THE CONFESSIONS OF A REGULAR NUT
What I’ve Learned from Gun Nuts
I've learned a lot from the gun nuts, but here's one thing they can learn from me.
By Bill Schneider, 11-13-08
 |
|
 | |
| Caption: Photo courtesy of Gun Owners of America. | |
|
I’m not a gun nut. I’m a regular nut who owns guns, but only to hunt, not to defend my home and family, join the militia or fight the forces of tyranny.
Gun nuts don’t scare or intimidate me. Instead, I’m learning a few things from them. You can, too.
I don’t use the word, “nut,” lightly. I mean it as a sincere compliment--no different than somebody calling me a “fishing nut” and making my chest swell. (It might even the best thing I’ve been called lately.)
To me, a nut is a devotee, enthusiast, purist, the top dog in a cultural niche, a person with the level of passion most of us only see in our dreams and imagination. So, readers with guns, especially those with black ones, please do not be offended by what follows. Instead, just keep polishing your M4 and SIG P210, read on, and be proud.
Even though gun nuts--or “Bitter Clingers” as they now call themselves--have recently called me a “traitor” and “useful idiot,” I’ve always been a pro-gun guy. Now, after listening to the gun nuts, I’m even more pro-gun, but I’m sure, still not pro-gun enough.
I’ve owned guns for more than a half-century, going waaaay back to the days when I prowled around in shelterbelts with my single-shot .22 stalking cottontails, plinking gophers for the $0.03/tail bounty, and taking my bolt-action 16-guage to school with me so I could shoot pheasants on my walk home.
I consider my right to bear arms one of my basic freedoms, but not the only one, so buckle up, gun nuts. I happen to think other amendments to our constitution such as Number 1 (freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition), 13 (abolishing slavery), 14 (equal protection under the law), 19 and 26 (right to vote for women and all citizens over 18) and others might actually be more important than Number 2.
Shoot, I wonder if the gun nuts have asked themselves this question. Would the Second Amendment even pass today?
I’ve learned that gun nuts are scared, and I am, too, but for a different reason. They’re terrified about our new president sending out a flock of black helicopters to confiscate their guns--or at least make it harder to buy them. That doesn’t scare me in the slightest, but I am terrified about the corporate greed that has assassinated our economy, the health care crisis, those trillions of federal deficit, a rapidly widening income gap, and escalating poverty and homelessness sweeping our country as we squander billions overseas to fight unwanted, unwinnable wars or for “aid” to countries that consider us the Great Satan.
That’s not all that scares me. I could go on, but the point is. Losing some of my gun rights doesn’t make my top twenty concerns. If that makes me a “traitor,” well, we have a pandemic of treason in this country.
Even after enduring the name-calling, I admire the dedication of gun nuts. Guns, guns, guns--that’s all that matters to these people. They’ve closed their minds to compromise. To them, there’s no such thing as a common sense gun law. Because of their single-mindedness, they get it done. Ask any politician who has proposed a “reasonable gun law.”
Every cause-carrier could learn from gun nuts. So successful have they been, in fact, that, legally and politically, I think they’ve already won the gun rights war, nationally and here in the West, but perhaps not yet in major municipalities.
The hundreds of pearls gun nuts have deposited in the comment sections of my columns have convinced me that we don’t need any more gun laws, common sense or otherwise, such as the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban. This would only trigger more political divisiveness and wouldn’t work anyway. It never did work because I’ve learned there’s no way, in legalese, to define, design-wise or ballistically, an “assault weapon,” nor would the law keep these firearms out of the wrong hands.
I’ve also learned that we have somewhere north of 200 million guns in this country. Nothing will ever change that fact, so, hello, anti-gun politicians. All the horses have left the barn. Forget guns and work something we need like immigration reform or increasing the minimum wage or putting a cork in our World Cop Complex or recapturing the billions looted from retirement accounts by hedge fund managers, unscrupulous CEOs and naked short sellers.
Even though I think gun nuts deserve our respect, I don’t always respect their tactics. Witness the recent Cooper Firearms fiasco. The gun nuts went on a mission to crucify Dan Cooper and destroy his company for expressing his support for Barrack Obama. In their words, they “Zumboed him.”
Do such mean-spirited attacks further the cause of gun rightists? I doubt it. Instead, it soils the image of all gun owners and helps anti-gunners recruit the undecided.
I totally agree with our right to spend our money where we choose. Perhaps it should be the Twenty-eighth Amendment--the right to speak and vote with your pocketbook. But gun nuts have no right to destroy a person’s career and an entire company of innocent people because of one person’s political views. This is America, land of the free and the brave, where we don’t persecute people for their beliefs.
Many of us find bullying and boycotting distasteful, but like negative campaign ads, how can you argue with success? Nobody condones it, but anybody who has been on the wrong end of bullying at recess, like I have been, knows bullying works. That is the problem, isn’t it?
Gun nuts have also taught me how deep paranoia can go. It’s so overpowering at times that I wonder if some gun nuts have bumper stickers saying, “HELP, THE PARANOIDS ARE AFTER ME.” In fact, I’m sure that regardless of how sincere I try to be in this commentary, gun nuts will label it as some type of sacrilegious satire or gun-grabber’s plot. Despite the fear mongering I read in the comment sections and gun blogs, I believe President Obama is smart enough to keep his party from being again swept out of power because of the gun issue.
