Over at wallsofthecity.net, veteran gun blogger Linoge unearthed a gun control advocate who makes no bones about his desire to see gun owners wiped from the face of the earth. “Can someone explain why ‘Molon Labe’ isn’t considered a statement of terrorism and all who exclaim it to be jailed for inciting violence and treason?” Adam Mermer asks on his Facebook page. “It’s stating that they will murder police and soldiers. If that doesn’t deserve placement in front of a firing squad or a seat in an electric chair, nothing does.” Anti-gun extremism or the logical extension of the anti-gun ethos? In other words, do the people promoting civilian disarmament want gun owners to surrender their guns . . . or else?
“The last thing Jordan Baylon wants is a fake pink gun,” pressherald.com opines. “Baylon, 22, spends much of his free time dressed in camouflage fighting simulated battles against like-minded fantasy warriors. The custom-made airsoft gun he uses to fire small plastic projectiles during the fights is an imposing metal object – a near exact replica of a M4 rifle.” Nice lead but who gives a damn about Airsofter Jordan Baylon’s aversion to pink? The problem with California’s Imitation Firearms Safety Act (SB 199, mandating that replica guns be painted “pink, red or another bright color”) . . .
Some have called Mike “The Gun Guy” Weisser the gun world’s kapo. As the son of a Holocaust survivor who believes that no Jew should ever allow him or herself to be disarmed, indeed, that all Jews should go out of their way to make sure they are armed, I couldn’t possibly comment. Except to say this: Weisser is pro-civilian disarmament. Oh he’s danced around the issue plenty. But his most recent Huffington Post dietribe [sic] leaves no doubt that “The Gun Guy” wants Americans to surrender their firearms (to someone) for their own good. As a medical matter. Check this out . . .
“It was business as usual at Minnesota’s Mall of America and Canada’s West Edmonton Mall on Sunday, with most people either oblivious to any threat to attack the shopping centers or confident that the risk was too small to worry about,” philly.com reports. This “despite news of a videotape attributed to al Shabaab, a Somali-based Islamist militant group behind a deadly 2013 attack on a Kenyan shopping center, that appeared to threaten the North American malls.” Both of the above malls are self-professed “gun-free zones.” And look likely to remain so. Go figure.
Last fall, Washington Free Beacon writer Steve Gutowski applied for a concealed carry pistol license in the District of Columbia. He was skeptical about his chances of being approved, and it turned out that this skepticism was justified; despite spending a bit of time, effort, and $110 on the application, he received a form letter advising that his application has been denied. The reason: “The applicant did not demonstrate a good reason to fear injury to person or property, or other proper reason for a concealed carry license.” Mr. Gutowski apparently had received a rather strange and threatening communication in 2011 in response to an article he wrote on Occupy DC . . .
A TTAG reader writes, “I received an email blast from the NRA-ILA regarding Wisconsin state senate and assembly bills to remove the 48-hour waiting period for handgun purchases. If these bills get passed and signed into law it would be a HUGE step in the right direction in preserving our civil liberties. It would also give presidential candidate Scott Walker a chance to prove his worth to the rest of the country’s second amendment supporters. Though this bill does not confront the inherent infringement and unconstitutionality of background checks . . .
Let’s say you want to stop someone from shooting you. You could A) lobby for more gun control, B) report the potential killer to the police, or C) arm yourself. Choose any two. Common sense suggests that B and C are the correct answer. Even if you think “stricter” gun laws could keep a gun out of the hands of your potential killer, you’d have to be crazy to consider it a short-term solution. When it’s your life on the line, short-term solutions are what you need. And any law that makes it harder for you, the innocent party, to get a gun to defend your life is a bad thing, not a good thing. So, did I miss something? If so, here’s a story from Houston that makes the point in a more emotionally engaging way . . .
Arguing with an anti-gunner is like herding amphetamine-crazed cats. Despite all their talk about “common sense gun safety,” antis rely on unreliable studies and surveys. First you have to debunk their bad science – exposing bogus survey samples and skewed questions – then you have to counter with good science and robust data (click on the main site’s Facts About Guns tab for ammunition). At some point, you have to “explain” the meaning of the Second Amendment to them (as if it could be any clearer) and illuminate the point of the U.S. Constitution (protecting rights). Supreme Court decisions come into it. It’s exhausting. Luckily there’s a simple pro-gun argument which forces antis to acknowledge Americans’ gun rights . . .
The Washington Post makes me laugh. Not because they made me look like a nut case in a front page profile that elicited thousands of flaming comments. The WaPo tickles my funny bone with their ongoing battle between the paper’s dedication to old-fashioned news reporting and their virulent anti-gun bias. As the headline indicates, Getting a gun legally in Europe may be hard, but terrorists have little trouble is a perfect example. The story’s push-me pull-you prevarication starts right from the word go . . .
Reader dwb writes:
I recently found myself shopping for some new homeowners insurance. As I have quite a few personal firearms, I asked the agent about the limitations of the policy she wanted to sell me. The agent checked the dec sheet and she asked me if I had a collectors license. I said no. The ensuing conversation got interesting in a hurry . . .
The idea that passing new or “stricter” gun control laws will reduce “gun violence” is silly. Setting aside the statistically nominal death and injury toll caused by negligent firearms discharges and domestic violence, America’s “gun violence” problem takes two basic forms: suicide and criminal activity. As Japan’s suicide rate proves, even a total gun ban does sweet FA to stop people from offing themselves. Firearms-involved criminal activity is mostly gang bangers banging. Hard. So if you really want to reduce “gun violence” you have to . . .