On the opposition
Sean has an excellent post up on why we have to press the fight on the anti-gunners. Sean has been both tireless and creative in getting the pro-gun message out. It took a big, brass pair to participate alone protesting the “Too Many Victims” rally.
I have a policy of not linking to the moonbat in Duluth, or the one in Oregon. I do so for a very simple reason. I don’t want to legitimize their arguments. They have both demonstrated that they are not serious about conversation. They say things that are demonstrably untrue. When they are called out on it, they call us names and tell us we are big meanies. It’s the internet equivalent of baby talk, and my refusal to engage is the internet equivalent of “Hush up, the grownups are talking.” Engaging with them is not worth the time it takes. Sebastian has a good take on this.
That doesn’t mean, however, that we should ignore all of them. Consider the civil rights movement. We have reached our high water mark: segregation is no longer legal. Now we need to change the culture so that it is unthinkable that a reasonable man would consider it an option. Part of that was taking the gloves off. You had to call a bigot a bigot, and show the world the ugliness of his bigotry.
And so it is with gun rights. It’s all over but the crying in the legal arena. The anti-gunners are determined to fight to the last man. They aren’t reacting rationally. (Consider Chicago. Who in their right mind would think that a law that simultaneously requires training and bans the means of that training would stand? It was the legal equivalent of “Oh, yeah! Well, you can’t make me!”) We’ve got four states that practice constitutional carry, and soon there will be more. It’s only a matter of time before we have constitutionally protected, shall-issue concealed carry.
But the work that we have left to do is to show the world the ugliness of the bigotry. And part of that is calling things what they are. The anti-gunners like to portray themselves as victims. They say that they speak for the victims of “gun violence.” I say that they make sure there are more victims.
Joe has his just one question, but to be frank I think we need to put it more emphatically. I’ve decided to call them out, and put the blood back on the hands of the likes of Joan and Baldr.
So let me state emphatically, for the record: Joan, you get people killed. Baldr, you get people killed. Mr. Troll at the CSGV who publishes the names of bloggers but doesn’t have the stones to post under his own name: You. Get. People. Killed. Your bigotry is ugly, offensive, and it’s getting people killed.
On mockery
We have been accused by the usual suspects of mocking the Tuscon victims. In particular, on the-blog-that-shall-not-be named-but-censors-discussion Japete wrote the following:
And this, my friends, is how the gun rights extremists reacted to a nation wide vigil with thousands of victims and others lighting candles and ringing bells. Cynical, stupid, wrong-headed, rude, twisted, ridiculous…. These folks think of themselves as clever and want to get into the faces of victims and gun violence prevention organizations.
We in the gun rights community refer to the ilk of Japete as blood dancers. They coat themselves in the blood of victims and use their tragedies to push their agenda.
I have nothing but sympathy for the victims of Tuscon. I’m sorry that there wasn’t a good man with a gun able to stop the bad man with a gun more quickly. I do know that the law against mass murder didn’t stop the bad man, so I struggle with how another law would have prevented this tragedy.
Do I want to get in the face of victims of violence? No, absolutely not. I do want to get in the face of “gun violence prevention organizations.” I find your actions reprehensible, and as I pointed out here, sinful. You are counseling a child in a burning building to hide in the closet from the flames. While you are lighting your candles and ringing your bells, I’m telling the kid to get the hell out of the burning house. You are getting people killed, Joan. So, yes, you could say I am in your face.
Rude? I’m sorry if you find me rude. Angry, certainly. You are trying to put me and my family in danger. Brusque? Perhaps. I can only tolerate nonsensical thinking for so long. Your conclusions aren’t supported by the evidence. When we point this out, you call me insensitive and dismiss my arguments. I can only go on that merry-go-round so many times.
Review the footage from the match again. I see a target surrounded by no-shoots. Sounds pretty similar to the situation in Tuscon. I see people training to stop that situation. Perhaps Joe and Barron were not mocking the victims, Joan. Perhaps they were honoring their memory by making sure that, by god, that wasn’t going to happen again on their watch. Which, when you get right down to it, is probably a better way to prevent violence than lighting a candle.
So to be clear, Joan. We weren’t mocking the victims. We were mocking you.
Gun laws racist?
Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy earlier this month told parishioners at St. Sabina’s Church that federal gun laws are akin to “government-sponsored racism.”
Yes, I agree! The racist roots of gun control are well documented. But wait, there’s more…
“I want you to connect one more dot on that chain of African-American history in this country, and tell me if I’m crazy: Federal gun laws that facilitate the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers, across this country, that are killing black and brown children,” he said according to an WMAQ-Channel 5 story that aired Thursday.
Yes, I agree. The BATFE shouldn’t be doing that! And it’s absolutely immoral to make it difficult for the victims of these thugs to defend themselves with proper tools.
Somehow, I don’t think that is what this ignoramus meant…
Why they hate us
I’ve tried, over the years, to articulate the hostility that we gunnies get from the anti-rights crowd. But I’ve never done as good a job as Sean. Go read.
Your ignorance is showing
My favorite RINO, Peggy Noonan, opines in her most recent column on how Obama can make a great State of the Union speech:
Here are three things he can do in the speech that would be surprising, shrewd, centrist and good policy. The first may seem small but is not. Normal people are not afraid of a lowering of discourse in political speech. They don’t like it, but it’s not keeping them up nights. Normal people are afraid of nuts with guns. That keeps them up nights. They know our society has grown more broken, families more sundered, our culture more degraded, and they fear it is producing more lost and disturbed young people. They fear those young people walking into a school or a mall with a semiautomatic pistol with an extended clip.
What civilian needs a pistol with a magazine that loads 33 bullets and allows you to kill that many people without even stopping to reload? No one but people with bad intent. Those clips were banned once; the president should call for reimposing the ban. The Republican Party will not go to the wall to defend extended clips. The problem is the Democratic Party, which overreached after the assassinations of the 1960s, talked about banning all handguns, and suffered a lasting political setback. Now Democrats are so spooked that they won’t even move forward on small and obvious things like this. The president should seize the moment and come out strong for a ban.
I could write all about the errors in facts and logic in this quote. I’ll leave that as an exercise for the reader. Instead, I found this interesting:
The Republican Party will not go to the wall to defend extended clips.
I’m not so sure that is true. It would have been true a year ago. But this congress is the tea-party congress. And more and more people are realizing that you don’t need to be afraid of nuts with guns when you are prepared for them.
A slippery dope
I’ve intentionally stayed away from jumping all over Joan Peterson. But this comment takes the cake:
Hand grenades and RPGs are sold at gun shows all over the country. They could be sold by private sellers who may or may not require background checks.
I just…wow. At gun shows you say? And without a background check?
The best part is, she goes on to cite a whole bunch of just nonsensical sources.
Joe, Sean, and Weer’d are right…this has got to be some kind of mental illness. Either that or it’s official…she’s dumber than a box of hammers.
More on Costco
Apparently, Sailorcurt is right…carrying in a Costco can get you killed.
More here.
On publicity stunts
*Editors note: I plan to mock religion in this post. My own and others, including Islam. If this offends you, please discontinue reading. On the other hand, I think it is pretty darn funny. So make your choice. Please do *not* issue fatwas. I’ve got lots of guns. Thank you! Read more
On Costco
I’ve often recommended Costco in the past as a great source of high quality food.
No more.
Sailorcurt has the details. It turns out that a buddy of mine is an IT contractor to some folks pretty high up in the food chain over there. I’ll see what he can find out.
-
Do your part!
-
-
-
-