|
|
By Stephen, on October 7th, 2008%
As I said in an earlier blog, it was anti-gunners and their hyperbole and outright lies that turned me into an active pro-gun supporter and NRA member. The more I read posts from the anti-gunners, particularly Mr. Helmke of the Brady Campaign, the more resolute I get. There seem few depths to which they will not descend to take away the civil right granted by the 2nd amendment. To prove my point, Helmke has just added a gun-cleaning accident category to his blog, where he can revel in the mistakes of others and gloat over misfortunes (even tragic ones) which can happen to anyone regardless of their hobbies or what tools they keep around the house.
To quote his gleeful post and what he appears to think is some kind of logical connection between accidents and being “law abiding:”
This man probably never broke a law in his life, yet somehow he still managed to shoot himself.Clearly the relationship between gun injuries and being a “law-abiding citizen” isn’t so obvious after all.Not that the gun lobby cares about such things….
This man probably still hasn’t broken a law in his life, and what relationship with gun injuries and being a “law-abiding citizen” was obvious . . . → Read More: Decent human beings among the rabidly anti-gun are in short supply
By Stephen, on October 5th, 2008%
Another story of Amercians using that obsolete 2nd amendment right to defend their liberty and lives. Not everyone might agree with this particular group’s cause, but certainly no one can disagree with their right to support their cause, gather to talk about their cause, and generally live their lives without fear of violence so long as they don’t undertake violence against others.
Having grown up in New York City, on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, during the turbulent 1950s and ’60s, this Jew–a lifelong Zionist and National Rifle Association member–saw his neighborhood–in fact, his entire city–practically destroyed by left-liberal policies and ideology. This Jew recalls the night when knife- and pipe-wielding, Black Muslims surrounded the brownstone building that housed the clubhouse, or moadon, of his Zionist youth movement chapter, and remembers well that it was the group’s (legally owned and stored) arsenal of rifles–and willingness to use them in self-defense–that prevented a massacre of young Jews. This Jew also recalls taking part in armed patrols, approved by the local sheriff, to deter white hoodlums from burning down the youth movement’s summer camp in Liberty, NY. This Jew recalls the urban murderers who gunned down Jewish store owners up and down Broadway. The candy . . . → Read More: Another modern day story of people who used guns as tools to defend life and liberty
By Stephen, on October 3rd, 2008%
Some anti-freedom rhetoric from an anti-gunner that shows just how much power they believe their fear of firearms should give them. It used to be a popular saying in America that “your right to swing your fist ends at the point of my nose.” Now, apparently, the liberal elite believe that rights end as soon as someone is showing any behavior they disapprove of, whether it directly affects them or not (the below is from an article about open carry, but the logic carries over to gun ownership and other casues as well):
That’s a dangerous scenario that conjures up memories of Wild West movies, opponents say.
“What are we teaching the next generation? Are we saying we live in a society where everyone should openly carry a gun?” asked Toby Hoover of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence.
“Most of us don’t want to be walking down the street with someone who has a gun, but piece by piece by piece, nobody has a right to say that,” she said. “Nobody has a right anymore to say, ‘I don’t want a gun near me.’ “
First off, we all have a right to say “I don’t want a gun near me.” We also have . . . → Read More: Do anti-gun people have even a clue as to what it means to live in a free society?
By Stephen, on October 2nd, 2008%
What do you call an American who uses the police to hassle fellow citizens who are breaking no law and doing no one harm? It would not be a nice name, probably a profane one. Which is why I just have to shake my head in dismay when I read the quotes of anti-gun people in stories like this, using their own fear to purposefully have people who have done them no harm put at gun point and taken away in hand cuffs. They endanger the lives of people (it’s never safe to have a gun pointed at your head) because they oppose them in a political debate as to how a constitutional amendment, as in the 2nd amendment to keep and BEAR arms, should be implemented.
Greg Llewellyn, his girlfriend and four friends were sipping hot tea outside a West Side coffee shop on a recent August night when a pair of Cleveland police officers approached with guns drawn.
Get on the ground, an officer ordered, forcing the surprised group to set aside their drinks and hit the sidewalk belly-down.…The officers arrested him (Llewellyn) for carrying a concealed weapon. Llewellyn protested, saying he was not trying to hide the gun, because . . . → Read More: The “backhanded” tactics of the anti-gunners continue – endangering the lives and livelihoods of law abiding citizens
By Stephen, on October 2nd, 2008%
Anti-gun groups have long tried to spin the story that if you try to defend yourself with a gun against an intruder it is more likely the intruder will take the gun away and use it against you. There are no statistics to support this, and like other fables they promote is based on the concept that guns are only effective for cops and criminals, and any civilian use of a gun always works against them. Well, here is a story where it went the other way. I wonder if they’ll now start a program to educate criminals on how “the gun you carry into a home is 21 more times likely to be used against you by the homeowner than used to murder the homeowner.”
Guns changing hands in a confrontation doesn’t happen often in either direction. In the years I’ve been tracking civilian defense stories I’ve only found one where a defender was disarmed and shot (in the shoulder, thankfully) and it was due to a whole load of bad choices he made. But it is a relief to see that however rare the occurrence, it can go either way:
BLUE MOUND, Texas — When two gunmen smashed through the glass . . . → Read More: Intruder shot with his own gun; A story anyone can love
By Stephen, on October 1st, 2008%
My last blog discussed how the media give the Moral High Ground to anti-gun groups, even though those groups exist to repress a Constitutionally protected American right. The Public is also to blame, however, as we allow anti-gun groups and politicians to define the gun issue with rationalizations that denigrate the American people to murderers and cop-killers eagerly waiting for an opportunity to strike.
