Meanwhile many liberals/politicians/luminaries are demanding a national conversation on guns. Townhall writer Kurt Schlichter eloquently explains what that's likely to mean:
Wait, we can’t have that conversation. In fact, we’re not supposed to have what people might commonly describe as a “conversation” at all. We’re supposed to shut-up and listen as liberals, barely masking their unseemly delight at the opportunity, try to pin the murder rampage of one degenerate creep on millions of law-abiding Americans who did nothing wrong. The conversation is then supposed to end with us waiving our fundamental right to self-defense.
Because that is what the goal is – a total ban on the private ownership of firearms. There’s always another “common sense” gun law which fails because it is targeted at law-abiding citizens and not criminals, thereby inviting another round of onerous new restrictions until finally no citizen is keeping or bearing anything more than a dull butter knife.Not a total ban on firearms of course--the rich elites, including Hollywood hypocrites and politicians would get to keep theirs 'for protection'. The real goal is to disarm the bitter clingers. It's almost a certainty that we'll be hearing about the Tea Party and other GOP entities in regards to blame for Newtown if only the tiniest of links can be established, probably during the 'discussion' phase in the weeks ahead. If anyone is expecting much out of this national discussion aside from liberals trying to heap guilt on conservatives in order to foist more 'change' they are fooling themselves.
What about the jiadist parallel (unlikely to be part of the national discussion). Let's assume Lanza was a jihadist. Let's say he was heard screaming Allahu Akbar while gunning down those children. Would it change anything? Would gun control be in the forefront of the national conversation right now or would the urgent question be about how the FBI, NSA, somebody should have had access to his computer to intercept his planning? Would the president have been shedding a tear on TV or would he have come on in stern tone urging everyone not to jump to conclusions? Even if the same guns were used in the attack?
So far religion has been relegated to the unfortunate utterings of Mike Huckabee, ie, this was caused by a lack of God in the schools. Actually, one could make the argument it was about a lack of God in Mr. Lanza's life. Religious beliefs--or a lack thereof--most certainly played a role. Nobody who walks into a school and murders first graders then kills himself has any worry about the afterlife. Lanza, even if he was off mentally, could not have believed in a literal hell. He likely had a nihilistic vision of simply pulling the trigger and going to sleep for eternity, ie, relief from his hellish existence on Earth.
On the contrary, Islamic suicide attackers believe in an after-life complete with a 72 virgin sex orgy. Both views allow nuts to kill themselves and almost look forward to it. As we've seen over the years it's very hard to stop someone unafraid to die. What good is a law when someone won't be around for prosecution?
While this story has featured more misinformation from the authorities--passed on by the media--than any in recent memory (and the cops had the balls to threaten people with prosecution for passing on false info) there are a few loose ends that need tying up. One, what happened to the other guy caught in the nearby woods wearing camo? Was that real or fantasy? Two, what about the supposed altercation the shooter had with someone in the school a day before the attack?
Now we find that Lanza's hard drive has been destroyed. That's a little strange since just a few days ago the authorities were saying they had real hopes of finding a motive based on what they were discovering in the home. But it's hard to tell the information from the misinformation.