I’ve watched the President’s position “evolve” from “I’m going to do something on gun control” to “Biden’s going to lead a blue ribbon commission on gun control” to (today) “it’s up to congress to act.” What this means is it is highly unlikely (but not impossible) there’s going to be an assault weapons ban.
But in any case … isn’t it kind of despicable the President and anti-gun groups are using this tragedy to try and ban a single class of weapons, which is not a solution to mass murder, but just one stop on their political goal of destroying the 2nd amendment? Will it make him feel better if the next shooter uses pistols like Cho at VT? Or a shotgun (and other guns) like the columbine killers? Or for that matter a bolt action rifle like Charles Whitman on a Texas tower?
If you want to argue gun control as a way to stop mass shootings you need to have the courage to fight for something that would actually make a difference, like a total ban on guns and a turn in of all existing guns. Which absolutely won’t happen without a change in the constitution and a major change in . . . → Read More: Why is the President exploiting the murder of children for a political goal that won’t protect children?
Taking a break from my posting break for this delightful bit of paranoid crazy from the WAVE FB page (an organization for Anti-Gun Wisconsinites that has only managed to get 3,160 followers — slightly less FB friends than I had at my peak (I’m little below that now)).
Common Sense Takes a Holiday in Wisconsin
In case you can’t read the above:
the law will not only put cops at risk but store owners and women on dates and people wearing rolex watches or large diamond rings or fur coats…………yes we all new this—–really there are but 2 types of people nowadays in the USA “religious zealot knee jerk liberals of which I am one and then our opponents neo nazi gun death power and sex obsessed psychopaths.
To be honest I am thinking this may be sarcasm, as few people refer to themselves as “religious zealot knee jerk liberals,” … but given the quality and mental state of the anti-gun groups/liberal Wisconsin groups it’s really hard to say.
But regardless whether it’s parody or serious, well incorporated in this post is that bizarre fear that having a gun available turns otherwise law abiding people into criminals or murderers. i.e. . . . → Read More: The anti-gun craziness in WI persists — and why police should not have unlimited access to CCW database
I saw a press release on the Brady Campaign’s anti-Gun”accomplishments” on Snowflakesinhell. It’s sad (for them, though it actually makes me happy) that they consider these things accomplishments. Going through them …
1981: President Ronald Reagan appoints Jim Brady White House Press Secretary. Jim is among the seriously injured during an assassination attempt on the president just two months into the administration.
A horrible day for all Americans. Honestly. But not an accomplishment they worked for. It did give the Bradys the status of “victim,” which is their only claim to credibility in the gun control debate — though I’m sure they’d agree that status is not worth the price they paid for it.
1985: Sarah Brady, wife of Jim, joins the fight for sensible gun control laws.
Sensible in the same way that a laws regulating spiders would make sense to an arachnophobe. That original organization was “Hand Gun Control Inc.”
1989: The Center to Prevent Gun Violence established the Legal Action Project, helping victims of gun violence in their court actions.
So long as those court actions were suits against gun manufacturers who had not control over the incident involved, and the whole point was . . . → Read More: Brady Campaign “Accomplishments”
When I first heard the NRA was refusing to meet with President Obama after his request for meetings to discuss the aftermath of the Tucson shooting, I was concerned that we were making a mistake. Now that I read the NRA response, I get it.
… to focus a national dialogue on guns — and not criminals or mental health issues — misses the point entirely.
We agree with your assertion that “Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing” in light of the shooting in Tucson. In truth, the professional, corps of gun control lobbyists moved with lighting speed to exploit the tragedy.
Yes … indeed they did. There were many posts and news releases right after the incident in which anti-gun groups reveled in the loss of life and what they perceived as a means of passing new gun control.
But while I agree with all the talking points of the NRA, what this response really shows is that the NRA has done an analysis and concluded that any anti-gun laws decided upon in this conference are going nowhere, so there’s no reason to be there. Sitting in a room with anti-gun groups in meetings moderated by an anti-gun administration would be nothing . . . → Read More: The NRA refuses to be drawn into an anti-gun media fest
Anti-gunner Japete throws every standard anti-gun wish up against the wall to see if she can get any traction. And I do mean everything, from age restrictions on guns to every limit we’ve managed to get on 2nd amendment restrictions. But she begins her diatribe with a call back to Obama’s campaign cry, “Yes we can!”
Here is my response.
Cool. Here’s a few “yes we cans” from our side.
Yes we can continue to fight with our votes to make sure any politician who buys into anti-gun solutions to cultural issues doesn’t get re-elected.
Yes we can continue to educate the American public that it’s violent people, not any object, that causes our outrageous murder rate.
I could go on and on, but how about a few “yes we cans” that we can do together, Japete? These will be for both of us. Ready?
Yes we can keep fighting over background checks and magazine capacities while the real cultural reasons for violence continue unchecked.
Yes we can spend all our resources fighting over whether the next mass murderer can have 10 rounds or 30, though any law passed won’t affect him in what he can accomplish — just how he has to do it.
