The mask slips again

Advocates for gun control will frequently scoff at the notion that they support widespread citizen disarmament.  "Heller took that off the table" or some variant is what they say.  The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence has posted another screed demonizing gun owners, highlighting the following quote from one of their true believers:

"A "parent" who sees no problem with possession and use of a weapon is bad enough."

Being a parent and in possession of weapons while possessing the will to use them, should the need arise, is a bad thing.  Bad enough, apparently, to move you from parent to "parent".  Leaving aside for a moment how twisted it is to view the responsible exercise of a basic human right as bad, how can you hold this view of firearms ownership, be fired up enough to blog/comment/tour/speak/fund-raise and NOT advocate for total disarmament?  The fact is that you cannot.  Anyone that feels this way about firearms must, as a matter of consistency, be working toward their removal from society.

And who is this "Pastoral Counselor" that CSGV quotes?  None other than Craig Hexham.  Yes, it's one of the folks from that I pointed to in my opening post detailing why I blog anonymously.    We should also point out that Hexham thinks that dealing with people lawfully selling their firearms via private sales should be dealt with much more harshly than people viewing "pictures of 16 year old girls on the internet" should be .

When kiddie porn (as I am assuming that is what he is referring to since non-pornographic pictures of kids do not draw squads of armed men to your house) is less objectionable than firearms, then clearly you must work to eliminate firearms from society.  To do anything less is inhuman, and that is precisely how they view us.

For the record, while I appreciate the frustration of the father in the video linked above, I do not think that I would respond in the same fashion to one of my children behaving badly.  But, it's his kid-it's his decision.

The mask slips

Anti gun organizations like Brady typically poopoo as tinfoil hat nonsense the notion that they want to disarm the public at large.  The latest group on the block, the NGVAC, described any sane gun law as one that allows the government to take your guns.  Perhaps it was poorly worded?  Perhaps we misuderstood the format that they were using to structure the layout of information on the page?

Or, perhaps they were just say what they meant.

"As our population is 5 times that of England’s (300 million vs. 60 million) we should expect 5 times their gun homicides each year or 375.  In fact we have 12,000 each year.  But in our country, not only do criminals have all the guns they want*, but so do the law-abiding citizens. 

There  is only one explanation  for these facts:  It is the law-abiding citizens with guns, not the criminals, who are committing the majority of the gun homicides. (emphasis supplied-OP)

We would have a fraction of the gun homicides we have if only the criminals had guns.  Criminals are interested in getting money, not in killing people.  Over 50% of U.S. gun homicides are due to arguments not criminals. (FBI Annual Uniform Crime Reports)."

If your primary goal is elimination of gun violence, and you feel that a particular group (in this case law abiding gun owners) is causing most of that violence, then any rational person would  try to disarm that group.  They do want to take your guns away.  Of course we need to remember how this colors the Brady campaign as well.

I will leave it to those better suited to fisk the nonsense regarding the percent of homicides due to argument vs criminal behavior, but here's a hint-criminals have friends, family and associates that they argue with...