Irrelevancy the Anti-Gunner’s Other Nightmare – Page 9

Count the Anti-Gun Memes

Articles written by anti-gunners usually bore me. Instead of bringing up new arguments and solutions to the problem they perceive they continue regurgitating the same bullshit over and over again. Let’s play a game, I’m going to call it Count the Memes. The idea is simple, to count the number of anti-gun memes mentioned in an average anti-gun article. In this pose I will point out the meme, give a brief explanation about each meme when it first occurs, and keep a running score of the memes dropped in the article. The contestent today is this article titled Silencing the Guns:

That was not, however, the first bipartisan moment related to the attack on Gabby Giffords, nor would it be the last. In 2004, Congress let the assault weapons ban Bill Clinton had passed “sunset” despite overwhelming public support.

“Assault” weapon ban + 1

“Assault” weapon ban points are awarded for mentions of the “assault” weapon ban as a mechanism that would prevent crimes involved criminal uses of firearms.

Total Memes So Far
“Assault weapon ban: 1

That law limited the number of rounds of ammunition a shooter could fire before having to reload, and letting it die an untimely death allowed a mentally ill young man in Tucson to purchase a handgun with a 33-round magazine. Had the assault weapons ban remained in place, he may well have been able to shoot the congresswoman, but he would not have been able to empty his clip, killing 6 people and wounding 13 others, before being tackled to the ground.

Ignorance of gun law + 1

Ignorance of gun law points are awarded when an article incorrectly states what a law legally defined.

Total Memes So Far
“Assault weapon ban: 1
Ignorance of gun laws: 1

But on neither that national day of mourning nor on any day since has the president or the members of Congress, who are either too frightened or too corrupted by the National Rifle Association, honored Giffords or the memory of those who died in that massacre in Tucson in the most appropriate way: with a return to common sense, like reestablishing the assault weapons ban that might have saved their lives.

The evil NRA + 1.

The evil NRA points are awarded for instances where the National Rifle Association (NRA) is mentioned with some kind of clandestine power or other undue influence. This point gets awarded often as anti-gunners like to mention the NRA as some kind of powerful puppet-master that has total control over our government and people.

“Assault” weapon ban + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 2
Ignorance of gun laws: 1
The evil NRA: 1

Later in January, Representative Carolyn McCarthy and Senator Frank Lautenberg proposed legislation to outlaw high-capacity magazines; it has gone nowhere.

High capacity magazines/clips + 1

High capacity magazines/clips is awarded whenever an article mentions standard capacity magazines. The award contains the verbiage magazines/clips because most anti-gunners are too stupid to realize there is a difference between the two.

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 2
Ignorance of gun laws: 1
The evil NRA: 1
High capacity magazines/clips: 1

The first President Bush, unlike his swaggering son (who advocated the demise of a ban on assault weapons whose sole purpose is to hunt humans) showed political courage by publicly quitting the N.R.A. in disgust in 1995 when it began advocating ideas like its contention that citizens need military-style assault weapons to protect themselves against our own government (members, for example, of the National Guard).

Insurrectionist + 1

Insurrectionist points are awarded whenever an article mentions militias, insurrectionists, or other anti-government individuals or groups in a manner meant to strike fear into readers.

“Assault” weapon ban + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 1
The evil NRA: 1
High capacity magazines/clips: 1
Insurrectionist: 1

One of them, of course, is Florida’s “stand your ground” law, which discourages de-escalation of potential firefights in public with predictable results, like the shooting death in Sanford, Fla., of Trayvon Martin.

Ignorance of gun laws + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 1
High capacity magazines/clips: 1
Insurrectionist: 1

If an assassination attempt on one of their own did not move members of Congress to ask whether the N.R.A. has a little too much sway in their chambers, a few dead and wounded teenagers, medical patients, and their family members were not going to unlock their safeties.

The evil NRA + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 2
High capacity magazines/clips: 1
Insurrectionist: 1

Most have clearly made the risk assessment that they have more to fear from the N.R.A. than they do from an occasional sniper.

The evil NRA + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 3
High capacity magazines/clips: 1
Insurrectionist: 1

In the 2010 election cycle, the N.R.A. spent over $7 million in independent expenditure campaigns for and against specific candidates, and it has a remarkable record of success at taking out candidates and elected officials with the misfortune of being caught in its crosshairs.

