Category Archives: Chris Fitzsimon is scared

Waaahhh! Why won’t anyone talk to us???!!!?

I had to think long and hard about linking this. I know that I’m only giving oxygen to a person no one really listens to anyway, but I’m going to link on the basis that “hippy tears are sweet.” This is not an opportunity to educate or debate this clown. Their blog doesn’t have comments. It’s being linked as a window into the sad little world of a sad little man.

It’s been five days since the horrific violence in Colorado and things don’t make any more sense today than they did last Friday morning when James Holmes walked into a packed movie theater, threw down canisters of tear gas and started shooting, killing 12 people and injuring almost 60 others.

Holmes has now made his first court appearance and details continue to emerge about his life and his apartment that he rigged with explosives. Bewildered speculation continues about a possible motive for his random killing spree.

The politicians are weighing in too, but with only a few exceptions they are not saying much of substance, other than their expressions of sympathy for the victims and their families.

Many pundits and elected officials tell us this is not the time to talk about our gun laws that allowed Holmes to legally assemble an arsenal of full body armor, 6,000 rounds of ammunition, and several weapons including a semi-automatic assault rifle equipped with a drum magazine that holds 100 bullets for firing without the need to reload.

That’s also what many of them told us in January of 2011 when Jared Loughner killed 6 people in Arizona and wounded 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Loughner had a magazine of 33 bullets attached to his semi-automatic handgun.

Some people did ask after the Arizona shooting why any citizen would need to be able to fire a handgun 33 times before putting more bullets in it.

They were shouted down by the hard line pro-gun groups, who have so managed to so twist the debate about gun laws that even the suggestion of any restriction on weapons is considered a violation of the broadly misinterpreted Second Amendment and politicians run the other way.

A few people are asking the same questions now. Why is it legal for anybody to buy magazines that enable them to shoot 100 times without stopping to reload? Not to mention the body armor that Holmes bought for his deadly spree.

One Colorado gun club leader told the Associated Press “we’re different than other cultures. We do allow Americans to possess the accoutrements that our military generally has.”

Author Craig Whitney points out in the New York Times that the websites that sell the 100-bullet drums like the one Holmes apparently used last Friday don’t mince any words.

One of them Woot!, touts the drum as “Just the ticket, should things really heat up and the lead needs to fly.” Accoutrements indeed.

Both that drum and the 33-bullet magazine that Jared Loughner used in his deadly rampage were briefly illegal in the United States until Congress declined to renew the ban on semi-automatic assault weapons that expired in 2004.

That was back when at least there was a debate, when politicians were willing to argue publicly about the need to have sensible gun laws that protect both the public and an individual’s constitutional rights.

That seems like a lot longer than eight years ago. The debate now is only what gun laws to loosen. The General Assembly voted in the last session to allow concealed weapons in parks and playgrounds. The House passed a bill to allow them in bars and restaurants.

Politicians routinely have fundraisers at gun ranges where contributors can fire the weapon of their choice and even take part in simulations much like video games where they can shoot shadowy strangers on a screen.

You’d never know it from most of the current rhetoric but we have all agreed that the Second Amendment cannot be absolute or it would be legal for your neighbor to keep a small nuclear weapon in his garage or park a tank in his driveway.

The question is where we draw the line. That’s the debate. It seems like an easy call to at least draw it to prevent anyone from buying military style body armor and magazines that hold 100 bullets or 33. Those are not guns for hunting or self-defense. They are weapons of mass destruction.

And now is the time to talk about it.

Sorry Chris, we’ve talked. You just weren’t invited. We’ve decided that your objections are irrelevant, so we’re just going to continue to restore our gun rights over those objections.

How sad he must be. After 100 years of Democrat rule, Obama’s dreadful first two years handed both houses of North Carolina’s General Assembly to the Republicans. After 40 years of hard work turning the Democrat party from a racist conservative party to a racist socialist party, it all goes up in smoke. They were so close to having everything they wanted and suddenly the voters turned against them. And they did it during the one election that would hand the Republicans free rein to undo a century’s worth of Gerrymandering in favor of the Democrats.

If you’d like to comment on gun law, their other blog has open comments. They aren’t appreciating my telling them that they’ve lost and should pack it in on the whole anti-gun thing. They linked that fantastical Think Progress “even NRA members want gun control” poll. (I should point out that these posts on two different blogs from the same “think tank” are written by two different people)

As reported by the folks at Think Progress, both groups strongly support tougher laws, including requiring people to notify police when their firearms are stolen and placing modest regulations on “concealed carry” permit holders. The findings come on top of other broader surveys that show Americans generally support tougher laws even as they support a general right to bear arms. 

 I basically said “Prove it.” If you’ve got the polls, you should have the votes, right? Whoops.

Chris Fitzsimon is soooooo scared!

Listen to how scared he is that he that you might shoot him. Does he often argue over parking spaces? Does he encounter many reckless cyclists?
Whenever someone openly worries about being shot by the most law abiding people on the planet, I wonder what he plans on doing to deserve getting shot. Think about it. If you’re worried about shark attacks it implies that you are planning on getting into the water. If you’re worried about getting shot by a concealed carrier, doesn’t that pretty much admit that you are planning on violently attacking that permit holder?
You might wonder why the extreme Leftist NC Policy Watch cares about law abiding gun owners carrying guns. The reason you would wonder is because you don’t subscribe to the Leftist view of politics. For the Left, everything is connected. CSGV, the parent organization for NCGV, whose Executive Director was previously interviewed by Chris, has spent a lot of time and effort trying to explain why gun control is essential to Progressive politics.
One of the biggest markers for a “reactionary” worldview is the possession and carry of firearms for self defense. To the Left, the fact that you carry a gun is proof positive that you oppose them. They see you as a threat in two ways. First, the obvious way, is that if they ever seize power, you can shoot back. More importantly, however, is that by deciding to carry a gun, you have signaled your belief that you are responsible for your own safety. If a citizen insists that he has a right to be responsible for his own safety, who knows what other parts of his life he will insist on taking care of himself?
Leftists require you to be dependent upon the government, the government that they run. Any tin pot dipshit can wave a gun in the face of the masses and demand compliance. The problem is that in the long run, if not the short run, these dictatorships are unstable. If you piss enough people off, they will kill you. If your safety depends upon the good will of your guards, you will inevitably end up dead at the hands of a guard whose cousin’s sister’s best friend’s boyfriend was killed by the regime.
Far better to get the willing compliance of millions of people whose very existence depends upon government largesse. If you can train millions to believe that everything they want and need comes from the government, they will vote to keep you in power to make sure no one turns off that government spigot. People who carry guns have decided that the government cannot protect them. People who carry guns spread the infection of self-reliance to others who might otherwise decide to put their faith into big government solutions to everything from energy policy to street level policing.
In short, we gun owners are Kulaks, and people like Chris Fitzsimon would send us to Siberia if they could. Since they can’t manage Siberia, they can at least try to scare our fellow citizens into shunning us by making silly radio spots that no one other than their fellow travelers and us listen to.

========================================================================
Do you RSS? Don’t know what an RSS Feed is?
Save time and read all the latest blog news first.