Podcast: "I Feel Snitty"
Episode 6: "The NRA: The Never Rational Asshats (Part 2)"
Premiere Date: 8/20/19
Length: 16:57 (3,089 words)
Link: https://ifeelsnitty.podbean.com/e/the-nra-the-never-rational-asshats-part-2/
Transcript:
Welcome to I Feel Snitty. I’m your host, Craig Rozniecki. Today, I’m going to finish my episode from last week about guns.
As I said last week, after the recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton within a span of 13 hours, I debated on how I was going to approach the subject for the first time on this show. The fact of the matter is I’ve talked about this before, probably ad nauseum according to some. Hell, I even wrote a book which satirized the modern-day Republican Party’s stance on firearms, entitled, LOL at the GOP - Volume 3: Guns Don’t Kill, Cars Don’t Drive, and Ovens Don’t Bake. I’ve spoken and written about the rampant gun violence in this country and how to decrease its frequency so many times, I honestly don’t have anything new to say about it at the moment. So today I’m going to read to you multiple writings of mine on the subject - some serious, some snarky, and I hope that they can help convince some on the far right that stronger gun laws aren’t as frightening as they had previously thought, and individuals of all stripes to fight for common sense gun legislation, and save lives as a result.
It's never too soon to try to prevent violence
March 27, 2019
Following the mass shooting in New Zealand a couple weeks ago, I took to social media to speak out against gun violence and advocate for stricter gun laws. While roughly four-fifths of the responses were positive, the other fifth was not. These individuals tended to reply with, "Now is not the time," "It's too soon," or "Show some respect and sympathy for the grieving families."
In a utopic society, I could understand this train of thought. Hell, I used to be in the same camp as these negative-responders. I used to think, after a mass shooting, it was insensitive to make things political while the victims' families continually sobbed for days on end about the loss of their loved ones. But things change, people evolve (well, some of us), and in saying that, my viewpoint on the subject at hand has evolved as well.
Do you notice there seems to never be a good time to talk about gun violence and what we, as a nation, can do to condense the high frequency of these horrific incidents? After the Sandy Hook shooting, it wasn't the right time. Weeks after the shooting, where 26 elementary school kids and their teachers were shot and killed, it still wasn't the right time. Once the media began focusing their attention on the new shiny object in the room, the public outrage waned, and political "leaders" could focus their time, energy, and attention on more pressing topics (like making themselves more money). Then the next mass shooting occurs and we go through the same exact cycle until we reach the point we're at today.
In other words, not discussing the subject of gun violence hasn't worked. As has been stated a million and two times (make that a million and three), the definition of insanity is doing something in the same manner time and time again and expecting different results. So yes, I'm basically calling our country, or at least our politicians, crazy. What's the first step to solving a problem? Admitting you have one. That seems like common sense, for how can a drug addict overcome his or her addiction(s) if he/she doesn't recognize that it is an addiction? That's simply not possible. Sadly, many politicians, especially on the right side of the aisle, fail to recognize gun violence as a problem in this country. Granted, large donations from pro-gun groups like the NRA may be clouding their vision a bit, but even so, they shouldn't be so naivé as to think gun violence isn't a problem in this country. The next step is to discuss the problem and what can be done to solve it. Sure, we need to get past step one in order to work on step 2, but a guy can dream, can't he?
This is where we are as a country with regard to gun violence. A certain segment of the population doesn't believe gun violence is a problem. Another segment feels everyone knows it's a problem and dismisses the claims that the first segment actually exists. Due to this, the second segment feels a third segment who speaks out loudly on social media for stricter gun laws following a mass shooting are insensitive. I used to be in the second segment, but have now transferred to the third, because first of all, I'm not crazy (technically speaking). This silent routine post-mass shootings doesn't work, so I'm not going to continue down this same path. Secondly, I'm now cognizant of the sad fact that many in this country don't believe in the severity of gun violence.