The evil NRA + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 4
High capacity magazines/clips: 1
Insurrectionist: 1

Last year alone guns killed or wounded another 100,000 Americans; roughly 30,000 of them died.

Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides + 1

Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides points are awarded whenever an article mentions statistics involving firearm related incidents without differentiation between the number of suicides, accidents, self-defense cases, and homicides. Anti-gunners purposely avoid differentiation to make their case look stronger by using artificially inflated numbers.

We don’t know exactly how many have been killed in the fighting in Libya, Egypt and Syria, but our elected officials have had far less trouble calling for the ouster of Middle Eastern leaders than the leadership of the N.R.A.

The evil NRA + 1

In contrast, everyone but the lunatic fringe in America supports gun safety laws — such as eliminating the gun-show loophole that allows the sale of military-grade weapons without background checks, and has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans as well as Mexicans, whose drug cartels find the loophole extremely helpful.

Demonizing gun owners + 1

Demonizing gun owners points are awarded whenever an article attempts to demonize gun owners in a general sense. Usually this is done by stating gun owners are uncivilized rednecks from or by questioning the size of a gun owner’s penis.

Gun-show loophole + 1

Gun-show loophole points area awarded whenever an article makes mentioned of the fictional gun-show loophole. When anti-gunners state gun-show loopholes they really mean the legal ability of two individuals to perform trade between one another without government involvement.

Military-style weapons + 1

Military-style weapons points are awarded whenever an article arbitrarily states a firearm is military in nature. This award is based on ignorance as bolt-action rifles are based on military weaponry but generally never mentioned as such.

Background checks + 1

Background checks ponts are awarded whenever an article makes references to background checks. Statements regarding background checks are usually made in an attempt to make gun owners seem unreasonable. That is to say most people accept background checks as a good thing and therefore people opposing background checks are seen as ignorant, extremist, or simply evil. It’s related to the demonizing gun owners category although happens with enough frequency to merit its own category.

Ignorance of gun-related events + 1

Ignorance of gun-related events is awarded whenever an article makes a statement regarding a gun-related event without actually knowing what happened. In the case of Mexican drug cartels getting firearms, they were given those guns by the United States government through a smuggling operation called Fast and Furious, not a loophole in any existing firearm law.

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 4
High capacity magazines/clips: 1
Insurrectionist: 1
Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides: 1
Demonizing gun owners: 1
Gun-show loophole: 1
Military-style weapons: 1
Background checks: 1
Ignorance of gun-related events: 1

In national testing, we’ve found that a simple, non-equivocating statement focusing on that point of intersection — law-abiding — beats the toughest “they want to take away your guns” message we can fire at it. It leads every demographic group other than those who stockpile weapons to support common-sense gun safety laws.

Special side note: it’s interesting to see an article admit that anti-gunners use the manipulation of language to persuade people to support gun control. Usually they aren’t so brazen as to outright state such a fact.

Offered a message that speaks to their ambivalence, people readily recognize that a 33-round clip makes it virtually impossible to tackle a shooter until he has had time to kill 15 or 16 people.

High capacity magazines/clips + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 4
High capacity magazines/clips: 2
Insurrectionist: 1
Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides: 1
Demonizing gun owners: 1
Gun-show loophole: 1
Military-style weapons: 1
Background checks: 1
Ignorance of gun-related events: 1

hey understand that allowing people to purchase military-style weapons at gun shows without a background check renders gun safety laws meaningless.

Military-style weapons + 1
Gun-show loophole + 1
Background checks + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 4
High capacity magazines/clips: 2
Insurrectionist: 1
Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides: 1
Demonizing gun owners: 1
Gun-show loophole: 2
Military-style weapons: 2
Background checks: 2
Ignorance of gun-related events: 1

Beginning with a statement of principle both makes clear the speaker’s intent and inoculates against all the slippery-slope arguments used by the N.R.A. and the elected officials in its employ or fearful of its power: “My view on guns reflects one simple principle: that our gun laws should guarantee the rights and freedoms of all law-abiding Americans. That’s why I stand with the majority who believe in the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns to hunt or protect their families. And that’s why I stand with the majority who believe they have the right to send their kids to school and see them return home safely at night.”