In fact, I suspect gun nuts aren’t even scared of our new president. They’re scared that the voice of reason might become popular.
As for our president-elect, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group for the firearms manufacturers, should put a statue of Barrack Obama in front of its headquarters back in Connecticut because he has sold more guns than anybody in recent history. Even while repeatedly denying he had any gun control agenda, he caused a major economic stimulus in the firearms industry. Just think what would happen to gun sales if he actually favored gun control.
After reading the ramblings of gun nuts, I’m learned to be okay with black guns and oppose more regulation of them, but I agree with fellow outdoor writer Jim Zumbo that these military-style rifles taint the image of the hunter when used for hunting. But viola, the gun nuts have also taught me that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. Somehow, we need to separate the two issues, guns and hunting, which continues to my main criticism of the National Rifle Association (NRA). America’s most powerful lobby should stick to protecting our gun rights and not pretend to represent hunters.
I’m sure 99 percent of gun nuts belong to the NRA, but the group itself is too big and slow and politically gun shy to rush to the front line when a Dan Cooper or Jim Zumbo breaks ranks and needs to be quickly slapped down. Gun nuts can orchestrate an instant outing over the weekend while the NRA bosses occupy the golf courses. Gun nuts don’t wear the NRA flag into battle.
I’ve learned that most gun owners aren’t hunters and some have nothing but scorn for hunters because we’re soft and care about other amendments. So, they mock us, calling us Elmer Fudds. But the hunter’s revenge is the Pitman-Robinson Act, which mandates excise taxes historically paid mostly by hunters, but now mostly paid by gun owners who never hunt or even loathe hunters as turncoats. Back at you, buddy.
And then, we have the Great Enabler of the Gun Nut, otherwise known as the Internet. Cyberspace has given gun nuts superpowers, and they use it more effectively than any other interest group. Trying to save wilderness, historic buildings, or orphaned pets? Break up the two-party system? Spike the Electoral College? Study the cyber-tactics of gun nuts for a key to success.
Regrettably, one of these tactics is anonymity. It gives gun nuts the freedom to say things they’d never say using their real names. I say ignore anything said by snipers with non de plumes. They have something to hide.
One thing I haven’t learned--but I’m frantic to know--is how many gun nuts there are. Conservatively, America has around 80 million gun owners. How many are nuts? And how many nuts does it take?
I suspect we’d be surprised how few gun nuts it takes to do the job they’re doing for all gun owners. Not many people have the energy and demeanor to make dozens of calls and send a hundred emails when something like Jim Zumbo’s blog gaffe pops up on Friday afternoon. Based on the level of dedication I’ve observed, I wouldn’t be surprised if a single gun nut with a lot of guns and cowboy hats and multiple Internet names and email addresses could surround a whole wagon train all by himself.
In conclusion, I’ve learned a lot from the gun nuts, but here’s one thing they can learn from me. Don’t alienate the majority of gun owners. Don’t automatically dismiss gun owners with sincere suggestions because they don’t perfectly match your doctrine. Don’t instantly shoot this commentary full of freedom holes, which I’m sure you can do, at least until you think about it. Have you just read a mainstream strategy for growing the constituency willing to help you protect our right to bear arms?
Footnote: For more of my articles on guns and the NRA, click here.
[End of article]I keep seeing a common and perplexing theme muttered by pro-Obama firearm owners. That is, that it is somehow acceptable to give up "some" gun rights in exchange for all the "improvements" that Obama is promising.
Sorry, I don't get the connnection.
Also, I don't understand your subordinating the 2nd Amendment to the others. All amendments - the bill of rights and those that followed - share equal importance. Demands for adherance to one amendment are not mutally exclusive for demands to adhere to another.
Maybe you would like to "reward" Obama for "changing America" by surrendering your 2nd Amendment rights, but I do not care to. If that makes me a "nut" in your book, fine.
I am a gun nut.
You lost me when you started bragging about killing blackbirds just for the fun of watching them die. Harming animals for fun is a major predictor of sociopaths. You should seek professional help. Your parents should have done so when this pattern first emerged.
Comment By Pete, 11-14-08Yes, unless there is some agricultural purpose for culling blackbirds, just using them as plinking fodder is unethical hunting. Frankly, you give gun owners a bad name.
Comment By Gregory Morris, 11-14-08Actually, the bloggers who were the biggest critics of Cooper author blogs under real names. One of the loudest, Sebastian, consistently preaches that "Fudds" and "Gun Nuts" need to work together in order to maintain our freedoms. He didn't attack Cooper because he thought the man is anti-gun. He attacked him because all his blabbering to the media accomplished was to give anti-gun ammunition to those who actually would attack our rights. No reasonable gun owner would feel good about depriving a great riflesmith like Mr. Cooper of his hard-earned company. However, it isn't too much to ask that he keep his donation and political rhetoric separate from his company.
The constant bickering between the "shall not be infringed" absolutists and the guy who just keeps a shotgun in his closet for turkey season has been more detrimental to the political power of the gun rights movement than any nonsense perpetrated by the Brady Campaign. I think most "gun nuts" are reasonable people who are willing to compromise when appropriate. You hear wailing and gnashing of teeth over seemingly minor infringements because they are never compromises. We never get anything in return for surrendering our rights.
