Al Franken is a Big, Fat Idiot (And other observations)

Al Franken supports an assault weapons ban. He had to clarify this, recently, because some Minnesota paper actually made the mistake of implying that he was somehow not strong enough in his support for a ban that violates the rights of law abiding citizens to purchase a rifle he considers big, bad and scary.

“I’ve always supported the Second Amendment rights of Minnesotans to own firearms for collection, protection, and sport,” Franken said in the statement. “But I also think we need to find a balance between those rights and the safety of our children and our communities. I co-sponsored legislation to ban large clips like those used in so many mass shootings.”

Al Franken is a big, fat idiot.

Al Franken doesn’t know the difference between a clip and magazine, even though the difference is easily researched, and those who actually know the difference have clarified it publicly too often to mention.

Al Franken and his fellow gun-banning assmonkeys don’t understand that a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds does not make a mass shooting possible. It’s quite easy to empty a 10-round magazine, drop it, slap a new one in, and continue shooting.

High-speed accidents cause a lot more deaths than the use of high-capacity magazines, but Al Franken does not propose banning sports cars. (BUT WE HAVE SPEED LIMITS, AND NO ONE COMPLAINS ABOUT THEIR RIGHTS BEING VIOLATED!!! Well, we also have laws against murdering your fellow human beings. No one complains about that either.)

And such bans are ineffective. Plenty of these magazines are in circulation already. They’re easy to make, and the ban is easy to circumvent.

But Al Franken soiled his frilly, pink thong at the thought that a media outlet or the leftards who elected him might think he’s not as much of a hoplophobic imbecile as he needs to be, so he reaffirmed his commitment to infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Al Franken obviously doesn’t comprehend the meaning of “criminal,” and he doesn’t respect the intent of the Second Amendment to the Constitution he swore to protect and defend.


5 responses

  1. I’ve heard Al Franken kinda waffle on this, depending on who he is talking to. I think he is hedging his bets — like any other politician.

    For many of them, they are keeping their powder dry (pardon the pun) until they get a consensus of what the people of their state want. After all, they aren’t supposed to be representing themselves, but the PEOPLE of their state.

    Franken had been asked about this today, and from what I gathered, this is exactly what his approach on all of this is. Honestly, whatever his position turns out to be, I would hope it is what the consensus of his constituency wants. After all, THEY are the voices that count, not his.

    As far as the nomenclature goes, “clip” “magazine” people get the general idea. The important issue for them is not what you are calling it, but what the capacity of that dohickey thing-a-ma-bob is. If the whirleygig is capable of holding 50 rounds versus 10, they don’t care what you want to call it. So to me, trying to base an argument on terminology entirely misses the mark.

    That said, your argument about the capacity IS right on target (again, pardon the pun) Whizzlesticks with a capacity of ten rounds are really no different than whatchamacallits that hold fifty rounds (except the greater possibility of a jam in the larger ones)

    I think we both know that the likelihood of ANY kind of ban has about as much chance of passing into law as I have a chance of sprouting wings and flying. Obama tossed out several separate proposals for Congress to act on — or not. They didn’t go up to the hill in one proposed bill but several separate ones for them to be considered separately — a smart move. I honestly don’t think that Obama expects most of them to see the light of day, instead I think he would really settle for just the criminal background check and better reporting.

    Another thing that a lot of people seem to miss is that when Obama talked about signing 23 “executive actions”, he was careful not to say that he was signing “executive ORDERS.” But I think he wanted to imply that he was. Go back and read his transcripts. The only people talking about these being ORDERS is the media and the people whose heads are exploding over the idea that Obama is “circumventing the Congress”.

    There is a difference. An Executive Order is just that — an order with the full force of the law, based on powers of existing law or control over an agency under his purview. An Executive Action is really nothing more than an official memorandum asking for cooperation in the strongest sense.

    One of those actions he signed makes the most sense in all of this debate regarding “gun control”: directing the Justice Department to push for more emphasis or prosecutions on felons in possession of firearms and other laws already on the books. The problem up until now is that prosecutors are too quick to either ignore these charges or let them be plea bargained out for a lesser plea in order to expedite convictions and ease the burden on the courts.

