David Koon was one of the biggest antis in the legislature, sponsoring or co-sponsoring the worst of the gun control bills in the Assembly. Fortunately, he imploded and lost his bid for re-election last month. Now comes word that he’s been charged with harassment:
“Assemblyman David Koon has been charged with second-degree harassment, a violation, in connection with a pre-Election Day incident … Koon’s charge is related to an Oct. 29 confrontation over the placement of campaign signs. Ken Gullo of Perinton was putting up signs for Republican Carl Paladino, and Koon said he objected to their placement, saying they were in the right-of-way … Gullo’s attorney, Anjan Ganguly, said Gullo felt threatened during the incident. “Mr. Koon seemed to have a real problem with Mr. Gullo placing those signs where they were being placed,” Ganguly said …”
First Adam Bradley, now David Koon. Why are the antis so violent?
Maybe the correct question is “Why are the violent so anti-gun?”
Why are the antis so violent? Possibly a case of projection. I don’t trust myself – so I trust no one else with their emotions. Or maybe they are just jags.
The author Robert Heinlein noted that, “An armed society is a polite society.” Having yo-yoed between rural Texas and major northeastern urban cores, I think that is correct.
People in the urban Northeast are notoriously rude and needlessly provocative. They are very quick to fly off the handle when frustrated in the least. I can’t image that such behavior would survive long in rural Texas where everyone needs to keep weapons close at hand most of the time and you have to presume that everyone is armed.
Of course there are other factors in the cultural differences but I do think that keeping and carrying firearms forces one to grow up moderate one’s behavior. When you carry the power to kill someone, you quickly learn to keep a cool head and to not provoke people because any escalating conflict could end in a death.
I believe Chris has it right. Projection. One only has to disagree with a liberal to watch them lose control. They think everyone is that way.
Chris may be right. I met a Canadian who said that very thing. He opposed gun ownership because he didn’t trust himself.
But what is a “jag”?
You want to read a good novel of what may happen if we get disarmed, read a book called A Distant Crossing. Seems right on for what’s happening today.
Have to disagree.
It’s been my experience, when questioning (not confrontational) someone that is anti-gun to explain their position (and I counter it, again as not confrontational) they assume a “my way or the highway” type of attitude.
That’s no way to win friends and influence people.
All you neanderthal RWE’s just don’t understand. Gun control may be the acid test of liberalism, but it’s just one of many issues where we ordinary people really need the smart folks in the government to take care of us:-) It’s quite understandable that they get upset when we aren’t properly grateful for their hard work. Just look at the great job they have done in the last couple years, fixing the trouble that came from the housing bubble and excessive borrowing, by borrowing more money and dumping it right into current consumption instead of investment. I just can’t wait to see the great things they will do for us in the future:-)
now the REST OF THE STORY…this was a political POWER PLAY/STUNT on the part of the republican election-day worker…ask about the complainant’s son who allegedly carried a loaded weapon on an ambulance call if you want to see real violence…the complainant is misusing the criminal justice system to HARASS the democratic opposition…’nough said