I think it is unfair to paint us "gun nuts" as paranoid people who fear Obama's black helicopters. Most of us just want to be left alone. We are very vocal in supporting our rights for a reason... when we stop being vocal, things get worse. When we keep the pressure on, things get better. Even the inflated rhetoric you see plastered across the internet has a purpose in that fight, even if it does give you the impression that we are all "extremists". You'll find that most of it is preaching directed at the choir.
"Compromise" carries the requirement of movement for both parties. Since 1968, all the movement has been to take away gun rights. "Compromise" for gun control folks means that we give up some rights, and they don't take away all the rights they want to abolish.
With 20,000 gun control laws on the books, and not a single one ever having been shown to reduce crime, a more worthwhile compromise is to repeal only half the gun control laws, rather than repealing all of them. A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control said they could find no evidence of any gun law which had reduced crime. A "commensense" move would be to repeal all the gun control laws, but in the spirit of being "reasonable" I'm willing to compromise at repealing only half of them. At this time.
I would just like to mention that many of the letters we now know as "The Federalists Papers" were submitted anonymously or under a "nom de plume". So that certainly is not a new factor in political debate, nor is it necessarily bad for the debate.
And while I am on the subject of the founding fathers, please allow me to mention Benjamin Franklin's comment that "we must hang together or we will surely hang separately." The "brown gun" fans and the "black gun" fans and the handgun fans and the bench rest gun fans all need to remember that whether Obama keeps his campaign pledges to let us keep our guns or not, Sen. Diane Feinstein still wants them all. And she is not the only one. While Obama may not be pushing an anti-gun agenda, I certainly cannot imagine him vetoing an anti-gun bill sent to him by the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer.
"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." - Diane Feinstein on 60 Minutes discussing her position on guns
"Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation."
-Charles Krauthammer, columnist, Washington Post, April 5, 1996
We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true!... We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We're going to beat guns into submission!-- Rep. Charles Schumer on NBC Nightly News Nov. 30, 1993.
Keep voting for and electing Republicans and you won't have to worry about your 2nd Amendment Rights because you won be able to afford a gun or ammunition.
Comment By Tom Gresham, 11-14-08From the Obama Transition Team web site:
http://tinyurl.com/5gznwl
As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.
(1. Make it easy for cities to sue gun makers.
2. Ban a large segment of the most popular guns being made and sold.
3. End gun shows (there is no "loophole" for gun shows -- all laws outside of a gun show apply inside a gun show.)
http://tinyurl.com/5f8s4n
Bill,
We KNOW the 2A wouldn't pass today. Thats why we fight so hard to protect it now.
We've "won" the gun-rights war? Don't you know Obamas' "office of the president-elect" website trumpets his desire to make the "expired assault weapons ban" PERMANENT (not the expiration part - the BAN part).
Although I could go on I'll only add this-
Bill, YOU need us "gun-nuts" as much, OR MORE, than we need you. Yes, we need for there to be 200 million gun-owners, a few million "nuts" can make sure you 200m keep your rights to own a gun. But, you 200m won't fight to keep ALL of our guns. You're too willing to give up the guns you don't like, like EBR's (evil black rifles), .50 guns, "saturday-night specials", or "assault weapons".
If it wasn't for us nuts there probably wouldn't be a 2A today. Remember Bill, or did you ever know, that Feinstein said on national TV that if she had the votes she'd tell America to turn them ALL in.
You better be scared of Obama. He feels the same way. And any gun owner who thinks Obama wouldn't ban ANY gun that gun owner owns given the chance (and I think Pelosi and Reid are going to give him that chance) is STUPID.
Your guns may be the last to go, but if you don't SUPPORT us "nuts" they will go too.
Actually, Tom. You made a good point I should have added to this commentary. I said I don't support any more gun laws, but I should have said I also support taking a lot of our current gun laws off the books.....Bill
Comment By Jungle Work, 11-14-08Bill is just another self righteous Fudd who doesn't have a clue about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. Maybe he will wake up when they come for his "Deadly Sniper Rifle" or his "Semi Auto Assault Shotgun", but I doubt it.
I have no inclination to argue those who do not have the guts to protect this Nation, it's Constitution, Way of life of Freedom and Liberty. To me they are Sheeple who will be sheared by the Government. Sad, truly Sad.........
Jungle Work
To reduce the confusion, perhaps one could refer to NRA members as rightwingcrazygunnuts--remembering the now Alzheimeric Charleton Heston as a case in point..?
Comment By gunnut.223, 11-14-08"I’m not a gun nut. I’m a regular nut who owns guns, but only to hunt, not to defend my home and family, join the militia or fight the forces of tyranny. "
What do you defend your family with? Do you have a cop that's parked outside your house 24-7? Perhaps you will use your quick wit to reason with an attacker.
Gun nuts. Magnum mouths with pea shooter brains! They make ALL gun owners look bad. Obama was right. In a terribly complicated world, they retreat to their rooms and fondle their guns, as if they were gonna shoot their way outta trouble. Sorry, boys, but Mulely Graves didn't make it! (Oops. I forgot that they're illiterate too.)
Comment By jonesy, 11-14-08I, personally am glad there are gun nuts. You need passionate people behind certain causes or they lose ground to moderation and compromise. As for the amendmants to the constitution its thinking like yours Bill that gets us into trouble. The amendmants should all share equal importance. Its when people decide to pick and choose which amendment carries weight, that the Consitution as a whole is weakened. The reason gun nuts exist is because the 2nd Amendment is the one under constant attack from the left. We as Americans should not have to give up ANY freedoms based on how the economy or any other part of our country is doing. Those freedoms are all we have when everything else fails and we are on hard times.
