Skip to main content

One gun-related murder negates any reason for strengthening gun laws

Just this morning, I read the following post on Facebook from a Tea Partier:

"Nikko Jenkins was released from prison on July 30th for a ten-year stint for felony assault and burglary. Now he's in custody for the murder of a young mother... He had guns and ammo....Tell me again how gun laws protect people? ..."

First thing's first - based on the minimal information provided in the post, it's virtually impossible to put forth a strong argument for or against stronger gun laws based on this one case. However, if we just look at things from a surface-value standpoint, this post sounds ridiculous.

"He had guns and ammo.... Tell me again how gun laws protect people?"

Let's see here - if we had stronger gun laws, it would have been more difficult for him to obtain guns and ammo, correct?

If a person who once had a suspended license got into an accident which killed somebody, would this individual then say, "Tell me again how traffic laws protect people?" 

Tea Partiers are sounding more and more anti-law and pro-anarchy. If one person breaks any law, that law is pointless, because it punishes law-abiding citizens in their minds. However, without these laws, how could such citizens then be labeled as law-abiding?

Immediately after reading this person's post, I researched the matter - largely because a few questions had sprung to mind, such as: 1) How did this felon obtain guns and ammo?; 2) Were they obtained legally?, 3) Were they stolen?, and 4) If they weren't purchased by him, who purchased them and did he or she have a record?

Well, after researching the matter, it appears as if a friend of Jenkins lent a helping hand in buying two boxes of Brenneke Classic Magnum 12-gauge ammunition at Canfield's Sporting Goods. Jenkins' friend is also a felon, so how in the world was she able to purchase ammunition?

"Tell me again how gun laws protect people?"

What gun laws? When a felon is able to purchase ammunition at a sporting goods store for another felon, it seems to me that our gun laws are weaker than a jello shot void of alcohol. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more