Returning to the heavily biased Philadelphia article on the PA court’s support of preemption:
Nutter made his case in stark terms, saying the General Assembly must now decide if it wants to side with cops or criminals when it comes to gun control.
“That’s where our focus ultimately has to be,” Nutter said of Harrisburg. “People have to make a decision as to what side of the issue you’re going to be on.”
Hmm. So you’re either on the side of the “cops” or the “criminals.”
You have to wonder who’s on the side of the people. You know, the people who the constitution refers to, the people with a protected right to keep and bear arms, and the people who consistently vote for a state legislature that defends gun rights against the nastiest hyperbole that Mayor Nutter can come up . . . → Read More: High Moral Ground II: Are you on the side of the criminals, the police or … the People?
By Stephen, on September 29th, 2008%
This article from Philadelphia about the PA preemption law masquerades as news but is actually a blatant opinion piece. It presents only the point of view of the anti-gun people without a single quote from the other side or even an acknowledgement that there is another side. This is despicable, as the writer is promoting the limitation of a constitutional right without giving voice to the defenders of that right.
“Despicable” is a strong word. But it fits. Because whether some segments of society like it or not gun ownership is a constitutional right in the United States, protected for the people by the founders of our country and recently acknowledged by the Supreme Court in DC vs. Heller. It is a constitutionally protected right of American citizens by any means we would measure a right.
But our media and many politicians don’t accept that. For many, guns are an evil factor in America, a magical talisman that puts murder into the hearts of people who would not be violent if they couldn’t have guns. Would the two teenagers who committed mass murder at Columbine in 1999 have simply gone to school that day, graduated and become productive members of society if we . . . → Read More: Why does the media give anti-gun groups the Moral High Ground?
By Stephen, on September 26th, 2008%
I understand some people are anti-gun, but why must they resort to lies to make their point? Take this story from Yale, which uses a shameless lie to promote the position of the writer. If the Anti-Gun groups have the moral and logical high ground, why do they avoid logic and truth like the plague? You’d think they’d have nothing but brilliant logic, given their condescending tone when arguing for “common sense” gun laws. You normally don’t have to use spin to prove something is common sense – unless it’s really not, of course.
Take this bit of info from the aforementioned article:
But, as criminals often act despite the presence of police, armed guards or even armed rivals, one might begin to suspect that the introduction of a concealed-carry policy might have a muted effect on crime rates. Clark didn’t seem to know — or perhaps didn’t care — that this state’s (Connecticut’s) shall-issue concealed-carry policy has been in effect since 1969. Surely, we should expect to see a huge drop in state-level crime rates when criminals were suddenly faced with possibly armed victims, no?
Really? Connecticut has been shall-issue for concealed carry since 1969? This would be news to both the . . . → Read More: Concealed carry on College Campuses – Yale students start spinning facts young
By Stephen, on September 23rd, 2008%
As a parent of two children who I drop off at school every day, with nothing but hope that a murderous madman won’t appear two minutes after I walk away, there is nothing more horrifying than reading about a school shooting. Such as this massacre in Finland.
But just as horrifying is the reaction of American anti-gun groups to such tragedies here in the US; groups which use these worst-of-all mass murders for political purposes to pass laws that have no relationship to what happened.
Immediately after the Virginia Tech massacre, for instance, the Brady Campaign asked for $32 (one dollar for each victim) to promote “sensible” gun laws. In a follow up email less than a week later, they defined those laws as:
The Brady Campaign is working nonstop to get the message out that there are solutions to gun violence. We can ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips that make it so easy to kill quickly . . . we can require Brady background checks for all gun sales, including at gun shows . . . we can stop large-volume gun sales that supply illegal gun traffickers. These are just some of the steps we can take to make it . . . → Read More: A school shooting in Finland. What does it say about OUR gun laws?
By Stephen, on September 19th, 2008%
Our good friends over at gunguys.com have just plain given up. First they spent about a week with every post trying valiantly to stir up controversy about the Mary McFate/Mary Lou Sapone scandal, only to discover a public that didn’t really care. I think the general public apathy was due to the fact that these anti-gun groups are supposedly public associations, and what kind of shadowy secrets do they have? Was this spy there to get the initial look at their next bogus study? (not that I condone corporate spying like this, but it’s not like she was sneaking in windows in the dark of night).
The best post they could come up with today was a made up definition of what they seem to think is a word: gun pusher.
Gun Pusher: noun. 1. Someone who pushes guns on others whether they need, want or should have them …
It should be noted by anyone with an Elementary or higher education that “Gun Pusher” is actually two words, rather than a single word that can be described as a “noun.” While “gun” is a noun, it has a known meaning and “Pusher” is a verb in this context. In any case, they just . . . → Read More: Dictionary Fun
|
If you like the blog, give my book a try.
Off Road
The best book ever written!
Well ... at least by me.
Follow me with Google Friend Finder!
The Second Amendment Foundation – preserving the rights of us all!
|
Comments are closed 
