What Gun Control Really Means
Some legislator wants to control it so you can't have a gun, or so there are all sorts of constraints on you getting one, but when there are intruders in his house, he lickety-split pulls a gun and puts a bullet in one of them. More here. And frankly, it sounds like something fishy was going on here. Once again, the people running this country so often seem like the worst people in it. Charles Rangel, anyone?
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws - and legislators - will have guns.
Nick at October 5, 2009 7:02 AM
I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it. V/H*
*Victory over Horseshit
Flynne at October 5, 2009 7:05 AM
The only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is. This lets him do something to you that you wouldn't allow if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.
parabarbarian at October 5, 2009 7:44 AM
Time to donate to the NRA....
I don't own a gun. I don't want to own one, but gun control makes me itch.
Feebie at October 5, 2009 9:46 AM
Columnist Carl Rowan found himself in the same situation.
Rowan had advocated for "a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail — period" and "a complete and universal federal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns (except for authorized police and military personnel)."
In 1988, Rowan used an unregistered handgun and shot at two youths who trespassed on his DC property to swim in his pool. The columnist claimed the gun was registered (it wasn't) then said it belonged to his FBI agent son and wasn't required to be registered (it was).
A deadlocked jury prevented Rowan from going to jail.
What bothered me about the Rowan story at the time was not the hypocrisy of an anti-gun advocate having and using a gun, but the hypocrisy of an anti-gun advocate spraying bullets willy-nilly in a residential neighborhood after claiming that the potential for harm to innocent bystanders is the reason he wants guns out of the hands of everyone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Rowan
Conan the Grammarian at October 5, 2009 9:54 AM
From what I understand, the legislator was not exactly an anti-gun nut; see this entry from Instapundit.
old rpm daddy at October 5, 2009 9:56 AM
@Conan: "Columnist Carl Rowan found himself in the same situation."
Oddly enough, I remember, back in my active duty days, discussing the case with a Roman Catholic chaplain over lunch. Referring to the trespasser, he told me, in all candor, "I would have shot the son-of-a-bitch myself!"
old rpm daddy at October 5, 2009 10:04 AM
When handheld lasers get powerful enough to slice poeple in half, then I want one.
i-holier-than-thou at October 5, 2009 11:29 AM
Nobody keeps statistics of guns used that have prevented crimes.
David M. at October 5, 2009 1:24 PM
I agree with Feebie. I don't own a gun either, but I'm most adamantly opposed to gun control. I encourage those who own guns to learn the safety rules and practice using it properly. Just so we don't accidentally ventilate Grandma who was just up to go to the bathroom because in the dark she looked just like a burglar.
Patrick at October 5, 2009 3:28 PM
Leave a comment