It’s… Clueless-Man!

Over the weekend, Rep. Louie Gohmert said that he wished the principal of Sandy Hook elementary — who was one of the first to encounter Adam Lanza at the start of his rampage and was one of the first people he shot and killed — had herself been carrying a gun.

NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was asked about Gohmert’s comment:

Bloomberg responded by saying, “There are dumb statements and then there are stupid statements… I don’t know what the gun would have done.

Aside from the principal saving her own life and stopping that freak dead in his tracks before he was able to kill many, many more kids and teachers, I have no idea what the gun would have done.

Because he has no idea what guns accomplish, somebody should propose that Bloomberg’s security detail be disarmed. Suddenly I’m sure he’d have an idea of what guns accomplish.

(h/t Weasel Zippers)


14 Responses to “Nanny Bloomberg Just Keeps on Making No Sense”

  1. SignPainterGuy on December 18th, 2012 4:52 am

    "My security team, but not you !", aka; "Fine for me, but not for thee !"

    What would the gun have done ? It would have whispered, nah, yelled, at the Principal, "SHOOT that nut job !" Don`tcha know, guns can act freely and independently of human control ?

  2. James on December 18th, 2012 11:02 am

    Typical liberal. Do as I say, not as I do

  3. backwoodsconsr on December 18th, 2012 11:06 am

    Making sense automatically disqualifies a person from being a liberal.

  4. Truesoldier__ on December 18th, 2012 2:00 pm

    "I don’t know what the gun would have done."

    Well, the gun would have done nothing, the Principle on the other hand could have given the shooter a one way ticket to the afterlife.

  5. jeffythequick on December 18th, 2012 2:10 pm

    I heard something interesting, I think on Levin's show, last night.

    Except for one place (it wasn't Ft. Hood, they were all disarmed), all mass shootings in the last 40 years have been in gun free zones.

    Mr. Bloomberg, perhaps you're smart enough to know that, seeing that your security detail is a not a gun free zone.

    Speaking of that, what, exactly were the British going for when they marched to Concord, that Paul Revere warned about?

    Oh yeah, the armory, so they could disarm the Colonists and arrest the leaders.

    Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

  6. Truesoldier__ on December 18th, 2012 2:15 pm

    Oh they have learned from history alright. They would love nothing more than to disarm the populace so as to make it easier to cram their agenda down our throats. It is Reagan's "Peace through Strength" ideals that is the only thing keeping the elites from completly running roughshod over the populace. They know that if they push to hard to quickly it could very well lead to another revolution and no one wants that (neither the eleites nor the general public). So they use the incremental approach of stripping our liberties one at a time, allowing us to transistion to the new norm before stripping another layer of liberty.

  7. Truesoldier__ on December 18th, 2012 2:16 pm

    It never ceases to amaze me how liberals seem to believe that guns are sentient beings capable of action on their own; yet they call Conservatives irrational.

  8. SignPainterGuy on December 18th, 2012 2:40 pm

    I don`t remember who said it, but paraphrased, the jist is, "People will never go for So-cial-ism all at once, but they will take it one step at a time in the name of lib-er-al-ism."

  9. jeffythequick on December 18th, 2012 2:45 pm

    I thought it was Ezra Taft Benson, Sec. of Agriculture under Eisenhower, after talking with Khrushchev, who told him that.

  10. SignPainterGuy on December 18th, 2012 3:06 pm

    I`ve told this story before, so if you`ve heard it already, don`t stop me, I want to hear it again myself. ;-)

    A female acquaintance of mine, dem. 2nd grade teacher, had inherited a pistol from her Grandparents` estate. She was deathly afraid of guns and didn`t want it in her house, so she wanted to give it to me. I thought that since she lived alone out in the country, the nearest house was the only one in sight about 100 yards away, she should keep it and I`d teach her all she needed to know about caring for it safely and how and when to shoot it.

    "NOPE, I hate guns, don`t want it around !"

    I soon realized the futility of continuing, so I asked her, "Are you actually afraid this gun is just looking for a chance to jump up and shoot someone ?" She sheepishly nodded, "Yes".

    Incredibly, YES, some people DO think guns can act on their own. It shouldn`t be too great a leap to imagine that some of those same people would believe that a gun could "speak to it`s owner, telling him to murder innocent women and children" !

  11. Truesoldier__ on December 18th, 2012 3:12 pm

    With some of the liberals out there I would not be surprised to find that many an inanimate object has spoken to them over the years. It would explain a whole lot.

  12. SignPainterGuy on December 18th, 2012 3:16 pm

    Thanks. I had no idea it would be on the tube of you !

    Remember, it`s not that I remember a lot, it`s that I remember the durndest things ! ;-)

  13. @azwatergeek on December 19th, 2012 4:17 pm

    You have to remember that guns, from a liberal's warped point of view, are only good for offense and should never be used for defense.

  14. SignPainterGuy on December 19th, 2012 9:19 pm

    I understand that for libs, guns can produce only the worst case scenario ! Libs also believe that people cannot be trusted, so their fears reign supreme.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.