“Law Abiding?” Million Mom Marcher

Perhaps this is one of the “Law Abiding” Million Mom Marchers I keep hearing about. If all the anti-rights bigots have the same level of self control as she, it’s a good thing most of them don’t have guns!

I’ve covered the story of Million Mom Marcher Barbara Graham before, but in light of The Brady Bunch’s smears in trying to portray all gun owners as criminals, I thought I’d remind them once again of the old saying “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” or was it “sleep in the nude”…hmmm…anyway…

After organizing, and speaking at the Million Mom March, Barbara Graham was convicted of shooting and paralyzing for life, Kikko Smith. This is a fact. Below is an exerpt from the United States Attorney’s Office concerning the incident:

“According to the government’s evidence, on January 26, 2000, at approximately 6:10 p.m., Barbara Graham approached a 22-year-old man by the name of Kikko Smith and asked him his name. Mr. Smith responded that his name was Kikko, whereupon Ms. Graham reached inside her purse, pulled out a handgun with an extended clip and began to chase Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith ran for his life and was then shot at and hit a number of times by Graham and her daughter’s long term boyfriend, Erskine Moorer. One of the bullets struck Mr. Smith in his back, breaking his rib, collapsing his lung and eventually shattering his spine. Other shots struck Mr. Smith in his foot and head. Due to this incident, Mr. Smith spent over one year in either hospitals or assisted living facilities. He is now confined to a wheel chair and has no movement from the waist down.”

Yep, sounds like a law abiding Million Mom Marcher to me. So, in addition to being a control freak and a complete hypocrite, she’s also murderously unstable as well. Yep, sounds about right to me.

So, what have we learned today? Well, we’ve learned that anti-rights bigots are hypocrites. We’ve also learned that they’re also unstable and suffer from a propensity for violence. Go ahead, open your favorite search engine and type in “violent anti gun activists” and see what pops up. It is reasonable in light of this to at least understand why they think banning guns will make everyone safer. It’s because they think everyone is as hypocritical and violent as they are!

So, Brady Bunch, the next time you want to point out the speck in our eyes, you’d best be taking care of the beam in your own first.

Hypocrites.

Share/Save

Well thought out commentary from the Brady blog!

Okay, okay…you can stop laughing now. Seriously though, according to the Brady Bunch, legally open carrying a gun on your hip is “suspicious” behavior. Never mind that the man was breaking no law and was merely exercising his constitutionally guaranteed rights.

As many of you know, there was an incident in Wilkes-Barre, PA recently where an openly carrying man was stopped by police and his gun confiscated pursuant to establishing ownership. He was then free to go since he had broken no laws.

Why the police felt it necessary to confiscate his gun when he wasn’t breaking any laws is a subject open to debate. Perhaps they were concerned the gun had merely gotten lost and are scouring the neighborhood looking for “lost gun” signs. Perhaps they’re holding out for a reward? Or maybe this is just another attempt at intimidating law abiding gun owners under color of law. The kind of thing the mayor of Seattle is trying to do right now, even though this would violate state preemption.

We can no longer comment on their blog since they established “Reasoned Discourse” so I’ll do my commenting here.

Here are the parts of the news article the Brady’s decided were most important:

Police stopped a New Jersey man with a gun in a holster on his hip around 9:30 p.m. Saturday at Sherman and South streets.
…
Officers took the gun because initial reports were the man had the gun in his hand and “proper ownership of the weapon could not be established,” the city said in a press release Tuesday.
…
There is no more reason to establish ownership of a handgun than it is for your cell phone,” said Mike Stollenwerk, co-founder of OpenCarry.org.
…
Wilkes-Barre police say they were called to investigate the incident on Saturday when neighbors made a complaint of a man standing at East Northampton and Sherman streets with a gun in his hand.

Here’s their comments:

Really?

“There is no more reason to establish ownership of a handgun than it is for your cell phone”? Apparently, people living by the corner of East Hampton and Sherman streets think there is.