The evil NRA + 1

Total Memes So Far
“Assault” weapon ban: 3
Ignorance of gun laws: 2
The evil NRA: 5
High capacity magazines/clips: 2
Insurrectionist: 1
Not differentiating between suicides, accidents, self-defense, and homicides: 1
Demonizing gun owners: 1
Gun-show loophole: 2
Military-style weapons: 2
Background checks: 2
Ignorance of gun-related events: 1

This shouldn’t be an issue of left or right. Grocery stores in Tucson, where Gabby Giffords was shot (and where my mother-in-law shops — she just happened to be out of town that Saturday), are not hotbeds of “socialism.” I don’t know the party affiliations of the fallen teenagers in Chardon or the staff members, patients or families in Pittsburgh, but I suspect they ranged across the political spectrum.

Pretending to relate to a gun-related event + 1

Pretending to relate to a gun-related event points are awarded whenever an article author tries to tie themselves with a gun-related event in an attempt to generate sympathy from readers. It usually involves a mention of the author’s mother’s friend’s uncle’s cousin’s former roommate living within 100 miles of where the gun-related event occurred.

In the end this article composed of 14 paragraphs had 23 memes with zero citations to backup any made claims. Overall I feel the meme score for this article was fairly average. In the future I would advise the author to work harder to get insurrectionist points and pretending to relate to a gun-related event points. Focusing on the evil NRA points is common and makes it difficult to distinguish one article from another.

Unfortunately the predictability of anti-gun articles make them a bore to read. All I do anymore is count the memes as they never contain original material, research, or information. As you can see the meme counts can get pretty high in short articles meaning this would make a very harsh drinking game. Now that I think about it I believe I’ll begin writing drinking game rules for this.

Death of the Pointless Canadian Long Gun Registry

Canada’s fear of firearms lead them to implementing a $2.7 billion long gun registry that accomplished nothing of value. Thankfully their parliament finally admitted their mistake and dismantled the atrociously expensive registry:

Despite spending a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a long-gun registry, Canadians never reaped any benefits from the project. The legislation to end the program finally passed the Parliament on Wednesday. Even though the country started registering long guns in 1998, the registry never solved a single murder. Instead it has been an enormous waste of police officers’ time, diverting their efforts from patrolling Canadian streets and doing traditional policing activities.

$2.7 billion and not a single murder was solved? How do the anti-gunners consider these registries a good idea? Firearm registries are worthless systems designed solely to let the government know who has firearms for a time they decide to confiscate them. As the article points out, registries almost never solve crimes because guns used to commit crimes are seldom left by the perpetrator:

Crime guns are very rarely left at the crime scene, and when they are left at the scene, they have not been registered — criminals are not stupid enough to leave behind a gun that’s registered to them. Even in the few cases where registered crime guns are left at the scene, it is usually because the criminal has been seriously injured or killed, so these crimes would have been solved even without registration.

Why would a murder leave evidence at a crime scene? Especially when that evidence is a tool they wish to keep to perform future crimes? It’s not a logical assumption, which makes it not at all surprising that anti-gunners came up with it since they’re the masters of illogical assumptions. Either way the experiment has been performed and it has failed so anti-gunners can stop claiming that we should be registering firearm with the government.

Burying Gun Control Fallacies

The Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns must really be worried at the moment. As their fallacies are stomped into the ground their funding shrivels into nothingness. Forbes has a good writeup that details the fact that none of the doom and gloom scenarios perpetuated by gun control organizations have come to fruition even though the rate of gun ownership has been skyrocketing:

As much as gun control advocates might wish otherwise, their attacks are running out of ammo. With private firearm ownership at an all-time high and violent crime rates plunging, none of the scary scenarios they advanced have materialized.

With an opening like that you know the anti-gunners are going to be horribly upset with the story. The author goes through a few common myths parroted by anti-gunners and demonstrates their falsehood:

Caroline Brewer of the anti-gun Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has reported that “The research we’ve seen indicates fewer and fewer people owning more and more guns.” Yet one can only wonder where they are getting that information. In reality, public support for personal gun ownership is growing. According to Steve Sanetti, president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group that represents about 7,000 firearms manufacturers and related companies, in 1959 some 70% of the American public favored handgun bans, whereas today that number has flipped. This support is reflected in the marketplace. Sanetti observes that the $4.1 billion gun industry “has had nineteen months of growth in an otherwise anemic economy.”

Recognizing these positive trends, most states now issue permits allowing qualified law-abiding people to legally carry handguns outside their homes. Unprecedented numbers are becoming licensed to do so, now totaling an estimated 10 million Americans, contributing, in turn, to a dramatic growth in gun sales.

