Anti-Gunner Richard Martinez

So after the Santa Barbara College shooting, I like many others saw this press conference:

At first I confused Mr Martinez with the father of the shooter, and I was pissed that somebody who coddled and fostered such a monster would deflect blame against the NRA. I was quickly corrected that he was the father of a murdered student, and my feelings changed. Of course I don’t like ANYBODY who attacks the 2nd Amendment, as the people who he is attacking did not kill his son. Also he is VERY misguided, as the shooting happened on a gun-free campus, in Southern California where EVERYTHING about that area is against the NRA’s agenda. Further the killer ignored the “Gun Free Zone”, as did he not seem to mind carrying two loaded pistols without a California Carry permit, at least not any more than he cared about murdering innocent people who had done NOTHING to him.

He complied with a background check for both his guns, he bought ONLY California approved handguns, he complied with California’s waiting period, and he used California Limited magazines.

If any political camp is to be blamed as far as gun legislation goes, it’s the anti-gun side because the pro-rights side have been fighting a REALLY hard fight there, but the opposition is IMPRESSIVELY strong.

Still the man lost his sun in a wanton murder. I can’t blame him for hurting, and I can’t blame him for being angry, and both of those things can cloud one’s judgement, especially given that most in California probably don’t have the first idea about the NRA’s agenda…they’ve been told by their betters that the NRA is evil, and they have no need to look any further into the matter.

Of course my opinion of him shifted as he began working directly for Michael Bloomberg:

More on this in a second. I just found this story :

I recognize a part of the level of my activity is motivated by desire to not focus too much on what’s happened. But even if you told me right now that everything I do is not going to make a change, it wouldn’t stop me. I will continue to do this for as long as I have an opportunity.

I can understand the need to be driven to keep from dwelling on what’s already done…but note that statement. Even if he KNOWS he won’t do any good, he’ll still attack the rights and lifestyles of people who had NOTHING to do with his son’s murder!

Back to that video, he’s being paid to work for Michael Bloomberg. To push gun control, to make speeches, to tug at heart strings about his son’s death, to raise money for an anti-gun tyrant….and he admits that he doesn’t care if he accomplishes a damn thing!

I’m truly sorry for his loss, but my sympathy ends at his reaction against ME, and MINE, and in such a wanton fashion.

I lost the most important thing in my life and I ask myself “Why didn’t I do anything earlier?” I had the opportunity to do something when the kids at Sandy Hook died. 20 kids died on that day and people say to me, “Well if they didn’t do anything then, why would you think they’re going to do anything now?” I refuse to accept that at some point in time people won’t come to their senses and do the right thing. It’s beyond my comprehension that Sandy Hook happened and there was no comprehensive legislative rule as a response. It’s shameful, it’s absolutely shameful that those kids died in that way and there’s been no serious effort by congress to solve this problem.

I love this little revisionist way of looking at the world. No the anti-gun sides did PLENTY! “Assault Weapons” bans were proposed, and a Universal Background Check law was voted on. It was a stupid law, it was presented in the names of the children killed at Sandy Hook, and the world realized it would have done NOTHING to stop that crime, or solve any problem. Of course he’s no different:

There are obviously a lot of factors involved: partly it’s the kind of weapons that are available, partly it’s a failure of the mental health system, partly it’s the media. I mean, you look at these gun magazines and there’s this fetish attraction to assault weapons. In the Fifties and Sixties people had guns but there’s a different quality of weapon out there today and a change in the gun culture. There are all these people that say the way to solve the gun violence problem is to have more guns. You want to know about how that plays out? Ask a veteran that served in Iraq or Afghanistan how well that works. They’ve got open carry over there — do we want to be like Afghanistan and Iraq where everybody’s carrying around a weapon? More guns is not the answer. We’ve got enough.

So his issue are the “kinds of weapons”, when his Son was murdered by a California “Assault Weapon” compliant handgun, and the so-called “Assault Weapons” he’s prattling about were likely first invented and sold in the 1950s or 60s. Also there’s a “Fetish”? In what way? That gun magazines take glamour shots of guns? Well let me direct all attention to your coy little staged morning wake-up with soft focus and skillful edits, all done professionally. If there is a “Fetish” with “Assault Weapons” then you have quite the fetish with death and yourself.

