Guns for Me, but not for Thee!

Anti-gun hypocrites that would deny our right to self-defense truly make me sick. Animal Magnetism exposes a few

But there’s a marked tendency among anti-gunners to refuse to practice what they preach, and Allen’s support of restrictive gun control does seem odd in light off his hobby.

But Allen isn’t really the star hypocrite in this story.  The linked article concludes:

The late Tom Siatos, a longtime executive at Petersen Publishing Co. and regular columnist in Guns & Ammo, was having a few belts at a Los Angles Safari Club Int’l gathering when he encountered Los Angeles Times publisher Otis Chandler, who enjoyed numerous Africa safaris.

Why, Siatos asked, was the Times reliably anti-gun when its publisher owned and used hundreds of them? “Oh, Tom,” Chandler replied, “we’ll always have our guns.”

Uh huh.

So, how about we peruse a short list of anti-gun hypocrites?

Father Micheal Pfleger.

Dianne Feinstein.

NYPD Chief Ray Kelly.

Mark Kelly.

And, last but not least, notorious liar and blowpigMichael Moore

The only response Statists deserve

From the power hungry whiners on city councils and county commissions, to the douche nozzles in home owner associations, to the Michael Bloombergs, and Al Gores of the world, there is but one proper response. To every radical Atheist who wishes to force all others to share their bitter views, to every malcontent on college campuses and their intolerance and “trigger warnings” and to every little tyrant who wishes to force every one else to live as they choose and to every Statist in between, there is but one proper response from those who love freedom.

middle_finger_history_Funzug.org_01 r694 the-middle-finger

Five Blog Posts You’d BETTER Read Today

First up is Conservative Hideout, with disturbing news of the media head-burying over the Oklahoma beheading

American Power has more on the terror attack and the ties to Jihadism

Black and Right asks a very obvious question

Pirates Cove has his great Sunday Pin Up Post

The Other McCain asks why Feminists prefer unicorns to men. And NO, it isn’t that you perverts!

An epic example of how intellectually vacuous the Gun Control Cult is

Consider one Kasie Strickland, a liberal columnist who has an amazing piece in the Pickens Sentinel. In one column, Kasie has managed to illustrate how clueless the Cult of Gun Grabbers really is. Clueless about firearms, the constitution, American history, both past and recent, and about world history as well. Here is that piece, and my responses

Gun control is an absolute joke in this country. Background checks are all well and good, but if you can turn around and sell the gun to your neighbor without one, they’re utterly pointless. Assault weapons being sold to the general public is ridiculous. Nobody needs an AR15 to shoot a deer. And this whole open carry movement just terrifies me.

So, Kasie seems to think the government ought to monitor us to the point of forcing us to do background checks if we sell our neighbor, or give a family member a firearm? Anyone with a basic grasp of liberty should see where that road will lead us. As to Kasie’s claim about assault weapons, I can only surmise she has no clue what an “assault weapon” is. AS Bob Owens points out in the comments to this foolish column the term assault weapon is a manufactured term created by a gun control advocate named Josh Sugarmann circa 1986. The New York Times has even admitted the term is fallacious. 

Of course, Kasie, being well vested in false talking points, throws out the “no one needs an AR15 to hunt with…”. Kasie, Kasie, Kasie, and AR15 is a rifle, nothing more. And it is used for many reasons, including home defense. And, also Kasie, please show us where the constitution mentions hunting in the second amendment.

It seems to me that while some people are so adamant about their Second Amendment rights, they’ve forgotten all about my First Amendment ones — specifically my right to life.

Ah, wow! Kasie, have you actually ever seen the constitution? Surely you have never read it. 

Because this is a column, inherently an opinion piece, I’m not going to pull out a bunch of stats and quotes to support my cause (although they are abundant.)

Oh, no! You could pull out all kind of stats, which would all be from fellow Gun Control Cultists like you Kasie. The facts, and stats are very clear, millions of Americans have used firearms for self-defense. Millions and millions of Americans have CHL’s and never do any harm at all, although a significant number DO stop criminals with them. 

But there is one that I can’t let go. The majority of people I talk to seem to think that President Obama is “out to get your guns” when in reality, the first Bush administration had stricter gun laws.

The Left, Kasie, has long tried every tactic TO take guns away, they have done it all across the globe, and have tried, and are trying it here. To say a Democrat is trying to take your guns, is like saying they are trying to raise your taxes. It is what Democrats do!

In fact, two of the most critical gun control measures that ever passed took place in the 1990s: 1993’s Brady Bill and 1994’s Assault Weapons Ban — both passed by a Republican president (George H.W. Bush) with the help of strong vocal support by former President Reagan.

Kasie, did you smoke a doobie before writing this? Seriously, Bill Clinton was president from 1993-2001. I mean can you get any more inane Kasie? Of course you can

The reality is that our forefathers in 1791 had no idea about the weapons technology we would have in the future. The notion that the constitution is static is absurd. This is why they are called “amendments” so that they can be amended to keep up with the times.

Wow! Kasie, you make Jimmy Carter look like a Rhodes Scholar. The Founders did not know many things the future would hold. But the principles they put forth are not changed over time. Surely they did not know that one day anyone could have a blog, so should we change the first amendment?  Now, your statement that “This is why they are called “amendments” so that they can be amended to keep up with the times.” is so far out of touch I cannot even respond. The level of idiocy you show is actually painful to me You really have no earthly idea how stupid you are do you?

Mass shootings have almost become common place in today’s media, and every time one happens the same rhetoric is replayed: “Now is a time of mourning, and not an appropriate time to discuss gun control.”

Mass shootings in the media? Did I miss the shootouts in the CNN, or Fox newsrooms? If you are referring to mass killings, then I would cite the beheading in Oklahoma two days ago. That terrorist was stopped by what Kasie? By the “gun sense” in your column? By a background check? Oh wait, that’s right he used a knife, and he was stopped by a man with a GUN! Again, just one of the hundreds of thousands of crime stopped by armed Americans every year! 

As much as I would like to, I am not calling for the complete disarming of the American public. What I would like to see are some reasonable restrictions put into place.

For starters, registration. This seems obvious to me. When you sell your car, the registration of the car follows it from owner to owner — it should be no less for firearms. Licensing to own a gun would then logically follow. I don’t have a problem with hunting rifles or family heirloom pieces either.

Well, thank you, Kasie for allowing us to keep “some guns”. I imagine you will personally make the acceptable firearms list? By the way, Kasie, the constitution, you REALLY should read it sometime, does not mention a right to keep and bear cars. There is a difference. And, Kasie, registration of firearms has been done before, many times, and every time, confiscation has followed, and after that came Democide. Google it Kasie, and for once actually READ something and educate yourself!