The anti-gunner bullshit about gun ownership rates going down has been one of my favorites to laugh at. Their argument that fewer people are simply buying more guns is shown to be entirely false by the sheer fact that carry permit rates are going up. When one gets a carry permit it’s pretty reasonable to assume that person also has a gun. In many cases people getting carry permits previously held no interest in guns and obtained their first firearm when they desired to get a permit.

As pointed out in a recent paper titled “Tough Targets” released by the Cato Institute, “The ostensible purpose of gun control legislation is to reduce firearm deaths and injuries. But authors Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett believe these restrictions put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage to criminals who acquire guns from underground markets since it is simply not possible for police officers to get to every scene where intervention is urgently needed. They also document large numbers of crimes…murders, assaults, robberies…that are thwarted each year by ordinary persons with guns.

The paper, Tough Targets, can be found here. It’s a good read and very well researched. Basically it’s the exact opposite of the drivel put out by the likes of the Brady Campaign and Violence Policy Center. Instead of making baseless assumptions or using statistical voodoo, Cramer and Burnett comb through self-defense stories and present the raw numbers.

Whereas gun control proponents often argue that having a gun put people at risk because a criminal will take it away and use it against them, it seems the reality is more often to be the reverse situation. The Cato data contains only 11 stories out of 4,699 where a criminal took a gun away from a defender, but 277 where the intended victim disarmed the bad guy, although the authors acknowledge that these event reports may be printed more frequently due to newsworthiness.

Arguing that a criminal is simply going to take your gun is one of the dumbest arguments that the anti-gunners have brought up. If taking a gun from somebody is so easy who really cares if a criminal takes yours since you can just take it right back. Hell you can stand there for an hour taking the gun back from the criminal every time he takes it from you and eventually he’ll get bored and move on. On a serious note Tough Targets does a marvelous job of proving how false the anti-gunner’s claim really is.

This is why gun rights activists win, we do actual research and show real numbers whereas the anti-gunners do hand waving an pull random numbers out of the air. If you make claims and fail to ever back them up people will eventually stop listening to you.

Then there is the argument that more private gun ownership will lead to more accidents because the average citizen isn’t sufficiently trained to use a weapon defensively. While gun accidents do occur, the Cato study indicates that they are the most overstated risks. There were 535 accidental firearms deaths in 2006 within a population of almost 300 million people. Although every lost life is tragic, the proportion is not particularly startling.

Another false claim is shot down in flames.

On the other hand, Newsweek has reported that law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%).

I can only imagine that this short article has caused numerous gun control fanatics to breakdown into tears. It’s basically a bullet point summary of why anti-gunner claims are wrong. The above mentioned statistic makes a lot of sense when one realizes that police officer can’t magically materialize upon call. When you’re being attacked the police may take hours to arrive (or may not arrive at all) and during that time you’re on your own. If you have a means of self-defense on your person you greatly increase your chances of survival and can resolve the situation even if the police fail to respond.

Finally, on the subject of public safety, just how well have gun bans worked in other countries? Take the number of home break-ins while residents are present as an indication. In Canada and Britain, both with tough gun-control laws, nearly half of all burglaries occur when residents are present. But in the U.S. where many households are armed, only about 13% happen when someone is home.

Robbing a home in the United States while the person is home is a bad idea and criminals know it. This is a side-effect of a well-armed nation.

Starbucks Appreciation Day

Remember that today, Valentine’s Day, is also Starbucks Appreciation Day. For those who aren’t in the loop Starbucks Appreciation Day is where gun owners of all sorts viste their local Starbucks, buy some coffee and pastries, and thank Starbucks for now bowing to anti-gunner pressure. Starbucks has stated numerous times that they will not ban the carry of firearms at their establishments, something that has been irking the anti-gunners something fierce. In a fit of rage the anti-gunners have declared today to be Starbucks Boycott Day. I’m pretty sure a bunch of gunnies going to purchase coffee will more than offset the lack of anti-gunners patronage.

Just Throw Money at It

Through Uncle I learned that Mayor Bloomberg is putting up some major money and buying an advertisement during the Super Bowl to promote his gun bigotry:

He also announced that he and his Boston counterpart, Mayor Thomas Menino, would appear in an anti-illegal gun commercial during the championship game, joining the race for Super Bowl ad space.

