No, I Am NOT Surprised.- More "Guns for Me But Not For Thee"

Joel Rosenberg is on top of it again . (h/t to Instapundit)

Seems the gun control crowd just can't seem to understand that to be ideologically consistent, they themselves shouldn't possess guns. At especially not illegally modified ones. And they certainly shouldn't carry out vigilante attacks with guns:

Well, we had Million Mom March organizer, spokeswoman and activist Barbara Graham gunning down a man in an attempt to avenge the murder of her son (she shot the wrong guy, and crippled him). And then we had antigun activist Annette "Flirty" Stevens keeping an unlicensed handgun, with the serial (number) filed off, in her home -- along with some narcotics.

And now we've got antigun activist Sheila Eccleston calling the police about a burglary next door, and encouraging them to make it quick because she had a sawed-off shotgun in her home, one that she admits had been there for six months.

I think some of these folks are unclear on a lot of concepts.

Ayup. That they are.

Of course she was just "waiting to hand it in," she says.

For six months. Awaiting a gun turn-in amnesty, she says.

I wonder how long she'd have continued to wait?

Speaking of hypocrisy, there's also Diane Feinstein, who has (or at least had) a CCW - one of damned few issued to a resident of San Francisco. And Carl Rowan, gun control activist and newspaper columnist who shot a kid who had jumped his fence and used his pool, and who defended his actions by arguing that "he had the right to use whatever means necessary to protect himself and his family." He did, but apparently nobody else does? This is the same Carl Rowan who is quoted as saying:

There aren't any embarrassing questions -- only embarrassing answers.

I guess he would know.

Hoist on their own petard, so to speak.