Tuesday, February 10, 2009

More anti-gun and -freedom assclownery...

...courtesy of Michael Beard of the Organization Formerly Known as the Coalition to Ban Handguns...

Our great depression is already having an impact on the crime rate in the nation.
...
An added factor is the recent upturn in gun sales. As one Forth Worth firearms dealer described it: “The volume is 10 times what we ever expected. It started with assault rifles, but at this point, people are buying ammunition, high capacity magazines, Glocks—it’s all flying off the shelf. With the economy the way it is, people are worried about instability. They are scared of civil unrest.”

Huh. I missed that "great depression" crack the first time I read that drivel. But you know why? Because I concentrated on the second part of that. Only an anti-freedom assclown like Michael Beard would blame the rise in lawbreaking on people who obey the laws. I just really don't know what to say to that. Well, I do, but what I did say would be so extreme as to make Mike Vanderboegh look like one of the "prags," so I think I'll exercise a little discretion and just keep my mouth shut on that one. Somehow I seriously doubt that Cheaper than Dirt and places like them are anywhere within a thousand light-years of the Criminal Munition Supply Central that Michael Beard would like you to think they are. In fact, I would lay money on them making 99 to 100 percent of their profits from law-abiding citizens. (And how about the lede on that L.A. Times story? "A week after the election of the nation's first black president..." Gee, I wonder what perception of gun owners that was designed to elicit?) More assclownery follows in comments, contradictory and quite clueless to boot...
...The Supreme Court didn't specifically address the issue of assault weapons in the District of Columbia v. Heller decision. Justice Scalia did write the following in the opinion, however:
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'"
Time will tell if future courts deem assault weapons "dangerous and unusual weapons."...

Time will tell indeed; but I'd say that the "in common use at the time" phrase rendered the point moot, considering the fact that since the Clinton semi-auto ban expired, the AR and other semi-auto rifles have become the best-selling in the country, for varying reasons. In other words, the toothpaste is more or less out of the tube already as far as that goes...although, of course, there are things that could happen (h/t WRSA) to change the political atmosphere dramatically. (I know some might call that fearmongering or tinfoil-hat ravings, but personally in this day and age I would not want to discount anything I might hear along the lines of what Kirby Ferris was saying. But I digress.) In any event though, I think it's worth asking, yet again, what exactly they want to do with all the semi-auto rifles in civilian hands NOW. Especially considering the rate at which they've been selling since before the election. Speaking of that, he says, "Much of the anecdotal evidence we have seen suggests that these weapons are being purchased by repeat buyers who already own several firearms." (Note he said "firearms" and not "assault weapons," which of course leaves him some wiggle room in the case of anyone calling him out. "Hey, I didn't SAY they owned several assault weapons, just several firearms.") And everyone knows the plural of "anecdote" is indeed "data," regardless of what the old adage says, right?
/sarc

As for high-capacity magazines, there was no indication by the Court that magazines containing more than ten rounds are necessary for self-defense in the home.

Pardon my french, but it's not the fucking role of the Supreme Court or anyone else to determine what any given person might "need" to defend their families, homes or country. And I think that to say it is goes against everything this country stands for. If these people hate freedom so much, then why don't they go and start their own damn country?
(h/t Armed and Safe)