Friday, October 19, 2007

More Anti-Gun Idiocy from a Journalist-in-Training

Via just about everybody, we have this, from the Cal State-Fullerton Daily Titan...

Every citizen has the right to vote, but not everyone chooses to fulfill that right because they sometimes don't deem it necessary. So is having a gun necessary?
Non sequitur. Does not compute.

if you know you are mentally capable of having a gun, then you can wait-whether it takes a week, a month or 3 months.
Yes, of course you can wait, unless you're being stalked by a scorned lover or some such, in which instance even a 72-hour wait may well be lethal. But I guess Ms. Wojtalewicz thinks the same way the rest of the anti-gun enuretics do. "If it saves just one life..." Never mind all the lives that could well be lost because of such a waiting period...

If you want a gun, buy one. But don't complain about the background checks and necessary precautions you have to take in order to get a gun. If you have nothing to hide, then think of the measure as a way to ensure that psychos aren't able to get a gun.

Personally, I think of a waiting period and background check as a cop-out, a disgustingly half-assed measure that does nothing to address the real problem. I guess it never crossed Ms. Wojtalewicz's mind to ask what in the hell said psychos were doing walking the streets with free people in the first place. Yet another example of an anti's simple-minded way of thinking. More of that below:
In one of his comedy performances, Chris Rock poked fun at gun control and instead suggested we should have "bullet control," with each bullet costing $5,000. "People would think before they shot someone. 'Man I will blow your f***ing head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!'"

As silly as this idea may be, it's an exaggeration of an idea of limiting the ability to obtain ammunition for the guns-and I doubt that would put Kmart and Wal-Mart out of business. One's right to bear arms would not be infringed upon. And if you only need a gun for protection, there is no need for purchasing bullets all the time, since the gun would just be sitting underneath your bed, waiting for a possible intruder to enter your home.
Amazing. We quote Thomas Jefferson, and they quote Chris Rock. If that doesn't shed the light of a thousand suns on on the lunacy of the anti way of "thinking" (and I use that term in the loosest sense possible), then I don't know what does. And as you see, Ms. Wojtalewicz ignores yet another reality -- if you actually want to be able to hit what you're aiming at with that gun, you need to p-r-a-c-t-i-c-e with it...which takes -- you guessed it -- ammunition that she wants to raise the price on! And yes, going after the ammunition does indeed infringe on the RKBA, because without that ammunition a gun is nothing but a useless hunk of wood and steel. As an old friend says often, "An unloaded gun ain't nothin' but an expensive club."

And there are words of wisdom in the comedian's spoof-"people would think twice before they shot someone."
How does she know decent people don't do that already? How presumptuous! I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

People shouldn't be able to stumble upon ammunition and guns while they are shopping for household necessities...
Why? Apparently for no other reason than "because Aleksandra Wojtalewicz said so."

Pardon my french, Aleksandra Wojtalewicz, but you're a farking tool.