Gun Owners Pretend Behaving Like You’re Calling in to WBEN is OK in Real Life

When you get gun owners angry about the coming confiscation and equate it with the holocaust, you get ugly scenes like the one yesterday at the Clarence library. One presenter relates that they were there to show a Powerpoint to educate people about the NY SAFE Act, and instead of taking a few minutes and some questions, they were continually heckled and yelled at; the “meeting” took 3 hours, with people in camouflage taking over the podium at times, claiming that this was about “Nazis” starting a “new holocaust”. 

The “responsible gun owners” aren’t comporting themselves very responsibly.

Gun meeting draws anger in Clarence


  • I disagree with them on the issue, but I don’t see what’s wrong with these people making state officials uncomfortably aware of their disappointment. Activism sometimes means treating your targets rudely.

    • These officials had nothing to do with the decision-making that led to the law. 

      Hey, I’m angry that I’m fat, so I’ll go and call the ice cream man an asshole. 

      • That’s true, Mr. Bedenko, they could have taken up their issues with their legislators during the Q&A period preceding the law’s passage…or not.

      •  @James Hyzy… What Q&A period?  There wasn’t one with respect to this ramrodded piece of legislation.

        @Mr Bedenko… You should call yourself an asshole.  It’s all about personal responsibility. It’s the same as blaming a firearm for the actions of unstable individuals. When we as citizens believe that government infringes on our rights, we have a right to redress our government officials as we see fit; even if they choose to send their lackeys instead of having the balls to show up.  IMO, our representatives who were involved in passing this legislation should have stood in front of their constituents and answered their questions.

        Most of us behaved very similar for other issues we were/are passionate about, the occupy movement, marriage equality, etc.

        • Should I blame the gun, the individual with the gun, or the guy who made a simple mistake for the fact that an honest error in directions led to this person being shot dead?

          • I’m not sure your response does anything other than redirect the issue, but I’ll play along.  Blame anyone you like.  In my mind, you blame Phillip Sailors, the individual with the gun with no understanding (or regard) of the law.  Firing a warning shot is a felony, shooting an unarmed person when you are not in immediate fear for your life is a felony. 

            These situations aren’t new.  People do dumb things with guns, cars, bottles of Jack Daniels, their infected bodily fluids, etc and people wind up dead.   It’s easy to ban inanimate objects – guns, weed, meth, booze, so that’s where politicians tend to focus their efforts.  You may agree that the ‘war on drugs’ or prohibition are/were completely ineffective.  But hey, at least we did something.

            It is my belief that more and more people are refusing to take accountability for themselves because we as a society make it far too easy for them to not have to.

            Ultimately, the commonality around these types of issues is… wait for it… people.  Irrational, emotionally charged people.  Banning guns, drugs or big gulps ain’t gonna fix it.  Neither is someone with an opinion and a web page.

            Back to your initial comments though… people have a right to air their grievances to public officials.  I realize you don’t appreciate their manner, and I do agree that a lot of folks who support the Constitution have recently expressed themselves in a way that makes them look uneducated.  But none of that changes their right to express themselves.

          • I didn’t comment on their right to speak or even their right to behave horribly. I’m merely pointing out that they’re behaving horribly, and for me this is indicative of a very fine line between someone being a “responsible gun owner” and someone maybe not being quite so responsible. 

            I never suggested that I could fix “people”, but I see a lot of conservatives calling for banning video games and talking about mental health, but one involves the 1st amendment and the second involves a public health crisis that would cost billions to properly address. 

            So, both of them are BS.  On the other hand, the kid who shot Gabby Giffords was only subdued when his gun jammed. The kid who shot up the Aurora movie theater was subdued when his gun jammed. Limiting the shooter’s ability to easily commit mass murder through hyper-efficient killing machines may not be THE answer, but it is certainly AN approach. 

          •  Disagree with your suggestion that activism and passion are indicative of anything.  The folks speaking up aren’t the one’s killing people.  They are the responsible ones. 

            What’s worse – 28 people in suburban Connecticut, or 500+ in inner city Chicago?  What’s the real problem here?  That little white kids got shot?  News this morning showed a story about the little girl who sang at Obama’s inauguration got killed by a gun, her other 3 siblings all met the same fate.  Not even a gun store in the city there. But I guess criminals will find a way no matter what.

            PS, semiautomatic rifles aren’t “hyper-efficient killing machines”.  Your statement is broad-based and shows you lack a decent understanding of firearms, which doesn’t mean you can’t continue to speak up about it.  I do suggest, however that you look into the subject more deeply.

          • I think your suggestion of racism is way off. Under every law being proposed right now, the handgun that shot the girl in Chicago would still be legal. 

            If gun owners want to have a conversation about limiting handguns too, I’m totally down for that. But somehow I think you’re just trying to deflect, because the issue at hand right now is mass killings such as Virginia Tech, Aurora, and Sandy Hook. 

            Semi-automatic rifles aren’t hyper-efficient? Then what good are they? What legitimate purpose do they serve anyone if they suck at what they’re supposed to do? Thank you for making the argument for their outright banning. 

          •  OK. My suggestion is way off.  Do some research on people killed with guns. Then tell me what the race percentages are.  Spoiler alert, I’ve already done it…

            PS, your last paragraph doesn’t refute or confirm anything.  I think you should write some articles on some of the horrible things women are doing these days with eyebrow pencils.  Have you seen that shit??

      •  Sure, they didn’t write the law. But they’re there to help sell it to the public. Sometimes administrators, functionaries and other such types serve as stand-in targets when the real decision makers send them out in their place.

  • Many gun owners are very passionate about ther gun rights. Is that so wrong? If our governor was to start shutting down theaters and artists venues and libraries would not the artsts in our society become passionate in wanting their pastimes left alone. A governor with agendas of his own could start a movement of closing artistic venues claiming they cause violence in our society for there is so much violence in our theaters and movies and plays. If at a meeting addressing closing theaters opponents became vocal would you then say they are not acting in their best interests. Passion in what you believe in is what this country is all about. No Laws were broken,

Leave a Reply to Alan Bedenko Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.