Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns When Gun Control Freaks Go Wild:-)

QUIZ:
What do Diane Feinstein and Charles Schumer have in common -- other than hypocrisy, the Dem wing of the Party, an uncontrolled inner fascist, and being haters?:-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

Yours in mirth,
Issodhos

It's fairly easy to obtain a CCW in Arizona. You have to have a clean record, no history of mental illness, etc., take a licensed CCW course lasting usually two days, one day at the range. Arizona is gun friendly and it isn't all that uncommon to see people with sidearms in public. Often during the week commute into Phoenix I see the same guy on BMW motorcycle with a semi-auto strapped to his leg. There's no law against it as long as he isn't a criminal.

I'd like to live in a nation without guns, but that is not a choice in America. The bad guys most certainly have them and they are willing to use them to get what they want. The chances that the police will be present when you need to be defended against bad guys with guns is nil.

Two faced politicos like Feinstein are part of the problem. Their apparent attitude is that they are more important and more qualified to carry than everyone else.

I don't really disagree with the premise of hypocrisy, Issodhos, but I think your choice of title is misleading to non conservatives who don't think every consideration of gun control is freakishly anti American. The anti gun control issue is very much like the anti abortion "thingie". Common sense flies out the window, chests bow up and conservatives begin to strut about chanting constitutional mantras while sensible folks just roll their eyes and back away. We have in other places discussed powerful lobbies and their control over American lawmakers, most of us are in agreement that certain of these lobbies issue undue pressure and line the pockets of some politicians. The NRA is one of the most interesting of these and even publishes lists for its members to carry to the polls so they can vote by rote the wishes of the gun lobby. As your title states there really are a few "Gun Control Freaks" but I don't imagine you will find any of those carrying concealed(powder actuated projectile) weapons. I don't know if you've ever been on the receiving end of one of those little pepper gas doodads but after an accidental discharge of one and the unfortunate proximity of a fan I once received a small shot of that stuff in my face. Suffice to say that if I was a bad guy all thoughts robbery, rape, murder or otherwise violent crime would be the farthest thing from my mind as I was in incredible pain, blind and as helpless as a kitten. The range is short but if you need to shoot anyone from a distance you probably shouldn't be shooting at them. Anyway, as I stated above, Conservatives tend to go completely over the top about gun control, let me state clearly as I have on many occasions:
Democrats do not want to take away all of your Guns
There are a very few radical lefties who actually do but they are in such a minority as to be inconsequential. I imagine that if you found this article and published it here then hundreds of others found it and published it to Right Wingnut Websites and will hold it up as evidence that Democrats are anti constitutional weirdos and enemies to the state. There is no more sense in arguing against them than in trying to tell the anti abortion crowd that it's perfectly okay to rip living breathing babies from the wombs of their mothers and flush them down the toilet. Let me say it again if you have already forgotten: Democrats don't want to take your guns away.
They are simply more amenable to the consideration of laws that might in some small way prevent the accidental use of weapons and the ill considered use of weapons in some situations because they are not controlled and influenced by the Gun Lobby.

Well said, Greger.

I don't have a gun. Don't feel the need. When I lived in Miami, my then-husband collected old historic type black powder guns, and we would go shooting sometimes with the boys. I also had a gun for protection at the house, and I did pull it out once when some guys were hanging around the front yard yelling and generally misbehaving. I didn't shoot them, but threatened to, and they left.

I know people who have been shot by guns and two who were killed by guns. It isn't romantic and I don't want any part of it. I do feel bad that some people live in spaces and places where they feel the need to have them.

EmmaG

Apparent? Apparent? Good one, Slipped.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

And, I think that most of us agree that we do not want to prevent such people from making the choices the feel are appropriate for their lives and situations.

