The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State …
Thanks to Todd Vandermyde for pointing this out, but it would seem our friends at the Brady Campaign have used violent target images themselves:
Remember, this is the same organization who’s President just said, “Sarah Palin used gun “target” metaphors encouraging voters to defeat Rep. Giffords and others.” Pot, meet Kettle.
Hat tip to Carl from Chicago for helping put together this post.
UPDATE: You can find the full Brady mailing here.
Looks like there was someone there:
After all, when he realized there was an incident occurring at the Tucson Safeway supermarket Saturday where Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was holding a constituent event, Mr. Zamudio thought he could help, since he was legally carrying a 9 mm semiautomatic.
“If I’d gone down there sooner, maybe I could have shot him myself,” Mr. Zamudio, age 24, said in a phone interview Sunday night.
Mr. Zamudio, who works at a Tucson art gallery, was at a nearby Walgreen’s buying cigarettes when he heard the shots and immediately turned and ran toward the commotion. “In that moment, I didn’t think about it. I just reacted.”
He saw the blank face of the suspected shooter—”almost a smirk.”
By the time Mr. Zamudio was in close range, others had wrestled the suspect to the ground. Mr. Zamudio helped hold him down.
Didn’t quite get there in time. No doubt our opponents would say this was a dangerous individual trying to be a hero, and only would have racked up more bodies in his incompetence, but if one wants to be a hero by shooting someone who is actively murdering a crowd of people, including children, go right ahead.
My Google Alerts are on fire with a steady stream of stupidity from the media:
So why didn’t Arizona’s gun-toting populace and the push for more and deadlier guns protect anyone during Saturday’s rampage?
“Part of the problem is that police officers get extensive training,†begins Algonquin Police Chief Russell Laine. Before they are handed their guns, police officers undergo thorough background checks and psychological evaluations, unlike gun buyers in Arizona, Laine points out. Then cops get lots and lots of gun training.
Maybe the problem was there wasn’t anyone there with a gun? You know, just like the police can’t be everywhere at once. I don’t think anyone has suggested that an armed population is some kind of guarantee. But it makes the odds that someone will be around with a tool handy to deal with the situation more likely than zero.
I know my dad reads this blog occasionally, and no doubt Bitter will see this. If I ever lose my marbles to the point that I’m constructing satanic skull shrines on the veranda in the backyard, you have my full permission to have me committed to the loony bin, and keep me away from sharp and dangerous objects.
I say this now, being of sound mind and body. That is all.
So says Josh Horwitz, for the Coalition to Stop Gun Ownership:
This embrace of political violence has been part of far right wing ideology for decades, but was tamped down after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. It began to reemerge in 2008 with the Supreme Court’s landmark Second Amendment decision in D.C. v. Heller. In that 5-4 ruling, Justice Scalia overturned 200+ years of jurisprudence and parroted the National Rifle Association’s radical view of the Second Amendment, writing, “If… the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia… if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment’s guarantee — it does not assure the existence of a ‘citizens’ militia’ as a safeguard against tyranny.”
This radical idea — which completely ignores our Founders’ tough response to armed insurrectionists during Shays’ Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion — flowered even further after the election of our first African American president in November 2008.
It was Heller, obviously, that motivated we violent, racist gun owners. It amazes me how little they realize how deeply insulting this stuff is to a large segment of American society. And they wonder why they have no relevance in the debate. But as they say, never interrupt your enemy when they are in the process of making a mistake. Ooops, did I say enemy? I guess even I can’t help the eliminationist rhetoric can I?
They are definitely getting better about covering Second Amendment issues:
That is not hair-splitting, inasmuch as high-capacity magazines for Glocks were and are commonplace — almost as commonplace as Glocks themselves — and remained so even while their manufacture and importation were banned. Most Glock 9mm magazines are usable in any Glock 9mm pistol, regardless of model. Glock makes at least four different 9mm pistols at the moment — 9mm being one of the most common calibers — and a high-capacity magazine sold for almost any of those could have been used in the Glock 19. Third-party manufacturers make them as well, and have made them for years and years, meaning that AWB or no AWB, finding one is not very difficult. The only difference the AWB is likely to have made is that the shooter would have had a used magazine instead of a new one (assuming he did in fact have a new one), and he probably would have paid five bucks more for it.
Most of the magazines I own I bought during the ban. Most of the magazines I own hold more than ten rounds. With the exception of Glock factory mags, which did get more expensive during the ban, prices were unaffected. Magazines are and were always plentiful. Glock aftermarket magazines were still cheap during the ban. There’s good evidence the shooter used an aftermarket magazine.
The Southern Poverty Law Center would like to note, that if you just look through the bat shit crazy, you’ll see, underneath, a tea partying, militia movement whack job. By this twisted logic, pretty clearly the movie industry was responsible for the shooting of Ronald Reagan, since it helped Hinkley cultivate his obsession with Jody Foster.
Not that I can say I’m surprised. The SPLC has been shameless for a while now, and much like MADD, who’s largely achieved what it set out to do, is also out to do whatever it can to avoid slipping into irrelevance.
That’s the ATF designation for the multiple sale form for long guns that ATF is going to unlawfully insist dealers use. It won’t include having to send a copy to local law enforcement. After all, this is only meant to feather the nests of federal bureaucrats, not county sheriffs.
The media garbage about the Tucson tragedy is piling up. The New York Times, apparently never having heard of Heller, claims that Glocks are a problem, despite the fact that if any gun would be the poster child for Heller’s “common use” test, it would be the Glock. They talk about what would have happened if he had been carrying a “regular pistol,” because in the New York Times’ vast ignorance of this topic, they have no idea a Glock is a “regular pistol.”
The News room of the Sacramento Bee, another den of ignorance on this issue, says it’s Arizona’s weak gun laws to blame. I’d be surprised if there was a state that would have rejected this guy. The man simply did not have a prior criminal or mental health history prior to this incident. For absolutely sure, in Pennsylvania he would have been able to get a gun. Even in restrictive states like top Brady Ranked California, I’m pretty sure he would have walked out with his Glock. What proposed law would have stopped this that still respected the fact that buying a gun is a fundamental right?
In the mean time, Boston Media are patting themselves on the back that this could never happen in Massachusetts. That’s funny, could have fooled me. I would bet money that, except for the jurisdictions in Massachusetts that routinely deny pistol licenses for arbitrary and capricious reasons (a practice not likely to be upheld under Second Amendment challenges) he would have gotten a gun. Not a Glock, because those are banned in Massachusetts, but there are plenty of substitutes which are equivalent to the Glock in performance characteristics that are not illegal.