In my opinion, especially given the state of our country, it's more insensitive to play the silent card post-mass shooting than it is to openly talk about the issue. What has silence resulted in? I'll tell you what - nothing legislatively, which has resulted in more mass shootings, and with that, more deaths. At least by trying to talk about the issue, I and others in the before-mentioned third segment are trying to prevent future gun-related deaths. How can that be construed as insensitive? After the AIDS epidemic hit, was it insensitive to openly discuss ways to cure the fatal disease? After the 9/11 attacks, was it insensitive to ask why the attack occurred and what we could do to substantially decrease the odds of it happening again? What makes gun violence different? On average, more people die of guns in a single month in this country than they did on 9/11. Think about that for a moment. How devastated were you on the morning of September 11th, 2001? The question is always asked, "Where were you when that happened?" Since that time, at least in terms of numbers, we, as a nation, have gone through 210 9/11s when it comes to gun violence. That's over 600,000 people whose lives have been taken from us due to guns. After the immediate shock wore off from the 9/11 attacks, what did the government do? Agree with their decision-making or not, they took swift action. Then President Bush declared a "war on terror," talked about countering an "axis of evil," and decided to take us to war. That's not even including the fact laws were passed which made even dead ACLU members cringe, namely The Patriot Act. Yet the government hasn't acted in such a strong manner against gun violence. They haven't declared a war against it, taken swift action legislatively to decrease deaths, or charted a new axis of evil that included the National Rifle Association. This is for two reasons: 1) The money coming in from the NRA and other like-organizations, and 2) Not wanting to lose votes on election day, which would inevitably come in the shape of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and company shouting for all their viewers to vote against the individuals whom supported stronger gun laws. The Republican Party is essentially playing the American people, in denying a serious problem exists, diverting the real issue to a false one regarding the 2nd Amendment, and laughing all the way to the bank. When they say, "It's too soon. Show a little respect for the families.," what they're really saying is, "Shut up, show us the money, and elect us again without giving one shit, let alone two for the victims' families."
The fact of the matter is, there is never a perfect time to discuss an issue which has taken the lives of so many. No matter when you talk about it, you're probably going to come across as insensitive to some. The longer we ignore this issue, though, the longer it will continue and more lives will be lost as a result. At least for me, the question becomes, "If we had talked about it sooner, could we have stopped this mass shooting?" So while it may not seem like a good time to talk about this issue on social media or in person, it's always a perfect time to try and save a life, or in this case, what's amounted to over 600,000 lives since 9/11. I think those grieving families would ardently agree.
Changing the term "gun control"
January 10, 2013
Through the years, Republicans have beaten Democrats when it comes to catchy slogans and talking points, which has pushed the narrative into their favor many times. This has especially been the case when it has come to gun control. Perhaps this has something to do with taking words at surface value. When hearing the words "gun control," many then shout back, "I don't want anybody controlling my guns!," just as when the Patriot Act came along, many probably thought, "Well, that sounds patriotic!" Indeed.
So, what I think we may need to do is alter the words "gun control" to something else, or at least come up with better slogans to coincide with it. Studies show that a majority of people favor specific gun control legislation, however, when asked about "gun control" in general, slightly less than 50% support it oddly enough. So, here are some of my suggestions:
Only toy guns for tots
No firearms for felons
Internet's for porn, not guns
Assault weapons are for pussies
Mentally insane should not shoot again
Gun control for the criminal, violent, and mentally unstable
From Snark to Finish (two-part)
More Good Guys With Guns
September 24, 2013
NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre, as he contended on Meet the Press a couple days ago and in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, believes that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and the only way to ensure our safety is through more good guys having guns. It's as simple as that apparently.
When I hear this rhetoric, several questions immediately spring to mind, such as: Who are these good guys?; How many are there?; Where can we find them?; What is the definition of "good guy?;" Are there some guys whom are neither good nor bad?; Should they have guns as well?; Can we trust them?; How do we define "bad guy?;" Is there a way we can prevent these bad guys from having guns?; If so, how?; etc.
In having all of these questions, I'm now going to attempt to crawl inside the mind of Mr. LaPierre (figuratively-speaking, of course) to see just how well this good-guys-with-guns idea could work. Since I don't have a definition of "good guys" and those whom are the strongest of NRA supporters tend to be affiliated with the far-right end of the political spectrum, they will be the "good guys" in this dialogue.
Setting: Gun handout at a special NRA-sponsored gun show
Wayne LaPierre: "I'd like to welcome everyone to our first ever Giving Good Guys Guns gun show. The only way to stop these bad guys with guns is if we have more good guys with guns, so we here at the NRA are going to do just that! It's first come, first served. Once you reach the front of the line, I'll ask you a question or two to determine if you are indeed a good guy. If I deem you are, I will hand you a free gun, and if not, you may be frisked and shot if you're armed. Shall we begin?"
