Lie First, Lie Always: In The Footsteps Of Wes Skoglund, The Shadow Figure Staggers Through The Winter

Senator John Marty is apparently working hard to burnish his cred as a progressive extremist.

Yesterday, he introduced a bill to require licensing for gun owners.

And in it, he proved himself a word the successor to Wes “Lying Sack Of Garbage” Skoglund and the “Reverend“ Nancy Nord Bence, in that nut a shingle claim he makes is it simultaneously substantial, original and true.

Seriously:

“For young people, the 15-year-olds who can easily access guns now and commit armed carjackings and murders and other things, you know, they would have to go through training and they would have to go through a process to do this,” said Marty. “And, we would have limits so that some of these 16-year-olds couldn’t go out and buy guns.”

Anyone see the problem in the Senator’s statement?

Anyone at all?

I don’t want to keep seeing the same hands, here.

9 thoughts on “Lie First, Lie Always: In The Footsteps Of Wes Skoglund, The Shadow Figure Staggers Through The Winter

  1. Is Senator John Marty really that stupid?

    Better question, is Senator John Marty intended audience really that stupid?

    A resounding YES to both questions.

  2. I think I’ve got it: the problem is the training.

    Training is teaching, teaching must come from a member of the teachers’ union, the teachers’ union opposes firearms safety training. It’s a Catch-22: you must have training, but you can’t have training, so no gun for you.

    Clever! I wouldn’t have figured it out, without Mitch’s prompting.

  3. Marty is going to require 15 year old car jackers to go through training? To become better car jackers?

  4. So these 15 year old car jackers are legally buying and carrying guns?
    There otta be a law!

  5. Greg, when you do not have a 4th estate and just lapdogs for the ministry of truth, any frontier gibberish is given an unquestioning tongue bath and gravitas.

  6. I dunno, NW. Something in me thinks it would be really funny to see a case where carjackers (a) picked a target that had a manual transmission and (b) the driver of said vehicle with manual transmission was a carry permit holder. I can just imagine the kind shouting something obscene about not knowing how to work a clutch….right as he looked and saw he was staring down the barrel of a 1911.

    But to the topic, one would figure that gun control advocates would be aware of current law restricting gun ownership and the like, but apparently not. Nor do they apparently understand laws about driving.

  7. I have an idea. Instead of Progress, maybe try Regress.

    Armed robbery is pooh-poohed by Progressives because it’s just property, it’s not a matter of life-and-death; therefore, you should cheerfully hand over your wallet and car in order to ensure you don’t cause a breach of the peace.

    In the olden days, women weren’t free and equal citizens, they were property of their fathers/husbands. If we make women property again, then would armed robbery become important enough for Progressives to oppose it?

    Maybe not. Women briefly replaced Blacks as The Most Important Victims Ever but lately, women seem to have been replaced by trans-gendered persons. Maybe make them property? Would that stop the violence?

    Hey, it makes as much sense as Sen. Marty’s idea.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.