One of Joe’s cartoons got me thinking. Our opponents say we need special rules for guns in urban areas, because what works in Cheyenne doesn’t necessarily work in Chicago, or something like that (because everyone knows Cheyenne isn’t a real city, like the ones wealthy lefties live in). But yet when we pushed to get some very large tracts of rural areas opened up for firearms possession, we’re mocked, told we’ll shoot people, and invading their quiet sanctuaries with our gun nuttery. If our strategy is any gun, anywhere, any time, as our opponents suggest we’re struggling for, they are at least guilty of no gun, nowhere, none of the time.

7 thoughts on “Contradictions”

  1. Sebastian,

    Apparently, you are not familiar with FDV (Federal Dementia Virus). See, here in Ohio, many people are carriers of the virus and don’t know it either.

    They have lawfully carry their concealed handguns in state parks for year, but as soon as they venture into a national park, the virus goes active and they go crazy, shooting every hiker, biker and bambi in sight.

    Other federal areas can cause the virus to go active, like government buildings, post offices, etc. So in case you have FDV, be careful venturing onto or into federal property.

    Dann in Ohio

  2. Some people don’t want to be around guns, period. And to a degree I can understand that position — except rather than moving to some place that shares their ideological hatred of an armed populace (China? Cuba? North Korea?), the VPC/Brady types instead insist on making everybody else conform to their cloud-cuckoo land version of society.

    It reminds me of my favorite Slashdot post ever, in which an anonymous anti-gunner poster asked why American gun owners couldn’t just leave and form their own country, and one person replied:

    “We did. Who the hell let you in here?”

  3. “Works in Chicago”. That’s a lie right there. It implies that gun control “works” in Chicago. A total handgun ban that results in dozens of shootings every weekend is “working”?

  4. It’s the same flawed argument that people use against college carry. They think that rights should be conditional based on geography.

    It’s just a variation of the “not in my back yard,” argument.

    I think we should try to understand why some people fear other people being armed. We know their argument is based in fear by the perpetually unrealized doomsday scenarios they invent.

  5. I think its just the antis tipping their hands a bit too much. They keep re-assuring us they aren’t coming for our guns, and they really liked the Heller/McDonald decisions, and all they want is lower crime and violence rates ect ect ect.

    We know it isn’t true. They want to ban guns…ALL OF THEM, and likely if they succeed there they’ll work on knives and pointed sticks next.

    So they say “Don’t Carry in the city, better to just call the police and not risk getting hurt, or hurting bystanders”….then in rural areas “Hey, you’re in the country, you’re paranoid to carry there!”

    This is all the same as the ban lead ammo/ban armor piercing ammo. Two separate fronts of “Common Sense” that would ban ALL AMMO.

  6. @ Weer’d… I don’t disagree with your perspective. But why do you suppose they think that way?

    I’m honestly not sure.

  7. Control. Its the same reason why they want centralized health care, ownership of private companies, and bans on unhealthy foods and activities.

    They want to control our lives from the top down “For our own good”.

    The guns are their biggest fear because outside of the voting booth (Which they don’t like either

    The only thing that gives the average man the ability to say “No” is personal arms.

Comments are closed.