Another point Bill: If you value your 1st Amendment rights, get ready to compromise some more for the economy. Obama supports the Fairness Doctrine. This basically says that TV and radio programs *must* give equal time for both points of view to any argument. While I don't mind getting the liberal and conservative point of view in some instances, sometimes I want to only hear what interests me. If I was a station owner, having the GOV tell me that I have to spend time and money on comments I don't agree with would get me red-arsed in a hurry. As a preface to this in the extreme, note that Obama tried to take legal action against stations for airing the NRA ads against him during the campaign. Regardless of your feelings towards the NRA, they do get a say under the 1st Amendment too. It will be interesting to see the new administration in action with regards to our rights.
Wow! Talk about illiterate. That should be Muley Graves! Drink coffee before writing.
Comment By fsilber, 11-14-08The Dan Cooper thing mystifies me a bit. I read a couple of websites each day that give me links to articles like this, so I can enter pro-gun comments. Nevertheless, I heard nothing about Dan Cooper until after the deed was done, so I'm not sure who the people were who called for him to be fired.
I wrote critical comments on Jim Zumbo's blog as soon as I was told about it, but I never demanded that he be fired from his job, and I was perfectly willing to forgive him once he apologized. Nevertheless, I don't think his treatment was any worse than that of Michael Richards for saying comparably obnoxious things about black people, or the treatment of Mel Gibson when in a drunken stupor he said comparably obnoxious things about Jews. There have been lots of other people fired for making politically-incorrect statements -- Larry Summers almost lost his position as President of Harvard merely for noting that intelligence rates among females clusters more tightly around the mean than among males (whose intelligence rates tend to be more freely scattered between grossly defective and genius) -- so let's keep things in perspective.
And no, I don't hold the 2nd Amendment above all the others; it's just that none of the other basic rights are being infringed as heavy-handedly as the right to be at all times armed.
"Wow! Talk about illiterate. That should be Muley Graves! Drink coffee before writing"
I'm sorry Larry. I type fast when I'm hungry. Were you trying to add something intelligent to the conversation or just enter the obligatory snide comment from the minority?
It is fascinating to watch Bill's "gun nuts" bemoan the fact that the 2nd amendment is the one under the greatest threat of being infringed upon by our government given that over the past eight years, the current administration has managed to trash the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth amendments. It is true that no amendment should hold precedence over any other (including the second), but we have already seen that the second is far down on the list of threatened amendments compared to many of the others that guarantee our freedom.
Comment By gwalchmai munn, 11-14-08By jedediah Redman, 11-14-08
To reduce the confusion, perhaps one could refer to NRA members as rightwingcrazygunnuts--remembering the now Alzheimeric Charleton Heston as a case in point..?
--------------------------
Typical leftist class act. What's next for you, making fun of paraplegic veterans because they can't run fast?
When it comes to gun laws - there is no COMPRIMISE! They want them ALL. They have said so PUBLICALLY. They even actually admitted that the Clinton Assualt Weapon Ban ( Assualt Weapon - is actually a Media lie ) did NOT work. It did not affect crime even in the slightest! Which by the way THEY also admitted. Our country was founded on Revolution and Rebellion. So, why would you let POLITICIANS take away our 2nd Amendment rights - Just like King George tried to do over two hundred years ago.........it is not Quantum Mathmatics. If you really want to be SCARED just read about all of the MILLIONS of people that have been killed in my life time ( I was born in 1945) because they did NOT HAVE WEAPONS. Truth/Fact/Reality - end of story.
Comment By tadski, 11-14-08of all the things going on in the world right now you "gun nuts" are actually worried about people coming into your homes to take your guns? give me a break. i'm starting to think "gun nut" is synonymous with douche bag.
Comment By Amendment II Democrats, 11-14-08My name is Daniel, and I am a progressive pro-Second Amendment Democrat. And I am not alone. When I set up the Amendment II Democrats website back in 2005, I gradually came in contact with a growing number of Democrats who expressed the same frustration I do with our party's overall approach to gun legislation. We are happy that Democrats such as Senators Jim Webb, Jon Tester, and Russ Feingold have stood up for us, but we still have a few Dianne Feinsteins, Chuck Schumers, and Frank Lautenbergs to deal with. So the struggle continues.
I am not a member of either the NRA or the American Hunters and Shooters Association, but I have spoken with officers from both organizations, and I agree with both organizations on certain issues. That said, I see no need to ban semi-automatic firearms of any kind, whether it be an old Remington Model 8 or an M1 from WWII or a .50-caliber model from Barrett. I cannot afford compromise on this issue, and frankly, neither can America.
But I also want to see environmental reforms that would ensure hunters have plenty of land available for their traditions and pasttimes. Cleaning up our air and water wouldn't hurt, either, not to mention reversing man-made climate change that threatens our ecosystem. I'm certain that the majority of gun owners would agree with me on this one, even if some of them wouldn't look favorably on me owning a Kalashnikov.
There is room for discussion in the gun community, but there are also fundamentals on which we must never give ground, regardless of party affiliation. And again, I know a lot of my fellow Democrats who feel the same way. And if that puts us at odds with Barack Obama and Joe Biden, so be it. We're used to adversity from our own party, so bring it on.