    Frankly, we have too many people going through the criminal justice system that really could be dealt with in treatment or diversion programs. Save the courts and prisons for the real criminals — murder, assault, kidnapping, sex crimes, robbery, and those hard-headed repeat felons and felons who cannot seem to follow the rules that say they cannot be in possession of a firearm. Taking the riff-raff out of the courts and prisons, means that the prosecutors and court can focus on dealing with these real problem-children. Forget plea bargaining a charge for an expedited guilty plea, charge them for everything and let the jury sort it out if they want to fight it. If they don’t let the judge sentence them accordingly.

    Forget giving average prison sentences of 22 months. If someone goes to prison, it should be for a minimum of ten years, twenty years, thirty years or LIFE. No parole, no early out, no “good time”.

    One reason why our current laws have no real deterrent value is because they are not applied standardly or even equally. I read somewhere recently, that the US Attorneys usually charge one out of every 1200 felons in possession of firearms, and allow that charge to go away for a lesser charge in about sixty percent of the cases. No wonder ex-felons don’t take this law seriously. They know that if they can plead to a crime with a sentence of 22 – 36 months, they can bypass a mandatory 10 year consecutive sentence in most cases. (If a felon commits another crime while in possession it is a mandatory THIRTY year sentence run consecutive)

    For me, this is “gun control” that I think everyone can sign onto. All of this banning this and restricting that is completely ineffective. It might SOUND good to some people, but the reality is that it won’t solve anything.

    I happen to be for a more universal background check. I don’t think it has to happen each time you buy a gun or ammo, but I think it should happen at least once a year and you be issued a license upon passing that check. If you want to buy a gun or ammo, present the card, the seller calls or enters your ID number in a computer, and once verified, you are good to go. It doesn’t have to be restrictive, or even a hardship. Just making sure that we aren’t giving guns to people who shouldn’t be given anything sharper than a plastic spork.


    1. D.j., the terminology becomes critical when actual laws are being crafted. I’d love to see a law banning “clips” holding more than 10 rounds. It wouldn’t affect any of my clips or magazines in the slightest, and would only serve to point out the ignorance and idiocy of the legislaters.


    2. @PavePusher — But that wouldn’t be the terminology that ends up in a legally crafted bill. The terminology being kicked around now is mostly the media using the terms. In any bill, there is a section devoted to accurately describe in exact terms what it is they are talking about.

      I just find it a distraction to people to glom onto proper terminology as an argument since for most lay people “magazine” and “clip” is an interchangeable concept — they get the picture of what is being debated.

      I suppose you can blame Hollywood for that.

      Better to cut to the chase and debate WHY banning or restricting capacity for “magazines” or “clips” is an asinine approach to preventing some haywire freak from shooting up a theater or mall.

      For that matter, someone can easily point out that even if you ban certain weapons or shooting capacity, it wouldn’t stop that nutjob from finding another way to inflict as much carnage as he can in a very short time. Don’t have one of those “assault” weapons? A bomb is a fairly easy thing to put together. The last I looked, bombs were banned a long time ago.

      The reason why I brought up the terminology thing is from listening to a similar discussion the other day where someone brought up the fact that they aren’t “clips”, but “magazines”, and continued to try and argue that line. What happened is that the argument then just focused on the terminology, and not the underlying issue itself and the opportunity to get the greater point across was lost.

      The bottom line is this: Go right to the heart of the issue and keep the debate right there. Forget the peripheral inaccuracies because you only have a short time to get the big idea across.

      In this issue, you are trying to convince most people who aren’t avid gun lovers or people who really have no interest in guns that what they are trying to push into law isn’t going to solve anything. Understand that these people see an obvious problem, and it is natural for them to jump to a conclusion that if only certain guns or parts of guns were illegal it would solve the problem. Since they obviously don’t understand, it makes more sense to explain why they are mistaken, and perhaps offer up a different and more rational solution that they might accept. HINT: suggesting that there should be more guns is not that solution, even if you believe it is. (you are trying to offer a solution to counter their idea of banning certain weapons. countering that with telling them that they need to accept more only pushes them away from you)

      We know what the real problems are when it comes to violence involving guns:

      Bad people with guns. This is an undeniable fact that NOBODY can argue with.


      One side sees “bad people” the other side sees “with guns”.

      We could get rid of the “with guns” side of the equation and you would still have “bad people”. Get rid of the “bad people” side of the equation and the “with guns” is no longer a problem.


  2. Hey, let’s not disparage frilly pink thongs, thank you very much. 😛


    1. They’d look much better on you than they would on him. The disparagement is for the wearer, and not for the undergarment. 😉


%d bloggers like this: