Article: Brother of Shooting Victim Not Mad at Gunman, But at Laws Allowing Armed Cit

So he's mad at our Founding Fathers, The Constitution and The Bill of Rights....he can forgive the killer but not the inanimate object used by a killer. I guess the liberal media and the anti-gun agenda is hitting home with some....

"Chandler—says he does not harbor “resentment or anything” toward Dear. Rather, he says he has “[forgiven] him.” Chandler said, “It’s a hard pill to swallow because [Dear] took my only brother from me.” He said the anger he feels is not toward Dear but toward laws that allow citizens to be armed."
 
So if the killer had used a knife he'd be angry at Ginsu and give the killer a pass?
Well, then come and get my guns son.....I'll hand them over right after I let you have all the ammo, one round at a time (that could take a while tho)
 
Last edited:
Typical playbook sh*t. Forgive the criminal, excuse his actions, minimize his responsibility and blame the method instead. Hey stupid, why don't you get off your little soapbox for a minute and worry about the rest of the family.
 
He's mad at you and me for owning guns but not mad at the POS that killed his brother? Sounds like liberal logic to me. Mis-placed anger.
 
Strange that this kid just came out and made such a political statement so soon after the loss of his brother, though I guess he seems to have gotten over the loss pretty quickly. You think he went out of his way to get this message to NBC?
 


"When the freedom they wished for most was the freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and never was free again."
Edith Hamilton
 
When you allow people to carry firearms at their own will...
Kind of strange that he makes his statement about carry, not about Dear's unspecified "long gun".

I expect them to make a stink about Dear's registration without declaring party affiliation. "I hate these filthy neutrals Kif! With enemies you know where they stand but with neutrals? Who knows! It sickens me."
 
Last edited:
There should be laws to stop people for saying such things. Words, speech and demonstrations are so dangerous to our safety and way of life. Then there should be additional laws on top of these laws to ensure they are enforced. Then you should have to apply for a license to openly speak ..as long as .gov approves, then it's $1 a word after that. $2 if it's bigger than five letters...then we need to set up an oversight committee and regulatory board. Then create an investigatory agency to enforce all the laws on a fed level....
 
There should be laws to stop people for saying such things. Words, speech and demonstrations are so dangerous to our safety and way of life. Then there should be additional laws on top of these laws to ensure they are enforced. Then you should have to apply for a license to openly speak ..as long as .gov approves, then it's $1 a word after that. $2 if it's bigger than five letters...then we need to set up an oversight committee and regulatory board. Then create an investigatory agency to enforce all the laws on a fed level....

Sums up perfectly what these numbskulls are always up to.
 
Antis will never get it--this is the same logic they use for gun-free zones--"hey, make it illegal to bring a gun somewhere and nobody will do it, cause to do so would be a crime!"
 
Today Ted Cruz told the truth about the voting habits of mass killers and violent criminals. They are overwhelmingly Democrat. Chris (tingles) Mathews of MSNBC was practically crying at this revelation.
 
"When you allow people to carry firearms at their own will it makes a breeding ground for destruction and tragedy.”

Over a hundred million people collectively own more than three hundred millions of guns, and untold trillions of rounds of ammo. If we wanted destruction and tragedy, you'd know it.
 
Back
Top Bottom