Saturday, January 12, 2013 • 6:07 AM Comments (10)

NRA: Wake the Fuck Up

posted by Amy Pybus

I came across the article "Wrestling With Details of Noah Pozner's Killing" by accident, and almost couldn't bear to read it. In it, the author describes her moral battle over printing the graphic details of Noah Pozner's body, as related to her by Veronique Pozner.

I don't think you can have a heart and read this article without knowing that assault weapons have got to go. By that logic, I have to conclude that either the leaders of the NRA haven't read it, or obviously they just don't have hearts.

I marvel at the strength of Veronique Pozner, not only in being able to bear the burden but also in speaking the truth about it. She gives me hope. After a tragedy such as this we think, how can a parent endure this loss? Pozner's response to being asked why she chose to view Noah's body was this: "I owed it to him...If I am going to shut my eyes to that I am not his mother. I had to bear it. I had to do it."

I understand. How could she spend her life not knowing? Mothers can do anything, including the unbearable and unthinkable, when it comes to their children.

But the NRA can not give up their military toys. As a country, we're used to a kind of greed that is insatiable and ugly. We accept that power companies will keep an iron grip on their coal plants though they are belching a constant stream of toxins that destroy both humans and the planet we live on. Stockbrokers will steal granny's pension and pat each other on the back while snorting the coke they bought with it. Banks will take federal money intended to create jobs and build themselves monuments to the sky. We know these things to be true, and we just live with them.

But the kind of greed that insists on arming a nation with assault weapons is possibly even more reprehensible than the person who chooses to use these guns on another human being. It is not in fact our constitutional right to own something that has the capacity for killing dozens of civilians at a time. If I was building bombs in my basement, the police would come and clear it out and arrest me. I don't see how assault weapons are any different.

For further reading, see: Noah Pozner’s Mom Describes Newtown Victim’s Body, And Why We Should All Listen

Comments (10)
Post a Comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6cr2RLtKZQ

The worst thing we could do is act out of pure emotion when it comes to law and our second amendment. Right to bear bombs is not in our constitution. The 2nd amendment is not outdated and banning so-called "assault" weapons would not have pervented Newtown. Doing something just to do something so you can say you did something - even though it wouldn't have prevented these tragedies - is idiotic and all it accomplishes is the erosion of our constitutional right.

Posted by k on 1.17.13 at 6:43

"Nobody knows what would have prevented Newtown"

haha.. thanks for proving my point. Well at least we can feel better about ourselves for 23 actions - none of which will prevent the tragedy we are upset about.

Emotion is a weakness only if you let it override logic which is what's happening.

2 things could have prevented Newtown:

1 - Recognizing the mental instability of Adam Lanza and putting him in a proper facility and or restricting his access to firearms.

2 - An armed person at the school to confont him. He killed himself when he heard sirens - surely he would have been stopped by just the site of an armed adult.

That said, go ahead with making yourself feel like you are "doing something" when you're not actually doing anything.

Meanwhile, Obama & David Gregory sleep well knowing their kids go to a school protected by armed security.

Now I'll pipe down with my logic. Sorry to affend your sensibilities with that logic. Priceless.

Posted by k on 1.17.13 at 10:58

Actually we do know why and we're not talking about Combine. Per the Hartford Courant Lanza killed himself when he realized police were approaching. There's really no way to argue against that logically - he killed himself when he knew a confrontation with another armed human was imminent. The fact that you argue that common sense point shows how intellectually dishonest you're being in this debate.

Again, "tighter restriction" wouldn't have stopped Lanza - WE KNOW THAT. And clearly you can't argue my 2 ways he would have been stopped. Instead you talk about Columbine. Feel free to argue those 2 points with logic.

You and your ilk automatically assume more gun restriction will help which has been proven not to work in preventing crime and violence. And that's what offensive to people who understand and support the 2nd amendment. You have no idea if a law will work but are somehow certain that restricting guns is the only answer. If less guns are safer than no guns are safest. That's the only logica conclusion to your emotional argument. So we continue down this dumb path of further restricting guns and eroding the 2nd amendment, all while not actually solving the problem of mental health and an increasingly violent society.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

But again... explain why Obama and DC elites like David Gregory send their kids to schools guarded by armed security?

