GOP Senator: One Dead Puppy Is a Tragedy, Thousands of Dead Kids Is Not

Comments

1
Sadly John Kennedy is from an idiot state, which will probably send him back to Washington if he doesn't decide to run for governor before his term is up. I can say this because I too live in that idiot state. Though I did not vote for this senator.
2
That's because dead puppies aren't much fun.
3
Ummm I can care about legislation that saves an animals life AND care about legislation that saves human lives. They are not mutually exclusive. Also, see politician and low hanging fruit. Pushing legislation to save animals is waaay easier than somehow magically have the "perfect" solution to the gun debate.
4
Literally more people care about the dog than any of the 8,000 other murder victims too.
5
We already have "idiot control" it's called voting - unfortunately, for the time being at least, this has resulted in the idiots being in control...
6
As Americans, our guns are more important to us than our children. This is established fact.
7
Uhh, good chance this dude doesn’t care about dogs either -

https://www.thenation.com/article/police…
8
According to the CDC, the leading causes of death among children are motor vehicle accidents, drowning and non-firearm suicide. Not guns.

We've known for years you don't give a shit about children unless they are killed by a homicidal monster with a gun or they blow their brains out.
9
Wasn't the CDC prohibited from doing research on gun violence some time ago? I feel like that might have affected those numbers.
10
I hope they at least turned that Useless Little Dog™ into some delicious shish-ka-bow-wow!
11
Pets are family, yet ripping human families apart via ICE is ok.
12
This post is conflation porn.
13
@8: so the fact children die from guns is not relevant because that's not the leading cause of death? Pathetic rationale, mate. Pathetic.
14
Republicans do think thousands of dead kids is a tragedy (or at least, I assume most of them think that). It's just that they don't care to do anything about it.

It's basically what @6 said. Sucks that all those kids are dead, but hey, at least we can get drunk and go shoot cans out in the boonies whenever we want.
15
@8:

Yeah, too bad we haven't done anything to lower the death rate of children due to automobile accidents in the last 25 years - oh, waitaminute...
16
My Repubican nemesis had this to say: "Banning guns because someone got shot is like banning overhead bins because a puppy suffocated". If you think that sounds stupid, it's because Republicans are stupid. So are gun lovers.
17
@10 I was thinking more along the lines of puppy paella, or perhaps paillard of puppy if you had a taste for French.
18
SLCarron @3:

Ummm I can care about legislation that saves an animals life AND care about legislation that saves human lives. They are not mutually exclusive.

Hey! Glad you realized that. It's never too late to catch up.

Also, see politician and low hanging fruit.

Yes, no one else here is surprised either.

Pushing legislation to save animals is waaay easier than somehow magically have [sic] the "perfect" solution to the gun debate.

Also true. Gold star!

So, now that you've mastered the blazingly obvious, you're ready for the next step. See if you can hold the following concepts in your head all at the same time:
1) Nobody has a problem with animal welfare.
2) Magical and perfect solutions are not the immediately expected outcomes.
3) Our elected representatives are failing to take meaningful action to save the lives of thousands of children.
4) This is not acceptable.

I know that's a lot all at once, but you can take them one at a time until you get all four. And if you do--Congratulations! You will have understood this post!

Good luck.
19
@18 No need to be a dick (but at least you made it fun).
@3 I'll defend you on this one. Yes, it's obvious, but sometimes what is supposedly obvious isn't so obvious to everyone. I mean, obviously. See: most Republicans.
20
@13, @15

Good thing that The Stranger only uses their podium to whine about gun deaths and not the leading causes of death among children.

Ergo, it's not about the children. It's that they don't like guns. That's my point.
21
@20, so you do like guns? Guns are not necessary in a civil society. Guns you can do without, cars, not so much.
22
@21 And now for the hipster anti-car crowd to chime in!

In three...two...one...
23
Obviously an animal actor paid by the SPCA to force the enacting of pet safety legislation. Now is not the time to have a debate concerning pet safety as emotions are too fresh. Instead we can offer thoughts and prayers for our greiving pet owners.
24
@21 Bull. Cars are an environmental disaster, and privately operated cars only make sense in rural areas. And hey. Sark. No cars are on Sark, and they do just fine.

Much like getting rid of guns, getting rid of cars would also need to be a slow process. In much of the developed world cars are a luxury, not a necessity. Stricter licensing requirements, increased fees, congestion fees, etc are already working in Europe.

This whole suburban sprawl thing where everyone drivers everywhere is just as American centric as gun rights.
25
@24 re: @22

Theeeeeere we go!
26
@21

So you're saying that you don't believe that I have a fundamental human right to defend myself or my family against a violent attacker with equal force.

I would hope that if we lived next door to each other, you'd have the balls to put a giant sign in your front yard that says,

"THERE ARE NO GUNS IN THIS HOUSEHOLD."

My front door says, "Insured by Smith & Wesson"

Let's see who gets robbed first in your 'civil society.'