Ammo For Sale

« « Gun Porn 2 | Home | This just in » »

Richard Cohen: Guns are evil and bad and cause crime – except when I want one

Cohen sayeth:

The Marshal Dillon Rule is based on common sense, not to mention the law of averages: The more guns you have, the greater the chance they will be used.

Really? You got any actual, you know, statistics and figures and cites to back that up? Because, err, no one else does. And you don’t even seem to buy your own argument:

Mind you, while I subscribe to the Marshal Dillon Rule, I am on record as being sympathetic to those who like to keep a gun in the house. This is because I was burglarized one very dark night by a klutz of a thief who burst though my back door and ran around the first floor making so much noise that I was certain he was coming for me. (This was before the deranged had recourse to e-mail.) I very much wanted a gun — not to whack the intruder but merely to protect my life.

So, about that law of averages? Anyhoo, he chimes in with the non-starter that you don’t give college kids guns. A position I concur with since your average college kid cannot legally buy them anyway. But he doesn’t realize that some college kids aren’t college kids but are adults who are lawfully allowed to carry concealed weapons. Yet that permit is invalid on a campus. And you think maybe they want to protect their lives?

Or put another way: Liberal Washington Post Columnist Attacks Fred Thompson For Being Too Pro-Gun Rights. Shocking!!!

25 Responses to “Richard Cohen: Guns are evil and bad and cause crime – except when I want one”

  1. Standard Mischief Says:

    Hmm, kinda reminds me of another, inside the beltway, “gun control” hypocrite.

  2. Phelps Says:

    I’m much less worried about the guy who wants 15 guns than I am about the guy who wants one. The guy who wants one has a particular use in mind.

  3. Robb Allen Says:

    Actually, what he says is true. Every time I purchase a new gun, I use it at the range.

    Spooky.

  4. Brian Says:

    I don’t know about where you live. But most of the states where I have lived allow anyone 18 and over to carry a handgun. While an 18 year old can’t buy a handgun from a FFL dealer, many states have nothing preventing them from receiving one as a gift from parents, or buying one from another gun owning citizen.

  5. Other Ed Says:

    Once Fred Thompson gets into the race, I think we should show gun owner’s support for him by coming to all his rallies heavily armed. Just think how intimidated those Dems would be with hundreds of assault rifles being waved in the air everytime Fred speaks!

  6. Tam Says:

    I’ve got more guns than the Jamaican army.

    They must be broken…

  7. ExRanger Says:

    “Just think how intimidated those Dems would be with hundreds of assault rifles being waved in the air everytime Fred speaks!”

    Hell, intimidation? Waving in the air? I say kill ’em.

  8. chris Says:

    I

    was burglarized one very dark night by a klutz of a thief who burst though my back door and ran around the first floor making so much noise that I was certain he was coming for me.

    And what you you do if Jamal had come for you? Sing Kumbayah?

    I am nervous when I am disarmed and in large cities, not in our little hamlet, where armed citizens are commonplace, crime is modest, and I (almost) always have a gun at the ready.

    This guy is quite a liability for Team Hillary.

    I venture to say that he will have other topics to dwell on (e.g. praise for the UN and the proposed North American Union) as the election draws near, because the Dems in Congress didn’t even want to talk about guns the night of the Va. Tech shooting (while I was, overreactively, ordering bulk quantities of Glock mags).

    There is a lot more gun violence in D.C. than at any of our gun shows down here.

    As a matter of fact, gun show weekend is by far the safest that Magnolia Avenue ever gets (as camo-clad minions head out Magnolia to the Jacob Building).

  9. Cactus Jack Says:

    The more guns you have, the greater the chance they will be used.

    Used for what Mr. Cohen? Are you implying something sinister here? Considering that he’s a lib I’d say he is.

  10. HardCorps Says:

    Too bad Fred is a CFR neo-con. Think 9/11 and the patriot act reduced our freedoms? Just see what happens if he’s elected with all those KBR “detention” centers lying around unused…

  11. Heartless Libertarian Says:

    The average 18 year old shouldn’t have any problem (other than lack of available funds) buying a rifle or shotgun, even from an FFL.

    Those aren’t much good for concealed carry, though.

  12. Cactus Jack Says:

    HardCorps Says:

    July 31st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
    Too bad Fred is a CFR neo-con. Think 9/11 and the patriot act reduced our freedoms? Just see what happens if he’s elected with all those KBR “detention” centers lying around unused…

    So what feedoms were “reduced”? The only freedom I’ve seen endangered is our 2nd ammendment rights, courtesy of the dem-cong.

  13. Tam Says:

    Right to privacy.
    Right to travel.
    Freedom of speech.
    Freedom of association.
    Freedom of the press.
    Right to keep and bear arms.
    Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
    And on
    And on

    At least they haven’t tried quartering troops in my house…

    …yet.

