Category: Anti-Gun Folks

This screed suggesting the “new” idea to enact gun control is laughable.

The solution is obvious, create an alternate organization that supports gun ownership but in a responsible manner. I would call the new organization the “American Rifle Organization” (ARA) or something similar. (sic)

They would have progressive gun ownership rules like the following:

1. Support for single action rifles, shotguns and Revolver Handguns only.
2. Licensed and certified gun ownership.
3. Separation between public, police and military style weapons. It would be illegal for the public to purchase or own police and military style weapons.
4. No public ownership of automatic or semi-automatic weapons.

Apparently no one told the Air America hosts that someone is already trying it, and it’s not working.

It looks like along with all of their money, the Philadelphia Inquirer has also lost all of their creative thinking abilities. In an effort to fill their editorial page this morning, the Inky decided to simply publish the current Brady agenda and slap their own name on it, calling it an editorial.

But the starting point has to be stricter gun control measures – including a national assault-weapon ban, wider reporting of lost and stolen guns, universal background checks, and limits on handgun purchases.

Tom Diaz of VPC has some advice for his movement that if you took out the word “control” could have come from Larry Pratt:

I am sick and tired of the incrementalists in the so-called “gun control movement,” the strategic geniuses and direct-mail fundraisers who fed the shark by bits and pieces for years until it ate their movement.  Many who ran off the beach now mock the ones who stayed.  It’s a dead issue, you understand, and those who fled have more important things to blog, twitter, opine, and bloviate about.

Larry can feel your pain Tom, I’m sure.  Even if it’s from the other side of the coin.  Of course, how many legislative victories does VPC have?  Oh, I suppose some credit can be taken for coming up with the “assault weapons” bogyman.  But wasn’t that incrementalism?  Meant to get the public used to real gun bans?  The 1994 ban itself was built on top of another incremental victory with the National Firearms Act, then the Federal Firearms Act a few years after that, which was further built upon with the Gun Control Act of 1968.  HCI (now the Brady Campaign) had a string of legislative victories in the early 90s, and if it wasn’t for the election upset in 1994, they would have really screwed us.

But I can’t tell you how relieved I am to see this poison appearing on the gun control side of the issue too.  Keep holding out for that one big win, Tom.  And we’ll keep incrementally chipping away at the regime your cause built up over the 20th century.

From Nancy Pelosi:

We don’t want to take their guns away. We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines.

Sorry Nancy.  It’s not going to happen.  I’m not going to register mine.  I think enough people feel the same way it’ll work out the same way it did in Canada.  For Pennsylvanians, if you live in the following Congressional Districts, be sure to contact your Congress Critter:

• District 3 – Kathleen A Dahlkemper
• District 4 – Jason Altimire
• District 10 – Christopher Carney
• District 11 – Paul E. Kanjorski
• District 12 – John P. Murtha
• District 17 – Tim Holden

These are our Congressional delegation that likes to claim some “blue dog” credentials.  I have left out the radical liberals, though they should hear from you too, just with a different message.  Be sure to express skepticism that by supporting the Democratic Party, you’re supporting your rights.  Even though Congressman like Jason Altmire are very pro-gun, they have to fear other Democrats tarnishing them with talk of gun control.  That’s the only way we’re going to shut Pelosi up, if her Blue Dogs feel like they might be in trouble if she pushes something.

They are suggesting something rather absurd:

Reforms such as reporting lost or stolen handguns to the police – a simple, common sense measure supported by an overwhelming number of Pennsylvanians – languish in the General Assembly.  Three more officers killed this weekend by gunfire, two others wounded.  Eleven policemen total shot and killed in Pennsylvania in the past four years.

When will the General Assembly act to protect our police and our citizens from the clear and present statewide danger presented by illegal guns? We call on the Assembly to act – now – by passing a lost or stolen handgun reporting requirement into law.

How the hell does “Lost and Stolen” have anything to do with the police officer shooting in Pittsburgh, given that the guns involved were neither lost nor stolen?  Talk about reaching to push your agenda.  Hey, Joe Grace, if you’re going to exploit a tragedy to push your agenda, at least be competent about it.

Thirdpower points out something that’s been bothering me too.  The right wing machine is spinning these paranoid tales of Obama and Congress passing gun bans, so clearly we need to respond to these delusional lunatics by actually passing guns bans!

The Brady’s say that the Binghamton Tragedy means that something must be done.  You mean full licensing and registration for pistols?  You know, like they have in New York.

Paul Helmke should really work on getting his blog posts up before they come pre-debunked.

Bill Haslam, Mayor of Knoxville, TN, soon to be candidate for Governor, and owner of the Pilot line of gas stations, has left Bloomberg’s Mayor’s Against Illegal Guns group.  Does this mean the boycott is over?  Haslam I think is the first one of Bloomberg’s Mayors for a while to leave by resigning, rather than by indictment.

It’s a great relief that when the anti-gun folks actually do show a little grass roots, they are just as self-destructive as we can be.  State Representative Eddie Washington, in Illinois, took a walk on an important gun control measure, because he thought it gave too much to the gun rights community.  Their reaction?

With a small group of protesters standing outside his downtown office, Washington told the News-Sun he didn’t vote in favor of House Bill 48 last Wednesday because he didn’t agree with all parts of the bill.

Washington voted “present” on the bill, which failed by a 60 to 55 margin. The bill called for background checks for private firearm sales, though it also featured a number of exemptions, which Washington said he didn’t fully support.

Washington has a history of supporting anti-violence legislation, including helping to secure funding to restore the Cease Fire group.

This guy is one of your best friends, and you’re going to target him because he took a walk on one bill and is holding out for more?  It gets even nuttier:

She believes he, along with two other black legislators — Rep. Chuck Jackson, Rockford, and Rep. Eddie Lee Jackson, East St. Louis — didn’t vote for the bill because of influence and contributions from the National Rifle Association.

Bishop’s group contends that a $3,000 donation last summer from International Union of Operating Engineer’s Local 150 led to Washington’s indecision, citing the group’s has conservative members and its leaders ties to NRA.

If Vandermyde got them to walk, bravo my good man.  But I think it’s a safe bet that these legislators aren’t much in the way of influenced by NRA.  Jennifer Bishop should be reluctant to turn on friends over one vote, after a history of supporting their cause.  What grass roots army are you going to use to defeat him?  What happens when he keeps his seat?  Do you think he won’t be a little pissed you turned on him so quickly?

I’ve seen activists on our side sour good relationships over less, so I’m happy to see these kinds of self-destructive tendencies aren’t just limited to gun rights supporters.