Can’t believe I forgot all about this. Since I’m too busy to blog, here is more amazing beliefs about guns from author Michael Z. Williamson:

AMAZING BELIEFS PART 3
Part 1
Part 2

That handguns are useful only for murder, which is why the police and military define them as defensive weapons.
That neighbors who carry guns against the occasional lunatic are paranoid, because of the perfectly justifiable fear that every single one of them is waiting to turn into a lunatic.
That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population used to support owning slaves.
That one should ignore as idiots politicians who confuse Wicca with Satanism and exaggerate the gay community as a threat to society, but listen sagely to politicians who can refer to a self-loading small arm as a “weapon of mass destruction” and an “assault weapon,” use the term “bullet casing,” don’t know the difference between a “clip” and a “magazine,” and can’t tell the difference between an AKM, an MAK-90, and an SKS.
That there is no absolute right to a weapon, documented historically because the British government used to prohibit Catholics from owning guns. And that wasn’t a sign of religious bigotry. (Note: the British Constitution actually RESTORED to Protestants the right to own arms, which Catholic James II denied them)
That rifles with pistol grips are assault weapons, just like vehicles with racing stripes are sports cars.
That you don’t need a gun against invaders, because the government will know in plenty of time to issue you whatever weapons you need.
That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has machinegun-toting guards.
That most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.
That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
That Cary Nation, referring to wine and beer as “Demon Rum” and “Spirits” was an obvious kook, but Sarah Brady, and Diane Whinesteen referring to self-loading sporting rifles as “Military Assault Weapons” and “Weapons of Mass Destruction” are intellectuals.
That the “Right to keep and bear arms” refers to armorial badges and coats of arms, not to weapons. (Potomac-inc.org)
That guns should be banned because of the danger involved to the public, but live reporting from the battlefield, which can keep the enemy informed of troop deployments, getting thousands of troops killed and perhaps losing a war, is a protected act that CANNOT be compromised on.
That the right of explicit teenage pornographic websites to exist cannot be questioned because it is a constitutionally protected extension of the Bill of Rights, but the claim that handguns are for self-defense is merely an excuse, and not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, but the NRA is bad because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
That a house with a gun is three times as likely to have a murder, just like a house with insulin is three times as likely to have a diabetic.
That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals alone, and therefore need less ammunition.
That we must ban the sale of guns through classified ads in newspapers, in case a terrorist sees the ad, flies halfway around the world, buys the gun and uses it to commit an act of terror, rather than using one of the millions of weapons left behind by “responsible” governments after their colonial excesses.
That calling 911 and asking them to send a man with a gun to protect you is good, but cutting out the middleman by protecting yourself is bad.
That people who own guns out of a fear of crime are paranoid, but people who don’t want other people to own guns in case it causes them to commit crimes are rational.
That guns cause the high suicide rate in the US, even though Japan’s rate is almost three times higher.
That we should ban gun stores near schools, because of all the 10 year olds who are buying guns without parents’ permission.
That there is a statue called “Armed Freedom” in the Capitol, but that that is irrelevant to the intent of our ancestors.
That we should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we issue cops guns instead of beer.
That police and soldiers are the dregs of society who were unfit to get any real job, which perfectly qualifies them with the high moral standards and keen intellects to handle these complicated tools and be our guardians.
That it’s acceptable to arm a courier at $6 an hour to shoot criminals for stealing bank deposits, but unacceptable for a college-educated business owner to do it himself.
That a registration plan will reduce crime, because criminals will register their guns despite the Supreme Court decision Haynes v. U.S. (309 U.S. 85, 1968) that registration violates self-incrimination.
That it’s reasonable to require proof of a criminal act before an order of protection can be issued, but reasonable to assume anyone with a gun will commit a criminal act, so they should be subject to prior restraint.
That teaching abstinence exclusively rather than use of condoms is doomed to fail, but encouraging absolute bans on guns rather than education in safe use is the only acceptable method of reducing crime.
That it is outrageous that civilians have rifles that were designed for the military for their own self defense, but perfectly okay to have polluting, potentially unstable, heavy vehicles that were designed for the military simply as status symbols.
That guns are the gravest threat to society because 83,000,000 gun owners didn’t commit a crime yesterday.
