Eric Boehlert goes on a rampage about gun control and cites some references to support his position:

After a mentally ill student, Seung-Hui Cho, had made a mockery of Virginia’s gun laws by falsifying his gun-store background check and killing 32 people with the guns he purchased illegally, CNN presented a debate in which an activist arguing that the United States needed to relax its gun-control laws was given equal time to an activist who urged that the country tighten its gun laws. The pro-gun advocate, who represented a radical minority in America, was put on the same footing as the gun-control advocate, whose views reflected the clear plurality of Americans, who have consistently called for stricter gun laws. That’s how CNN chose to frame the debate in the immediate wake of the Virginia Tech massacre.

…

Left unreported in that kind of gun coverage is the fact that relaxing gun laws in the United States represents a radical, out-there idea that’s supported by just a tiny fraction of Americans. Not even gun owners in America want to make the laws less restrictive. (Just 15 percent back the idea.)

What I find interesting is the first reference he cites says this:

Just about 4 in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with gun laws in the country, while half are satisfied.

The pressure to make gun laws stricter appears to be mitigated. Just slightly more than half of Americans support making laws covering firearms sales more strict, at its lowest point since 2002.

More than two in three Americans oppose the government completely outlawing the right to possess a handgun.

Nearly 6 in 10 of Americans now say the government should enforce current gun laws more strictly rather than passing new laws. This percentage is up this year, similar to levels previously measured in 2002.

The public has grown slightly more likely to say that having a gun in the home makes it a safer, rather than a less safe, place to be. The opposite was true previously from 2000 to 2004.

This has a completely different tone than Boehlert’s rant. Boehlert had to really stretch to use it has justification for his conclusions.

In the use of his second reference he overlooks the fact that just 51% of the public thinks the laws should be made more strict versus 47% (2% have no opinion). And that 4 point difference is down from 14 points in the previous year and down from 60 points a few years before that! The trend is definitely in our favor.

And what does this guy think the “other side” of those in favor of more restrictive gun laws would be? Apparently he is of the opinion the two sides are “more gun control” and “no more gun control for a while”. This is like trying to work out a compromise with your would-be rapist by asking him to wear a condom.

I’m of the opinion even the “pro-gun” position mentioned is not really “the other side”. A public opinion poll, which didn’t even ask the right question to find out how many people are on “the other side”, can’t possibly define it. I’ve explained the middle ground before and so won’t do so again here. But suffice it to say Boehlert should be thrilled “the other side” chosen was as close to his viewpoint as it was. Had it really been “the other side” he would have had an aneurysm.

About a month ago when I posted about how stupid one anti-gun bigot was some people wondered if maybe it was a rhetorical question or a clever tactic.

There is more evidence to indicate that some of them really are that stupid:

The Tennessee legislation is about loaded long guns inside of motor vehicles. The Alabama shooter was driving around in a motor vehicle with loaded long guns (plus a handgun). In addition to the five relatives he killed, he killed five innocent bystanders — three of whom were going about their business on the sides of public streets. The shooter shot and killed them from his vehicle. If the guns had not been loaded, he would have had to stop and load them. There is a slight chance that three people might have noticed what he was doing and had time to flee — or as Rep. Fincher suggests, shoot him before he shot anyone else.

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign again demonstrates he just doesn’t get it or again thinks he can fool most people. Yesterday he blogged about something the NRA said:

…Wayne LaPierre was over the top.

He explained to all of us in America that “the guys with the guns make the rules.”

Most of us believe that in a democracy, the voters make the rules.

And how is it do you think you maintain your right to vote Paul? You apparently want to overlook The Battle of Athens for example. And then there are the little things like how German Jews, Russian farmers, and millions of others who lost their ability to vote and live in the past few decades when they didn’t hold on to their guns.

Soap box, ballot box, jury box, and as a last resort the cartridge box.

From a reader submitted editorial:

But in Iowa, when a gun discussion was brought up, it referred to hunting and those scraggly guys wearing the camouflage and driving the rusted Ford pickup. Instead of hearing about which person got shot over the weekend, I was hearing something along the lines of “Boy, I ‘m going to gut that coon I shot on Sunday and hang it up in the garage!”

Great stereotype you got there buddy. Did you learn all about the validity of stereotypes while you were attending Klan orientation?

The Brady Campaign is a U.S. organization that supports both gun control and gun owners’ rights.

Can anyone name just one gun control law the Brady Campaign opposed? Does the KKK support both n****r control and civil rights? How can this person think that is even possible?

If Obama is able to pass stricter gun laws, hunters will suffer and be at an uproar. If Obama doesn’t change anything in regards to gun control, those grieving mothers and communities will be screaming in his ear, asking why he hasn’t done anything about it.

The classic bolt action deer rifle and shotguns used for bird hunting are the furthest down on Obama’s list and as a class of guns are probably the least used in crimes. I don’t expect Obama will even hint at restricting them. Rifle ammo, maybe. But not the firearms.

Such ignorance! Why aren’t they embarrassed to have their words seen or heard in public?

