From the Berks County Media

Usually this kind of hysteria is limited to the Philadelphia media market:

And the weapon of choice is invariably a handgun, conveniently available, cheap, on any city street, courtesy of the NRA. After all, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Oh, you’ve heard that line beforeft I guess you haven’t had a relative or friend murdered with one of those guns that don’t kill people. Personally, I am in favor of doing away with all private handgun ownership except for those who can demonstrate a real need (not just self-protection).

Self-protection isn’t a real need?  But if you keep going, the person in question actually comes out against “Lost and Stolen” for largely the same reason I oppose it as well.  At least some gun control advocates understand there are principled reasons to oppose this bill.  Then you have this article:

I know there are some legitimate hunters who think they are allowed to have semi-automatic guns too. It is ridiculous to call yourself a sportsman if you need to use a semi-automatic gun. Each shot should be carefully calculated, not just haphazardly shot repeatedly in seconds in the approximate direction of an animal.

These guns, the ones that should never hit the streets, are getting into the hands of criminals and innocent people are dying. Why? Because guns get stolen.

In my opinion, there is no legitamate use for civilians to use a semi-automatic weapon.

Yeah, except for this whole matter of it being a constitutional right at both the state and federal level, and, of course, there actually being legitimate uses for semi-automatic firearms.  Except for the fact that you’re 100% wrong on this, you’re totally right!  I love how these people who don’t understand guns, or how they are used, presume to lecture those of us that do on what we do and don’t need.  What incredible arrogance and cultural condescension is this.  The worst part is that it’s spreading out from Philly.  I am becoming concerned that Pennsylvania will be as anti-gun as the rest of the northeast within a generation.

11 thoughts on “From the Berks County Media”

  1. What an amazing mass of ignorant drivel. Why do people try to write about subjects of which they have no knowledge? Idiots like that aren’t even worth the trouble to argue with, since they know nothing, and wish to know even less.

  2. “the weapon of choice is invariably a handgun, conveniently available, cheap, on any city street, courtesy of the NRA”

    Is there some kind of sidewalk sale that the NRA is having and I don’t know about?

    If single shot rifles/shotguns are all that’s available, isn’t it inevitable that the same cretins who have no respect for life will just use that means to take away life?

    I’ll answer my own question: no, they won’t use single shot long guns, they’ll use the handguns that they obtained illegally in the first place and illegally didn’t hand over to the grabbers.

    If you can’t get people to “start snitching,” it’s absurd to imply that they’d comply with confiscation.

  3. I, too, would like to know where to buy cheap handguns off the street. I did buy a Charter Undercover for $140 once, but I had to pass a background check. Heck, the system threw a fit when I tried to buy two pump-action .22lr rifles at the same time!

    Besides, if illiterate peasants can make full-auto AK-47s, what makes anyone think that an auto mechanic with a meth addiction and internet access isn’t going to make Stens and AKs in exchange for a discount on his drugs?

  4. The second quote pisses me off more than the first.

    Now, I can’t speak for everyone, but when I’m shooting with my semi-automatic guns, I usually take between 6 and 10 seconds to prepare the shot, squeeze the trigger, and carry through. That sounds pretty carefully calculated to me, no?

  5. Oh no, not Berks County of all places! I’ve just been reading about the unique “school” of Pennsylvania Longrifle art and architecture that spontaneously emerged there in the pre-Federal period of US history.

  6. Here’s another laughable excerpt from the second editorial:

    “I’m not real sure what type of hunting requires a handgun. And I’m pretty sure there are more effective ways for personal protection other than keeping a handgun around.

    In the event of a home invasion, for example, by the time the individual gets to that “locked” handgun, they could already be dead.

    So the handgun is not exactly the best option in personal protection. Not to mention the fact that the same gun intended to protect could actually be used against the victim.”

    Oh my, where do I start here?

    First, although handguns aren’t a requisite for hunting, there are some handguns that CAN be used for such – my guess is that the writer has likely never seen a Thompson/Center Arms Contender before.

    Second, the writer claims to be “pretty sure” that there are more effective means than handguns for self-defense purposes, but doesn’t bother to elaborate any further than that. If this is so true, then I guess only imbeciles like me place any credence in the old adage about the folly of bringing just a knife to a gunfight.

    Third, the writer seems to be under the false notion that everybody who keeps guns at home for defensive purposes has them locked away and unloaded or something, thereby making said guns useless if a home invasion were to occur. While that may have been what the law required gun owners in Washington, DC, to do before the Heller decision, it’s never been so just about anywhere else in America as far as I know. It’s certainly not the case in my house – my gun would be at the ready, locked and loaded, and with the safety OFF from the very first moment I started to hear my door being bashed in and my dogs barking at the intrusion.

    Fourth, the writer reiterates that a gun “is not exactly the best option in personal protection,” and then regurgitates that same old line about a gun being more likely to be turned against its owner that I’ve been hearing from the gun-hater crowd for the last 30-some years. Again, the writer fails to mention what options are better than the gun in self-defense situations, and there are simply countless numbers of real-life stories to rebut the whole notion about the greater likelihood of the average violent criminal disarming his gun-wielding victim, and then using the gun on said victim. These anti-gunner people must have thought that most violent criminals all have had gun-disarming skills like Jackie Chan was showing us in those “Rush Hour” movies to come up with that canard.

  7. Police don’t NEED to use deadly force to deal with anyone, and if they do they’ll still have all those other tools…tazers, pepper spray, batons, and if private ownership is done away with they won’t NEED to defend themselves so why stop at private ownership?

  8. If I may step up to defend the Berks County Media, clicking on the ‘our publications’ link at the bottom of the article would show that the Berks-Mont Newspapers are really part of the Philadelphia media.

    The real Berks County Media is the Reading Eagle Company

  9. “It is ridiculous … to use a semi-automatic gun. Each shot should be carefully calculated, not just haphazardly shot repeatedly in seconds in the approximate direction of an animal.”

    Obviously, those of us who know better can’t take these idiots seriously. But it’s sad, because there are lots of other idiots who DO take them seriously.

    In Texas, I had the pleasure of hunting deer with a 16″ AR in 5.56. Over two years, I took 6 does. Normal capacity magazine (30 rounds) loaded with 60 grain soft points. Each deer was taken with a single, carefully “calculated” shot.

    What’s the word again for people who bloviate without knowing their subject matter? I think it came up on “Of Arms and the Law.”

  10. “Except for the fact that you’re 100% wrong on this, you’re totally right! ”

    He so profoundly misses the point he’s not even wrong!

    (Apologies to Wolfgang Pauli)

Comments are closed.