This is something of a rhetorical question. Gun rights advocates are not bullies. Sure, there are a few strident “come and take it” types amongst our number. But they are not the death threat type. Proponents of civilian disarmament paint pro-gunners as “extremists” with hair-trigger tempers who seek to cow the anti-gun agitators with “bullying” tactics because the antis lack the facts to support their cause. It’s a sign of desperation. For example [via bostonglobe.com] . . .
Clear Channel owns 25 billboards that had been part of the statewide antiviolence campaign. On Thursday, just two days after the billboards went up, the company removed the signs, which read, “We’re not anti-gun. We’re pro-life. Massachusetts Gun Laws Save Lives,” and featured a Bushmaster XM-15 assault rifle with a white flag in the barrel.
Another company, Outfront Media, also rescinded a donated billboard.
Rosenthal said he’s hoping to use the donated cash — he pegged it at $25,700 — to revive the campaign, and said it could move beyond roadside advertising.
He would not identify the six donors, out of fear they would be “intimidated” by gun supporters, but said they are from Massachusetts.
In other words, the astro-turf organization known as Stop Handgun Violence maintains that I did not depend on ballistic bully boy (yes I said it) and former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg’s cash to recoup lost credibility. At the same time, the Campaign to Stop Gun Violence immediately called gun owners “bullies” for convincing Clear Channel to rescind their offer of free anti-gun agitprop.
My response: I know you are but what am I? Am I right? Are anti-gunners bullies? In the context of the fight for gun rights, what does that even mean?