Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

Eugene Robinson: “one-note simpleton”

Posted by Richard on January 9, 2015

Eugene Robinson, the rabidly anti-gun Washington Post columnist, was on MSNBC today, where he told Andrea Mitchell that it’s a good thing this week’s terrorism and hostage-taking in France didn’t happen in the United States. You see, he opined, in the US “weapons are universally available and so it is actually a very good thing that, that the tensions are not exactly the same because we would expect to have a lot more carnage.”

There’s your typical anti-gunner’s mindset: if people other than the jihadists had guns, they’d just be shooting wildly, leading to who knows how many more deaths (never mind that the additional casualties would likely be the jihadists). Thank goodness France has strict gun control so that the terrorists’ targets were unarmed and helpless, thus keeping the body count down.

Remember that chilling video of the wounded policeman lying on the ground with his hands up when the terrorist shot him in the head? Apparently, like many French cops, he was unarmed. I guess to the Eugene Robinsons of the world, that’s a good thing because if he’d been able to shoot his attacker, that would have just added to the “carnage.” As we say on Twitter, SMDH*.

This Twitchy post has some of the Twitter reaction to Robinson’s remarks, including Ace of Spades’ apt “one-note simpleton” characterization.

* shaking my damn head

Subscribe To Site:

One Response to “Eugene Robinson: “one-note simpleton””

  1. richardshultz2010@comcast.net said

    I ran across something about pacifist liberals and their typical mindset a few years back, and I thought I would just stick it in here for what entertainment value it may still have.
    What to do if you happen upon a peace rally by stupid naive
    liberal college idiots, to teach them why force is
    sometimes needed:
    1) Approach dumb rich ignorant student talking about “peace”
    and saying there should be, “no retaliation.”
    2) Engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is
    appropriate.
    3) When he says “No,” ask, “Why not?”
    4) Wait until he says something to the effect of, “Because
    that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be
    awful and we should not cause more violence.”
    5) When he’s in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as
    you can.
    6) When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would
    be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you,
    because that would, “be awful and he should not cause more
    violence.”
    7)Wait until he agrees that he has pledged not to commit
    additional violence.
    8)Punch him in the face again, harder this time.
    Repeat steps 5 through 8 until he understands that sometimes it
    is necessary to punch back.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *