George Skelton wants your bullets

Girls With GunsJune 17, 2013

By John Seiler

The L.A. Times’ anti-gun obsessive George Skelton now wants your bullets. He writes:

“From what I’ve been reading, the Santa Monica killer was packing an illegal assault rifle and 40 high-capacity ammunition magazines. He sprayed 100 bullets and had access to 1,300.

“And, oh yes, he was a mental case.

“The guy’s exact background and how he obtained his war-ready arsenal weren’t clear as of this writing….

“And his stockpile of 1,300 rounds of ammo is evidence that background checks are needed for bullet buyers.

“Guns don’t kill people. Bullets do.”

But as Skelton himself detailed, the shooter used only “100 bullets.”  So California restrictions on buying bullets wouldn’t have changed anything. The shooter could just have driven to Arizona to buy them. If bullets were banned everywhere, it would not be that hard to get 100 of them on the black market. You know, the same black market where anti-gun President Obama dumped weapons in the Fast and Furious Scandal, leading to the death of one American border patrol agent and hundreds of Mexicans.

So the same government that spread guns around like broomsticks is supposed to stop bullet purchases?

As to the gun, according to CBS News:

“The assault rifle that 23-year-old John Zawahri used in his Santa Monica shooting spree is illegal in California. But Police Chief Jacqueline Seabrooks said Zawahri came up with an enterprising solution.

“‘We know Zawahri was able to buy gun components from various sources across the country to build his own .223 semi-automatic rifle,’ she said. 

“Components to build a semi-automatic rifle are available on the Internet. So are the assembly instructions. 

“The sale of most gun parts online is not regulated — except for one critical component. It’s called the lower receiver. It holds the mechanical parts of the gun, such as the trigger. A background check is required to buy one.

“But police believe Zawahri got around that by buying a partially-completed lower receiver and modifying it. Gun enthusiasts call them 80-percent receivers.”

If such Internet sales were banned, how would they be policed? Would Skelton give even more power to the Stasi-NSA to snoop on us? Would we suffer yet more violations of our Fourth Amendment rights?

As to Zawahri being a “mental case,” as Skelton says: How would he ban “mental cases” from buying guns? Would he use the new Obamacare comprehensive records, or the IRS’s new powers to impose Obamacare, to ferret out such people? Would they include people who ever were: depressed, had alcohol or drug problems, disliked the government?

Such “mental case” checks would end up turning American psychiatry into Soviet psychiatry, in which anyone who opposed the regime was considered nuts, because how could rational person be against the “Radiant Future” of “scientific socialism”?

The road of gun control leads directly to a totalitarian government.

3 comments

Write a comment
  1. Sean Morham
    Sean Morham 17 June, 2013, 13:59

    Agreed, and I am convinced that is the goal, totalitarianism(but with a smile)…only trying to give the peasants/serfs what is good for them(us). “Augustus” Barack Obama, actually has a kind of a historical sound to it.

    Reply this comment
  2. jimmydeeoc
    jimmydeeoc 17 June, 2013, 15:07

    Someone should write a book about it.

    Ohh wait…Goldberg already did. =)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

    Reply this comment
  3. Ken D.
    Ken D. 17 June, 2013, 15:36

    Somebody needs to take Skelton’s crayons away. His act is tired.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Pressing state business

Steven Greenhut: The California Legislature continues to grapple with the tough issues. For instance, SB920 by Leland Yee, D-San Francisco,

Why don’t pension funds divest from ALL arms companies?

Jan. 30, 2013 By John Seiler After the December shootings at Newtown, Conn., California Treasurer Bill Lockyer and others took

Stockton ruling, like Vergara ruling, shakes CA status quo

Californians who think the state status quo is nuts and that public employees amount to a protected class of citizens