...not to vote for Obama. He seems to have no respect whatsoever for the Second Amendment. But that should be no surprise, given his positions on other subjects.
[Afternoon update]
Why are anti-gun activists so violent? I think that the commenter has it right. As is often the case with so-called liberals, it's projection. They figure that we're as violent as they are, so they don't want us to have guns.
But it feels good to ban guns. Don't you want to feel good? "shall not infringe" is supposed to be law of the land. Shouldn't we impeach every politician or judge that enacts any law that breaks the highest law of the land? If we can't do that they are no longer servants of the people. When they can ignore the law (by enacting contrary law that the people must obey) then the people are now the servants of the government.
It sure feels like we serve the government, doesn't it?
"Give me liberty or give me death" - eh, don't bother.
Threatening to wop someone with a walking stick (or actually doing so)in the Senate has a long and illustrious history. Painting Obama as violent because of a dumb joke is stretching the truth as far as the left did in all those Dick Chaney hunting jokes.
Off topic, sort of, but sort of on topic too, I gotta say that the first panel of today's (Sunday, 06/08/08) Day by Day cartoon is about the sexiest thing Chris Muir has ever drawn.
I include his calender in that statement.
I'm normally wary of "projection" arguments, but I've had anti-gun conversations where "I'd shoot someone if I owned a gun" was offered as justification, more than once, so I'm willing to in this case, in general.
(Though that's not so much "projection" (which - in my understanding of the psychological term of art - involves a denial of the bad quality in oneself, while attributing it to another) as a faulty generalisation. But the difference is minor and irrelevant to the illogic of the argument.)
"FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for
all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21." A direct quote from the linked article. The first part of which is a restatement, in different language, of the first clause of the Second Amendment. You know, the "well-regulated militia" bit? The bit that every gun nut ignores?
One might also argue that someone not legally adult is also legally not competent to own and use a gun. In most states of the USA it's illegal to buy booze if you're under 21, but judging by that (obviously pro-gun) article it's perfectly OK to buy a lethal weapon. Can anyone else see the illogic here?
You know, the "well-regulated militia" bit? The bit that every gun nut ignores?
I think you mean the bit that every anti-gun nut doesn't understand.
One might also argue that someone not legally adult is also legally not competent to own and use a gun. In most states of the USA it's illegal to buy booze if you're under 21, but judging by that (obviously pro-gun) article it's perfectly OK to buy a lethal weapon. Can anyone else see the illogic here?
Of course we can. The illogic is that the drinking age is too high. We let someone join the military and handle guns at eighteen. It's absurd to not allow them to buy a beer.
"Well-regulated" used to mean "well trained and adequately equipped", right?
There is a post currently on American Digest that illustrates my point rather well. It has an illustration of a roadside toilet liberally peppered with bullet holes - which, apart from being wanton damage to someone else's property, also breaks one of the most important parts of weapon training. You know - the bit about not only knowing what your weapon is pointing at but what's behind your target?
I have a mental picture of a truckload (at least a 4-litre V8-engined truck, of course) of drunken yahoos with guns they don't know how to use properly, blazing away at that roadside convenience without a thought about who or what might be inside or behind it. Or any other sort of thought, for that matter.
Yes, we know you have mental pictures like that. These bizarre fantasies about things of which you have little knowledge would explain many of your nonsensical posts.
Even if your mental picture exists in reality, it's ridiculous to think that it's typical of gun owners, and equally ridiculous to deprive them of their natural rights because of the misbehavior of the few.
If I'm entirely wrong about the events leading to that photo, then where did the bullet holes come from? Maybe its owner decided to damage his own property? Impossible to know for sure, of course.
The various school shootings have also been atypical. They could easily happen again. In the UK, it is unlikely bordering on impossible. (Our mass shootings, although much less common than in the US, have all been committed by legal gun owners, too.) Do I need to point out why it's so unlikely in the UK?