You would think that professional writers would know words have meanings and this is nonsensical unless you also believe the Robocop or Terminator movies represent reality:

The U.S. State Department said on Friday that U.S.-purchased or stolen weapons account for 95 percent of Mexico’s drug related killings, and that Mexican cartels are increasingly carrying out contract killings in the U.S.

But of course from the following it’s apparent facts are irrelevant to this writer (gun shows have the same laws and most state do not have registration):

Mexican cartels often pay U.S. citizens to purchase assault rifles or other guns at gun shops, then sell them to a cartel representative at a U.S. gun show, where registration rules are much less stringent and the gun sale can’t be easily traced.

I have to conclude the writer is clueless, has an agenda against the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights or both.

Via Say Uncle I found out some college professors will call the police if you advocate exercising your Second Amendment rights to defend innocent life:

On October 3, 2008, Wahlberg and two other classmates prepared to give an oral presentation for a Communication 140 class that was required to discuss a “relevant issue in the media”. Wahlberg and his group chose to discuss school violence due to recent events such as the Virginia Tech shootings that occurred in 2007.

Shortly after his professor, Paula Anderson, filed a complaint with the CCSU Police against her student. During the presentation Wahlberg made the point that if students were permitted to conceal carry guns on campus, the violence could have been stopped earlier in many of these cases. He also touched on the controversial idea of free gun zones on college campuses.

That night at work, Wahlberg received a message stating that the campus police “requested his presence”. Upon entering the police station, the officers began to list off firearms that were registered under his name, and questioned him about where he kept them.

They told Wahlberg that they had received a complaint from his professor that his presentation was making students feel “scared and uncomfortable”.

That’s all it takes to have someone call the police on you? And furthermore the police didn’t tell the bigot, “Get over it.”? What if a student had announced they were gay? That could have made some people “scared and uncomfortable”.

I wonder if the college has some sort of policy against “creating a hostile environment” that could be applied to Professor Anderson.

Does anyone think it is “abnormal behavior” to read a book in public? How about putting a bumper-sticker on your car in favor of (or opposed to) a candidate for political office? How about requesting a lawyer before being questioned by the police? Or insisting on a warrant before the police search your home?

In all of the above the people of the United States are guaranteed these rights by the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. So why would someone in their right mind say:

In case you haven’t noticed, the pro-gun lobby is working overtime to normalize abnormal behavior. Let us ask you a handful of questions.
Would you be willing to:

• Sip hot chocolate with your toddler at Starbucks while a fellow patron openly displays a gun at the table next to you?
• Attend a church service with your entire family knowing that the fellow parishioner sitting next to you has a handgun tucked in his belt?
• Stand in line at a bank to make a deposit as two men enter with baseball hats on and what appear to be guns in their pockets?
• Board a crowded bus with your newborn child with upwards of 5 other passengers carrying concealed weapons?

“Abnormal behavior”? Exercising a specific enumerated right in public is “abnormal behavior”? Perhaps in the Peoples Republic of China, Massachusetts, or Chicago. But it is a right. All of the above activities seem perfectly normal to me. I don’t know what his problem is. Is he one of those that didn’t want n***ers in the same restaurant with him too? Maybe he doesn’t want Jews handling his money either. And blacks need to sit at the back of the bus and give up their seats to good white folk too.

The only conclusion I can reach is that the guy isn’t in his right mind. He is the one exhibiting abnormal behavior. He must have mental problems, is a blatant bigot, or both. It’s time we treated these people as the bigots they are and condemn them to the political dustbin of history.

You have to wonder if they need help figuring out how to breath when you hear of people like this:

Why can’t there be more stringent laws against guns in Salinas?

Salinas police Cmdr. Dino Bardoni was the first official placed in the hot seat tonight as a townhall meeting kicked off at Sherwood Hall on North Main Street.

The initial question was posed by Peter Valdez of Salinas, who wanted to know why gun locks couldn’t be enforced in the city – forcing gang members to lock their guns in order to transport them.

“Gang member are not going to adhere to the law,” said Bardoni, referring to how the criminals use illegal guns. “The problem is the outlaw element that is carrying the guns that we can’t control at this point.”

He is one of six panelists participating in a townhall meeting geared to community members who have concerns about the ongoing gang problems in the city that have so far killed six people in 2009.

The emphasis above is mine.

Unfortunately they probably not only know how to breath but have reproduction and voting figured out too. I figure that is the only explanation we have for the existence of all the people that want to ban guns.

Paul Helmke of the Brady Campaign is whining about the National Park rule change that allows some of us to defend ourselves using firearms in National Parks. They filed the lawsuit and one of the biggest whines is:

On April 3, 2008, the National Park Service’s Chief of Environmental Quality, Jacob Hoogland, warned that the rule “required additional NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] analysis” and that “at minimum an Environmental Assessment should be prepared on the proposed revision to the existing firearms regulation.”

In the same vein, Michael Schwartz, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Chief of Policy and Directives Management, warned on May 14, 2008 that “The rule was published before they did any NEPA analysis.  Last week, I pointed out that this is a procedural flaw.”

Paul, technically that may be true. I’m sorry my former governer Dirk Kempthorne didn’t dot that particular ‘i’. Let me do it for him now, “Environmental Assessment of the rule change: No affect.”

Now stop your whining and grow up.