Wednesday, October 7, 2015
Can We Agree That Ben Carson Is A Moron?
The clueless, idiotic look on this bozo's mug is not coincidence.
I've said before that Reeptardo prez candidate Ben Carson, "neurosurgeon" from Johns Hopkins, is not truly a brainiac, but more a moron. He's made numerous stupid comments including the most recent (in response to the latest gun massacre) that he'd "arm kindergarten teachers" allowing them to have a loaded gun in the classroom. When pressed on one talk show how he'd assure the gun was secure from the kids, he replied he'd "lock it away until it is needed".
When then pressed on how much time he thought he'd need before he could get the gun if a gunman with an AK-47 burst through the door, he wiped the drool from his lips, babbled some more and assured the inquisitor he was sure he could get to it in time. Is he serious? The screwball would be riddled with bullets before he could put a pinky finger on the locked closet.
In another jackass response he bellowed that "guns don't kill people" but people (presumably psychotic nuts) "kill people". Hmmm.....if this is so how explain the case some years back when a pet dog accidentally stepped on a loaded shotgun placed on a couch and killed its owner seated on one side. Did the little doggie do it, or did shells unleashed from the weapon do it?
Carson then went on to proclaim that when confronted by any would-be mass shooter, the response is simple: "Hey guys! Everybody attack him! He may shoot me but he can't get us all!". Oh yeah? Check out the AR-15 in the last gun post I did (on the Umpqua massacre) I guarantee you anyone wielding that weapon could take down all of Carson's rushees before he can say "gun control". HOWEVER, IF the most the guy could get in terms of a weapon was a large knife, he'd likely be correct. (See also the last link below on how Carson, when actually confronted with a similar situation of a gunman at a Popeye's in Baltimore, turned chicken and fobbed the gunman off on the teenage counter guy. Real tough guy that Ben!)
What part of guns as lethal weapons doesn't this dope understand? He claims he'd seen bullet wounds in his practice but evidently that means nothing to Uncle Ben.
His other babbling bollocks in recent interviews that the Jews and other Germans might have resisted Hitler and the Nazis if they had guns is also unmitigated claptrap. Recall all Jewish gun ownership effectively ended on Nov. 11, 1938, when a new law was declared, prohibiting Jews from owning weapons of any kind, including swords, which many Jewish army veterans had kept as mementos from World War I.
The failure of Jews to mount an effective defense against the Waffen-SS in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 provides a good example of what happens when ordinary citizens with small arms go up against a well-equipped force. The uprising in the ghetto possesses enduring symbolic significance, as an instance of Jews’ determination to resist their oppression. But the uprising saved few Jewish lives and had little to no impact on the course of either World War II or the Holocaust.
The idea that other Germans would have come to the Jews defense is also malarkey that only a poorly educated (on history) moron could spout. Non-Jewish Germans knew full well the eyes of the Gestapo were on them 24/7 and one mistake - one neighbor's testimony - and they be in the torture chambers, getting minced 'bratwurst' enemas and nails ripped out.
But let's leave Carson's babbling insanity for now. The fact is, other nations HAVE implemented sane gun laws and had major success. As noted in a recent slate.com report, for example:
"On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.
Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.
At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia. The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent."
All of which is eminently reasonable, and I can't see how any person of any rational bearing could possible have any serious objections. The only one that enters remotely would be that the U.S. has many more people than Australia so how could tracking and enforcement be successfully implemented on the scale needed?
But we already have a mass surveillance state that gets nearly $25b a year, most of it via "black budgets". I say that if they can track all manner of terrorists, including wannabe ISIS followers, they can also track gun scofflaws as well as gun sellers including those operating outside the bounds of the law- mainly at gun shows. (Gun aficionados shouldn't mind as they clearly care more about the 2nd amendment than the 4th.)
There is no rational reason to object to this, but never mind, the gun nuts including NRA guy Wayne LaPierre will likely go ballistic. Can't have "Bambi" walking about without the ability to shoot her with an AK -47!