Men: ::grunt::
LaPierre: "Okay, for the first person in line, I have just one question for you - do you believe in God?"
John Mark-Paul: "Hell yeah!"
LaPierre: "I knew you were a good guy. Here's your gun, and yes, it's loaded, so be careful."
Mark-Paul: ::starts firing gun in the air:: "Aw Yeah!"
LaPierre: "That's the spirit! ...and people say guns kill people! Nonsense! ...Okay, next?"
George G.W. Bush: "So, what's your question?"
LaPierre: "Are you pro-life?"
Bush: "Hell yes, except for those bad guys I'm going to shoot and kill!"
LaPierre: "I like your attitude. Here's your gun."
Bush: ::accidentally shoots himself in the foot:: "Ow! What in the heck happened?"
LaPierre: "Can we get some paramedics over here please?"
Paramedics: ::try taking away Bush's gun::
Bush: "Hey, hands off my gun or you're going to get it! Are you some of the bad guys?"
LaPierre: "Hey! I told you to take care of him, not strip away his 2nd Amendment rights!"
Paramedic Buck Ewe: "We're just trying to help..."
Bush: ::points gun at the paramedics:: "Get away from me! I'll crawl out of here if I have to! I'd rather crawl and bleed to death than have you take my gun away from me and make me feel better!"
LaPierre: "Gosh, I love that man. Alright, who's next? Sorry about the delay."
Franklin Marmalade: ::hands LaPierre his ID::
LaPierre: "Whoa! Wait a minute! What is this? Are you one of those gun control nuts? Security - get this man out of here! The next person who shows me their ID is going to get shot! You all got that? Okay... Next..."
Ronald Gaygan: "No IDs here. I've never even had a driver's license."
LaPierre: "That's fantastic! So, tell me, do you believe gays should be legally allowed to get married?"
Gaygan: "What? Do you think I'm some kind of queer or something? No!"
LaPierre: "Perfect answer! Here's your gun..."
Gaygan: "I'm going to run out, catch up with that ID freak, shoot him, and see if the blood trickles down!"
LaPierre: "Okay, just don't get caught! Alright, who's next?"
Busta Biggs: "Yo"
LaPierre: "Hmm... Hi. I know what I said before about IDs, but do you happen to have one on you?"
Biggs: "Naw, man. I thought I didn't need one, like all the others."
LaPierre: "That's true. Okay, how about this? Here's your question - do you have a criminal record?"
Biggs: "What kind of a question is that? I thought you were against background checks!"
LaPierre: "I am. Look, this was just the random question I drew for you. If you don't answer the question, I'm afraid you won't be given a gun."
Biggs: "Alright, no - I don't have a criminal record."
LaPierre: "None at all?"
Biggs: "Alright, so I got caught jaywalking one time in college. So what?"
LaPierre: "Security! ...Whew, that man kind of scared me. Okay, next in line please..."
Leslie Lesbie: "I'm next, sir."
::man yells out, "She's not a man! I thought you said good GUYS with guns!"::
LaPierre: "Yes, that's what I said, but let's hear this woman out for a moment. Okay, what's your definition of a 'good guy,' maddam?"
Lesbie: "Whatever you think it is."
LaPierre: "I like that answer. Here you are. Okay, next..."
Jeffrey Bomber: "That would be me."
LaPierre: "Wow, look at you! Tall, young, white, handsome, but not in a gay way. Your shirt even says, 'I love guns and Jesus." I don't think I need to ask you a question. Here, take any gun of your choosing."
Bomber: ::takes gun and starts shooting people::
LaPierre: "I thought you were a good guy who wanted a gun!"
Bomber: "I was until a few years ago. I can't buy a gun in the state I'm from now, so when I heard about your show, I knew I had to come."
LaPierre: "But, but, these are, well, were all good guys who wanted guns too."
Bomber: "Hey, I hadn't shot anybody for a few weeks. I had an itch. Unfortunately for them, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time."
LaPierre: "Maybe that ID freak was right!"
Bomber: "Yeah, sucks for you!"
