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.

Friday, January 08, 2010

Look where support for gun rights is coming from now

This is one of the things that gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling about the future, and has to be driving Helmke, Henigan, Sugarmann, Horwitz, and (you get the idea) to drink. In seeing what the denizens of the Democratic Underground had to say about the ABB rampage, I saw that most of the commenters sounded as if they could be NRA spokespeople (regular readers know that, coming from me, that's somewhat faint praise, but this is the Democratic Underground, after all). A few examples might be in order.

Very first comment (sanitized a bit, for the sake of family-friendliness):

Damn.
I agree, we should be allowed to carry at work. No amount of laws will prevent someone intent on crime from getting a firearm. That's the problem with criminals, they don't give a f**k [darn] about the law.
Followed shortly thereafter by:
Important point.
"Rules or laws against bringing firearms to work will do nothing to stop people like Timothy Hendron from bringing a gun to work and killing people. But they do stop anyone from being able to resist people like him."

That's the truth.
Actually, that comment was quoting the starter of the entire thread, who submitted the article about the rampage in the first place.

Then . . .
Even after the police get there, you're on your own.
The shooting occurred just before 6:30 a.m. Arriving officers were told that a man had entered the building with a rifle and a handgun, and that several people had been shot, police said.

"Police made a perimeter around the business and located those victims who needed medical attention," the statement said.
"But, but... the police will protect you."

For those of us who don't believe in Santa or the Tooth Fairy, reality is a little different. You can usually count on them trying to figure out who killed, raped, murdered, tortured...., etc., you, or in this case, they may try to figure out why. That's about as much as you're kinda, sorta guaranteed.

Then there's:
that's not the point
the point isn't "we need to carry weapons at all times". the issue is " we should be ALLOWED to make the CHOICE to carry"

choice. it's what's for dinner
That's not to say that there wan't any anti-gun hysteria in the thread--there were, in fact a several comments, quoting nearly every hysterical anti-gunner talking point--"I guess you think nuclear weapons should be legal," "you want everyone armed," "you're compensating for small (or maybe no) penises," etc.--but they all came from the same guy (whose avatar is a picture of Obama, coincidentally), and the rest of the commenters took turns making fun of him.

Obama fanboy anti-gunner:
How about the CHOICE to have common sense gun control like
civilized countries where they don't have nearly as many shootings as gun-crazy USA
Met with:
Yah, we need the choice to not have choice!
Did you actually read what you typed before hitting 'post message'?
Anti-gunner again:
I don't think people have the "choice" to have nuclear weapons do you?
So why do we need military assault weapons on our streets? Just to make paranoid people feel "safe?"
Only to get smacked down:
Possession of a "military assault weapon" outside of police/military is a 10-year Federal felony.
The only ones that can be possessed legally outside those parameters are a few rare and hyper-expensive pre-1986 collectibles, and you have to obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4) to own one. They're more tightly controlled than howitzers and bombs. The relevant law is the National Firearms Act of 1934, as amended by the Hughes Amendment to the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986.

If you're talking about NON-automatic CIVILIAN rifles that "look modern", like AR-15's, civilian AK derivatives, Kel-Tecs, and whatnot, those aren't military weapons; they're the most popular civilian rifles in the United States. And they're not "on the street"; they're almost exclusively in the closets and gun safes of the law-abiding.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html


Check out the "Rifle" column in that chart, and compare it to total murders. Rifles, with or without handgrips that stick out, aren't a significant crime problem in this country and never have been.
Well, it goes on like that, with our anti-gun Obama fanboy getting more and more agitated, and causing more and more amusement among the other commenters.

Pretty funny stuff.

5 comments:

tom said...

Mumbai had "common sense gun control" to brady panty bunchers...even have to account for each round you fire.

Worked super good,especially for the Rabbi.

AlphaWolf(Mark Mc) said...

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves. Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
thats what i usually say to someone that askes me what i need a gun for, and usually after i say that , you smell a funny smell eminating from the person that asked the question.
III

the pistolero said...

Does me good to see things like that. RKBA shouldn't be a partisan issue. Especially when one party is only minutely better on other issues.

45superman said...

Exactly, Pistolero. The sooner we, as gun rights advocates, get away from putting all our eggs in the Republican basket (a basket that seems to be in rather poor shape), and have a real answer to Lee Atwater's "Who else are they going to vote for?" question, the better off we'll be.

I want to see Democrat and Republican candidates vying for the gun owner vote--trying to outdo each other in their pro-rights positions. I think we can get there. In some parts of the country, we seem to be almost there now.

LeftCoastConservative said...

This really should not be surprising. Gallup's poll of gun ownership shows a surprising difference between conservative and liberal gun owners: a larger proportion of liberal gun owners give "self protection" and the reason to own a gun than does conservative gun owners.

While smaller in numbers overall, the liberal gun owner is the soft white underbelly of the anti-gun position in the U.S.: liberals don't want their guns taken away either. I would bet that liberal gun owners have applied subtle influence on the Democratic Party to de-emphasize gun control as a political issue.

The Gallup poll is several years old, predating this years gun purchase binge and spreading shall-issue laws. I would love to see Gallup run this poll again to see how the trends have changed.