A Brilliant Article...

...from David Mamet, whom we expect to write brilliant articles (as well and books, plays and movies):

The Left loves a phantom statistic that a firearm in the hands of a citizen is X times more likely to cause accidental damage than to be used in the prevention of crime, but what is there about criminals that ensures that their gun use is accident-free? If, indeed, a firearm were more dangerous to its possessors than to potential aggressors, would it not make sense for the government to arm all criminals, and let them accidentally shoot themselves? Is this absurd? Yes, and yet the government, of course, is arming criminals.  

Violence by firearms is most prevalent in big cities with the strictest gun laws. In Chicago and Washington, D.C., for example, it is only the criminals who have guns, the law-abiding populace having been disarmed, and so crime runs riot. Cities of similar size in Texas, Florida, Arizona, and elsewhere, which leave the citizen the right to keep and bear arms, guaranteed in the Constitution, typically are much safer. More legal guns equal less crime. What criminal would be foolish enough to rob a gun store? But the government alleges that the citizen does not need this or that gun, number of guns, or amount of ammunition. 

By all means read the whole thing!

Remember how I told you that any article beginning with, "I'm a gun owner, but...," "I'm a hunter, but..." I support the Second Amendment, but..." was most certainly nothing but a poorly strung together collections of propaganda, spin and outright lies? Well, here's Congressman Mike Thompson (D-CA, duh) going for the grand-slamaroonie:

As a hunter and gun owner, I believe that we should protect the Second Amendment right of law-abiding individuals to own firearms. As a dad and grandfather, I also believe that we have a responsibility to make our schools, streets and communities safe...

He got "hunter, "gun owner" and "Second Amendment" into the lede graf, so you  know what that means! Yep, get ready to be bent over the ole pool table, kids:

A majority of Americans also agree (according to a Pew poll released this month) that assault magazines have no place in our society. These magazines hold more than 10 rounds and allow a shooter to inflict mass damage in a short period of time without reloading. Banning them will save lives.

Oh Mike, Mike, Mike..."assault magazines"...could you sound any more pathetic? I've shot sporting clays with you and even shared an adult beverage once upon a time. You seemed like a smart guy to me. Would it have killed you to at least do a rudimentary Google search before dropping to your knees before the Twin Gods of Feinstein and Obama and shaming yourself like this? However, you did provide an excellent learning point for those of us who actually believe in the Constitution:

Anyone who says they have a "middle path" in this fight means they're either stupid as a sack of rocks or that they think we are as stupid as a sock of rocks.

Here's some more actual facts to have at your fingertips for the next "sack of rocks" you encounter. From John Lott on the Vice President's (speaking of a sack of rocks...) and BHo's latest favorite made-up statistics:

Obama made many other false statements during his talk. He asserted that “over the last 14 years [background checks] kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun.” But these were only “initial denials,” not people prevented from buying guns. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms dropped over 94 percent of those “initial denials” after just preliminary reviews. Virtually all the remaining cases were dropped after further investigation by ATF field offices or the Department of Justice. Few of these “initial denials,” 62 people or about 0.1 percent, involved strong enough evidence to be consideration for prosecution. Just 13 pleaded guilty or were convicted.

I say heck yeah, let's spend billions to raise this number to, what...15...even 18? So we want to ban assault weapons because, by SS-Oberst-gruppenfuhrer Feinstein's own numbers, almost as many people are killed every year by "assault weapons" (sorry, Mike...the gruppenfuhrer didn't provide numbers for "assault magazines") — 50 people a year — as by those dreaded bees and wasps — 54 people a year. And we want to spend zillions and billions for "universal background checks" because over the last 14 years fully 62 of the wrong people have been prevented from buying guns.

Close-up of an "assault wasp." These lethal animals kill more people every year than "assault weapons." Run! Hide!

Hell, I have a MUCH better plan! Sixty-two divided by 14 years is roughly 4 1/2 people per year...let's round it up to 5 people a year, since the only half-people I know are in Congress. Then every year at the State of the Union address, the President would pick 5 people who are not ineligible to purchase a firearm and give them a luxury condo in New York City ($1.25 million), a Ferrari Spider ($257,000) and an $15,000 line of credit at a posh New York escort agency (what former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer spent on hookers in an average year before he resigned). That comes to $1,557,000, barely a rounding error at the rate BHo spends our (or rather, the Chinese's) money. Viola! We accomplish more than the current Brady law for less money! I say double the number of miscreants each year, and we're doing twice as much good for less than the price of a single Death Panel!

Use the money saved to buy DDT to kill all the bees and wasps...if it only saves one child's life, it's worth it!