LaPierre: ::prays to God, "More good guys with guns, more good guys with guns, more good guys with guns, more good guy...::
GOP says it's too soon to talk about terrorism
December 07, 2015
Following the San Bernardino shooting last week where 14 were killed and 21 others wounded, which the FBI is investigating as an act of terrorism, President Barack Obama said it was time to pass stricter laws in order to make it more difficult for terrorists to perform acts of terror within this country. Republicans quickly shot back, saying, "It's too soon to talk about terrorism," as well as, "Don't listen to the Democrats trying to use this terrorist act to set forth a political agenda." When I caught up with some of the GOP's leading presidential candidates, here's what they had to say about the matter:
- "Bombs don't kill people; terrorists with bombs kill people." - Marco Rubio
- "The only way to stop a bad terrorist with a gun is a good terrorist with a gun." - Ted Cruz
- "No matter what terrorism laws we implement, terrorists are going to find a way to break those laws, so why harm the rights of law-abiding citizens with the passing of these laws if terrorists are going to break them anyway?" - Ben Carson
- "They have stricter terrorism laws in other countries, yet one time I heard from this guy somewhere out there, whose name I forget but I really trust, that these countries still get attacked once in a great while, so I mean, what's the point?" - Donald Trump
Shortly thereafter, I contacted the Republican National Committee and asked," Since you claim it's too soon to talk about acts of terrorism, which have been responsible for less than 100 deaths on our soil since 2005, is it finally time to talk about gun violence, which has been responsible for over 300,000 deaths on our soil since that same time?"
The RNC responded, "What, are you crazy? If we feel it's too soon to talk about acts of terrorism in this country, it's way too soon to talk about gun violence. As a matter of fact, if terrorists want guns in this country, they should be able to get them. After all, terrorists deserve 1st and 2nd Amendment rights just like the rest of us. Oh, and Hillary Clinton is still the weakest of all when it comes to terrorism! Four is greater than both fourteen and 300,000! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!"
That’s it for today’s episode. I’ll see you again next week. Until then, check me out on PodBean, Twitter, Amazon, and Blogpsot. This has been I Feel Snitty with Craig Rozniecki. Take care.
Episode 6: "The NRA: The Never Rational Asshats (Part 2)"
Premiere Date: 8/20/19
Length: 16:57 (3,089 words)
Link: https://ifeelsnitty.podbean.com/e/the-nra-the-never-rational-asshats-part-2/
Transcript:
Welcome to I Feel Snitty. I’m your host, Craig Rozniecki. Today, I’m going to finish my episode from last week about guns.
As I said last week, after the recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton within a span of 13 hours, I debated on how I was going to approach the subject for the first time on this show. The fact of the matter is I’ve talked about this before, probably ad nauseum according to some. Hell, I even wrote a book which satirized the modern-day Republican Party’s stance on firearms, entitled, LOL at the GOP - Volume 3: Guns Don’t Kill, Cars Don’t Drive, and Ovens Don’t Bake. I’ve spoken and written about the rampant gun violence in this country and how to decrease its frequency so many times, I honestly don’t have anything new to say about it at the moment. So today I’m going to read to you multiple writings of mine on the subject - some serious, some snarky, and I hope that they can help convince some on the far right that stronger gun laws aren’t as frightening as they had previously thought, and individuals of all stripes to fight for common sense gun legislation, and save lives as a result.
It's never too soon to try to prevent violence
March 27, 2019
Following the mass shooting in New Zealand a couple weeks ago, I took to social media to speak out against gun violence and advocate for stricter gun laws. While roughly four-fifths of the responses were positive, the other fifth was not. These individuals tended to reply with, "Now is not the time," "It's too soon," or "Show some respect and sympathy for the grieving families."
In a utopic society, I could understand this train of thought. Hell, I used to be in the same camp as these negative-responders. I used to think, after a mass shooting, it was insensitive to make things political while the victims' families continually sobbed for days on end about the loss of their loved ones. But things change, people evolve (well, some of us), and in saying that, my viewpoint on the subject at hand has evolved as well.
