Bullet Counter Point Shoots Itself in the Foot. Again. Still.

I love it when gun control bloggers write about supposed “gun rights extremists.” More often than not, they completely miss the fact that the repeated rhetoric seems perfectly sensible to anyone but them. To wit: “In Connecticut, Republican-endorsed candidate Martha Dean is running for attorney general on a platform that threatens the rule of law,” csgv2.blogspot.com reports. “At a ‘Second Amendment March’ organized by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, she exclaimed . . .

If government is legitimate and truly is the voice of the people, it need never fear the people themselves when they’re armed. Only a government that uses secrecy and force to impose improper laws [to] which the people do not consent need fear the wrath of its law-abiding citizens at the ballot box or, ultimately, with arms . . .

Our right of free speech and to back it up with arms if necessary if our government becomes tyrannical and unjust as King George’s was to the colonists are the most essential of the rights we as Americans have.

“But Dean didn’t stop there” the Bullet Counter Point blogger warns. “She then advocated that private citizens have access to the same firearms as our military.”

I will oppose all efforts to create nonsensical distinctions that are nowhere supported by our constitutions between different types of firearms. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government gets the effective firearms and the people the ineffective ones. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that the government gets the modern firearms and the citizens only get the antiquated ones.

You want unintentional irony? You GOT unintentional irony! After chronicling the “extremist” gun rights views and linking them to domestic terrorism, the blogger fails to recognize his own face in the mirror.

It remains to be seen whether the national GOP leadership will summon the courage to speak out forcefully against such insurrectionist shows of force by Tea Party candidates that have adopted its standard. As one commentator recently noted, “A party that is intimidated and silent in the face of its extremes is eventually defined by them.”