Also LOVE the nasty little straw man of comparing Afghanistan to America, yeah these countries are SO similar. Also your Son was murdered in a state that outlawed open carry, by a person who was illegally concealing a firearm.

The fact that kids these days go through these lockdown drills at school is messed up. We shouldn’t accept that as normal. I refuse to accept the idea that “things will never be perfect.” That doesn’t mean we can’t make it better.

Here’s another HUGE “Progressive” fallacy. The false binary equation. We saw it with Obamacare. First the declaration that there is a healthcare problem in America…I frankly don’t see it as THAT big a problem, I know lots of people who are poor, and/or uninsured and I have never met anybody who didn’t get the health services they NEEDED. Now they don’t necessarily get the
BEST care, but they also don’t have the BEST housing, the BEST food, the BEST job, or drive the BEST car.

Still sure, I’m sure we could to BETTER in the heathcare department. Still when Obamacare was being debated and the first flaws in the law were being unearthed people said “IT’S NOT A PERFECT LAW, BUT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!!” and the truth is A) No we don’t, and B) LOOK AT WHAT YOU MOONBATS DID! There are LESS people insured today than before the law was passed. HUGE numbers of people lost their insurance because of the law, and the available were either completely worthless (If your Deductible is $10,000 or more, you are NOT insured, because you’ll likely go broke before you see a dime of insurance money) and a ton of people realized that it would be cheaper to pay the fine, and pay for health services out-of-pocket, than sign up for a new “Improved” plan.

So they did SOMETHING, and they MADE IT WORSE!!!

Same goes for gun control. Antis say “If it saves just ONE LIFE”, and they never consider that 40 people might be killed for that one person to be saved. Yeah we SHOULD work to make improvements to lessen violent crime in America, but Michael Bloomberg and Richard Martinez by proxy are NOT the answer!

How to make things better is what we’re still trying to figure out. If it takes targeting voters in certain congressional districts, then we’ll do that. We’ll do whatever it takes to get this problem solved. We’ve got to figure it out. People who have been working on the issue longer than I have have ideas that I don’t. I’ll do whatever I can go. I’ll go campaign on their behalf if they need me. I’m going to Washington and New York to get involved and get educated.

Note he’s NOT talking about violence here, but working to give Michael Bloomberg strong-arm power over the people who want no part in his laws.

This is EXACTLY what they claim the NRA does. They CLAIM that the vast majority of people what the whole USA turned into Manhattan and LA as far as laws, but the NRA pays off the politicians (and we can only assume rig elections) so that can never happen.

Of course that’s NOT the case, and why the NRA is so effective. The NRA works for the people, and the people band together with the NRA to defeat the anti-gunners.

Bloomberg and Martinez are in it for themselves, and that is why they’re losing.

This entry was posted in Family and Friends, Guns, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Anti-Gunner Richard Martinez

  1. Jack/OH says:

    The possible home invasion I thwarted (knock on wood) happened about the same time Mr. Martinez’s son was killed by the Santa Barbara psychopath. I don’t know the suffering he felt, but I was extremely upset that an educated man (I think he’s a lawyer) irresponsibly conflated a tool–firearms–with evil intent. That sort of thinking is just plain wrong.

    • Archer says:

      Ascribing sentient traits (i.e. “evil intent”) into an inanimate object (i.e. a firearm) is a pretty solid working definition of the term “fetishism”.

      So naturally, to them, WE’RE the ones with a “gun fetish”.

      Projection in action! 🙂

      • Jack/OH says:

        Archer, thanks for crossing that “t”. Fetishism, narcissism, some sort of borderline personality thing? I don’t know. Some of the public anti-rights/anti-gun people seem to have crossed over into psychologically/psychiatrically questionable ideation.

  2. Archer says:

    People who have been working on the issue longer than I have have ideas that I don’t. I’ll do whatever I can do. I’ll go campaign on their behalf if they need me.

    Translation: “I’ll be a good collectivist minion. The one thing I won’t do is ask rational questions or put any critical thought into the measures I’m being asked told to support.”

    (Oh, and there are no new ideas in this debate. Any “new” ideas he encounters will just be a re-hashing of decades-old lies and debunked statistics.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.