Mission statement:

Armed and Safe is a gun rights advocacy blog, with the mission of debunking the "logic" of the enemies of the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I can be reached at 45superman@gmail.com.You can follow me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/45superman.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

More hysteria from our 'gun supervision activist'

Nicki, at the Liberty Zone, has found the latest attempt by Illinois to become the most pathetically bed-wetting nanny state in the union. This most recent mewling comes from an individual who is apparently now to be referred to as a "gun supervision activist"--a term chosen because, I suppose, "shrieking, sniveling, enuretic, wanna-be tyrant" is a bit too awkward.

What has Illinois' aspiring nanny, Thom Mannard, of the Illinois Council to Render Citizens Defenseless Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence off his feed (and thus unable to enjoy his tofu-kiwi burgers) is the fact that (gasp!) Illinois has apparently failed to impose an arbitrary limit on the number of firearms that can be kept in a home.

However, I am concerned that it is legal, as Mr. Sonka correctly asserts, to own 600 guns and keep them in your house, without any recourse afforded to neighbors who might object.
Not true, Thom--the neighbors could move away to a place even less free than Illinois--I hear Myanmar (Burma) has "strong, effective 'gun-control' laws." Alternatively, the frightened neighbors could grow up, get a life, and mind their own damned business.
Clearly, no reasonable concerned citizen should argue about the right to hoard 600 guns when weighed against the issue of public safety posed by such firepower sitting in the middle of residential community. Not only are such a large number of firearms a burglar's dream; they pose multiple potential scenarios under which harm could come to local residents.
So now he presumes to tell us what we should or should not argue about--apparently attacking the Second Amendment isn't enough for him, and he wants to go after the First, as well.

Nicki's reply to him is vastly better than I could ever manage, so I'll turn it over to her:
Guess what, you panty wetting douchebag! If he's not likely to kill anyone with one gun, he's certainy not likely to kill anyone with 600 of them. A "concerned" citizen should ask himself if someone's private property is any of his business. Frankly, if paranoid losers like you didn't continuously work to "out" gun owners in the press, showing criminals exactly where they live, the "burglar's dream" would probably not turn into a nightmare for anyone. But in your selfish zeal to cuddle yourself in a cocoon of perceived safety, you are just out to screw anyone who is actually willing to take responsibility for theirs.
You want to ban the keeping of six hundred guns--fine. Mobilize your political power (you're going to have to expand it nationwide, I'm afraid), and get the Second Amendment changed:
"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear up to five hundred ninety-nine arms shall not be infringed."
That should take care of it.

I'm sure we'll all be much safer, Thom.

3 comments:

Joe Carpenter said...

I'm sure it's a little difficult to fire all 600 at the same time.

Christ'sBlondeGuy said...

How could someone actually own 600 guns? I'll be satisfied (when I become an adult, go through college, and get a job and hence money to buy things) with two or three hunting rifles, some side-arms, a shotgun or two...maybe an AR-15...and obviously I'll want a BB gun and/or .22 for when I have kids. Wow, future planning can be fun!

I have to say, I love your aticles. They're always hilarious, they make good points, and they're factually sound. Doesn't get better than that.

45superman said...

It would certainly take someone vastly wealthier than I'll ever be (there are quite a few people who fit that description) to own that many guns.

From the article, I get the impression that he had been an FFL dealer, operating out of his house, until his FFL was revoked for zoning violations. I'm guessing the 600 guns were inventory he had built up before the revocation. He then tried to keep selling guns, but referred to them as part of his private collection (since he was no longer permitted to deal guns from an inventory). Just a guess on my part. Whether or not one agrees that the ATF should be able to revoke an FFL because of one's address is another matter, of course.

Regardless, Mannard argues that people should not be allowed to own hundreds of guns--the contemptible little crybaby.

Thanks for the kind words about the blog--it means a lot to me to know that anyone finds it worth reading.