From a letter to the editor in the Washington Post:

Mr. Cox took the usual NRA rhetoric to a new level with his suggestion that the “right” to own a gun is more important than the right to vote. Our founding fathers and all of those who worked so hard over the years to ensure the promise of freedom and equality for all citizens would find Mr. Cox’s claim to be contrary to everything this country stands for.

Uh… The writer, LASLO BOYD, is totally clueless about our voting history.

Insanity:

Ammunition magazines with a capacity of 10 rounds or more — the kind that Oakland parolee Lovelle Mixon used to kill two of four police officers — would fall under a stricter tracking system under legislation proposed Wednesday by two East Bay lawmakers.

Law enforcement officials currently have few tools to keep the dangerous ammunition devices out of the hands of criminals, said Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, the author of the bill.

“This horrible tragedy will pinpoint for us some of the holes in our gun laws,” said Hancock, a member of the Senate Public Safety Committee. “There are a number of lessons from this, and I’m prepared to learn them all. We may need to have a hearing on the status of gun control. I’m very committed to looking at this.”

…

At a time like this, it’s important to find out what’s not working,” said Assemblyman Sandre Swanson, D-Oakland, a co-author of the legislation. “This could be the beginning of a new era of urban conflict. It’s an important warning sign to prepare ourselves for future conflicts that could expose officers and our community to extreme dangers. It’s very sobering. We have a clear responsibility to start taking action.”

It didn’t work. They realize it’s not working. So they want to do it again.

That’s insanity. The following, from the same article, is a blatant lie:

U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., has also said that Congress needs to reopen the debate on the assault weapon ban, which President George W. Bush allowed to lapse.

President George W. Bush said he would sign an extension of the AWB but it was never put on his desk for a signature.

The Supreme Court in Heller struck a balance between the right of individuals to protect themselves and the right of individuals to be protected. If we so limit gun control as to favor individuals to protect themselves, but then disadvantage the right of individuals to be protected by the police, what will we have gained for the public good?

Phil Mendelson
An at-large member of the D.C. Council and chairman of the council’s Committee on Public Safety & the Judiciary.
D.C. Vote: This Is About Safety, Not the 2^nd Amendment
March 22, 2009
[People don’t have a right to be protected by the police. Nowhere in the constitution, the law, or in court rules can you find such a “right”. Just the opposite in fact. The courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect individuals. This is just the worst of the lies in this article. Read the rest and be sure to take your blood pressure meds first–Joe]

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.