Posted by k on 1.17.13 at 12:10

If she was only able to get guns with 7 round clips, he would have killed just as many people because he was trained to use them.

Posted by k on 1.18.13 at 6:28

Good point. One of the 6 year olds could have bumrushed him if only he had to reload a couple more times. Idiotic.

Posted by k on 1.18.13 at 13:18

Well the evidence is out and your mass shooting zones... I mean gun free zones... seem to be working well. More mass shooting I mean gun free zones can only continue that success. Suggesting otherwise would be pure conjecture. Weeee.... and away we go.

Posted by k on 1.18.13 at 13:44

CP - First off, you're a hateful person for suggesting I don't feel bad about what happened. That being said, look up the definition of remorse because you misused it.

According to you, anyone exercising their 2nd amendment is doing so out of emotion which couldn't be farther from the truth. Recognizing the need for protection is a logical decision based on the dangers in this world. Do you lock your car and house door out of fear? Do you buy milk with the most distant sell-by date out of fear?

Panicking after a tragedy and thinking that new laws will somehow stop bad people from doing bad things is purely emotional. Just look at the results of cities with all out gun bans - it doesn't work.(Chicago, DC, etc)

Again... Lanza shot himself as police approached... he didn't all of a sudden feel remorse for what he did. Suicide was part of his plan. To suggest he all of a sudden felt guilty is intellectually dishonest of you.

The bottom line is you have no appreciation or understanding of the true purpose of the second amendment. The right to bear arms is fundamental to preserving our liberty and protecting ourselves and our families. Just remember that every gun free zone is a mass shooting zone.

Posted by k on 1.19.13 at 15:22

Oh, also look up fascism because nothing I have said hints at it. Holy crapballs. More gun laws lead to fascism, not less. Wow. What else do you want to call me that is wrong? Where is this strawman you're arguing with?

Posted by k on 1.19.13 at 15:25

One more thing for the author:

"It is not in fact our constitutional right to own something that has the capacity for killing dozens of civilians at a time."

It absolutely is. You are foolish to think this horrific act couldn't have been carried out with guns containing magazines with 7 bullets or less. It was a horrific act and we need to think logically about what would have stopped it.

Lanza was a coward who killed himself when he heard police sirens. One or more armed adults in that school could have minimized or potentially prevented this tragedy. As much as, like you, I'd like to curl up in the fetal position and wish guns didn't exist, that is the truth of the matter.

Posted by k on 1.21.13 at 15:43

Kev - You mean well. You really do. I get it. But your logic only works if we can successfully stop bad people from getting guns. We cannot. Outright bands of handguns in cities has been proven not to work. Add to that the fact that we refuse to secure our border and we have a situation where a bad person can easily obtain enough firepower to carry out a mass shooting regardless of the law.

So we KNOW your way will not work. And we also KNOW that mass shooters don't like resistance - that is why they seek out schools and the Aurora shooter specifically sought out a theatre where guests couldn't carry.

So since we know your way is wrong and more resistance (not less) is the answer, why is your way superior? Because of your emotional reaction to guns as being bad? A person who wants to commit mass murder will get a gun. So when they do, I guess your goal is to have no chance a law abiding citizen has the ability to stop them?

Gunfree zones are mass shooting zones.

Posted by k on 1.22.13 at 13:20
Comment:

Name:

Password:

New User/Guest?

Find it Here:
keyword:
search type:
search in:

« Previous   |   Next »
« Most Recent Post
« Permalink
Print Email RSS feed

Archives
JANUARY 2013
S M T W T F S
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Sly
Saying I'm Sorry
NRA: Wake the Fuck Up
Moment of Silence
Spanking is Not OK
It's Raining Men
Links
Copyright © 2014 by The Valley Advocate.