I’m trying to figure out the point of this article, headlined “Man carrying assault weapon attends Obama protest.” (By the way, “assault weapon” is an utterly meaningless term invented by anti-gun propagandists, used to make plain old rifles sound scarier.)

The story is actually about several people who displayed guns on holsters at protests, which is legal in Arizona–for now, anyway.

“Gun-rights advocates say they’re exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest…The man with the rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. ‘In Arizona, I still have some freedoms.’”

Of course, the article goes on to imply–with no evidence whatsoever–that gun owners are dangerous.

Fred Solop, a Northern Arizona University political scientist, said the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona could signal the beginning of a disturbing trend. “When you start to bring guns to political rallies, it does layer on another level of concern and significance,” Solop said. “It actually becomes quite scary for many people. It creates a chilling effect in the ability of our society to carry on honest communication.”

Anti-gun hysterics think their personal fears of guns trump empirical facts–such as the fact that gun owners are less likely to commit crimes than the general public. Or that wherever concealed carry is allowed, the crime rate goes down. But the girls in the media and on college campuses demonize gun owners anyway. They think that by being crying, hysterical women, they’ve won the argument on gun control.

0

Comments are closed.