So what law would have stopped him?

October 22nd, 2012

The man who shot his wife and six others on Sunday didn’t care that he was under a restraining order to stay away from his wife. He just ignored it.

He didn’t care that the restraining order prohibited him from having weapons. He ignored that, too.

And, now, it turns out he ignored one more law, as well:

Just another sign that signs don’t stop bullets.

Entry Filed under: Gun Control,Observations

20 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Rustmeister  |  October 22nd, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    Not to mention the whole “don’t shoot people” law.

  • 2. Debunked  |  October 23rd, 2012 at 9:08 am

    It’s too bad Cheney never heard of that one.

  • 3. John Foust  |  October 23rd, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    It’s like dolphins. Many believe they save drowning swimmers by pushing them towards shore. I say we never hear from the ones they push out to sea.

  • 4. TerryN  |  October 23rd, 2012 at 1:55 pm

    At last Cheney didn’t try to blame it on a video, for two weeks!

  • 5. BobG  |  October 25th, 2012 at 8:56 am

    I try to stay away from “no gun” zones; those places tend to attract crazies who want to shoot a lot of people at once without worrying about anyone firing back.

  • 6. John Foust  |  November 2nd, 2012 at 8:40 am

    But “vote fraud is illegal” billboards are magically effective right?

  • 7. Roland Melnick  |  November 3rd, 2012 at 4:31 pm

    Why would a “Vote Fraud is a Felony” billboard stop someone from legally voting?

    Do “Don’t Drink and Drive” billboards stop sober folks from driving?

  • 8. John Foust  |  November 3rd, 2012 at 9:47 pm

    So why’d those Wisconsin conservatives spend all that money on billboards?

  • 9. Roland Melnick  |  November 5th, 2012 at 2:01 pm

    “So why’d those Wisconsin conservatives spend all that money on billboards?”

    To deter those who are inclined to commit vote fraud. If it is stating the obvious, so be it…it’s their money to spend.

    I don’t know the guy who paid for them…maybe he is a racist…the existence of these billboards doesn’t prove it one way or another. I’m sure Scot Ross doesn’t know what’s in man’s heart either, but that doesn’t stop him from being a dishonest liberal hack. The “racism” claim is one that hasn’t been supported with facts/logic/reason in this case. It doesn’t further the cause of race relations to exploit baseless charges of racism for political advantage.

    I think it’s rather insulting that liberals think black people who are eligible voters can’t comprehend the message of those billboards.

  • 10. John Foust  |  November 5th, 2012 at 3:00 pm

    Vote fraud is so extremely rare. It’s already NOT HAPPENING. It doesn’t warrant billboards to deter it.

    I think they intended to deter Democrats from voting, and in their anonymous hearts, they thought the best way to do that was to concentrate the billboards in areas that happened to be poor and less white.

    What sort of evidence would convince you that there was some racial component to their advertising campaign? You think it’s simply not possible that money-flush Wisconsin conservatives could hold those sorts of prejudices in their hearts and minds?

  • 11. Roland Melnick  |  November 5th, 2012 at 4:11 pm

    Vote fraud is rare? Why, because Kevin Kennedy says so? Scot Ross? There have been dozens upon dozens of examples of it. Instead of embracing reasonable methods of adding integrity to our elections, Democrats and the GAB (repeating myself) seek to make it wide open with no standard whatsoever. Rather than make reasonable inquiries into how ballots are cast and check for loopholes for fraud, the Democrat line is this forced ignorance where you all pretend it doesn’t happen.

    “What sort of evidence would convince you that there was some racial component to their advertising campaign?”

    I’m open minded…some evidence, any evidence would be a start. Speculation and conjecture from the likes of Scot Ross is light years from that.

    Again, why do you think so little of “poor and less white” folks that they can’t comprehend what a billboard says?

  • 12. Roland Melnick  |  November 5th, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    There is a segment of voters being disenfranchised, just not a group the Left gives a rip about:

  • 13. John Foust  |  November 6th, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    Dozens upon dozens? Over what time period, in what geographical area? The burden of proof is on you, not me, when you claim vote fraud happens at a rate that would cause us to overhaul our voting system.

  • 14. John Foust  |  November 6th, 2012 at 1:25 pm

    Even highly-regarded Republicans don’t believe it exists.

  • 15. Debunked  |  November 6th, 2012 at 7:39 pm

    Republican strategy 101.

    Step 1) Commit election fraud.

    Step 2) Claim voter fraud exists and implement last minute desperate measures in order to “prevent non-existent voter fraud” by adding some additional overhead to being able to vote.

    Step 3) When election fraud is detected, point to it, claim it is voter fraud and that it satisfies the need for Step 2.

    Step 4) Repeat process at Step 1.

  • 16. Roland Melnick  |  November 7th, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    I don’t know who is calling for an “overhaul”…I’m not. Just some common-sense precautions to add integrity to one of our most important civil functions.

    The Democrat position on voter fraud is like a police chief who pulls all of his officers off the freeways, then claims that speeding is no longer an issue because speeding tickets are no longer being written on them.

    Steve Schmidt is “highly regarded”? That’s news to me.

  • 17. John Foust  |  November 8th, 2012 at 9:57 am

    Oh, I forgot that Roland Melnick was once an advisor to the McCain campaign.

  • 18. Roland Melnick  |  November 24th, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Someone who ran an inept campaign that failed miserably typically isn’t “highly regarded”, except by those looking for a convenient soundbyte.

    “Oh, I forgot that Roland Melnick was once an advisor to the McCain campaign.”

    Nope…just another guy expressing an opinion or making an argument. What are you?

  • 19. John Foust  |  December 1st, 2012 at 1:50 pm

    You voted for McCain, right?

  • 20. Roland Melnick  |  January 2nd, 2013 at 4:26 pm

    Of course I did. The alternatives favored the tragic installation of our current Marxist-in-Chief.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.