Dear Abby disarms Halloween Cowboy

Here’s an odd one for you:

DEAR ABBY: Halloween is around the corner, and my 7-year-old daughter has decided to be a cowgirl. She wants the boots, the hat and the gun.

Is it appropriate to let her have a holster and an obviously toy gun to accessorize her costume for trick-or-treating? She would not be taking that part of her costume to school on Halloween. I live in a part of the country where guns are an important part of our culture, but I am unsure how to proceed. — CONFUSED ABOUT HALLOWEEN IN MONTANA

DEAR CONFUSED: Guns may be an important part of the culture where you live, but how do YOU feel about them? If it’s all right with you, and the weapon your child carries is obviously a toy, then there should be no problem as you take her from house to house collecting her goodies. But there is nothing wrong with a 7-year-old cowgirl not having a gun and holster as part of her costume. If you need verification, have her check out the character Jessie in the movie “Toy Story 2.”

P.S. Having her not take a toy gun to school is wise because many schools have strict policies about weapons — including toy weapons — being brought on campus.
Source: http://www.pottsmerc.com/lifestyle/20141020/halloween-cowgirl-can-leave-her-pistol-at-home

Here’s how I see it, if you can dress as Aladdin and bring the sword, you can dress as a cowboy and bring a toy gun. Zero tolerance be dammed.

No blacks in gun advertising? Not true.

A lot of misinformed ammophobes think gun ownership is exclusively white,

There are pictures of guys with guns, gals with guns, animals with guns, ammo with guns and guns with guns. Curiously absent are pictures of black people with guns, brown people with guns or Asian people with guns. The good guys are white. The bad guys are white. In the Gunworld depicted in these pages, pretty much everyone is white.
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbreslin/2013/08/16/gun-magazines/

If that’s the case, why would this ad appear in Guns & Ammo?

 

rock_island_tactical_II_v2

Why use him on the website? Here’s a screenshot from ShootingDNA.com

 

shooting_DNA_rodney

If we’re gun owners are so racist, why use a black guy in a magazine with mostly white readers?  Because let me tell you, nothing in marketing is accidental, except perhaps a spelling mistake. When it comes to pictures, they’re carefully chosen. Maybe Rock Island Armory wanted to say they support diversity, maybe they liked his picture.

But here’s one great truth, if using black people in ads hurt their sales, they wouldn’t do it. If they’re doing it is because whites are mostly post-racial and blacks are reading gun magazines more than ever before.

 

Required to bear arms? Not really.

Here’s an example of reductio ad absurdum from a gun hater who claims that some gun owners are responsible, and then there’s us:

Then, there are the others — the gun advocates who assert their right to purchase and own guns in order to defend our Second Amendment rights. They argue that the founders of this nation crafted this statement so that the people could defend the Republic against tyranny. They argue that they have not only the right, but the duty to bear arms as a defense against a government that would threaten the core principles of freedom and democracy for which America stands. As Charlton Heston once said, “the right to keep and bear arms is the one right that allows rights to exist at all” and that guards the “sacred flame that lights the American way.”

Let’s assume for a moment that this assertion is true. Wouldn’t it stand to reason, then, that our civilian population should not only have the right to keep and bear arms, but should be required to do so? After all, as citizens, we are required to pay taxes. We are required to abide by laws crafted to keep us safe from criminals. In times of war, we have been required to ration supplies and recycle materials. In this ever-present threat, does not every citizen have the obligation to stand ready to defend our liberty against our own repressive government?
Source

Yes, in times of war we’ve had presidents that have violated the Constitution and brought back slavery (also known as “the draft”), that doesn’t make it right. In fact, a right is not a requirement but a choice.  Free Speech doesn’t mean you have to speak, Freedom of Religion doesn’t mean you have to attend church services. If a cop is interrogating you, you have the right to say “I would like to speak to my attorney” and the cop is supposed to stop interrogating you, unless you waive that right.

A lot of people think rights come with responsibilities, but that’s not so. Crimes come with consequences, if I’m not a responsible gun owner and shoot my weapon while cleaning my gun, and the round ends up hitting a neighbor, I go to jail. However, my right to bear arms doesn’t die because I made a mistake, I’m no different than a writer who writes a bad book, bad books may be boring, but writers have the right to write them. They don’t have the right to publish them, although with self-publishing on Amazon pretty much anyone can be a writer.

If that is the case, then defenders of the Second Amendment should not only oppose restrictions to gun purchases and ownership (as they do already), but they should be advocating for a fully armed citizenry. By the age of 12, every budding young adult should have passed mandatory gun training and be issued a weapon so that they can stand united to defend the ramparts of our nation against the evils of communism, of creeping socialism, and the over-reaching arms of an out-of-control government in Washington, D.C. Just as we provide food stamps to the hungry and inexpensive housing to the poor, our nation should be committed to arming every citizen so they can adequately defend America.

Unlike liberals, we’re not slave-masters. We don’t demand everyone live like us, we’re not the anti-GMO radicals or the wage war against obesity nuts. If my mother thinks gun ownership is shooting a rifle in summer camp when she was 12 and never again, that’s her right. I’m not going to kidnap my parents and force them to do what I do.  Furthermore, destroying freedom to defend America is counterproductive.  You do not destroy Capitalism to save it, and you don’t get rid of freedom to preserve it.

“…how can you defend your right to keep and bear arms without also guaranteeing that every citizen have the right and the unabridged ability to stand by your side in defense of the United States? Every person on your block should have the capacity, regardless of their financial means, to guard the barricades of your street by your side. If you only defend your own right to keep and bear arms, and use the Second Amendment merely to justify your own personal desires, then you not only ensure the victory of  totalitarianism, but you violate the sanctity of the vision of our founders.”

Do we guarantee the right of every citizen to have Cable TV, a church to go to, the books he likes? And before you say “public library,” realize those places only have the books librarians like. Patriots aren’t interested in creating more moochers. Besides, if someone can’t afford a gun there’s the Armed Citizen Project to provide them with one, there are also gun for sale, some used guns aren’t that expensive. It’s a question of priorities, we let people choose between going on vacation, getting a tattoo, or getting a gun. We also fight laws that make gun more expensive, such as “Saturday Night Special” laws.

So to all the anti-gun nuts out there, if you don’t want a gun, don’t buy one. Simple as that.

 

 

 

 

Predator Pancake: Worst Name for a Holster

What would you call a holster? Because “Predator Pancake” doesn’t seem like a good name to me.

 

Predator_Pancake_holster

Yup, it’s a real ad published on “Guns & Ammo.”

 

Preadator Pancake? Really? What’s next? Predator & Chittlins? Predator & Stalker? The libs are gonna have a field day with this one. No offense, WrightLeatherWorks.com, but why do their job for them?