Pavlov was a liberal

Ring a bell, and the dog salivates; anything bad happens anywhere in the world, and liberal dogs blame conservatives. This time it's the Tucson Massacre.

Lougher's links to right-wing talk radio: none. Liberals who blamed right-wing talk radio: 27 and counting. Can they just blame it on Bush and be done with it?

I saw a car accident a few days ago and, thinking like a liberal, immediately yelled, "It's Sarah Palin's fault! That bitch!"

Tuscon Massacre Idiot Liberal Roundup

Rep. Chellie (Chellie? WTF? Already we have a problem...) Pingree, D-ME, at the liberal rag Huffington Post, advocates a few cowardly liberal ideas: "the first thing we can do is to crank down the rhetoric a few notches," and "start a more civil dialog," and she wants Republicans to rename their Obamacare repeal bill, which is presently titled "Repeal the Job Killing Health Care Law Act".

None of this is terribly surprising, since these are the people who are afraid to publish cartoons of "the prophet" pedophile Muhammed, PBUH.

Newsbusters has a good piece about Chris Mathews, a classic liberal nutjob. There's also an interesting bit about Whoopi Liberalberg.

And it didn't take long before an idiot liberal -- Bloomberg in this case -- called for more gun laws:

"This case is fundamentally about a mentally ill drug abuser who had access to guns and shouldn’t have," Bloomberg said at a news conference Tuesday with members of Mayors Against Illegal Guns.

Here's San Diego Democratic politician Bob Filner:

"I cannot help but believe the violent context of the recent election is responsible for this tragedy," said Filner in a statement released by his office.

What on earth is he talking about? I am an avid follower of local, state and national politics (and world politics), and didn't notice any "violent context". Maybe he thinks that citizens who voice their opinions about politicians amassing more than $12 trillion in debt are violent? Filner is a Class A dumbass.

Naturally, Charles Krauthammer says all of this better than I have:

The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the "climate of hate" created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.

The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.

In the midst of waters muddied by liberals, one thing is appallingly clear: liberal politicians, even while the blood was still flowing onto the pavement of a Safeway parking lot, convened strategy meetings to determine the best way to use the shooting for political gain.

The BBC (Backwards Brainwashed Communists)

Maybe the worst thing I've read on the Tucson Massacre so far is from the BBC. In a biased, anti-gun piece the writer offers this:

Such responses (about increasing gun access for law-abiding citizens) leave many in other developed democracies scratching their heads, asking the same question: what is it with America and guns?

It's insulting to hear this kind of talk from a Brit. Though it has been a couple of hundred years since the country went to war for its Independence, we learned that only an armed nation can overthrow a government that has become tyrannical. We reserved the right to gun ownership in our Constitution. We learned about tyranny from a British King. Unlike our European friends, we have not allowed our government(s) to declaw us like housecats.

I always refer to Jefferson's quote on the 2nd Amendment (and this quote would make the BBC story unnecessary if the writer had known about it): "The beauty of the Second Amendment is that we won't need it until somebody tries to take it away."

Twice I read through the BBC article, and I find it very hard to believe anyone could publish something so misguided. The tone was that America thinks about better access to guns after a shooting like Tucson, and that's completely wrong. Liberals always want more gun laws, and in fact want to disarm the entire nation, as if tyranny was something that exists only in the past and has been permanently banished. Liberals are already calling for more gun laws (see Bloomberg section above).

Another problem with the article is a Mr. Daniel Webster, one of the only "experts" on U.S. gun law cited in the article. He says, among other inaccurate things, "much of the authority to regulate guns has been devolved to the states." No authority has ever been devolved to states. Fact: states have nearly all the power to govern themselves, unless that power has been usurped by the federal government. The devolution comment is a window into a socialist-statist mind. The implication is that an all-powerful federal government is the only sensible thing, and powerful states are somehow negative.

The whole story is hogwash. Webster has never read the Constitution and knows very little about American history; furthermore, the author of the story wasn't interested in learning anything, or telling a factual account of the gun situation in this country. Instead, the BBC found "experts" who would back up what the BBC wanted to tell.

Wow. It gets better (worse). Another BBC story has bent reality as to make the first one seem nearly correct, if that's possible.

But surely - and forgive me for being blindingly obvious here - the elephant in the room is the astonishing ease with which a 22-year-old man whose behaviour had caused alarm in his community college, had question marks over his mental stability and who lingered in the darker recesses of the web, was allowed to walk into a shop and buy a gun. And not just any old gun. But a Glock semi-automatic, a weapon designed arguably only for hunting humans.

This is so absurd I don't even known where to begin. I own several handguns, one of them a Glock 9mm, and I use them for a fantastic sport known as target shooting. The socialist BBC weasel actually said, "a Glock semi-automatic, a weapon designed arguably only for hunting humans." Unbelievable.

Also, if somebody breaks into my home (this would apply to any American) and tries to harm my children, am I going to call 911 and wait 5 to 30 minutes for the police to arrive? That's ludicrous. Anyone who comes onto my property and tries to harm my kids is getting shot, probably with a Glock semi-automatic, and then the call to 911 will go out. I consider this perfectly sane, rational thinking, but to the BBC it's just plain crazy to want to defend yourself -- that's the state's job.

This is a common occurrence:

A Williamson County woman fought off an intruder with a vacuum cleaner. She was desperate for help, waiting for almost 35 minutes for law enforcement to arrive.

The mere thought that individuals can have some responsibility for their own safety is alien to BBC writers. In actuality, BBC staffers are socialist, and nearly communist, because not only should security be only a government matter, so should everything else -- and this is a truly repugnant attitude to an American.

The story also tries to make the impression that all of the talk in America post-Tucson is focused on the angry rhetoric of conservatives. This is completely false. All of the nonsensical talk is coming out of the mouths of leftists who are trying to make political gains, not the whole country.