Human silhouette target ban bill shows absurd dangers of anti-gun ‘solutions

 


A Pennsylvania “lawmaker” has once more demonstrated why mentally-challenged “progressives” (but I repeat myself) should never be trusted with power and responsibility. Representative Thaddeus Kirkland, a Democrat, naturally, plans on introducing a bill that “prohibits the use of human silhouette targets at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth...”
Naturally, he plans to include an exception for the “Only Ones.” Whether he intends to also mandate targets they use be accompanied with the words “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot!” is left unstated.
“Rather than perpetuate violence by continuing to allow individuals to practice their target shooting by shooting at human silhouette targets at shooting ranges, my legislation will prohibit the use of targets that depict human silhouettes at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth,” Kirkland declares, as if using the word "shooting" four times in one sentence justifies subjecting everybody else to his heavy-handed foolishness. “Instead, silhouette targets could include, but are not limited to the following: white-tailed deer, black bear, wild turkey, and elk.”
We’ll just see what PETA has to say about that. Setting collectivist stooges on each other can be great fun to watch. And as an aside, Kirkland's presuming to "allow" implies there's an "obey me or be destroyed" mandate he's willing to have armed enforcers kill citizens over.
We'll have to see about that, too.
It’s probably lost on Kirkland that the people in the section of Delco he represents who are doing the lion’s share of the “gun crime,” including missing their targets and hitting someone else, are no doubt overwhelmingly “prohibited persons” and unlikely to be spending time at ranges. The bottom line is, this will hamper the effective self-defense training of good people, and interfering with that actually makes things more dangerous for everyone. Not that “progressives” blathering about “gun safety” and achieving Opposite Day results should surprise anyone who is, you know, rational...
Still, why stop at silhouettes? What about targets that actually show figures of people? What about popular “zombie” targets? They’re not human any more, are they? Fortunately, for Kirkland’s esteemed "peace officers," they’ll still be able to blow away “No More Hesitation” models of “white-privileged” pregnant women and kids, at least while their already-purchased supplies last. And I guess as long as we’re exploring the absurd, another ridiculous question or two is in order: Could I have a silhouette target of someone who looks human, but isn't? For some reason Star Trek’s android Data comes to mind...
Still, the stupidity isn't limited to Kirkland. Come on – it’s not like compulsive gun-grabbers are known for originality (just like the “Authorized Journalists” who make sure everyone has the latest talking points to parrot).
“Pennsylvania is not the first state to consider a ban on human-shaped targets,” Outdoor Hub reports. “Massachusetts has already banned the use of any shooting targets in licensed gun ranges “that depict human figures, human effigies, human silhouettes or any human images thereof, except by public safety personnel performing in line with their official duties.’”
Massachusetts. It’s OK for cops to train to shoot back at bad guys, but you, not so much. Well that just figures, doesn't it Gomer?
Trying to trace back legislative origins is a daunting task for anyone unfamiliar with the Acts and Resolves library system the state uses (guilty!), but the prohibiting language, applying to licensed “clubs,” appears in “An Act Relative to Gun Control in the Commonwealth” from 1998, back when “Republican” Paul Cellucci ruled the roost. Whether the language was a holdover from earlier legislation is unknown, but that it survived his and Mitt Romney’s tenures as governor without apparent objection shows it’s unfair blaming it all on Democrats.
Can you imagine being one of the privileged, exempted “law enforcers,” and being willing to escalate things through the entire continuum of force against someone who could appropriately argue (in spite of what totalitarians would claim) that his supposedly guaranteed freedom of expression was being violated?
It would be interesting to see this challenged, and see how a “compelling state interest,” generally required under strict scrutiny for First Amendment cases, would be backed up. Which qualified trainers and certified programs teach that everyone is safer when targets used in self-defense training are limited to concentric circles and to pictures of game animals under force of law? And just what qualifications do ignorant, anti-gun bigots have to impose their ignorance on others, including on people whose advanced classrooms they couldn't even safely participate in, let alone understand core concepts being taught, without first mastering prerequisite basic and intermediate skills?
It’s also interesting seeing how far some, living in places from which the demand for liberty arose, have repudiated freedom won for them by worthier men, and demanded shackles in its place. Sadly, it's just not surprising to those who have noted them ceding their -- and our -- birthright to turkeys. Literally and figuratively.

http://www.examiner.com/article/human-silhouette-target-ban-bill-shows-absurd-dangers-of-anti-gun-solutions?CID=examiner_alerts_article