Please folks, refrain from personal attacks on each other and concentrate on the issue, which in this case, is how "gun nuts" and "regular nuts" can get together and protect the Second Amendment.....Bill
Comment By scott, 11-14-08Bill,
We can get together when the "regular nuts" realize that they can't sacrifice other groups of "nuts", like those that like semi-automatic "assault weapons".
It is the gun-owners who are willing to "compromise", or vote for anti-gun candidates like Obama who will let their right to arms be destroyed.
It is not us "gun nuts" that need to reach out to the "regular nuts". You need to get on the case and start helping us save the 2A. You'll do that when you start telling the non gun-owners in the US that the 2A is not about hunting, or "sport" (of any kind). It is about defense, defense of self, defense of community, defense of the state, and defense of the US. It is a natural right, that existed PRIOR to the Constitution (see SC discussion of that in CRUISHANK) and ANY infringment upon that right is illegal, immoral, and may be resisted, with VIOLENCE, if necessary.
NO REGISTRATION!
NO LICENSEING!
NO BANS OF (certain) UGLY GUNS!
Wow, Bill, yer in the big leagues now, with even Tom Gresham weighing in? Or is that a fake Tom?
Again, I disagree completely with your central premise here, that gun rights are separate from hunting. No, they're components of a whole. Guns are tools. On one hand, one uses them to take game. Or, on the other hand, one uses firearms as a crowbar for prying ones freedoms out of the clutches of those who would take freedom away.
Further, I like the idea of being able to choose the firearm I hunt with without government oversight, with the possible exception of restrictions written by people on game commissions -- hopefully they have more of a clue than Paul Helmke, Sarah Brady or Carolyn Moloney about what is appropriate. That concept applies to hunting as well as it does in terms of "nonrecreational" firearms, therefore, I feel it is completely appropriate for NRA to weigh in on hunting issues.
Just because your view of "conservation" is different from that of the NRA in general is no justification. Why don't you try JOINING NRA, and then maybe running for its board, Bill. Then we'll see how much merit your arguments really have.
Certainly, the NRA is slow to respond, but then again, the environment it operates in is slow as well. The Beltway is the epitome of sloth. Things happen, slowly, incrementally, but, once course and headway is set, almost inevitably.
So some of us firearms owners, we perspicacious few million, choose to fuel NRA so it can keep operating as our battlewagon of the fleet. The other organizations, such as GOA, JFPO, MTSSA, NSSF are the cruisers and tin cans and PT boats. And the Net? Those are the coast watchers. They report where the action is, especially where enemy submarines may lurk.
Finally, as for whether or not this buying spree is unjustified, just today I got a spam from Sarah Brady:
"We have many allies in Congress. More than 91 percent of Brady-endorsed candidates won their races. And President-elect Obama and Vice President-elect Biden are strong and consistent supporters of common sense gun measures.
"But they need to hear from the Brady Campaign right now. Please contribute to the Brady Campaign to make sensible gun laws a top priority in this new Administration.
"P.S. The Brady Campaign has so many allies in Congress now. Please donate today to help move quickly to pass sensible gun laws."
-end-
So the DESIRE is there. Don't forget that when asked, Obama didn't say he opposed gun control, just that "we don't have the votes."
How do the "votes" get there? When people like Dan Cooper spend money to put them in office. Duh.
I'd join a gun lobby called Fudd. (but I won't ever join the NRA.)
I wonder how many more there are like me?
Violence? There's roughly two hundred and fifty million Americans, scootty. Who you gonna kill to protect your "moral" right to guns? Maybe you'll be like the fella that walked into a Unitarian Church and opened up. Killed bout four or five people that time. Or maybe you'll be like the guy that walked into Dem headquarters in Arkansas and murdered the head of the state Dem party. You see, scooty, YOU are the very reason that many of us don't like to say that we like guns. Gunning down unarmed people in a church just doesn't create a lot of sympathy for your arguments. When you DO decide to go ape sh*t and start blastin' at people who disagree with you, do me a favor. Don't be a little wussy about it. Shoot someone who's armed and gonna shoot back. Me for example. I'm liberal as the day is long, and I'm always armed. Be a man ferchrissakes! Take out an ARMED liberal. You'll be a hero if you succeed, and dead if you don't!
Comment By fsilber, 11-14-08tadski: "of all the things going on in the world right now you gun nuts are actually worried about people coming into your homes to take your guns? Give me a break."
Actually, the bigger fear right now is that the "AW" ban will be re-instated. That's why you don't see people rushing to buy up all the bolt-action hunting rifles and double-barrel shotguns now in the stores.
The Brady Center's website expresses optimism that with Obama's election "common-sense gun control will now be possible" -- and they consider the "AW" ban to be common-sense gun control. So if the people buying up "AW"s and high capacity magazines are irrational, the people running the Brady Center would have to be equally irrational -- because they believe the same thing about the implications of Obama's victory. (It's just that they assign to those implications a different value judgement.)
"Typical leftist class act. What's next for you, making fun of paraplegic veterans because they can't run fast?"
Nope.
I make fun of the entire constabulary crowd, Mr. Munn. Enforced regimentation is more abominable to me than the intellectual regimentation exemplified by those who seem to have flocked to the NRA...
Good one, Jed. They are a bunch of flockers!
Comment By Tom Gresham, 11-14-08Not a fake. That's me.
