Month: November 2008

Xlrq highlights some more.  These people must be enjoying some bile, with some invectives on the side for Thanksgiving.

I don’t know what’s worse, people who want to ban assault rifles out of ignorance, or the people who know fully well what they are, and are willing to throw us under the bus anyway:

These pseudo-assault rifles have a Rambo look that appeals to a certain segment of gun owners, and while they may fulfill some fantasies, the shooter still has to pull the trigger each time he wants to fire, just as with semiauto hunting and target rifles and shotguns.

I don’t use one because few pseudo-assault rifles are anywhere near as accurate as my bolt-action rifles or, for that matter, a 125-year-old, single-shot, black powder buffalo gun that I got chance to shoot last summer and could make 6-inch groups at 1,000 yards.

You see, he’s just plain better than us sickos who shoot competitively with black guns.  Mr. Sharp, I want to introduce you to somebody.  This is Wayne Pacelle, he’s the head of the Humane Society of the United States, a group that proposes to end hunting in North America, one species at a time.  Mr. Pacelle has no less than a goal to be to “rival the National Rifle Association.”

When these people come for your sport, if they already have my AR-15, I’m out of the fight.  I do not hunt — I’m a competitive target shooter, and I carry a pistol for self-defense.  My interest in preserving hunting is in preserving an important part of the shooting sports.  If you, and those who think like you, cause me losing my sport, what interest do I have to fight for yours?  When you understand that you are under just as much threat as we are, you’ll give up your arrogance and understand we’re on this boat together, so you better pick up a bucket and start bailing, or we’re going to sink.

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.

A pretty good article in Townhall on Chicago’s continuing battle against the Second Amendment.

Bryan Miller was thankful yesterday for the federal restrictions on machine guns.  As one commenter pointed out:

Bryan Miller is right — the 1934 law strictly regulating machine guns has been effective, resulting in almost nonexistent cases of misuse by their legal owners. So gun control groups are satisfied about that, right?

WRONG — most gun control groups favor banning ownership of machine guns from those who now own them legally and without misuse.

And that is why we we’re obstinate in opposing them.  The federal machine gun regulations are actually very instructive.  For 50 years you had, by any gun control advocate’s standards, a successful program of licensing (in the form of a tax stamp) and registration, that resulted in very few crimes from legally possessed machine guns — and yet in 1986, they banned them anyway.