The spot shows the two leaders of Mayors Against Illegal guns in an animated discussion and clad in their team jerseys on a couch in front of a television.

Bowls of chips and popcorn along with a football lie on a glass table before them.

The 30-second spot will run regionally because of restrictions against issue-oriented ads on the national broadcast. The Mayor’s Against Illegal guns, which counts Bloomberg among its private donors, funded the clip.

The biggest problem with anti-gunners is that they only know how to do one thing: throw money at something until it goes away. Members of the Brady Campaign, Violence Policy Center, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns have no facts to backup their cause so they simply hope they can spend enough money to make guns go away. Luckily for use throwing money at something never actually makes it go away.

Starbucks Appreciation Day

In response to an anti-gunner protest of Starbucks scheduled for February 14^th the gun community is declaring that day Starbucks Appreciation Day.

Starbucks has publicly declared that they will not ban guns on their premisses, instead relying on state laws. The threw the anti-gunners into a tizzy because they were trying to get Starbucks to ban the carry of firearms at their establishments.

We should be supporting companies who are willing to stand up for our rights. On February 14^th stop by your local Starbucks, pick up some coffee, and make sure you let the employees working there know that you’re happy about Starbucks’s policy of supporting your right to bear arms. While the 10 or so anti-gunners boycott Starbucks we gun owners, who measure in the millions, can create a surge in profits.

Anti-Gunners Throwing a Hissy Fit

Will you look at that, the boys over at the Coalition to ~~Promote the Creation of Disarmed Victims~~ Stop Gun Violence (CSGV) are throwing a hissy fit because members of the pro-gun community decided to call them on their little propaganda campaign.

What I find more hilarious is the fact the author is “outing” several of the pro-gun bloggers by posting their real names and where they live. I’m not sure why the author does that because if it’s some kind of underhanded implication of a threat (“I know where you live and I’m watching you” kind of thing) it’s less than pathetic. I almost wish I would have posted a picture of myself holding a candle just so the author could have outed me… then again my name is the fucking URL so I guess there isn’t much to out.

You know what’s the funniest thing though? The links from the various gun blogs posting about this little hissy fit has probably increase CSGV’s blog traffic from one visitor a day to several hundred. Even when anti-gunners try to make us look like monsters we try to help them out a bit because we’re nice guys and gals like that.

The New York Times Hit Piece of Carry Permit Holders Falls Flat

The New York Times recently ran a hit piece on carry permit holders. The article tried to make permit holders sound like scary individuals with the following statistic:

To assess that claim, The New York Times examined the permit program in North Carolina, one of a dwindling number of states where the identities of permit holders remain public. The review, encompassing the last five years, offers a rare, detailed look at how a liberalized concealed weapons law has played out in one state. And while it does not provide answers, it does raise questions.

More than 2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors, excluding traffic-related crimes, over the five-year period, The Times found when it compared databases of recent criminal court cases and licensees. While the figure represents a small percentage of those with permits, more than 200 were convicted of felonies, including at least 10 who committed murder or manslaughter. All but two of the killers used a gun.

2,400 permit holders were convicted of felonies? Holy mother of Thor, that’s a bit number. Well, except in the grand scheme of things, it’s not:

That’s a dozen gun assaults a year. How many permit holders are there in North Carolina? According to the story, “more than 240,000.” So 0.2 percent of them are convicted of a non-traffic-related offense each year, about 0.017 percent are convicted of a felony, and only 0.005 percent are convicted of a gun assault. The Times concedes that the number of permit holders convicted of crimes “represents a small percentage of those with permits.” More like “tiny.” By comparison, about 0.35 percent of all Americans are convicted of a felony each year–more than 20 times the rate among North Carolina permit holders.

So the average rate of felony convictions for North Carolina permit holders is far less than the average felony conviction rate in the nation. That seems to prove once again that permit holders are less likely to commit felonies than the average population.

Too Many Idiots

The Brady Campaign has been trying to build up hype for their next failed attempt to create a movement of victim disarmament. You may not have heard anything about it as nobody pays much attention to the Brady Campaign anymore but Miguel over at Gun Free Zone had his ear to the ground and found the Brady Campaign’s new site, Too Many Victims (of Gun Violence, people killed by other violent crimes need not apply). Here’s a link you can copy and paste to visit the site:

http://www.bradycampaign.org/toomanyvictims/

Yeah I know it’s kind of petty to not link directly to their site, but I don’t link directly to sites of white supremacists either. If you’re advocating the creation of victims you’re not getting any link love from me.

