Weppner Disrespects Canada’s Fallen

23 Oct

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: 


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

22 Responses to “Weppner Disrespects Canada’s Fallen”

  1. spencer60 October 23, 2014 at 7:51 am #

    ‘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.

    • Alan Bedenko October 23, 2014 at 8:55 am #

      That’s a lot of words to argue a wholly tangential point.

      If the AK is banned, but other guns that do the same thing are not, what exactly are you complaining about?

      The issue isn’t about criminals committing criminal acts with criminally obtained guns. That’s going to happen no matter what. Gun control is in large part about limiting the damage when so-called “responsible” gun owners suddenly find themselves irresponsible. It’s also about making sure that the mentally insane and people who have committed crimes have a tougher time obtaining firearms, or are completely unable to do so.

      We don’t yet know what sort of gun the maniac in Ottawa had, but he only managed one casualty and was able to be put down by shots from a handgun. Doesn’t sound like one of those typically American assholes who go online to build up ridiculous little arsenals of semi-automatics and a lifetime supply of 30-round clips, all so they can massacre a couple dozen 1st graders.

      Our crime rate is low not because of some fantastical non-existent proliferation of firearms among the general population, but largely because we have been much more aggressive in prosecuting and imprisoning violent criminals. The Canadian homicide rate, by the way, is 1/2 of what it is in the United States. The US homicide rate is 4x what it is in the UK.

      I know that there will always be people like you who think that the 2nd Amendment is without limitation and that the criminally insane and mentally deficient are entitled to a limitless arsenal of destroyers, bombers, and thermonuclear devices. Then there will be the sane.

    • disqus_g6fqjyhj09 October 23, 2014 at 9:42 am #

      Where the hell are you getting your statistics from? A simple google search refutes just about everything you said:




    • UncleBluck October 23, 2014 at 10:13 am #

      Someone here is definitely delusional….did you really think your fabricated statistics would hold up to basic scrutiny?

  2. Sean Danvers October 23, 2014 at 9:22 am #

    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.

    • UncleBluck October 23, 2014 at 10:10 am #

      Don’t worry Sean. Weppners political carrier will be over in 2 weeks and will have to go back to being a “famous radio personality” @ WBEN

      • JP Fitzpatrick October 23, 2014 at 10:12 am #

        Or she may get an award for worst election blowout EVER!

  3. Michael Rebmann October 23, 2014 at 9:41 am #

    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.”


    • JP Fitzpatrick October 23, 2014 at 10:11 am #

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


      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……..

    • David Staba October 23, 2014 at 10:17 am #

      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.

  4. rhmaccallum October 23, 2014 at 10:48 am #

    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!

    • Sean Danvers October 23, 2014 at 1:35 pm #

      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.

  5. Ridgewaycynic2013 October 23, 2014 at 3:48 pm #

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

    • Michael Rebmann October 23, 2014 at 4:19 pm #

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

      • Ridgewaycynic2013 October 23, 2014 at 4:24 pm #

        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.

  6. townline October 23, 2014 at 5:17 pm #

    Absolutely love that Drew replied to her.

  7. hwhamlin October 24, 2014 at 1:48 pm #

    “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.

    • Alan Bedenko October 24, 2014 at 3:40 pm #

      Yes. Completely unlike the Democrats. Thanks for pointing that out.

      • hwhamlin October 24, 2014 at 4:55 pm #

        That is called sarcasm, Alan. It’s a literary tool.
        And Organizing for Action (August 2013) used Columbine (from 1999) for fundraising.
        And (Sept. 2013) the Navy Shipyard shootings.
        And Bernie Sanders (but he only caucuses with your folks) sent out a fundraiser email January 11, 2011 on the Tucson shooting.
        Keep it classy, Dems.

      • ckg1 October 24, 2014 at 5:25 pm #

        You wouldn’t know what class is even if you were spotted the C, the L, the A and both S’s

      • Alan Bedenko October 25, 2014 at 6:31 am #

        So, IOKIYAR. Understood.

      • jimd54 October 25, 2014 at 5:11 pm #

        Lot of goddamn shootings to haggle over.

Contribute To The Conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: