Here’s an article about a woman who finds effeminate pink handguns disgusting. Here’s another about a woman who used an effeminate pink handgun to defend her life and her fiance’s life against an ex-con. Who’s outlook do you hold in the highest regard?
A lovely little pink sig. Just darling!
Dee Edwards, co-founder of the UK charity Mothers Against Murder and Aggression (which would seem to do some good work other than just being anti-gun, judging from their website), said: “I am utterly disgusted by this. It is not fashion, it is not style, it is … glorifying guns and making them seem acceptable.”
Hmmm. Actually, I don’t think the color of guns has much to do with more and more Americans — and American women in particular – finding guns “acceptable.” I think it has to do with stories like that of Meghan Brown and many, many others. Although the number of American’s who use guns for self defense is much debated, I think it’s clearly in the 10′s of thousands and could very well be in the low millions (like 2.5 million times per year).
A woman who used a darling little pink pistol to defend . . . → Read More: Pink Guns are Good News for Women!
Brady Campaign board member Joan Peterson’s most recent post relates the famous parable of the three blind men trying to identify an elephant by touching it, and of course each only touches a small area and comes away with a different impression of what an elephant looks like. Is that how we all look at the gun issue? From our own limited experiences? How else could we?
But of course, her own post acknowledges that she is as blind as anyone and doesn’t understand the issue better than anyone else, however self righteous she often is.
But that’s why we have a democratic form of government. When viewing an issue like this, that affects 300 million people, the only way to deal with it is via concensus; maybe none of us as individuals can see the whole elephant, but by debating, forming groups, comparing notes, etc., we eventually agree upon what the elephant looks like and what we need to do about it.
The NRA and Brady Campaign are both putting forth an idea on what the issue looks like. To date, who’s winning?
Here’s my response:
I don’t know that any of us are completely blind on this issue, . . . → Read More: Blind people, elephants, and guns
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 . . . → Read More: Another modern day story of people who used guns as tools to defend life and liberty
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 . . . → Read More: Do anti-gun people have even a clue as to what it means to live in a free society?
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 . . . → Read More: Intruder shot with his own gun; A story anyone can love
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 . . . → Read More: High Moral Ground II: Are you on the side of the criminals, the police or … the People?
“But if you are a law abiding person, why would you be against registering your guns? Isn’t that the least you could do?” I am asked this in nearly every gun related conversation I have with anti-gun people or even apathetic gun owners (you know the type, they own guns but refuse to believe the anti-gun groups would ever take their guns). But it’s a fair and legitimate question, and there is a good answer for it.
The obvious point is that if the 2nd amendment is in part to protect the arms of citizens as the last defense against a government turned tyrannical, then allowing the government to keep records of exactly who owns guns negates this. But perhaps the greatest danger is NOT from a tyrannical government trying to oppress all its citizens, but from a popular government that has turned against some easily identifiable minority group (blacks, jews, gays, etc.) ?
Historical and current events prove that the most horrific violence is generally undertaken by paramilitary groups or mobs to whom the government has turned a blind eye. Groups that undertake violence against some (usually minority) group based on sectarian, racial, political, etc. differences. When this violence . . . → Read More: Why Christians (and everyone else) should oppose gun registration (not a biblical mandate, but common sense)
Check this story out. So those smart guns they’re developing which: “University officials say it works 99 percent of the time when paired with an off-the-shelf handgun” … well, it’s your tax dollars paying for it. Thanks to an earmark to last year’s annual Congressional appropriation bill by U.S. Senators Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and U.S. Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr. (D-8th District).
I’m a pro-technology kind of guy, but I like the basic setup of my guns. A simple physical system of levers and springs that just plain works. I can put a revolver in my car and leave locked in a box for years and if I ever need it it will work. Will a smart gun survive that? How long until the battery goes dead or starts to leak?
Looking into it further …
NJIT has spent the last nine years on a “dynamic grip recognition” technology that can identify gun owners based on how they squeeze the trigger. The technology uses sensors located in the gun to identify unconscious, reflexive actions unique to each person and then decides whether the gunman is authorized to fire the weapon.
That’s interesting. Supposed . . . → Read More: Smart Gun Technology NJ will force on all non-police gun owners – your tax dollars at work!
I like to spend time on anti-gun sites. Seeing how desperate they are to make a point, clearly unsupportable with facts (unless they’re hiding the legitimate facts and studies for reasons unknown), makes me confident that I’m on the right side. Someday I’m afraid that they may make a convincing argument and turn me against guns … but after many years of looking they have yet to come close. If I ever see any content that is honest, compelling and logical all at the same time I’m not sure what I’ll do – but it seems as though the risk of this is not very high.
Take, for instance, the amazing spin they are putting on HR 6691, the law being considered by the House of Representative that would strip away the ridiculous gun laws that DC put into place after the Heller decision. Laws that declared semi-automatic pistols as “machine guns,” said that citizens still have to leave guns locked up (but can unlock them if an assault is underway), and put such a difficult and expensive procedure in place to register a gun that few will be able to undertake the process – even if there were any . . . → Read More: Brady campaign spin – How do they keep their office from corkscrewing to the center of the Earth?
If you are a good parent, particularly a mother or single mother, you have a duty to keep your family safe. This means child proof locks on cleaning supply cabinets, smoke detectors on every floor, car seats, a loaded handgun in an easily accessible safe, and a Concealed Carry Permit (CCW) to carry that handgun when not at home (if you live in one of the 40 states that allows it).
Does that last part offend your sensibilities? If so, please read on and respond intelligently. Because one of us is making a grave mistake on how we care for our family. And if it’s me, I need to know. Because my children and family are the most important thing in my life.
Of course there are many exceptions as to who has a duty to own a firearm. There are true pacifists who would honor the life of the axe murder above that of their children. There are people who live in foreign countries (or the American equivalent of a foreign country, Washington D.C.) where gun ownership is virtually banned. There are people who know they are too irresponsible to be trusted with firearms, as of course there are . . . → Read More: Heads of families, particularly single mothers, need to keep their families SAFE!