Gee, maybe they need giant paper mache puppets. That always gets press coverage:

A group of 12 students chose to wear empty holsters to class this week at the University of Idaho as part of the nationwide protest.

Aled Baker, a junior, said he loses his constitutional right to protect himself and others when he steps on campus.

"It's null and void when you go on campus," the mechanical engineering student said.

Baker, a sportsman and hunter, has a license to carry a concealed handgun and hopes the protest will get people talking about the issue.

The Second Amendment continues to be the one that dare not speak its name.

And the Brady bunch stands in for Bull Connor and George Wallace.

"You don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

Disarming law-abiding citizens today, disarming law-abiding citizens tomorrow, disarming law-abiding citizens forever.

Would it be rude of me to suggest that if the Brady people don't like the Second Amendment they should drop out of the United States?

No, it wouldn't be rude. The Brady people are essentially irrelevant but noisy.

I suggest stuffing the holster with a fake yellow plastic banana. For the Banana Republicans, of course.

How do the Brady people suggest keeping illegal guns and those morons that use them, off the campus?

"How do the Brady people suggest keeping illegal guns and those morons that use them, off the campus?"

They don't, they never do. It isn't about solving real problems. If it were they would not be expending limited resources to ban semi-automatic weapons used in less than one half of one percent of all homicides, they would be using them to pass laws that demand stiffer sentences for criminal misuse of firearms. Fewer gun criminals=fewer gun crimes.

There solutions to the problem is tantamount to fighting California forest fires by dousing Tennessee.

They could not give a tinker's damn about crime, that is obvious to all but the most clueless.

I believe this is nothing but a scheme to bilk contributions from a gullible few.

Sarah gets a nice six figure salary for telling fairy tales and giving her little song and dance.

MP: "They could not give a tinker's damn about crime,"

I wouldn't say that, I think they're simply clueless. No matter what the statistics say they are convinced that if they can enact more gun control it has to help. Why? Just because IT HAS TO! That, it seems, is their logic.

There is another unpleasant truth that the gun control jihadis don't want to confront. A hugely disproprotionate number of gun criminals (i.e. criminals whose crimes were comitted with guns) are minorities. Thus any attempt to crack down upon the CRIMINALS using guns, rather than the owners of guns not involved in crimes, would have a tendency to run afoul of the various racial greivance types, and their enablers in the ACLU, etc.

Pat Rogers (google on his name and EAG if you want to know who he is), once said half of homicides are what he calls 'good riddance' homicides.

His assertion was more than half of all murder victims were conviced felons.

The anti-gunners like to tout a 30,000 number of gun violence victims. Once we remove 17,000 suicide victims and 60% of the remaining 13,000 well that leaves your chances at less than 6,000 in a nation of 300 million.

And in that 6,000 remember that number includes justifiable police and civilian homicides too. We are now pushing 5,000 in a nation of 300 million.

You're right Cecil. Advocates convince themselves that the problem of gun violence HAS to be solvable with enough gun control. They can do this in the face of evidence and logic to the contrary because to think otherwise means accepting that there is pretty much nothing that can be done to eliminate violence. There has always been and always will be a small chance that some madman is going to shoot or stab or otherwise maim/kill you out of the blue. This fact is to horrible for some to contemplate.

I wouldn't say that, I think they're simply clueless. No matter what the statistics say they are convinced that if they can enact more gun control it has to help. Why? Just because IT HAS TO! That, it seems, is their logic.

I'm not so sure. If they did any research, they should know the staggering number of gun laws out there. We have gun control, just no enforcement. Perhaps we should stop working gun control and work criminal control. I would think it far more effective to control the persons instead of inanimate objects.

Mac: "If they did any research..."

They refuse to believe anything, not matter how well researched and documented, that does not agree with their preconceived notion that gun control IS effective at preventing crime. That is THE problem, anti-gun liberals are immune to fact and reason. You can even drop the "anti-gun" part and just say that liberals are immune to fact and reason.

Cecil scores a bulls-eye!

Why else do the Liberals here in Canada still have anyone voting for them? Logic and reason aren't part of their core belief systems.

Where else but Canada would you get taken down by a SWAT team for letting your firearms licence expire?

http://www.diarmani.com/Articles/Past%20Articles%20of%20the%20Week/First,%20they%20came%20for%20the%20guns.html

Take out 800 from the annual gun violent death toll for those who had firearms accidents. The number of which has steadily been declining even as total population rises. The US has a rate of firearms ownership near 40% of all households, btw. Doctors kill much more than 800 people per year in the US with mistakes, bad prescriptions and malpractice.