NBC Chicago blogger Edward Edward Mcclelland‘s not happy about the fact that ex-con Rodrick Dantzler got ahold of a .40 caliber handgun and killed seven people in Grand Rapids, Michigan. “The only way to prevent this sort of thing from happening again is to track the weapon back to the gun manufacturer, then burn its factory to the ground. As long as it is legal to make and sell a product whose only function is to kill people, that product will be used to kill people illegally. A thug who’s planning a murder is not likely to worry about the penalty for stealing a gun.” At least Eddy gets that part of the equation right. And then he’s off again . . .
As a society, we’ve decided that the free manufacture of firearms is worth the sacrifice of seven people in Grand Rapids, or five people in DeKalb, or 32 people in Blacksburg, Va. Did you hear any politician suggest banning firearms after those bloodbaths? I didn’t.
Nor will Eddy hear any great chorus for gun control. Most people are well aware that a firearm offers them protection from . . . other people with firearms. But Big Mac has it only slightly wrong. Here, let me fix it . . .
As a society, we’ve decided that the freedoms guaranteed by the individual right to keep and bear firearms are worth the dangers of living in society where criminals also have access to firearms.
[If you care to set Mr. Mcclelland straight on this matter, click here to email him a copy of your reply.]
I wonder if there were protesters running around with wooden signs when the French and their Native allies were butchering settlers? Where they calling for the banning of all flintlocks, or is the imposed will of the safe and secure in their panic rooms just a 20th century and beyond event? I’ll remember to put the Alan Alda types on speed dial, in lieu of 911 and reaching for my handgun.
The only way to prevent this sort of thing from happening again is to track the blog back to the blogger, then burn his house to the ground. Hey, I think that moron is on to something.
Such hate for the first amendment – you should start a non-profit organization and a campaign to do away with all computers… oh wait… 🙂
Not a bad idea. I plan on starting some sort of gag organization at school anyway.
god what drivel
When I was in school I did a study abroad in England. Funny thing is that although guns are uncommon there, they have a real problem with stabbings. . .
Their government also doesn’t produce crime statistics so guesses are 160 people are stabbed every day.
The prison system proves one thing: You can’t regulate sharp objects.
The UK government produces copious amounts of crime data, including the number of stabbings. You just need to know where to look, or ask under the FOIA if you are A UK citizen.
I mean; we have twice as many violent crimes per capita compared to the US, so there’s certainly more information to go round…..
the British are now mandating knives with a square end – that is with out any point – – at some point they may even go so far as to mandate all rocks be made out of soft foam – socialist fools
So when some criminal steals a car and runs down this guys family, is he going to go to Detroit and burn down a car factory?
Nah, he can drive down to Torrence Avenue and burn the Ford plant.
Nope. They’ve all been turned into ruins already. There would be nothing to burn!
A (n ex) mayor who wants sodomize people with guns, a priest who wants to snuff gun dealers, mobs of unruly youth going around robbing people, and now a reporter who wants to burn down gun factories.
Is there something in the water up there Chicago way?
Yes. Sewage.
+1 Ralph.
That’s what happens when a drooling imbecile of a city engineer decides to share the sewer pipes with the storm drains instead of building separate systems.
Dear Mr McClelland
I find it interesting that you do not advocate this when multiple deaths occur in auto, train or plain crashes. Why is that? These also take innocent lives, yet you only think that gun factories should be burned to the ground. Unless you are advocating that ALL weapons be they knives, clubs, sticks, baseball bats, pit bulls, tire iron, rocks etc..etc..etc be banned you are hypocrite that feels only is his view of the world is the one that matters.
I made the above statement about car, trains and planes for a reason. None of these are included in the Constitution. They are no a right. Government can and does regulate them and impose controls on them. Guns on the other hand are in the Constitution. You know that document with the 1st amendment that gives you and me the right to actually have this debate.
If this is how you truly feel, please form a committee and fight to repeal the 2nd amendment. I can tell you right know it would not pass.
Thank you for your Time
Todd
Like above does not work. Here is his e-mail
[email protected]
Hope you proof read the version you sent him.
Adam
Could you be a little more specific? I normally compose in MS Word and I had no grammar or spelling underlines. I have reread the post a number of times and cannot see the error you reference. (Would I tweak it a little? Yes.) I know that my usage of words is often out of the main stream, but that does not make it wrong. Has much as I would love to have the diction and elocution of William F. Buckley I cannot and can only try to find my own style and voice. Thanks Todd
They are no a right, might be better worded as “They are not a right”.
…and I hope you’ll correct the error about the Constitution “giving” us our rights. The Constitution merely confirms and protects (snicker) rights which come from God, nature, or other metaphysical-entity-of-choice.
Frank Clarke
I assume you are referring to this sentence “You know that document with the 1st amendment that gives you and me the right to actually have this debate”. I choose to use the word “give” for a reason. If Mr. McClelland would ignore a right confirmed or protected getting into a semantic debate in this post would distract from the intent of the post which was to call him a hypocrite. Let me know if this helps Todd
O.K. I just gotta fisk this trash.
