Brendan Calling

Bob Casey: “I Want your Kids to get Shot”

Bob Casey just voted in favor of the Thune Amendment, and lost:

Opponents prevailed in their argument that the measure violated states rights by forcing states with stringent requirements for permits to recognize concealed weapons carriers from states that give out permits to almost any gun owner.

“This is no minor shift in policy,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., whose state requires people to be fingerprinted, get gun training and to undergo a federal background check before issuing permits. “It in fact would be a sweeping change and I think with some deadly consequences.”

The vote reversed recent trends where Republicans and gun rights Democrats from rural states joined to push pro-gun rights issues and block gun control legislation.

Congress this year voted to restore the rights of people to carry loaded weapons into national parks and the Senate moved to effectively eviscerate the tough gun control laws of the District of Columbia.

Hey Bob: when you’re finished wiping the NRA jizz off your chin and you’ve put your clothing on again (seriously, how much does Wayne LaPierre pay you to star in those bukkake films?), take a look at this picture:

You know who that is, asshole?
That’s a little boy named Faheem Thomas-Childs who was caught in the cross-fire outside of his school by idiots with guns. He was only ten years old when he died and it STILL makes me sick to think about it:

Her son would be 14, and on quiet days, when her younger children are at school, Patricia Arnold sits and imagines her son as a high schooler, discovering his independence, but still “sweet and kind,” tagging behind his older brother Cardeen, teasing his sisters, helping around the house, doting on Arnold, pleading “Mommy, gimme a kiss.”

Across from the brown sofa, a large portrait of Faheem peers down from the wall. It was drawn by an inmate in state prison, where Arnold once spoke about how violence stole her son.

One bitter cold February morning, five years ago, as Faheem Thomas Childs walked to school in his North Philadelphia neighborhood, two groups of men, feuding for days, pulled out guns and fired more than 40 shots at each other.

A crossing guard was struck in the foot. At the schoolyard gate, Faheem was struck in the head, above his right eye. The third grader fell to the ground, onto his backpack. A police officer rushed him to the hospital. He died three days later.

A mother grieved, and a city was outraged.

And YOU, Mr. Casey, being the supreme DOUCHEBAG that you are, voted to make it EASIER for people to bring guns into Pennsylvania.

How do you reconcile your pretend “pro-life” beliefs with your “pro-murder” votes? Every time I talk to your staff, they beat around the bush and hem and haw a lot.

You know what I think, Senatir?

I think you ought to take Wayne laPierre’s cock out of your mouth, stop acting like his come-rag, and start supporting common-sense gun legislation.

And don’t for a moment think I’m some anti-gun moron. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms just as much as the next guy.

But when that right bumps up against my right not to be shot, it’s a whole different ballgame. And you, sir, are in the wrong. Pennsylvanians don’t need some dingaling from Texas or Florida carrying their cock-substitutes into our borders: we have enough problems with our homegrown dinglalings.

So take a good look at Faheem Thomas, Senator Casey. Take a good look at that dead kid, and then ask yourself if you’re really as “pro-life” as you think you are.
Asshole.

if you like guns so much, why not give up your seat to a responsible Democrat, and go to work for the NRA instead. They pay better, and you’ll be that much closer to your boyfriend Wayne.

5 Responses to “Bob Casey: “I Want your Kids to get Shot””

1. Brendan Calling » Blog Archive » Bob Casey: “I Want your Kids to … | Calling Card Pro Says:
   July 22nd, 2009 at 2:55 pm

   [...] Excerpt from: Brendan Calling » Blog Archive » Bob Casey: “I Want your Kids to … [...]

2. alex Says:
   July 22nd, 2009 at 10:37 pm

   Brendan-

   There’s a large difference between people who get concealed carry permits and those who shoot innocents.

   To get a concealed carry license (the license that would be U.S. wide under the legislation) , any person would have to do the following:
   1. Take and pass a criminal background check. Felonies, violent misdemeanors, restraining orders automatically disqualify you. If you are convicted/restrained, you must surrender your license.
   2. Get photographed and fingerprinted.

   Very, very few gun crimes are committed by license holders. I believe it comes to less than 10/year for the entire country. More children die from drowning in 5-gallon buckets than from licensed CCW holders.

   Also, I hope you realize that the Commonwealth, despite any federal legislation, permits licensed residents of a few other states to carry concealed firearms, including ding-a-lings from Florida and Texas.

   Here’s the current list.
   az,co,fl,ga,id,in,ky,la,mi,ms,mt,nh,nc,nd,ok,sd,tn,tx,ut,va,wv,wy.