Do you notice there seems to never be a good time to talk about gun violence and what we, as a nation, can do to condense the high frequency of these horrific incidents? After the Sandy Hook shooting, it wasn't the right time. Weeks after the shooting, where 26 elementary school kids and their teachers were shot and killed, it still wasn't the right time. Once the media began focusing their attention on the new shiny object in the room, the public outrage waned, and political "leaders" could focus their time, energy, and attention on more pressing topics (like making themselves more money). Then the next mass shooting occurs and we go through the same exact cycle until we reach the point we're at today.
In other words, not discussing the subject of gun violence hasn't worked. As has been stated a million and two times (make that a million and three), the definition of insanity is doing something in the same manner time and time again and expecting different results. So yes, I'm basically calling our country, or at least our politicians, crazy. What's the first step to solving a problem? Admitting you have one. That seems like common sense, for how can a drug addict overcome his or her addiction(s) if he/she doesn't recognize that it is an addiction? That's simply not possible. Sadly, many politicians, especially on the right side of the aisle, fail to recognize gun violence as a problem in this country. Granted, large donations from pro-gun groups like the NRA may be clouding their vision a bit, but even so, they shouldn't be so naivé as to think gun violence isn't a problem in this country. The next step is to discuss the problem and what can be done to solve it. Sure, we need to get past step one in order to work on step 2, but a guy can dream, can't he?
This is where we are as a country with regard to gun violence. A certain segment of the population doesn't believe gun violence is a problem. Another segment feels everyone knows it's a problem and dismisses the claims that the first segment actually exists. Due to this, the second segment feels a third segment who speaks out loudly on social media for stricter gun laws following a mass shooting are insensitive. I used to be in the second segment, but have now transferred to the third, because first of all, I'm not crazy (technically speaking). This silent routine post-mass shootings doesn't work, so I'm not going to continue down this same path. Secondly, I'm now cognizant of the sad fact that many in this country don't believe in the severity of gun violence.
In my opinion, especially given the state of our country, it's more insensitive to play the silent card post-mass shooting than it is to openly talk about the issue. What has silence resulted in? I'll tell you what - nothing legislatively, which has resulted in more mass shootings, and with that, more deaths. At least by trying to talk about the issue, I and others in the before-mentioned third segment are trying to prevent future gun-related deaths. How can that be construed as insensitive? After the AIDS epidemic hit, was it insensitive to openly discuss ways to cure the fatal disease? After the 9/11 attacks, was it insensitive to ask why the attack occurred and what we could do to substantially decrease the odds of it happening again? What makes gun violence different? On average, more people die of guns in a single month in this country than they did on 9/11. Think about that for a moment. How devastated were you on the morning of September 11th, 2001? The question is always asked, "Where were you when that happened?" Since that time, at least in terms of numbers, we, as a nation, have gone through 210 9/11s when it comes to gun violence. That's over 600,000 people whose lives have been taken from us due to guns. After the immediate shock wore off from the 9/11 attacks, what did the government do? Agree with their decision-making or not, they took swift action. Then President Bush declared a "war on terror," talked about countering an "axis of evil," and decided to take us to war. That's not even including the fact laws were passed which made even dead ACLU members cringe, namely The Patriot Act. Yet the government hasn't acted in such a strong manner against gun violence. They haven't declared a war against it, taken swift action legislatively to decrease deaths, or charted a new axis of evil that included the National Rifle Association. This is for two reasons: 1) The money coming in from the NRA and other like-organizations, and 2) Not wanting to lose votes on election day, which would inevitably come in the shape of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and company shouting for all their viewers to vote against the individuals whom supported stronger gun laws. The Republican Party is essentially playing the American people, in denying a serious problem exists, diverting the real issue to a false one regarding the 2nd Amendment, and laughing all the way to the bank. When they say, "It's too soon. Show a little respect for the families.," what they're really saying is, "Shut up, show us the money, and elect us again without giving one shit, let alone two for the victims' families."
The fact of the matter is, there is never a perfect time to discuss an issue which has taken the lives of so many. No matter when you talk about it, you're probably going to come across as insensitive to some. The longer we ignore this issue, though, the longer it will continue and more lives will be lost as a result. At least for me, the question becomes, "If we had talked about it sooner, could we have stopped this mass shooting?" So while it may not seem like a good time to talk about this issue on social media or in person, it's always a perfect time to try and save a life, or in this case, what's amounted to over 600,000 lives since 9/11. I think those grieving families would ardently agree.