“The point is, there is no such thing as an illegal gun.”
Yes, that is because guns have no will of their own. They cannot violate laws because they lack volition. There can be no responsibility if there is no freedom; no volition translates to no violation. There are no illegal guns, only the occasional criminal misuse of them.
“The only way to prevent this sort of thing from happening again is to track the weapon back to the gun manufacturer, then burn its factory to the ground.”
So all remaining guns will then magically be prevented from being misused? Are you going to burn down my house to keep me from possibly misusing my guns?
“As long as it is legal to make and sell a product whose only function is to kill people, that product will be used to kill people illegally.”
It will be used to kill people legally, too. Wouldn’t it be swell if an armed citizen had decked Roderick Dantzler at his first indication of extralegal homicidal intent?
“After the Virginia Tech Massacre, President George W. Bush signed a bill strengthening the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. But that bill didn’t stop Rodrick Dantzler.”
Then what good will additional gun laws do? The only way to stop a killer is by killing him. Be glad that the ready availability of firearms provides free men that measure of security.
Nitwit!
+1
“As a society, we’ve decided that the freedoms guaranteed by the individual right to keep and bear firearms are worth the dangers of living in society where criminals also have access to firearms”
As a matter of fact, it is because crimals have such access that we insist that neither you or our government will infringe on that right!
With practice, a person can walk into a forest with a hatchet, duct tape and some twine, and walk back out a couple hours later with a perfectly serviceable flatbow complete with arrows. Perhaps we should burn down all the forests as well? Human beings have been killing one another with bows and arrows for at least 16,000 years, how long will we let this needless butchery continue?!
Slings, clubs, rocks? And how ’bout arms, legs, teeth and heads? Burn people too? In theory, rolled newspaper or magazine (one full of letters, not ammo :)) can be used as improvised club. What now, burn all printers and ban all publishing?
But I was told “Words can never hurt me”. :>)
Yeah? Whole pallet, full of Word CD’s doesn’t count?
I remember AOL CDs. Those could be seriously dangerous.
Ralph always seems to have the right answer. I hope this fool trys to burn down a gun factory, because he will either end up in jail or get shot by security.
This guy has a one track mind if he thinks firearms are the problem here. A criminal will find a gun even if they are illegal, thus the term “criminal”. You want to take MY gun away so I get stuck in a dark alley with a piece of shit parolee like one of them poor souls from the grand rapids? OMDB!
Why not just burn down the Ivory Towers and the slums? That would: (a) get rid of the lefties that refuse to support PROPERLY punishing homicidal ex-cons that illegally possess firearms and use them to kill innocent people; and, (b) eliminate the breeding grounds of the vicious, homicidal animals roaming the streets of what is rapidly becoming the formerly Great Nation of these United States of America.
It can be maddening when you try to explain to someone that criminals will have access to guns even with the most draconian gun laws. How does such an illogical idea continue to live?
May I suggest a slight modification to your fix?
As a society, we’ve decided that the freedoms guaranteed by the individual right to keep and bear firearms are necessary because of the dangers of living in society where criminals have access to firearms.
+1
Dear Mr. Mcclelland,
Burn down gun factories? As a licensed gun manufacturer whose business is run from my home, your suggestion is beyond the pale. Lets examie it a bit.
Burn down the enablers – It is an interesting premise that you propose, that the solution is burning down those whose legal actions somehow enable the illegal action.
Might such a burn down the enablers policy also apply to those that commit civil rights violations? Who could complain if news outlets that give voice to ideas that others act upon, violating the civil rights of citizens, were burned down?
By the way, your blog is news, you have advocated the gross violation of 2nd and 14 Amendment rights, which are by definition civil rights, and that picture of you is in your house, yes?
Does your burn down the enablers policy fit when the issue is civil rights? See where your stupid metaphor leads? Advocating violence (arson) to solve social issues is no solution at all.
Mr. McClelland is an ignorant, effete, metro punk. He is merely a simplistic twit who lets emotion get in the way of rational thought and serious analysis. A condition which, unfortunately, seems to be becoming an epidemic. I think that there is an open season on arsonists (actually caught in the act, that is) and no bag limit. The thing with mokes like Mr. McClelland is that they rarely have the stones or the conviction to back up their vapid words with actions; that’s for the dupes that they can cast a spell over . What a pathetic excuse for a man.
McClelland’s solution is arson? That’s like saying Robespierre’s Reign of Terror in France should have been stopped by burning all of the guillotines.
What’s really pathetic is that McClelland NEVER ONCE blames the shooter Dantzler, for his (racial) killing spree. He focuses only on the guns.
Could you imagine the prosecutors at the Nuremburg War Crimes tribunals blaming the showers and ovens in the death camps for the Holocaust?