And. . . any gun owner who believes in gun rights who is NOT a member of the NRA is sitting in the wagon, making the rest of us pull his heavy rear end around.
Time to get off your high horse, get out of the wagon, and start helping. Every gun owner should be an NRA member.
http://tinyurl.com/6q7mtp
You are either in or out. If you are out, you are part of the problem, no matter how long you have been shooting or whether you are a hunter.
I am a gun nut. I am also a retired federal law enforcement officer.
I have owned weapons of various sorts for over 30 years. These include many assault-style weapons. I am a danger to no honest person.
I have yet to see any anti-gun legislation that was put forth to really do something useful - it always is submitted by people who dislike weapons for political reasons and is meant to make the ownership of weapons expensive and difficult. Because anti-gun efforts are always disingenuous, the gun nuts don't trust any of them. Funny, isn't it, that the "gun safety" anti-gun folks never submit legislation that requires that gun quality should be better so the guns work better. No, that would be focused on real gun safety and would be consumer friendly. I won't hold my breath for that to happen.
I don't know who said it but there was a quote that went roughly, "Disarmament of the people is a mistake a free society gets to make only once." When you look back over the last hundred years @ 56 million people were killed by their own governments. I am not so nieve to think that it could never ever happen here. Anti-guns folks please I beg you do some honest research into what happened around the world in the last hundred years before you judge us "gun nuts". Maybe you'll understand why we must be vigilant.
Comment By scott, 11-14-08Hey Larry K,
Go F yourself.
Larry--Please head my earlier requests and address the issue at hand. These type of responses do not further your cause....Bill
Comment By Bill Schneider, 11-14-08Oops. Sorry Larry. I meant Scott. Didn't get enough sleep last night, I guess. Anyway, Scott and others, please address the issue, not the person....Bill
Comment By Pat, 11-14-08With unsafe numbers of attorneys in Congress & incoming Presidency, don't trust any of them. In particular the Democrat
party ones. They will not touch guns ; only they will attempt to limit or strangle-off ammunition for weapons in their view that fit the definition of a
bad gun. Also look for a clever way by Democrats to ration,limit or strangle-off fuel for those vehicles they consider bad or wasteful. 2009 will usher in the Lifestyle Police.
Pat, that's "Democratic," not "Democrat." Just want you to keep that in mind next time you post.
Where in my previous post did I say anything about going after ammunition? I know that was a favorite tactic of folks like Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, but people like him are in the past. People like me are the future of the Democratic Party, or so I believe. It's just a matter of convincing our fellow Democrats that throwing away their control of the House and Senate because of a few guns they consider "icky" is a tremendously bad idea.
And yes, I legally own a few armor-piercing bullets. Maybe I should stock up on a few more. It couldn't hurt.
uh Bill,
Your remonstration was originally correct when aimed at Larry K.
Since you changed it and directed it at me I begin to suspect that your tongue-in-cheek diatribe that has elicited all these comments is really a LOT more telling than you want to let on.
I've addressed you twice now and you've ignored me, but you feel the need to chastise me and not Larry.
If Larry K's post in response to mine is somehow within the bounds and my response to him is not then there is some serious intellectual and moral confusion evident in you.
This statement must be a mistake or misprint. "This is America, land of the free and the brave, where we don’t persecute people for their beliefs. " As some of these posters have proven.
I am a NUT, USDA as a matter of fact, and a gun owner. I don't hunt anymore, and I still have my guns. I don't have them because of the four-legged animals out there but because of the two-legged. Strange how now-a-days, the people out there are breeding idiots. I'm not going to take any chances of one of those 'idiots' taking advantage of anything I have. I don't care what weapon I use IF I have to use it. Who gives ANYONE the right to tell anyone what gun they can or can not have? More people are killed by drunks than by guns in this country, so if they really want to save lives BAN ALCOHOL. BAN CARS. There are many more things that 'need' banned but guns are not even in the top 100.
I am the wife of a career American soldier - who is in the middle-east. I am the mother of our three children. If you break into our home in the middle of the night, thanks to our founders and the second amendment, I will greet you with plus + hollow-points of the .38 variety. Posters here talking about hunting and target shooting are clouding the subject. Check King John's Magna Charta. The people have a right to bear arms to protect themselves, their community, and their country. Other peripheral arguements and concerns mentioned here, in my opinion, have little to do with our Bill of Rights. Want to get rid of the second amendment - great. Just have Schumer and Pelosi amend the Constitution and get rid of that troubling clause. Which is the honorable way to accomplish their goal of a disarmed America. Which they'll never do because they are not honorable, and wish to stay in the majority.
Comment By Jim Fleischmann, 11-14-08Fascinating exchange on a subject that inspires great passion. Many heartfelt views and the internet at its best.
Couple of points:
1) Those who feel that they need the second amendment as latent protection against a possible tyrannical government need to have their heads examined. The firearms that we own (yes, I'm a hunter) would be inconsequential against the military might and technology that our country's military possesses. Anybody that has a vision of good citizens hiding out in the woods and resisting the military might of the U.S. government a la "The Patriot" has either been watching too many movies or needs to have their head examined.
2) Headline News: The NRA has won! While a few members of Congress may make noises about gun control, collectively Congress has no stomach for any more gun control. Those of you that have repeatedly voted to mortgage your families' futures by voting solely on a candidate's position on guns are now free to vote for the candidate that will best provide your family with health care, insure that your children have access to the education they need, and make sure that we have a fair tax structure.