Probably because you can’t shoot and kill someone with a cell phone.

That, and somebody not from the neighborhood carrying a gun on his hip, and who isn’t in uniform, probably falls under the common definition of “suspicious.”

Let’s see… So the cops get a call about a guy with a gun. Instead of asking whether he was shooting or killing anyone, they jump into their squad cars and take off. They arrive and find a man with a sidearm holstered on his hip, in full compliance with the law. They proceed to confiscate his gun and then let him go. Now they are trying to make the man prove the gun is his before they’ll give it back. I don’t know about you, but where I live, there is no registry and many of my guns are private sales. If I had to prove ownership of many of them, I’d be screwed. The police confiscated this mans private property without a lawful reason, period.

But yet, this is considered reasonable action on the part of the police by the Brady Bunch. I’ve got news for them, in the hands of a law abiding, legal gun owner (the vast majority), a gun is no more deadly than a cell phone. The Brady Bunch would do well to knock off the hysteria and deal in logic and facts for a change, but of course, when you’re led around by your emotions and financial donations, this will never happen. Pity.

As a public service, here’s a Constitutional law refresher for the police in Wilkes-Barre and the Brady Bunch.

First the Second amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And the Fifth amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Share/Save

Media Bias Strikes Again

Yet another biased article, this time from ABC News.

Virginia Tech Gun Dealer Offers Student Discount

Dealer Says Campuses Safer If Students Can Protect Themselves

By MADDY SAUER

The owner of an Internet-based firearms store that sold a gun to Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho says he is now offering a discount for students who want to carry guns on campus to protect themselves. The company, TGSCOM Inc., also sold two 9mm Glock magazines to Steven Kazmierczak, who killed five people at Northern Illinois University earlier this year.

The owner of TGSCOM, Eric Thompson, announced today that for the next two weeks he will sell firearms at cost in the hopes of targeting students who may be on a tight budget. Customers will have over 5,400 different kinds of firearms from which to choose.

“This offer allows students and people who might not have otherwise been able to afford a weapon to purchase one at a hefty discount and at a significant expense to myself,” Thompson told ABCNews.com.

A spokesperson for Virginia Tech said that Thompson’s remarks and offer are “incredibly insensitive to the families of the victims who lost loved ones, and to the injured students still recovering from this horrendous tragedy,” said Larry Hincker, the Associate Vice President for University Relations.

You know what’s really insensitive and offensive Larry, is your continuing insistence that your students remain defenseless even after what transpired on your Utopian campus. Geez, what a bozo.

Gun control advocates also call Thompson’s special offer “shameless”.

“He’s arming the criminals and then telling the rest of us to buy guns so we can protect ourselves from the criminals he’s armed,” said Peter Hamm, communications director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

While gun control advocates acknowledge that Thompson has a right to make this offer, they say this is yet another example of the gun industry trying to profit from gun violence.

“What this shows is that to the gun industry, gun violence is at best an abstract concept and at worst a business opportunity,” said Josh Sugarmann, the Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center.

“No matter how these products are used against citizens, the answer is always more guns when in fact these problems stem from the fact that there are too many guns out there already,” Sugarmann told ABCNews.com.

He’s arming the criminals? Sure he is Petey. I don’t think many criminals are buying guns from a legitimate business owner who is required by law to do a background check on his customers, and then ships them to a local FFL for pickup. Petey, you’re lying out your ass and you know it. You too Josh. First of all, how is him selling the sidearms at cost making a profit? Apparently Josh is also under the delusion criminals buy their guns from honest business owners. Why do the anti-rights people feel the need to lie to try and make their point? Could it be they know they don’t have a leg to stand on? I’ve been told that if one lies enough, they actually begin to believe the lie, instead of the truth.

There’s more, but it’s basically a rehash of the same anti-rights talking points. They give Thompson a token paragraph or two, but bash him in the end with a sound bite from Petey Hamm and anti-rights bigot Larry Hincker.

Go read, if you have the stomach for it.

Share/Save