Category: Anti-Gun Folks

This could be an explanation for the shrill sound of desperation we’ve been noticing from the anti-gun camp lately:

They haven’t been raising any money for their Political Action Committee.  This is speculation, but my guess is they’ve been having to eschew fundraising for the PAC in order to keep their 501(c)(4) and (c)(3) activities afloat.  This is probably the most critical election for the gun issue for some time, and I would just imagine if they could be raising money, they would be.  Compare this to NRA’s war chest:

More importantly, if you go to opensecrets.org yourself, and look at NRA-PVF’s top donors, you’ll see professions like “Machine Operator”, “Police Officer”, “Computer Technician”, “Engineer”, “Mechanic”, “Truck Driver”, “Art Teacher”.  Sure, you also have your attorneys, doctors, and businessmen, but think about how much $1000 dollars means to a truck driver?  Or an Art Teacher?   Meanwhile the Brady’s have raised not just a little money, but nothing.  Think about that, and what it says about where the passion is on this issue.

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit users!  Sorry for the little hickup there in the server.  Seems getting linked by Glenn on a big primary election night is a rough deal on the server, especially when your post has images.  After a bit of performance tuning, we appear to be back in business.  Still need a faster server, though.

From Bryan Miller, in his comments:

But, as you may have noticed, hypocrisy runs rampant among [the pro-gun] comments. I enjoy reading them because they are so entertaining. I believe most folks find them intolerant, obnoxious and unbelievable. Their so-called passion is so obviously fear-driven it’s pathetic. And, I love the hiding their compulsions behind a ‘rights’ agenda.

He can refuse to take us seriously all he wants, but the ‘rights’ agenda is winning.  I do smell fear, but it’s not coming from the pro-gun side these days.

I like it when Paul Helmke’s posts come pre-fisked.  Paul thinks you can make a safe gun.  I would argue that a gun is dangerous by nature of its design; there is no way to make a safe gun.  You make safe users instead, which the NRA has done more to do than the Brady Campaign can ever dream of.

From Jeff Soyer, it seems that activists for gun bans in the UK don’t want to ease laws on olympic shooters, because pretty clearly this is a menace to civilized society:

What do they have to say?

Gill Marshall-Andrews of the Gun Control Network hit back: “We oppose any kind of change, even for training. Why should we put society at risk for the sake of a few sportspeople?”

And I’m supposed to believe these folks aren’t going to ban my sporting guns?  These types of hysterics don’t know limits.  They have an irrational phobia.  It shouldn’t be my problem, but in the UK, at least, they have made it everyone’s problem.

As much as Bryan Miller might want to use the death of a police officer as a segue into attacking one of his pro-gun commenters, I tend to find it to be as repugnant as what he accuses VeroFeritas of.  I’d rather not make a political issue of what happened to Bryan Miller’s brother, but I’m not the one who has done that.  It’s Bryan that has chosen to bring that personal tragedy into the public light and use it to promote a political position.  I’m not condeming that, because all sides of the debate do this.  It’s not just anti-gunners, we do this too.  But it seems to be rather disingenuous to bring your tragedy into the political area, and use it to stump for your position, while crying foul when others bring it up in support of a position in contra to yours.

But that’s not the real issue here, while I have no doubt that Mr. Miller’s sympathy for the family of Officer Liczbinski is genuine, I’m going to suggest that we not use this incident as political fodder for one position or another.  Let the family grieve.  There will be plenty of time to argue over the politics later.  At this point, the right thing to do is keep the Liczbinski family in our thoughts and prayers.

Obama and Snuffy, perfect together.

UPDATE: Link fixed.

I don’t want to muzzle common sense, but I can’t believe The Morning Call printed this drivel:

The colonists didn’t need a Second Amendment to possess guns. They had guns! In sparsely settled areas of Pennsylvania like Carbon County, they had to be ready for attacks from the native Americans. Settlers in Tamaqua and Lehigh Gap were killed. The Lehighton Cemetery bears witness to the massacre of 11 Moravian missionaries at their Gnaden Huetten settlement. Guns were needed for protection from the bears and the wolves. Sharpshooters provided wild game for much-needed protein for their families.

But, times have changed. Two hundred and sixteen years ago, there was not the terrible crime rate that exists today. Criminals, gang members and the mentally impaired can get their hands on a variety of weapons. Our society is burdened with too many sick individuals who do not value life. They will kill a human being as easily as they would swat a fly.

Let me get this straight.  We needed guns years ago to protect against all this violence, but today we don’t need guns because we have all this violence?  If this is the kinds of arguments that the gun control folks come up with, I’m feeling pretty good about the future of our second amendment rights.

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence is responsible for three sensible laws that shouldn’t be negated by the Supreme Court. The 1968 Gun Control Act lists the kind of individuals that should never be allowed to buy or own guns.

God damn.   It seems Paul Helmke has been time traveling around with Ronnie Barrett if The Brady Campaign is responsible for the Gun Contorl Act of 1968, which happened six years before the National Council to Ban Handguns was created, which became Handgun Control Inc. in 1980, and which finally became the Brady Campaign and Brady Center in 2001.  I’m an NRA member, and even I know more about Brady’s history than the clown who wrote this editorial.

The most sickening setback to gun control was the failure of Congress and President Bush to renew the ban on assault weapons. Now there are hundreds of ads for machine guns, large-capacity magazines, and ammunition on the Internet.

Really?  That’s funny, because the 1986 machine gun ban is still in full effect.  Not that the gun side doesn’t have our share of ignorant grass roots who can’t make a coherent and factual argument, but at least they aren’t writing editorials!  Time to send off a letter to the editor to expose this fraud.

It’s the new Brady Channel.

Mike Adams details some anger issues with an anti-gun professor at the open holster protest at UNC Wilmington.

The Tribune once again notes that gun control advocates are remarkably silent.  That’s because gun control activists are remarkably few, especially once you get outside of Chicago and New York City metro areas.