That it is essential to incorporate locks and sensors into guns to make them safer and that only a criminal would not support this, but cops and federal agents would be exempt for safety reasons because locks are unreliable and hinder access.
That a bank guard can protect money with a gun, but you cannot protect your children with one.
That all gun dealers sell illegal weapons, just like all black people sell drugs.
That crime is higher in urban areas with less guns, and we must continue to disarm the minorities in these areas because of the risk of crime, and that isn’t bigotry.
That an underpaid, overworked bodyguard should be glad to throw himself in front of a bullet for you.
That your safety is someone else’s responsibility, but they have no right to tell you how to live your life.
That guns are useless against tyranny, because an armed populace of 160 million cannot defeat an army of 2 million mixed in among it. Oddly, the person claiming this has no credentials in strategic operations.
That if the above is true, we should not be terrified of the concept of that government holding control of our lives and freedom at its whim.
That the piecemeal destruction of the right to keep and bear arms makes the right useless, and therefore justifies destroying it further.
That one should be more afraid of one’s spouse blowing a gasket and shooting the children, than of those children being run over by a hormone-driven teenager in a car.
“It can’t happen here.”
That people are too stupid to handle guns, but are intelligent enough to vote.
That guns are not an effective means of self-defense, which is why police carry them.
That one can “study” the “gun issue,” but not know the difference between an assault rifle and a battle rifle.
That the NRA, with over 4 million members, is “out of touch” with America, and HCI, with 50 thousand members, is a “mandate from the people.”
That a baseball bat is good protection against a burglar, provided his gun fires baseballs.
That to judge a group by secondhand news and hearsay is bigotry, unless that group is the NRA.
That the National Defense Act of 1916 doesn’t exist.
That pricing products out of the reach of poor people through excessive regulation is discriminatory practice, unless that product is a gun.
That manufacturers are not responsible for damages caused by their products, unless that product is a gun.
That trigger locks and other devices make guns safer, which is why the police and military refuse to use them.
That registration of guns will help law enforcement, because that way they won’t need probable cause and a warrant to conduct a search.
That registration of guns, which makes their existence a matter of public knowledge under the FOIA, isn’t dangerous to owners.
That registration of guns, in violation of the McClure-Volkmer Act, and as declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is somehow still legal.
That the gun-toting rednecks at Saratoga and Yorktown caused the Revolution, and the British forces were intent on providing peace to North America.
That private citizens making private sales of private property is a “loophole.”
That the existence of weapons not banned by previous laws is a “loophole.”
That making it harder to get a license to sell firearms legally will reduce the number of people selling illegally.
That it’s safer to do nothing than resist with a gun, which is why the military wins so many wars by not fighting.
That we must close shooting ranges because of the noise, but ban silencers because they are quiet.
That owning a gun for self-defense indicates an intent to kill, just like owning a first aid kit indicates an intent to impersonate a physician.
That guns are an “epidemic” even though we can’t treat them with penicillin.
That there’s no right to own military weapons, which is why the Civilian Marksmanship Program at http://www.odcmp.com exists to sell military weapons to civilians under Congressional authority.
That suggesting teachers be armed is an outrageous suggestion for a “civilized” society, which is why the Swiss and Israelis do it.
That making it harder and harder for even cops to have guns on school property will somehow make it harder for lunatics to kill the utterly helpless students.
That accidents with a product justify banning the product, even though MADD has never called for a ban on alcohol, people actively push to legalize drugs, and no one wants to ban swimming pools, so basically it’s only practical items like guns we should ban and not the luxury items that are essential to human survival.
That a high percentage of immigrants own guns as an overreaction to the living conditions in their nations of origin, but the US should try to emulate those nations’ gun control and social policies.
That the 14th Amendment requires states to accept each other’s drivers licenses, even with age or vision requirement differences, marriage licenses even with age or relationship differences or if it’s a gay marriage, but somehow doesn’t apply to licenses to carry weapons.
That the same people who build illegal high-tech drug labs for less than $30,000 won’t build illegal low-tech gun shops for less than $10,000.
That people with large gun collections are dangerous, especially if they have more than two hands to shoot with.

(c) 2005 by Michael Z. Williamson. Permission is granted to copy for
non-profit use as long as proper credit is given. Please contact the
author when you do, through www.MichaelZWilliamson.com. It is prefereed
that this (c) notice be attached. For online fora that will reject
copyrighted works, please note the source in text.