Weppner Disrespects Canada’s Fallen

Just a few weeks ago, tea party stereotype Kathy “Infected Poors” Weppner tried to raise funds off the severed head of an American journalist brutally slaughtered by the ISIS death cult

Yesterday, a terror attack was carried out in Ottawa, Canada and details are still rolling in. It’s likely to have been perpetrated by some homegrown death cult wannabes. But not one to let a good tragedy go to waste, Weppner wanted to score political points off the deaths of a Canadian serviceman.  

I don’t even know what that means. That Canadians don’t want to “protect themselves”? That their sane and rational gun control laws render them unprepared to handle some random homicidal lunatic? 

Also, “Canadiens” is a team, “Canadians” describes the residents of the country of Canada in English. 

 

But despite a uniformly negative reaction to Weppner’s poorly considered and misspelled Tweet, she doubled down, as she does.  

Most savvy politicians or compassionate, human people would express sympathy and outrage at the murder of a Canadian serviceman, shot dead while ceremoniously guarding the nation’s Cenotaph.  Not our Kathy, though.  She sees this as part of the gun-hugging cause. 

Incidentally, the closest thing we have in the US to the Cenotaph is the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetary. 

The tomb guards in Virginia, USA carry M14 rifles with ceremonial stocks.  The weapons are kept unloaded. Here’s a message to Kathy Weppner and tragedy trolls like her: 

http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1

Kathy Weppner is morally depraved, and it’s shocking that she’s endorsed by anyone, except people like Carl Paladino. 

22 comments

  • ‘Sane and rational’ gun control? Please, there is no such thing.

    Canada’s determination of what guns are ‘unrestricted’, ‘restricted’ and ‘prohibited’ are based solely on looks for pity’s sake.

    For example, the ‘evil’ AK-47 is prohibited. Yet similar, semi-automatic firearms that use the same exact cartridge are unrestricted, and can be used to hunt deer.

    Gun control laws are totally irrational at their root. They expect that criminals, who by definition are already breaking laws, will choose to follow THESE particular laws.

    Gun control also assumes that the weapon used in a crime is the problem, not the criminal.

    Gun controls central rationalization has always been “more guns = more crime”.

    But you haven’t seen that on bumper stickers much lately, have you?

    That’s because here in the US we have more guns in law abiding peoples hands than ever before in the history of the country.

    And our crime rate is the lowest it’s been in 20 years, almost half that of Canada’s and 1/4 that of the disarmed UK.

    The central tenet of gun-control has been proven false. That’s rational, and any sane person has to admit to that fact.

    The fact that gun control believers won’t just shows how delusional or corrupt they really are.

  • Maybe as part of the pre-election push she will come by my house over the weekend and I can dump a heap rotting shit-smelling leaves from my gutters onto her. This woman needs to be put in a bottle and set adrift on an outbound tide.

  • The view of a Canadian citizen – “As much as I love Canada—I’m a citizen—I could not live in a place that
    practically outlaws the right to defend life and property. Ordinary
    Canadian citizens are de facto barred from owning firearms.”

    http://barelyablog.com/#ixzz3GyWINfgx

    • and you are 7x less likely to be dead from a GSW related crime in Canada.

      http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Canada/United-States/Crime

      The view of one citizen who has a blog that, as near as I can tell, is 95% bitching about US policies from her soapbox. Looks like she doesn’t have much to complain about related to her own country , until that ONE gun related “Crime of the Century” happens in the Great White North……..

    • Thanks for posting. It’s reassuring to know that Canadian citizens can also string together vague talking points, and refer to people who disagree with them as “weeping ‘vaginas.'” I thought that sort of insight was limited to our Patriots.

  • Again Alan Bedenko gets it wrong. Wepner WAS talking about the Canadiens…the hockey team. She is concerned, and rightly so about protecting themselves, allowing opposing players to go into the crease uncontested. They must do better at protecting themselves…and their goalie. What’s wrong with that? Worry about the Sabres Alan!

    • Or perhaps she’s angling for the hitherto unforeseen impact of the Quebecois separatist voting bloc holed up in the seediest of back-alley hockey joints down on the old tow path, waiting for the signal from The Chosen One.

  • Ridgewaycynic2013

    Weppner is a political opportunist. A badly informed and ignorant one, but an opportunist, nonetheless.

    • Most politicians are opportunists. Chuck Schumer has based his career on opportunism.

      • Ridgewaycynic2013

        On that point I would have to agree with you. Schumer from the standpoint of “hey, look what I did for you; let’s have a parade”. Weppner from the aspect of backing up her viewpoint on the backs of the dead.

  • Absolutely love that Drew replied to her.

  • “Weppner tried to raise funds off the severed head of an American journalist brutally slaughtered by the ISIS death cult.”
    Unlike the Democrats — who never once tried to raise a dime of the Gabby Giffords shooting (21stcenturydems.org), Sandy Hook (Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D – CT), etc.

Leave a Reply