Changing the term "gun control"
January 10, 2013
Through the years, Republicans have beaten Democrats when it comes to catchy slogans and talking points, which has pushed the narrative into their favor many times. This has especially been the case when it has come to gun control. Perhaps this has something to do with taking words at surface value. When hearing the words "gun control," many then shout back, "I don't want anybody controlling my guns!," just as when the Patriot Act came along, many probably thought, "Well, that sounds patriotic!" Indeed.
So, what I think we may need to do is alter the words "gun control" to something else, or at least come up with better slogans to coincide with it. Studies show that a majority of people favor specific gun control legislation, however, when asked about "gun control" in general, slightly less than 50% support it oddly enough. So, here are some of my suggestions:
Only toy guns for tots
No firearms for felons
Internet's for porn, not guns
Assault weapons are for pussies
Mentally insane should not shoot again
Gun control for the criminal, violent, and mentally unstable
From Snark to Finish (two-part)
More Good Guys With Guns
September 24, 2013
NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre, as he contended on Meet the Press a couple days ago and in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting, believes that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, and the only way to ensure our safety is through more good guys having guns. It's as simple as that apparently.
When I hear this rhetoric, several questions immediately spring to mind, such as: Who are these good guys?; How many are there?; Where can we find them?; What is the definition of "good guy?;" Are there some guys whom are neither good nor bad?; Should they have guns as well?; Can we trust them?; How do we define "bad guy?;" Is there a way we can prevent these bad guys from having guns?; If so, how?; etc.
In having all of these questions, I'm now going to attempt to crawl inside the mind of Mr. LaPierre (figuratively-speaking, of course) to see just how well this good-guys-with-guns idea could work. Since I don't have a definition of "good guys" and those whom are the strongest of NRA supporters tend to be affiliated with the far-right end of the political spectrum, they will be the "good guys" in this dialogue.
Setting: Gun handout at a special NRA-sponsored gun show
Wayne LaPierre: "I'd like to welcome everyone to our first ever Giving Good Guys Guns gun show. The only way to stop these bad guys with guns is if we have more good guys with guns, so we here at the NRA are going to do just that! It's first come, first served. Once you reach the front of the line, I'll ask you a question or two to determine if you are indeed a good guy. If I deem you are, I will hand you a free gun, and if not, you may be frisked and shot if you're armed. Shall we begin?"
Men: ::grunt::
LaPierre: "Okay, for the first person in line, I have just one question for you - do you believe in God?"
John Mark-Paul: "Hell yeah!"
LaPierre: "I knew you were a good guy. Here's your gun, and yes, it's loaded, so be careful."
Mark-Paul: ::starts firing gun in the air:: "Aw Yeah!"
LaPierre: "That's the spirit! ...and people say guns kill people! Nonsense! ...Okay, next?"
George G.W. Bush: "So, what's your question?"
LaPierre: "Are you pro-life?"
Bush: "Hell yes, except for those bad guys I'm going to shoot and kill!"
LaPierre: "I like your attitude. Here's your gun."
Bush: ::accidentally shoots himself in the foot:: "Ow! What in the heck happened?"
LaPierre: "Can we get some paramedics over here please?"
Paramedics: ::try taking away Bush's gun::
Bush: "Hey, hands off my gun or you're going to get it! Are you some of the bad guys?"
LaPierre: "Hey! I told you to take care of him, not strip away his 2nd Amendment rights!"
Paramedic Buck Ewe: "We're just trying to help..."
Bush: ::points gun at the paramedics:: "Get away from me! I'll crawl out of here if I have to! I'd rather crawl and bleed to death than have you take my gun away from me and make me feel better!"
LaPierre: "Gosh, I love that man. Alright, who's next? Sorry about the delay."
Franklin Marmalade: ::hands LaPierre his ID::
LaPierre: "Whoa! Wait a minute! What is this? Are you one of those gun control nuts? Security - get this man out of here! The next person who shows me their ID is going to get shot! You all got that? Okay... Next..."
Ronald Gaygan: "No IDs here. I've never even had a driver's license."
LaPierre: "That's fantastic! So, tell me, do you believe gays should be legally allowed to get married?"
Gaygan: "What? Do you think I'm some kind of queer or something? No!"
LaPierre: "Perfect answer! Here's your gun..."
