We just got treated to what I’d argue is the best editing job in the history of recorded speech. If you want to see it yourself, the bad news is you’ll have to watch a guy acting like a colossal jerk in the process. Yes, you’ll have to watch Barack Obama act like himself, after the U.S. Senate voted no on his favorite legislation-du-jour.
His reaction to the Capitol Blind Squirrels finding a nut was quite the spectacle. Seriously, if anyone older or more physically mature than the president were to behave in the same spectaculish manner, he’d need to do stretching exercises for about 20 minutes beforehand. Anyway, the amazing thing about the editing job was how, no matter how closely you pay attention, you can’t hear his feet stomping repeatedly, and you won’t catch the moment he tried to hold his breath until he turned blue (the Secret Service intervened in time). Whoever seamlessly removed that from the teletrantrum and left it on the cutting room floor is a lock for a future Oscar should he work in Hollywood.
According to the president, it was a “a shameful day for Washington” when the votes took place. I’ll tell you this much: when something is judged as “shameful” by Barack Obama, well, that is something you really should take to heart. Then, once you’re sure it’s fully heart-taken, follow his example and try to be as shameless as possible. And certainly don’t dismiss Dianne Feinstein’s failure-induced rage. I mean, c’mon! She stuck her finger in the wound of a gunshot victim! That gives her the right to determine if and how the Second Amendment is applied, you mental microbe.
That reminds me: I need some advice on flood insurance. Does anyone have the phone number for The Little Dutch Boy?
Unless someone has recently axed you upside the head, or you’ve flunked out of a remedial doodling class, or you’re a vice president who hails from Delaware, you probably got the gist of this debate about guns weeks ago. With few exceptions, on one side you have people who respect, and in some cases avail themselves of, the right to have guns; on the other you have people who look at the U.S. Constitution and get the sudden urge to field-test their Zippo’s. I’ve been reviewing numerous questions and/or arguments put forth by the Zippotesters, and decided to lay out a few helpful, easily understandable responses in case anyone out there is still gistless. Easily understandable, that is, unless you’re a vice president who hails from Delaware.
QUESTION AND/OR ARGUMENT #1: We need common-sense gun laws to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook from happening again.
RESPONSE #1: There is nothing common-sense about making a law that wouldn’t have had any effect whatsoever on the event that inspired that law. (If you owned a convenience store, and people were constantly shoplifting beer from you, Democrats would recommend locking up your milk.) It would actually be more common-sense to propose having H.G. Wells take a federal agent in his time machine back to mid-December and pull Adam Lanza out of his house by the earlobe, and on the way out remind his poor mother to lock up her weapons. (This proposal is impossible, of course; H.G. Wells is dead.)
QAOA #2: Don’t you care about the children?
R #2: I care about children a great deal, actually, so much so that I refuse to use them to silence others’ arguments or challenge their Constitutional rights. Exploit-mongers who do this are, morally speaking, somewhere behind pit vipers and barely ahead of NAMBLA members.
QAOA #3: Why do you need an assault rifle/thirty-round magazine?
R #3: So many to choose….okay, I’ll start with “Why do you need to wear the outfit you’re currently wearing, or eat at your favorite restaurant as opposed to one you barely like?” I’ll continue with “As opposed to a shampoo rifle or tire rotation rifle?” I’ll finish with “I don’t need a ‘thirty-round magazine’ per se; I need a ‘more rounds than you can fit in the magazine being used by the slime-monkey trying to enter my crib against my wishes magazine.’”
QAOA #4: Your Second Amendment rights will not be affected by the background checks this law calls for.
R #4: This particular “point,” along with the insistence that the law wouldn’t allow a national registry, was included in the prissy-fit delivered by Barack “Healthcare costs will go down, abortion won’t be covered, there are shovel-ready jobs, I’ll cut the deficit in half, we only increase rich people’s taxes” Obama. I guess you could call it a hunch that the guy might not be whipping up a kosher meal here.
QAOA #5: If you actually believe our government could become a tyranny, you’re insane.
R #5: Say, I need some change. Can you give me two tens for a five?