Here’s just a crush of crap I found:
Both a Straw man, and the argument of an idiot. So first up nobody said that guns project a force field that deflect bullets. This is an identical argument that would say “If police stop crime, why do we have crime? BAN POLICE!!!” Also who stopped Hinkley after the shooting? GOOD MEN WITH GUNS, IDIOT!!
Succinctly put: FALSE!
Now besides slaves (who as a country we have rectified with the 14th Amendment…unless you are Black and live in a May-issue state controlled by Democrats) who did the founders NOT allow to have guns? There were no “Gun Free Zones” in early America, and not only did the vast majority of Men have rifles, muskets, shotguns, and pistols (not to mention Cannons…and the largest military in the world was owned by a Private Company) but Women and children had guns too!
So essentially that is COMPLETE fiction….but it’s a CONTINENT lie!
Sorry assholes, but the people have spoken! I know you keep saying you are “The Majority”, but you can’t seem to get any serious contingency to vote for a measure, show up for a rally, call their political representative, or even just mail you five bucks!
You know why? Because the US Government DOES represent the people, and the bulk of us know how full of shit the anti-gunners are!
That Reagan-based ad has good “snap”. Instant, jolting recognition for many folks, etc.
The advocacy behind the ad is a laughingstock. So the only people who ought to have firearms are presumptively ineffective police and other authorities ? Isn’t that sort of an argument for devolving the authority to keep and bear arms to the level of individual citizenship? Which is what the Second Amendment is about, right?
A hypothetical: if President Reagan had been himself armed, would the assassination attempt on him by that psychotic have turned out differently? (Just a talking question.)
Not positive he had it at the time, and I don’t have time to research right now, but I Reagan is known to carry a .38 in his pocket.
I read the same thing, but that the J-Frame was in his briefcase.
Still I don’t think it would have made any difference. We only really see the attack from Hinkley’s perspective, Reagan front-and-center, waiving and mugging. Might as well put a spotlight on him. He comes across as an easy target.
It wasn’t the same with Hinkley, he was in a crowd of assorted onlookers, he would be a needle in a haystack, even when he pulled out that tiny revolver.
So I don’t think it would have been any different, even if Dutch had his hand around the grips of his .38 as he left the building. He likely wouldn’t have seen the shots coming, and his security detail showed exactly how AWESOME the US SS can be when they aren’t being run by incompetent political appointees.
The 2nd ad – “no mass shootings in the …” is so utterly untrue, it must be for the purpose of telling a lie often enough so it seems like truth. Attempted mass shootings (and other mass attacks with other weapons) have been interrupted quite a lot by armed civilians. Usually to almost NO fanfare since (DUH) almost no one dies. Aside from the widely trumpeted Utah church attack, there was even one just 7-8 yrs back in Manchester, NH. No one died at all in that one (that’s how fast the armed civilian interruption happened), which is why you won’t hear about it in the national media.
(CO not UT)
Also the Media didn’t feel as much pressure to squelch the New Life Church shooting in Colorado because they could quickly point out that Ms. Assam was Ex-LEO.
So while she was a private citizen with a Colorado CCW, acting like the other people (who likely weren’t ex LEO) in the church asked by the clergy to make double-sure to remember their guns and keep an eye out during the sermon for anything fishy that day.
So yeah she wasn’t just like you or I….SHE WAS A COP, and was instilled with whatever magical cop powers that anti-gun forces and the Media (but I repeat myself) instill in anybody who wears a badge and a gun…no matter how many bad shoots happen at the hands of a LEO in the years and years between civilian bad shoots, or collateral damage.
Also the Media further tarred Ms. Assam’s heroic acts by noting that she only WOUNDED the shooting (never mind stopping the attack) but the last bullet the shooter took was one of his own.
Also, now that I think of it, the fact that the shooter managed to kill two innocents before he could get shot himself and stopped was dismissed as a “Why bother!” as if he would have stopped with those people if not interrupted.
Like that makes a difference, but again you can clearly see by the event that DID happen you can clearly see the efforts done to keep the false narrative alive.
Thanks for the comments.
Here’s another example of the kind of muddled, self-righteous thought that Weer’d’s been taking apart. In a short syndicated essay in my local paper, David A. Love, described as a Philadelphia-based freelance writer and human rights advocate, writes:
“It [the problem of gun violence] is not merely an issue of mental health, but also one of domestic violence and anger management.”
I’m sometimes a careful reader, so I was somehow expecting the next sentence to work on the theme of individuals with mental health issues and domestic relations problems, and their connections to guns. Nope. The very next sentence reads:
“It [the problem of gun violence] shows a SOCIETY (my emphasis) inclined to resolve conflict, solve problems and overcome frustration and deprivation through the barrel of a gun.”
Huh!? That second sentence pretty much destroys the first sentence, and about 400 words later he gets to where he wants to go, declaring that gun violence is a public health problem. But it’s not even clear that’s what he means. He hits the usual pinball bumpers–gun lobby, Second Amendment, concealed carry–but none of those are synonymous with gun violence. Is it that guns themselves are the public health problem? All I know is that people who would intrude on other people’s lives and livelihoods, which is what the anti-rights people are doing, need to do a whole lot better. (Thanks for allowing me this rant.)
Notice how in the BoR drafting cartoon they depicted it as the government deciding what the people “can” do, as opposed to limiting the government’s ability to infringe on the people’s liberties. This isn’t in the least bit surprising that they see it this way.
Tip of the hat, TS!! I had to scratch my brain after reading your comment to recall the intent of the Bill of Rights is all about RESTRICTION OF GOVERNMENT. Thanks for updating my civics.