Basically it’s a site created so people can go post memorials of people killed by guns. As Miguel pointed out the Brady Campaign doesn’t give two shits about victims of other violent crimes. If your family member was stabbed to death that’s just too bad, find somewhere else to post his memory.

The other thing the Brady folks are doing is encouraging people to host vigils for the victims of violent crimes involving firearms (if you were a victim of rape you can just take your sob story right over there with the rest of the people who were victimized in other violent crimes). Conveniently they have a very sparse list of planned vigils (which can be visited at the following link):

http://www.bradycampaign.org/toomanyvictims/local-vigils/

Notice how most of the planned vigils don’t even have a date or location set yet, I’m guessing they never will. Sadly the only one going on in Minnesota is why the fuck up in Duluth so I’ll not be able to verify if five or six people attended.

I’m going to find it difficult to surpress me desire to troll this site. Miguel brought up the idea of posting “memorials” for criminals who were shot by their would be victims. My question is whether or not these vigils are open carry events. There is also the question regarding whether or not the Brady Bunch are so cold and calloused as to remove memorials of victims of violent crimes not involving firearms. Do Brady ~~shills~~ employees verify the memorials are for real people? There is certainly the potential of creating some very funny memorials for non-existant or fictional individuals (some James Bond villains would be good candidates).

Now that I’ve given you all these bad ideas I want to urge you to take the high road and do your best to resist trolling this site. Ff we don’t give it any traffic nobody will (seriously, we’re the only people who visit anti-gun websites and we do is just to laugh).

Either way the lack of factual evidence to back up their claims has lead to the anti-gunners to rely entirely on emotional manipulation. This new initiative by the Brady Bunch is a sickening demonstration of their selectiveness in opposing violence. They don’t care about violent crime, only gun crime.

Oh Snap

Days of our Trailers has the skinny on the Brady Campaign being handed their asses. Brady Campaign president Dennis Henigan was challenged to a debate by Joe Walsh, a representative in Illinois. Instead of gracefully accepting the challenge Dennis decided it would be better if he made stupid demands like holding the Debate in Washington DC. Mr. Walsh returned with this skillfully crafted retort [PDF]:

Your desire to hold the debate in Washington D.C. is a perfect example of the fundamental problem with Washington D.C.

Washington politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists, are too obsessed with each other, the Washington insiders. In your November 23^rd press release, you yourself emphasized how critical it is that “[my] colleagues in House and Senate, and their staffs, as well as the national press corps” attend our debate.

Who cares?

The last time I checked I represent the folks of Illinois 8^th Congressional District, not Congressional staff, Washington lobbyists, or the national press corps. I was sent here to Washington to fight for me constituents and their rights and interests. Why would I care what Washington insiders have to say?

Sebastian at Shall Not Be Questioned speculates Henigan’s desire to hold the debate in Washington could be due to the lack of Brady Campaign money to send their president to Illinois. I like this theory if for not other reason than the Brady Campaign being broke demonstrates the sheer advancement of gun rights in this country since the early ’90’s.

On the other hand I think the response by Mr. Walsh is also likely the truth. Henigan wants his buddies in Congress there so they can be impressed by his ability to shit all over American rights. Remember most of of “representatives” don’t think of us as constituents but as peasants needing to be controlled. They love Henigan’s message because a disarmed populace is much easier to control than one armed to the teeth. It would be difficult for a congressman to convince an average person that they need to have their rights stripped for “the greater good.” On the other hand it’s trivially easy to convince fellow tyrant wannabes that the peasants need to be disarmed and Henigan gives these tyrants the talking points they need when debating these issues at the Capitol.

We must remember that members of Congress do not need to convince you and me that stricter controls must be placed on firearm ownership, they need to convince each other. Those men and women wearing suits and calling themselves representatives are the only voices that matter when it comes to voting on legislation. Our so-called “representatives” know a majority of the United States doesn’t care what happens in Washington so long as the “representatives” can give a handful of talking points explaining why they “had” to vote the way they did.

Henigan knows his place, to be the expresser of talking points for the tyrants in Washington. The last thing anybody from the Brady Campaign wants to deal with is a debate held somewhere accessible by the general public because that requires explaining to the public why they’re too stupid to manage their own lives.