  14. Cactus Jack Says:

    Tam Says:

    August 1st, 2007 at 1:27 pm
    Right to privacy.
    Right to travel.
    Freedom of speech.
    Freedom of association.
    Freedom of the press.
    Right to keep and bear arms.
    Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
    And on
    And on

    Would you care to be more specific Tam? The only one you listed that I know is under attack is the right to keep and bear arms. The “and on”… tells me nothing and sounds like something a lib would post.

  15. markm Says:

    Jack, you haven’t been paying attention.

    Right to privacy: Your bank records and your medical records aren’t private anymore.
    Right to travel: Been to an airport lately? And Greyhound has almost as much restrictions. The only way you can get around freely is by driving – once you get a license for that…
    Freedom of speech: McCain-Feingold. “Free speech zones”. Hate crime laws.

    I don’t have time to continue…

  16. Yu-ain Gonnano Says:

    Marshal Dillon?
    ‘Cause we all know what works on TV will work in real life.

    /sarcasm

  17. Yu-ain Gonnano Says:

    markm,

    Care to back up the assertion that bank records aren’t private? Last I saw you still needed a warrant.

    Or are you making the assertion that “Terrorist” means “anyone we want to”?

    As for Travel, I’ll agree that most of what TSA does is useless and federalizing it only made things worse. But I can’t say that I would go so far as to say that security screens are an infringement on the right to travel. Especially as many people do it routinely.

    I am right there with you on McC-F. I’ll use my private property to advocate any political position/outcome I want, thankyouverymuch.

  18. straightarrow Says:

    No markm no warrant needed. The bank now acts as an extension of the investigative units of the state and are required to report transactions of certain amounts and even transaction that appear to be not uniform to your regular transactions. They can be punished if they do not do this.

    Who do you think the bank is going to protect? You or themselves? Especially knowing the judge won’t protect the constitution if they are charged with not ratting you out. Even if you did nothing illegal, their failure to report you can cost them dearly.

    No warrant needed.

  19. Yu-ain Gonnano Says:

    Straightarrow,
    That has been law long before the patriot act.

  20. Yu-ain Gonnano Says:

    Bank Secrecy Act of 1970

  21. Yu-ain Gonnano Says:

    I should also note that the BSA/AML requires the reporting of suspicious activity. You are correct that that happens without a warrant, but the police don’t need a warrant to search a car running 120mph down the interstate at 3am with it’s lights off either. They are both suspicious *actions*. I guess it would depend on a persons definition of “reasonable”.

    It does not allow the police to troll through everyone’s financial records willy-nilly.

  22. straightarrow Says:

    Yu, what you say is true. That was started in the War on Drugs, remember? The Patriot Act has added more incursions into individual rights.

    Just because they are moving forward in multiple attacks on our rights, are you saying it doesn’t count, nor it is a coordinated effort?

    Are you really saying that? Really? Really?

    Ok, three really’s? You will never get a better chance to understand that the War on Drugs,RICO, and the War on Terror, are serving two goals, one of which is to rescind personal freedom and autonomy in this country.

  23. Yu-Ain Gonnano Says:

    No, what I’m saying is that people are complaining that “The Patriot Act this, the Patriot Act that” like this is all somehow new. It isn’t.

    To hear many people talk, the Patriot Act is the new Doomsday Law That Will Bring Down Democracy. Sorry, it’s not. It’s a piss in the ocean on the infringement scale.

    That’s not to say I that I think pissing in the ocean is a good thing the fish do enough of that already thankyou. It’s just not the Chicken Little Law people make it out to be.

    Oh and BTW, I don’t think the WoD, RICO are a coordinated attack to bring about tyrany. I think it’s an honest attempt by well-meaning people who don’t have a clue what the actual outcomes of their policies are. I rarely ascribe malice to that which can easily be explained by stupidity.

  24. HardCorps Says:

    It’s not exactly a coordinated attack on the freedoms of Americans – it’s just a shared philosophy by politicians that freedom gets in the way of power and money.

    Don’t straw man the argument into the patriot act – you are right that the framework of tyranny is added to little by little over the years, but now is the first time it’s in our faces, out in the open for everyone to see. And what do Americans do? They take it like good little subjects because they have too much to lose. I was at the airport recently and now they have messages playing over and over saying that jokes about security will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and security is everyone’s responsibility, etc. So now we have the friggin thought police in the airports.

    The minority rights are like the canaries of liberty – once they are silenced, we’re fucked.

  25. Yu-ain Gonnano Says:

    but now is the first time it’s in our faces, out in the open for everyone to see.

    Again, no it isn’t. It’s been that way for decades. I can’t help it if you haven’t been looking.

    Hell, 50 years ago blacks were still living under segregation. And we’re screaming today that the sky is falling because you have to take your shoes off at the airport?