Notice how in the OP he's trying to be clever by referencing Vance,

It's called comedy, son. Satire. Pointing out the stupidity of Vance's statement by applying it to a different, but very similar, situation.

Let me spell it out for you, since you don't seem to grasp subtlety or inferences very well.

When rogue gunmen shoot at schools, we offer our thoughts and prayers. We suggest they implement more security, but don't offer any additional funding for that security. We wring our hands that something should be done, but don't actually do anything at all.

When rogue gunmen shoot at prominent political figures, we demand retribution. We blame the large security apparatus surrounding said prominent political figure (security that he doesn't pay for, but the public does pay significant amounts for) and demand that it be increased even further immediately, no matter the cost. We blame the opposing political party.

But, of course, in no case should we ever even have a hint of a thought of any additional controls on guns.


This situation is absolutely asinine.

--Peter

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.