When I lived in St. Augustine I traveled to Miami about 3 times a month. I was there often. One Friday morning at the Omni Hotel on Brickell at 8.30 AM on the convention level of the hotel in the Men's bathroom I came within minutes of being jacked up by 3 street thugs. I was wearing a suit. I had stepped into the bathroom to comb my hair before giving a keynote presentation. The punks surrounded me in the bathroom and started chanting "Fight the power". The only weapon I had was a comb. Just a moment before it was about to become ugly a cop walked in and said, "Is there a problem?"

"Not now."

The cop walled the three punks "in the position" and told me to leave and inform another cop in the conference lobby to come to the bathroom. I did.

Later that morning I saw the cop who had come into the bathroom earlier and asked him, WTF? I mean, 8.30 AM on a Friday morning, on the convention level of a hotel one doesn't expect to be assaulted by street pukes. He said, "It's Miami, it happens more than people think." Then he asked me how often I was in Miami and asked why I didn't have a CCW. I returned home and signed up for the class in Jacksonville and carried whenever I was in South Florida, Orlando and Tampa.

Even in the bathroom situation I would not have pulled the weapon until I had been hit and then only if it looked as if the situation was going to become worse. Only under the gravest of circumstances should you ever pull a gun and when you do you must already have made the decision to pull the trigger. Never should you use a weapon as a threat. You must determine that you are in grave danger of severe bodily harm AND that there is no reasonable means of egress. Owning and/or carrying a firearm is an awesome responsibility. Nor, I should add, is it a comfortable responsibility.

The overwhelming evidence is that even though there are more privately owned firearms in America than in most any other country in the world, the chances that a privately owned gun will successfully and appropriately defend you against bad guys is also nil.

For that reason I totally disagree with Sen. Feinstein's stated reason for carrying a concealed weapon, just as I disagree with anyone else who puts forth the same argument. I subscribe to the notion that the Constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms has nothing whatsoever to do with defending oneself against one's fellow citizens, and that that is exactly the way it should be. It is utter folly IMHO to suggest that the citizenry should arm itself with deadly weapons with the intention of preventing or interrupting the commission of a crime by shooting the perpetrator.

Actually Greger, I think my choice of title is spot on. It is directed at two specific gun control Pols and it is a raspberry at those who refer to owners of a firearm or firearms as being "gun nuts" or worse. It is mild compared to the title of a Reader Rant thread directed at gun owners for the killings at Virginia Tech ("Are Gun Nuts Accessories to Murder?").

I will also point out that I did not make any reference to these two pols as being anti-American (though I guess a case could easily be made for it, but then that could be applied to most pols in Washington). I also did not direct my comments at all Democrats or even Democrats in general (a number of whom actually vote in support of gun ownership when that right is attacked by the nefarious nabobs of negativism (tip of the hat to corrupt Maryland pol (but that is redundent, isn't it)and V.P. Agnew. I was listing a few commonalities between the two pols and being a Democrat was one of them. I do understand how that may have been misconstrued as meaning I was referring to all members of the Dem wing of the Party. My apologies for my lack of clarity in that regard.

Note also that I did not say anything about Dems taking guns away. I used the phrase "Gun control", something you apparently lacked in your confrontation with your fan (I assume you mean the kind that circulates wind, and not an admirer:-)). But spare me the pretense that much of what is pushed under the guise of "gun control" does not involve defacto banning through severe restriction and outright banning of some types of firearms. As long as there are organizations that seek to reduce the Right to gunownership or use of firearms by lawful citizens, and pols to pander to them, any claptrap about "sensible" and the clammy "lets be reasonable" whine will be seen as a red flag identifying those who do indeed seek to take away the right to the private ownership and use of firearms. As to "sensible" gun laws, they are already on the books.

Oh, and in case you have forgotten? No one will be taking our right to the private ownership and use of firearms away.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos
P.s. Feinstein and Schumer are hypocrites and do consider themselves to be more equal than the rest of the animals on the farm. It is a gun control freak kind of thingie.:-)

Opinion? Or will you produce a source?