Category: Anti-Gun Folks

We documented here that King Bloomberg is no fan of American Constitutional liberties, since they get in the way of his being able to run his kingdom as he sees fit. Now he’s suggesting that the New York Civil Liberties Union is as bad as the NRA:

One group views the Second Amendment in absolutist terms; the other group views the Fourth Amendment in absolutist terms. Both groups, I think, are dangerously wrong on the Constitution,” he added. “The right to bear arms and the right to privacy do not trump the right of citizens to walk down their own street, or walk down their own hallway, without getting blown away.

I must have missed that part in my pocket constitution, where there’s a constitutional right to be absolutely free of crime. The Bill of Rights absolutely trumps rights that King Bloomberg makes up. Whether he likes it or not, New York is still part of the United States, and we will be soon teaching him that lesson in federal court.

I always love it when gun control advocates try to argue that even the most sensible pro-gun argument is rooted in conspiracy theories. I love it because it makes me laugh when I see these kinds of tweets from their backers:

The rich N war with the have not is that what the #NRA @GOP #KochBro planning?#think abt it!

— Carreramae (@carreramae) July 10, 2012

Yup, every single member of the National Rifle Association is clearly working with the Republican Party and the Koch brothers to wage war on the middle and lower classes. Because there are no poor gun owners. There are no middle class Republicans. There are no NRA card-toting Democrats. You know, such a black-and-white view of the world has to make for a very boring world.

Earlier in the day, the tweeter also ranted about how waiting periods of three months aren’t stopping the war against the “have nots.”

waiting period 2 buy a gun is 3months why @GOP #NRA need guns? War against the HAVE NOTS N THE END

— Carreramae (@carreramae) July 10, 2012

Anyone know where there’s a three month waiting period in place? I realize this is clearly a person who believes they are entitled to their own set of facts, but I’m trying to figure out if the tweeter is also exercising a right to his/her own reality.

I just had to respond and asked the tweeter just what evidence existed that NRA members were waging war on the “have nots” and how he/she explained the fact that NRA routinely supports Democrats in Congress if this conspiracy is actually being masterminded by the GOP. I did hear back, but it devolved into me being called “terrible” for acknowledging that minorities do, in fact, attend the NRA meetings and followed by claims that the NRA does want gun control if members are threatened by guns. Yeah, it didn’t make much sense to me, either.

Following up on a comment yesterday, it occurred to me that our opponents repeatedly suggest that civilians should not be allowed to carry firearms for self-defense, a key reason being that civilians don’t receive sufficient training compared to police. But then when we seek out the same kind of training as police, they disapprovingly exclaim, “Who needs ‘tactical firearm training’?”

So which is it? Do you want civilian gun carriers to be better trained? Or do you just hate the idea of people with guns. If the latter, just admit it and drop the charade of caring about gun violence, or wanting to reduce accidents. You know what reduces accidents? Training and education.

Bloomberg blames the Second and Fourth Amendments for crime in New York City.

I’ve decided that I’d like to engage with more anti-gun people online. However, I’m not going to try and argue with them on the issue of actual gun ownership. That’s largely a lost cause with someone who is passionate enough about it to get into debates online. What I’ve decided to target is anti-gunners who are so extreme in their hatred of civilian gun ownership that they want to silence all who oppose them. In other words, I’m making an effort to hold them accountable for the things they are actually demanding.

If you want to make America safe, get rid of the #NRA

— Julian Easterly (@betweenbreaths) July 2, 2012

My response? “I respect your dedication to free political speech by calling for people to get rid of political opposition.” Seriously, he doesn’t want to win the debate. He doesn’t want to win an election. He wants to “get rid” of NRA members. There are more than 4 million of us, so what are his exact methods for “get[ting] rid” of us? It’s a fair question to ask him since he’s making such an extreme statement about his political opponents.

You can also look to this tweet from a Labour MP who seems distressed about a feature of the UN Arms Trade Treaty discussions:

Just found out that the #NRA have same standing as NGOs like Oxfam & Amnesty, will get to speak in civilsociety plenary here #ArmsTreaty

— Kerry McCarthy MP (@KerryMP) July 2, 2012

I responded: “Is that a bad thing? Free speech should be welcome from all sides, at least I would hope it is welcome.” Is this a member of British government who is willing to say that those he disagrees with shouldn’t be recognized in a political debate? It seems like an awfully silly thing to get upset over even if he’s not an NRA supporter. He’s not challenging the arguments presented by NRA, but seemingly their mere existence as a recognized organization with a voice to represent their members.

Finally, there’s this example:

This is what should NOT be in politics. #Congress RT @PoliticalTicker:#NRA sends Democrats a message over Holder vote – wp.me/p4HKM-11ER

— L. Michelle (@thinkincolornow) July 2, 2012

If you click through to the article, it states that NRA said they will tell voters in the respective Congressional districts how their elected officials voted. It would seem that ‏@thinkincolornow finds this to be something we should ban from politics, so I asked her for a little clarification. I posed a couple of questions: “What exactly should not be in politics? The right to petition government or right to speak to members of a political org?” She hasn’t been willing to respond at this point.

On the positive side of tracking the NRA hashtag, I did find this awesome post:

Yay now that I’m 18 I’m no longer a junior member!! #nrainstagr.am/p/Ml072WSU9X/

— Eryn Williamson (@williamsoneryn) July 2, 2012

I sent my congratulations to my fellow NRA member. We are winning. And we’re doing it without actually trying to restrict the free speech rights of our opponents.

Sometimes I wonder. I think it’s the right of every American to celebrate our nation’s independence by blowing up a small chunk of it. I tend to favor freedom, and letting people suffer the consequences of their own stupidity. When I was a kid, maybe about 5th grade, a friend of mine got a hold of a bunch of fireworks, stuff you can’t buy today, like M-80s. I seem to recall tossing them lit into the lake and watching them explode underwater. I can also remember larger pyrotechnics like quarter sticks that my Uncle would bring back from South Carolina, where fun wasn’t illegal. But that was before that other Uncle’s CPSC decided he knew what was best for everyone, and banned all the really fun stuff. Why am I not surprised that the same folks who advocate restricting or banning guns for our own good also support banning or restricting fun for our own good? It’s a certain philosophy, and a certain type of person who has difficulty minding their own damned business and leaving other people to pursue happiness in their own way.

We have to do something in America about gun violence. Won’t someone think of those poor, downtrodden people in this world unfortunate enough to drive fancy cars, live in big houses, and have multi-million dollar salaries. “For the children” was less laughable than this. I also love how Plaxico Burris is listed as a victim of gun violence, rather than a victim if his own stupidity by illegally and unsafely carrying a firearm, then drinking. But he’s a victim, say the Brady folk. Which naturally means he has absolute moral authority.