Even lamer was the claim that the Sept. 11 attacks were an argument for closing the (nonexistent) "gun show loophole." This claim, made first in a Brady Campaign press release and then in a suspiciously similar op-ed bearing the byline of former Clinton Administration official Eric Holder, just plain flopped. Nobody could be persuaded that Usama bin Laden’s boys would have trouble laying their hands on an AK-47, regardless of what rules govern gun shows.
If the September 11 line wasn't enough, here's the dateline: November 4 2001
Over a decade ago Eric Holder was working hand in glove with gun control organizations to restrict gun rights by using the fears of foreign terrorists buying arms from American gun dealers.
Familiar, eh?
Well, at least Holder wasn't overseeing a plan to send arms to said terrorists back then.
Via Instapundit who remarks "At least."
Here's some more thoughts by Prof. Reynolds.
Properly understood, the gun control movement has always rested on certain essentially religious notions (indeed, though it is little publicized, much of the gun-control movement’s financial and institutional support comes from non-evangelical Protestant denominations). These notions are that violence – even against a criminal – is always bad, that ordinary people are not to be trusted, and that it is best to let the authorities look out for you.
In addition, the movement has always contained a rather strong undercurrent of hostility toward traditional American standards of masculinity, of which it sees the gun as a symbol.
It is here that things seem to have changed the most. Americans have learned that being harmless does not guarantee that they will not be harmed: in fact, it seems that terrorists (like ordinary criminals) actually prefer victims who cannot strike back.
And here's a demotivational that seems quote appropriate: Zombie Free Zone.
No comments:
Post a Comment