What really pisses me off are these letters and articles in newspapers around the country written by supposed gunowners. They all start off the same:
"I'm a gunowner, but I don't support..."
This statement is usually followed up by inserting whatever politically sensitive firearm is on the hotseat that particular week. It could be Glock, it could be DPMS or Colt. Or it could be an accessory that is on the block, such as standard capacity magazines.
Take, for instance, a commenter named 'Boo Hoo' over here.
Typical 'I'm a gunowner, but..." response. I own guns but I don't see the need for anyone to carry one. I own guns but I don't see the need for a gun with a magazine capacity of more than x rounds. I'm a gunowner, but I don't see why anybody would need (insert politically incorrect firearm reference here) for hunting, self defense, ad nauseum.
I'll tell you what we don't need. What we DON'T need is some jagoff speaking about crap he/she willfully knows nothing about. We don't need one 'gunowner' out of 80,000,000 trying to put the rest of us in a neat little box.
One thing he mentioned in his comment to the linked story (which was about the Brady Bunch picketing an open carry meeting, go figure, huh?) was that without a gun, the nutjob in Tuscon wouldn't have been able to kill 6 and wound 20. I got a news flash for him. 19 guys with box cutters took out 3000 10 yrs ago. A whackjob with a Ryder truck, some fertilizer, and some diesel fuel killed 168 in 1995. Nutjobs half a world away are killing that many and more with a rudimentary understanding of chemistry, some nails and ball bearings, and cell phone. Is he really that dense to think that mass killing in this country would magically disappear overnight if we could just get rid of those icky guns?
I got an idea. If you feel the need to post one of them "I'm a gunowner, but..." pieces in you local cat box liner, do us all a favor.
Keep your 'butt' out of it.