all in. It’s clear that concealed carry permits and “Stand Your Ground” laws or the right to buy 100 round magazines for my semi-automatic rifle [that I choose not to reveal the name of here because God Knows when Obama and his minions are going to come and confiscate it] are not sufficient to defend my freedoms. Not when some sick [expletive deleted but it starts with an F] can acquire the same weaponry.
We need Ron Johnson and all his other chicken hawk friends to push for the right of law abiding American citizens to purchase the same arms that the terrists and deranged killers and “those people” (I think you know who I mean) have. For example, I believe the Founders fully intended that you and I should have access to the following “arms” for our protection:
The RPG-7 Grenade Launcher is an extremely useful weapon that can eradicate with one well aimed shot dozens of armed and dangerous terrists, gang-bangers or just your garden variety “sick, demented individual” with his measly AR-15. Imagine if James Holmes had seen someone at the theater packing one of these babies before leaving the theater. I think he would have thought twice about coming back in with his piddly inadequate body armor and puny little guns.
Sure, some people (mostly librul bedwetting RINOS) might consider it a little excessive, but even if a theater-goer with one of these missed scoring a direct hit on the bastard, the shrapnel and the noise of the explosion alone would have likely put him out of action. Yeah, there might have been some collateral damage, but no worse in my estimate than Holmes himself accomplished. And all you need is the use of an RPG one time in a situation like Aurora to deter other would be mass murderers. Not to mention that standing your ground could be done at a much safer distance than a mere handgun allows.
But that’s not all I want. What if some nosy mob of no good OWS libtards wants to ransack my business during a riot that they initiated? Well, that’s where a it would be extremely helpful to have to firepower of one of these to keep all those rowdy folks at a safe distance from my property:
Sure, a M120 Mortar is a little pricey, but that is just my point. Your garden variety mob of sickos bent on vandalism and destruction of personal property isn’t likely to be prepared for the shock and awe that a few mortar rounds can provide. My guess is one well-placed shot somewhere in the center of your typical anarchist mob is likely to discourage their unlawful behavior a damn sight quicker than a legitimate business owner with merely a double barrel shotgun and a prayer would do, much less law-abiding citizens armed with only tasers, rubber bullets or pepper spay devices. Were talking “Property” here with a capital P, whether one is defending your home or business.
I could go on, of course. Personally I’d like my own personal armored M3 Bradley fighting Vehicle – for our neighborhood watch program, mind you — but I think you get my point. The Second Amendment says I have the right to bear arms. I have no idea why Ron Johnson and his bunch of fellow Tea Party Caucus members in Congress are limiting that to puny little so called “assault rifles.” If I’ve got a right to high capacity magazines for an AR-15, I see no reason why the senator should stop there. I either have the right to arm myself with whatever weapons I can afford or I don’t. So quit being such a pinata for the gun control nuts, Senator Johnson. I want my RPG-7 and M120 Mortar yesterday. Sadly the M3 Abrams will have to wait until I can get enough donations from my website: www.OperationStevenDsFreedom.com (still under construction).
High capacity magazines are so last year’s issue.
“You simply can’t keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals that want to do harm.” No, you have to keep them in the hands of law-abiding Americans like Holmes. Johnson is yet another dumb-as-a-dumdum Koch baby currently disgracing the US Senate.
A one-termer if I’ve ever seen one.
Let’s hope so.
Steve,
I know you think you are being sarcastic, but believe me, what you have written is taken as the gospel in some quarters
Here
here
here
and other places too numerous to mention.
I think some of this sarcasm in action, you know, like the Onion? But it’s really getting hard to tell…
I don’t know — is it sarcasm to take someone’s statements to their logical and inescapable conclusion?
No, that’s “satire” – and as the eerie plausibility of most Onion stories attests, it’s getting harder and harder to do, as more and more people are taking things to their logical extremes all on their own.
Steven, I believe the word you’re looking for is “federalist,” as in, “…when some sick FEDERALIST can acquire the same weaponry.”
Or maybe “foreigner.” That would work, too.
Or “faggot,” or “food stamp recipient,” or “feminazi”…the possibilities are endless! One of many things that makes the USA the Greatest Country In The World ™ is the sheer variety of the types of people available to hate.
On a different topic, it’s always mystified me why our security services get so worked up about the prospect of suitcase nukes. Set one of those off in a crowded theater, and let me tell you, any libtard gunman is going to stop his attack right then and there. No matter how bad your aim is.
The second I get a MRBM with a 50kt warhead on it, I’m entering Ron Johnson’s coordinates in the targeting computer.
Just to be safe.
If it’s MIRVed, you could get Wayne LaPierre and some other folks as well /s
Just remember the justice meted out to Anastasio Somoza following his “abdication” from Nicaragua’s Presidency. That’s the reason anyone who wants an RPG-7 should be able to get one. It would put the new aristos on notice that you really can’t take it with you. It also just might awaken the likes of Speaker Boehner to the need to do something about the firearms washing over our society.
You think you exaggerate the views of 2nd Amendment extremists but you actually understate them.
Some of them are on record as claiming the Amendment protects a private right of unregulated ownership of weapons of any and all types.
They omit to rule out nukes or other weapons of mass destruction, and I don’t know whether that is intentional.
If the 2nd Amendment is taken at its word, as the gun nuts insist on doing, then they’re forced to take the position you describe. Banning ownership of IEDs or rockets or nukes destroys their claim that the “right to bear arms” is absolute. If you can choose to ban private ownership of grenade launchers, then by the same logic you can choose to ban assault weapons without the Constitution entering into the equation. Under this nonsensical interpretation, either any limitation on weapons infringes on the “right to bear arms” or the provision doesn’t apply, and the Constitutional argument goes out the window.
As long as the whackjob absolutist definition of the Amendment continues to be respected as anything but the nonsense that it is, there can be no common sense discussion when it comes to the gun culture. It’s long past time for timid liberals to bite the bullet, so to speak, and attack the root of the problem, the bogus Constitutional interpretation that has been allowed to go almost unchallenged.