"I am a danger to no honest person."
Honesty as defined by yourself, eh, bob?
[...] Why they call you a traitor, Bill Schneider [...]
Comment By Ride Fast, 11-14-08<a >Why they call you a traitor, Bill Schneider</a>
Sorry about that, my mistake.
Scott,
Sorry for some confusion there. I went back and read your posts.
First, there is no hidden message. I support gun nuts and said you are doing a great job for all gun owners. Not sure what else you want from me on that point.
I agree that 2A might not pass today, but who knows? Might be true with some other amendments, too.
I also said I oppose any new gun laws and after Tom brought it up; I agree with him, that there are a lot of current laws that should be taken off the books. I don't own any of the modern black guns, but I have no problem with you owning them.
I also agree we have anti-gun politicians in Congress and President-elect Obama made anti-gun votes when he was in Illinois. Now, he's moving into the White House, though, and everything is different. Talk is talk, but I happen to continue to believe that no national gun bill will even get a hearing in Congress because the leading dems, including Obama, want to stay in power more than anything else. When the AWB and other gun votes happened during the Clinton era, gun owners swept the dems out of power. Now after eight years of dismal performance by Republicans, they're back in power. They are not going to make that mistake again.
Stay tuned. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it right here, but I continue to believe that with the exception of what some big city mayors might do, we no cause for concern.
Voting in Obama had nothing to do with guns. It had everything to do with what a whole lot of people thought were more important issues. If it were a gun issue vote, well, he wouldn't be president. McCain would be, and as you know, he made his own anti-gun votes such as trying to close down gun shows.
If a real threat to the 2A comes along, I suspect the ranks of what I'm calling gun nuts will grow rapidly from the pool of regular nuts.
Bill
Bill your head is in the sand.
Obama doesn't have to have Congress do his dirty work for him. He can do it himself administratively. He'll put the squeeze on state legislatures by withholding federal funds from states that do not pass the gun controls he wants.
This guy is a gun grabber through and through.
And I suppose Jim Fleischmann isn't an NRA member, either.
The fact remains that the most senior Democrat (ick) members of the relevant committees are long-standing urbanites that have always voted for gun control. They will in fact ramrod whatever they can through their committees and onto the floors of the respective bodies. They will, if presented with the opportunity, "earmark" gun control provisions into other legislation.
Their political positions are unassailable within their home districts. If they think they can retain a majority and chairmanship power after passage of legislation, you bet they will try.
As for Jim's first clause...it may be true that our armed forces have all sorts of cool vunderveapuns. It may well be true that the way the Iraqi insurgents had to settle for car bombs makes the point that "resistance is futile."
Nonetheless, the Iraq experience also underscores that in order to be successful, a conquering army must hold and secure after taking.
Furthermore, while it has not happened, I must ask if our armed forces will obey orders to fire upon fellow Americans. Or if they'll be wondering why, as American armed forces, Americans are shooting at them?
Pete, Scott, et al...
Okay, let's make a deal. I've already made a commitment to fess up to it if I wrong. How about you guys doing the same i.e. telling all of us on the Internet that I was right when four years go by and no gun bill gets to first base in Congress. Deal?
Bill
Bill, assuming I'm still alive after they come to take my guns, I'll feel much better seeing your apology here on line. Sheesh.
Comment By scott, 11-14-08Bill,
I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong in 4 years.
But, IF I am right - it doesn't do me A DAMNED BIT OF GOOD for you to admit you are wrong.
This isn't a bet about a football game. The outcome has REAL consequences.
We "gun nuts" can't win it anymore by ourselves (which we've done heretofor). You need to get on the bandwagon. And until you start defending us owners of EBR's (aka "assault weapons"), or other politically incorrect guns we'll keep badgering you.
Another poster is correct Bill. You've got your head in the sand.
Head my words, and ponder them. You may lose your guns LAST but you will certainly lose them if you don't support ALL of us. Now thats reaching out. It doesn't do me ANY good to reach out to compromisers that will sacrifice this group or that group of gun-owners.
I'm sorry Bill, you are a tool. You've sold out and beg others to let you continue with your toys and do not understand that they are rights. The 2nd is about stopping tyranny, killing people, and standing up for what is right. Not for pot-shooting blackbirds off a wire. You are bought and paid for.
Comment By bo_stinks, 11-14-08I've purchased 37 AR-15s in the last few weeks. About $32,000 worth of hardware, but cheap compared to a lot of things. Also have about 40,000 rounds of ammo in my storage locker - in suburban Chicago!
Now when the Democrats DO bring back the "Assault weapons" ban, and they will - because they cannot overcome their fear of an armed, independent, and free populace, then I will sell these items to whomever wants them, for probably more than I paid for them. But more importantly, I would NOT have done this if BO had not been elected. So what is the ultimate result - MORE "assault weapons" on the streets BECAUSE an extremely anti-freedom Democrat is elected!
Funny how these things work! Of course, WHEN the Democrat party moves to ban guns and take away freedom, as is their nature, then in 2010 we have another 1994, when 60+ House and Senate seats switched from Democrat to Republican.
"This guy is a gun grabber through and through." God!
I hope so...