   Pennsylvania residents with permits may carry in most of these states (reciprocity is determined by each state).

3. Brendan Says:
   July 23rd, 2009 at 8:51 am

   polman:
   http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/americandebate/Packing_heat_mocking_principle.html

   If the Republicans get their way, people who pack heat in states with lenient license-to-carry laws would be able to bring their concealed weapons into virtually all the states and cities that have strict laws aimed at discouraging such behavior. In other words, a less than solid citizen with a record of alcohol abuse and misdemeanor convictions, who nevertheless can legally obtain a carry permit in a lenient state, would thus be able to bring his concealed weapon to a stricter state such as Pennsylvania. Or to New Jersey, a state that grants very few carry permits, generally limiting such licenses to security professionals.

   In other words, the Republicans are seeking a nationally-mandated gun-friendly law, a “centralized authority” that would trump the right of states and cities to decide what’s best for their own citizens. So much for the conservative principles of Goldwater and Reagan; the stench of the GOP’s hypocrisy is enough to make you retch.

   But that’s the gist of the Thune amendment, named for its chief sponsor, Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, who apparently believes that the gun culture traditions of South Dakota should virtually become the law of the land. At the moment, more than 30 states bar alcohol abusers from getting concealed-carry permits, more than 30 won’t give permits to those convicted of various misdemeanors, and more than 30 require that permit applicants first complete a gun-safety program. Under the Thune amendment, however, the pistol packers from the most lenient states would be able to cart their weaponry almost anywhere they want. In short, there would be one lax national standard, pegged to the lowest common denominator.

4. alex Says:
   July 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm

   Brendan-

   We allow residents of states that have different standards for awarding driver’s licenses to drive their cars in the Commonwealth. It doesn’t change what an individual state requires of _their_ residents.

   This bill wouldn’t change what any individual state would require of their residents. It would just require that any state that issues concealed carry permits recognize the permits of other states.

   Any state that didn’t want permit holders from other states carrying in their jurisdiction would have to eliminate permits for their own residents, as Wisconsin and Illinois do.

   Does this reduce all state’s permit laws to that of South Dakota? No. Does it mean that California or Massachusetts now have to issue licenses to every nut-job? No. It means that each state has to recognize each other’s licenses. If a Masshole gets their permit denied (for a reason that New Hampshire wouldn’t recognize, like being a minority), they could relocate to Nashua, get their license and carry in Mass, or any other state that issues permits.

   False residency would be like any other material misrepresentation of fact when we’re talking about firearms- a pretty serious felony.

   I realize this is something we disagree about. It seems that you trust our government to have sole access to the means of violence. I don’t trust them that much.

5. Brendan Says:
   July 23rd, 2009 at 11:30 pm

   you make good arguments.
   so I will think about that.

   my feelings about gun laws are actually kind of in line with what howard dean articulated a few years back:

   “I come from a rural state with a very low homicide state and no gun control other than the federal laws. I support those federal laws vigorously. Hunters don’t need AK-47s to shoot deer and most hunters I know don’t believe that it should be easier for criminals to get their hands on guns, but I know that states like California and New Jersey want more gun control than that. I believe that they should be allowed to pass what gun controls they think they need, but that it is unreasonable to apply laws that may be necessary in California to rural states like Montana or Vermont. The cross border issue has been resolved in one case: Virginia now limits the availability of gun purchases because so many Virginia guns were turning up in New York City illegally.”

   IMO we don’t need it to be easier for more guns to flow into the city. frankly, i don’t really see the need for ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons anyway, except in limited circumstances (which I’ll go into in a post script): my support for handgun ownership is pretty much limited to “someone’s-in-my-house” style self-defense. I mean yeah if the revolution happens it’ll be nice to have when I’m out buzzing the One World Novus Ordum Strike Forece, but in general, I don’t need a pistol when I go to the Kmart downtown or out of state. My life’s boring that way. Yours may be more exciting.

   so yeah, we disagree, although certainly not for the reason you state in your final two sentences. I totally believe people have the right to keep and bear arms specifically because the government can be an oppressor. but that doesn’t mean I support carrying those guns around willy nilly as if THE HAMMER IS COMIGN DOWN TODAY. And seriously, what will your little handgun do against a tank anyway, right?

   in a way my viewpoint is quite conservative: the federal government has no business telling local communities what they can and can’t allow. i’m pretty sure you feel that way about medical marijuana and assisted suicide.

   WRT gun permits compared to drivers license: cars are a necessary fact of daily life, the way we get to work, to pick up our kids, etc. in most of the country, families cannot succeed without at least one car. that is absolutely not true of concealed handguns. it’s a bad analogy.