Bigotry Expanded

So in this post we exposed Justice Breyer’s bigotry about the right to own guns which was clarified by the Heller and McDonald decisions that he dissented on. You see the big red warning light on his statements is what he is actually saying.

“Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don’t think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun.”

Let’s overlook the fact that the 2nd Amendment was NOT written with poking holes in paper in mind, he’s saying its OK for one place to allow guns (Maryland) and other places (Chicago and DC mentioned) to ban them.

Is he saying the people just over the state line in Maryland, or outside the City Limits of Chicago are different? Is there any reason why guns should be restricted in some places and not others? Better yet, what exactly are these laws preventing? Is Chicago or DC any different than other large American cities that have only the basic restriction on gun ownership and carrying? Well yeah their crime rates and murder rates are lower….is Breyer in favor of crime and murder?

I’ll be charitable and say “No”, he just hates people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights and wants them squashed.

Then there’s this gem.

The piece does do a good job and shows the “Magic” of the personal firearm. No magic at all, just its a VERY good tool for the job of self defense, and doesn’t demand a lot of physical prowess from the operator. The reporter, having never shot a handgun before, and getting a short lesson was able to quickly put a few .38 special rounds into the vital zone of a silhouette target at a range GREATER than what was seen at the Florida School Board encounter.

But of course enters the “Schrödinger’s Law” talk. They talk of “mixing guns and alcohol”, tho the law still prohibits armed people from drinking. So again, carrying in bars is illegal everybody will follow the law, but if carrying in bars is legal, everybody will violate the law and get shitfaced and start shooting.

Expand it further, that there are several states that not only allow people to carry guns in bars, but even to have a drink while they’re there, given that they are never legally drunk.

Are there crazy shootings in bars by people with legal carry permits? Or do we just have innocent people caught in the middle of crap like this.

FYI carrying in Bars is illegal in Ohio, of course I’d put my lunch money down that everybody packing that night also didn’t have a carry permit, not that they could get one because double-or-nothing says they’re all felons. This was a gang turf war, not a 2nd Amendment social.

My state has a lovely restrictive permitting system where your permit is to own a gun, not just to carry, and if you get a permit or not, what kind of permit, and how the permit is restricted (like my “Target and Hunting Only” permit that I had for my first 5 years living in this state) is all at the discretion of the Police Chief. (Hence why I have a carry permit now, because my town’s cheif isn’t an authoritarian asshole). We also have a “Handgun Safety Roster” as well as an “Assault Weapons” ban also all our guns are registered with the state (at least the legally held ones). Most of these laws aren’t in effect in the vast majority of the country. And to what end? Is Massachusetts safer than other states in the country? Do our criminals have a harder time getting guns than in less restrictive states? Are our police safer from “Assault Weapons”? Do we have less accidents because “Unsafe handguns” aren’t sold?

Of course not, all these laws accomplish nothing but one thing. We have less legal gun owners in this state than others.

Given the first video where the reporter made a nice defensive grouping without ever having shot a gun before, is that what we really want?

Also how about that lovely little statement about the wider group from a “Fast Draw”? What are they trying to say? The real point is show somebody in a defensive scenario drawing from concealment on a hostile target, vs. somebody disarmed resorting to cowering and begging. Which would you rather be?

In the end hatred of people exercising their rights is the only common denominator. They may talk about various social benefits, but they’re just as away that such statements are lies.

In the end they are offering the exact same argument as people who say Women shouldn’t vote, or hold powerful corporate or government positions, or minorities for that matter, or people who think that somehow the world will end if homosexuals are allowed to be wed.

They have nothing to back their position but hatred and intolerance. Remember that!