Yes . . . → Read More: Anti-gunners never learn; they just keep throwing the same arguments up against the wall until one sticks
Photo described on anti-gun FB site as: "18-month-old girl firing machine gun on property of Highlander Arms owner in NH." Though there is a later clarification: "This makeshift shooting range is in Massachusetts. The owner of the property runs a gun shop, Highlander Arms, in New Hampshire"
To the left is a picture (I apologize for the quality) that has some anti-gunners going nuts. And when you read their comments, you see why we can’t have a real debate on the issue of guns in America. When I look at this picture (and I’ll admit I was a little startled initially), I see what I assume is a Dad including his beautiful little girl in his life. Did they actually shoot the gun or was he just letting the little girl pose with him? I don’t know. In either case, was he endangering the girl to the point that social services should get involved and maybe take her away? To that I would say … NO! Hell no! She’s got hearing protection on (I can’t tell if she has eye protection or not) and he’s controlling the gun. At most she’s pulling on the trigger and giggling at the noise . . . → Read More: Debating an anti-gunner is like debating an arachnophobe about the importance of spiders in the ecosystem
One thing anti-gun bloggers have learned is that they can get activity on their blogs (there are less than a dozen I know of even focusing on the issue) by opening up comments and allowing a decent percentage of pro-gunners to respond. There are hordes of passionate pro-gunners on the net, and we love to jump on an anti-rights guy and make sure they don’t get a podium to themselves. In fact, I’ve often wondered if those bloggers would get any readership at all if not us. It turns out, they wouldn’t.
Baldr Johnson posted a poll on his blog for ceasefire Oregon asking his visitors to let him know their position on gun rights. Out of about 600 voters, 12 were at least somewhat anti-gun. And he considers this a great victory!
Well, I should come clean and admit something. My intention wasn’t really to find out what percent of visitors were pro-gun or pro-control (truthfully, I think most are pro-gun since most comments and trackback links come from them). My intention was actually to test the ethics of the pro-gun folks. But I figured I’d give you the chance.
And he does go on to talk about the implications . . . → Read More: Ignoring the 600 lb gorilla in the room while touting the fierceness of your hamster … (the gun control movement is mostly dead)
John Lott captures the essence of what we all have to deal with on the pro-gun side every day. The bias of the main stream media is obvious and appalling, though perhaps it’s the former that keeps them from getting much real traction.
Take two recent news stories by Michael Luo (here and here). He quotes seven academics who agreed with the New York Times position, but no one on the other side was even interviewed. Talk about misrepresenting academic opinion. The overwhelming majority of studies actually supports the claim that more guns mean less crime. Among peer-reviewed studies in academic journals, criminologists and economists studying right-to-carry laws have produced 18 national studies showing that these laws reduce violent crime, 10 indicate no discernible effect and none finds a bad effect from the law. One would never guess that 294 academics from institutions as diverse as Harvard, Stanford, Northwestern, the University of Pennsylvania, and UCLA released an open letter to Congress during 1999 warning that new gun laws were “ill advised.”
The best book ever written!
By me, anyway.
Set against the background of the American civil war of “progressives” vs. patriotic . . . → Read More: An awesome dose of real common sense, or common gun sense, on firearms ownership and media bias!
Anti gun blogger Japete wonders why the 100 million or so gun owner’s in this country don’t each accept responsibility for the mass murders of a crazy kid did in Tucson, and limit the kinds of guns they will buy or own.
Here is my response:
I bought a 30 round magazine for my pistol at the gun show last weekend. I’ve never wanted one in the past, but I bought it because I do think they’re going to get at least temporarily scarce because of the drumbeat of a few politicians and many news organizations for a ban on them (I seriously doubt that ban will happen, but I don’t have a crystal ball).
But how did I do anything wrong by buying that mag? Why should I feel bad? It doesn’t matter whether I buy a pistol, a machine gun, a grenade launcher or a tank … they are no danger to anyone else. I’m not a murderer, and it won’t affect what happened in Tucson or whatever WILL happen in the next place some freak goes off the deep end.
So why should I limit what I allow myself to own because . . . → Read More: An anti-gunner wonders why we didn’t automatically limit the guns we would buy after the Tucson murders
Japete just doesn’t seem to understand that when you are trying to ban something, the burden of proof is NOT on the person who owns it to prove they need it, but on the person trying to pass the law that it must be banned. And since she wants to make possession of some guns and magazines illegal she doesn’t understand why we resist. And she continues to believe those highly tainted polls that try to prove Americans are on her side.
Here is my response:
Well Japete … if you guys are winning, instead of worrying about politicians, who are only swayed by people who care enough to vote … let’s go to businesses. You know, places that care about profit and not politics. There you’ll get a true reading of what the American people care about, because when Americans vote with their wallets that’s a language EVERYONE understands.
How about if we choose a major corporation that’s widely utilized by all levels of society and has lots and lots of stores nationwide. Your side can push them to ban guns from their markets, and you can get as many people as possible to protest . . . → Read More: If we don’t want you to have something, then having it should be a felony. Period!