Dennis Henigan, the President of the Brady Campaign, has another article up on the Huffington Post, and as usual it’s full of fear mongering and blatant lies. It’s almost comical to read through his pieces because they make a lot of claims but never have citations to back those claims. In the scientific community making claims that aren’t backed by evidence gets you laughed at and usually ostracized by your fellows until evidence is brought forth. I think it’s time that we started treating the gun debate like a scientific inquiry where all claims must be backed by evidence. Those of us on the side of gun ownership have been doing this for years so we can kick back for a while and relax, but those crazies in the anti-gun community need to pony up.
For some fun I’m going to go through some of the article’s claims because it entertains me:
Remember two summers ago when most Americans were appalled by the sight of guns openly carried by protesters at presidential speaking events and town hall forums on the health care issue?
Remember two summers ago when the anti-gun media tried to make the entire situation look like racial tension, even going so far as to fabricate evidence? If your side was willing to make shit up in order to push their agenda then you can bet your sweet ass that I’m going to demand evidence that demonstrates “most Americans” were appalled by the sight of guns being openly carried at those events.
When it comes to carrying concealed weapons, Perry certainly walks the walk. He has a concealed carry permit and proudly says that he carries a gun when he is out jogging.
I know you’re trying to make a case against Perry (which is really fucking easy by the way, I can’t believe you’ve fucked it up) but you have to realize that pro-gun people who are politically active far outnumber anti-gun people who are politically active. Thus this statement is going to cause more harm to your movement than good as it will improve the status of Perry in the eyes of the politically active pro-gun people. Usually if something works against your movement you simply ignore it and never bring it up.
He didn’t respond by saying the question is ridiculous. He didn’t say that in the close quarters of a rope line, with a multitude of people pulling and tugging at him, a gun could easily drop to the ground or be taken from him.
That’s why police standing in front of protest lines have their guns taken from them all the time… wait never mind, that doesn’t happen. Henigan this claim is idiotic, provide some proof of this happening or shut the Hell up.
He didn’t say that an armed candidate would be a nightmare for the Secret Service.
It must be quite the nightmare being the Secret Service actually taught Obama how to shoot.
Rick Perry apparently doesn’t think the question is ridiculous. In fact, his sarcasm suggests he has no objection to political candidates carrying guns to campaign events; he seems to imply that he may do so himself. One thing is clear. The governor has been so thoroughly marinated in pro-gun ideology that he is unashamed about taking it to its logical extreme.
There you ago again, making Perry sound favorable in the eyes of the politically active pro-gun population. I guess you’ve has been swimming in cognitive dissonance so long that you believe politically active anti-gunners outnumber politically active pro-gunners.
I wonder if this thought ever occurred to Rick Perry: If a would-be presidential assailant is undeterred by Secret Service agents with Uzis, why would he be deterred by a presidential candidate packing heat?
Objection, relevance? A potential assailant isn’t going to deterred by knowing that Perry isn’t carrying a gun so this entire statement is completely meaningless.
Yes, it is a good thing that senators can’t carry guns onto the Senate floor because the presence of guns, even carried by well-meaning, law-abiding citizens, increases the risk that arguments and conflicts will escalate to lethal violence.
Let it be known that I’m declaring bullshit, either provide evidence of this happening or shut the Hell up. I’m not aware of a single case of an argument between one or more people legally carrying a firearm that escalated into a shoot out. You keep making this claim Henigan but so far have yet to provide any evidence.
It is the same reason that our national parks are less safe because (due to legislation sponsored by Senator Coburn himself) concealed carry of weapons is now permitted within their borders.
Once again evidence is needed, or as Wikipedia would say, “.”
It is the reason that our streets, restaurants and coffee houses are less safe in states that have made concealed carry easier.
Again, you need to provide some evidence. This blog, as well as many other gun blogs, contain tons of evidence that demonstrates that violent crime has been dropping even though carry laws have continued to be liberalized (using the classical definition of the word).
It is the reason that college campuses remain far safer than the gun-saturated communities that surround them, because the gun lobby has been foiled in its efforts to force colleges and universities to allow concealed carry
You can’t compare apples to oranges. A proper statement would be, “It is the reason that college campuses that continue to ban students and faculty from legally carrying on site have a lower rate of gun-related crime than campuses that allow students and faculty to legally carry on site.” Of course that statement would also be false but at least it would be a comparison of like things.
They may well be the way things are in an American nightmare where, in political discourse, the guns speak louder than the rhetoric.
That’s why so many political debates between people carrying firearms turn into shoot outs… never mind, once again that’s not the case which makes Henigan’s statements irrelevant.