Gaygan: "I'm going to run out, catch up with that ID freak, shoot him, and see if the blood trickles down!"
LaPierre: "Okay, just don't get caught! Alright, who's next?"
Busta Biggs: "Yo"
LaPierre: "Hmm... Hi. I know what I said before about IDs, but do you happen to have one on you?"
Biggs: "Naw, man. I thought I didn't need one, like all the others."
LaPierre: "That's true. Okay, how about this? Here's your question - do you have a criminal record?"
Biggs: "What kind of a question is that? I thought you were against background checks!"
LaPierre: "I am. Look, this was just the random question I drew for you. If you don't answer the question, I'm afraid you won't be given a gun."
Biggs: "Alright, no - I don't have a criminal record."
LaPierre: "None at all?"
Biggs: "Alright, so I got caught jaywalking one time in college. So what?"
LaPierre: "Security! ...Whew, that man kind of scared me. Okay, next in line please..."
Leslie Lesbie: "I'm next, sir."
::man yells out, "She's not a man! I thought you said good GUYS with guns!"::
LaPierre: "Yes, that's what I said, but let's hear this woman out for a moment. Okay, what's your definition of a 'good guy,' maddam?"
Lesbie: "Whatever you think it is."
LaPierre: "I like that answer. Here you are. Okay, next..."
Jeffrey Bomber: "That would be me."
LaPierre: "Wow, look at you! Tall, young, white, handsome, but not in a gay way. Your shirt even says, 'I love guns and Jesus." I don't think I need to ask you a question. Here, take any gun of your choosing."
Bomber: ::takes gun and starts shooting people::
LaPierre: "I thought you were a good guy who wanted a gun!"
Bomber: "I was until a few years ago. I can't buy a gun in the state I'm from now, so when I heard about your show, I knew I had to come."
LaPierre: "But, but, these are, well, were all good guys who wanted guns too."
Bomber: "Hey, I hadn't shot anybody for a few weeks. I had an itch. Unfortunately for them, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time."
LaPierre: "Maybe that ID freak was right!"
Bomber: "Yeah, sucks for you!"
LaPierre: ::prays to God, "More good guys with guns, more good guys with guns, more good guys with guns, more good guy...::
GOP says it's too soon to talk about terrorism
December 07, 2015
Following the San Bernardino shooting last week where 14 were killed and 21 others wounded, which the FBI is investigating as an act of terrorism, President Barack Obama said it was time to pass stricter laws in order to make it more difficult for terrorists to perform acts of terror within this country. Republicans quickly shot back, saying, "It's too soon to talk about terrorism," as well as, "Don't listen to the Democrats trying to use this terrorist act to set forth a political agenda." When I caught up with some of the GOP's leading presidential candidates, here's what they had to say about the matter:
- "Bombs don't kill people; terrorists with bombs kill people." - Marco Rubio
- "The only way to stop a bad terrorist with a gun is a good terrorist with a gun." - Ted Cruz
- "No matter what terrorism laws we implement, terrorists are going to find a way to break those laws, so why harm the rights of law-abiding citizens with the passing of these laws if terrorists are going to break them anyway?" - Ben Carson
- "They have stricter terrorism laws in other countries, yet one time I heard from this guy somewhere out there, whose name I forget but I really trust, that these countries still get attacked once in a great while, so I mean, what's the point?" - Donald Trump
Shortly thereafter, I contacted the Republican National Committee and asked," Since you claim it's too soon to talk about acts of terrorism, which have been responsible for less than 100 deaths on our soil since 2005, is it finally time to talk about gun violence, which has been responsible for over 300,000 deaths on our soil since that same time?"
The RNC responded, "What, are you crazy? If we feel it's too soon to talk about acts of terrorism in this country, it's way too soon to talk about gun violence. As a matter of fact, if terrorists want guns in this country, they should be able to get them. After all, terrorists deserve 1st and 2nd Amendment rights just like the rest of us. Oh, and Hillary Clinton is still the weakest of all when it comes to terrorism! Four is greater than both fourteen and 300,000! Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!"
That’s it for today’s episode. I’ll see you again next week. Until then, check me out on PodBean, Twitter, Amazon, and Blogpsot. This has been I Feel Snitty with Craig Rozniecki. Take care.
Comments
Post a Comment