If you'll notice, this article is running concurrently with several others in Montana and around the country subtly suggesting that, if it weren't for extremists, most gun owners would accept reasonable regulations on their weapons. It is the same old rhetoric, from the '80s and '90s, intended to divide and conquer. Oh, we aren't after you nice little hunters (by the way, those extremist nuts are calling you names all the time, nana-nana-boo-boo), we just intend to restrict these psychotic types who have too many, or the wrong type, of weapons. The campaign is already starting, ladies and gentlemen. I have been a shooter my entire life, met countless dozens of shooters at the range, and almost to a man (or woman), I find that hunters and recreational shooters are almost the same thing. Can't tell you how many guys (like myself) with a bolt-action Rem 700 at the back of the closet also have a "high-capacity" pistol or "military-style" arm. They are trying to convince us that this segment or that of the gun-owning public is the enemy, but we aren't stupid, and it didn't work before. I am a sportsman, I am a range-shooter, I own military weapons, I duck hunt. Let's send 'em packing in '10.
Comment By Frank Clarke, 11-15-08"Conservatively, America has around 80 million gun owners. How many are nuts?"
III %.
I want to thank Bill for writing this column. I've felt this way for years, especially since George W. Bush took the country into an unneeded war in Iraq. I suspect that there are quite a few of us out there that agree that other issues are more pressing currently than our guns being taken away. We should give Barack Obama a chance, he may do fine. I remember that when Clinton left office, we had a balanced budget, a growing economy and were respected in the world.
Comment By Pete, 11-15-08Stevie,
Hey, thanks for offering to turn my guns in for me. "Oh Barry, if you end the war for us, we'll turn our guns in." What kind of crap is that?
Yes, when Klinton left office, we also had the Brady Bill, the Assault Weapons Ban, the Lautenberg Amendment, etc, etc, etc.
Sheesh
"Losing some of my gun rights doesn’t make my top twenty concerns. If that makes me a 'traitor,'..."
Traitor? Nothing so grand. Garden variety, worthless s***head is more like it.
Good column, Bill.
I'm pro-gun, pro-hunting and pro-self-defense, but I am against guns being used by psychopaths to kill innocent people. For that reason, I support common-sense restrictions on gun sales and gun registration. (Just as we register our cars.) I think Barack Obama shares roughly the same ideas.
Unless you're a psychopath who's planning to kill innocent people, why is this so damned threatening?
THIRTY-SEVEN ASSUALT RIFLES?! Good LORD, boobstinks. I'm wonderin', just HOW MANY guns can you SHOOT at one time? Gee, even as a Nam vet, I can only remember shooting one! You're good! I get so sick of you little computer rambos. You've watched WAY too many action movies. It's turned your brains to mush and made you very stupid, as if you weren't that way to begin with. No one is gonna take your guns. All you're doing is making yourselves look like idiots to people who disagree with you. Hence, you do more harm than good for the cause of guns rights. If you're a wacko, you should really be quiet and allow the more articulate members of the gun community speak for you. When you start calling people traitors, you immediately excempt yourself and your arguments from rational discussion, and irrationality and wackiness are NOT effective argumentative techniques. I would advise a few courses in debate and logic for you boys, but somehow I suspect that education is NOT your strong suit. And really, it's hilarious to be lectured to about freedom by people who write as if they've never used indoor plumbing! Please, explain in detail just WHAT your idea of freedom is.
Comment By Ann, 11-15-08I heard yesterday on the News that if you have had or still own a gun you will NOT be considered for Obama's Administration. Strange that the people he wants to work for him are more severely screened than he himself. Even Ayers admits that Obama was a 'family friend'. I personally am not concerned about my guns because we are so out in the middle of nowhere Obama hasn't got time for us 'little-folk'.
Comment By Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers!, 11-15-08No you didn't, anny. Please list your source, or consider yourself a liar. BTW, do you have indoor plumbing?
Comment By Ann, 11-15-08Larry; As a matter of fact NO I don't have indoor plumbing, and I have running water when it rains it runs off the roof. They didn't have indoor plumbing when the homestead cabin I live in was built. Although the outhouse works well, and pumping from outside, until it freezes or hauling water from my Mother's place, works fine and cuts cost. It was on the FOX news, and I don't care what anyone says about FOX it has been proven to be the most fair and balanced of all the news stations. So dear LARRY I'm NOT lying. And I don't appreciate somemone that THINKS they know it all calling me a liar.
Comment By nauer, 11-15-08YAAAAAWN...Okay, my turn, as a life long democrat and card carrying liberal, Bush hater, and change supporter, I disagree with Obama and his views on gun control. Being a member of the democratic party for decades I know first hand on what damage my party's stance on gun control has done to its goals and to this country. Any reasonable democrat should understand this and put his/her committed support behind firearms possession.
Comment By Sam, 11-15-08This imbecile speaks volumes!
Definitely knows nothing of the 2nd A.
Hey dumba**, can you find the word
hunting in Article 2 of the B.O.R.?
First, anny, I didn't CALL you a liar. I asked you to list your source, or consider yourself a liar. I seriously doubt that what you have stated is what you heard. Anny, let me state for you plainly, that there is NO litmus test on guns for O'Bama's administration, REGARDLESS of what you think you heard. Either you or FAUX news is being very, very ridiculous. Now, please post something in writing to substantiate your claim or look very foolish for repeating nonsense. It's called critical thinking, anny. Most FOX watchers don't have that gene!
Comment By Ann, 11-15-08Well lawrence; Insult all you want, I've been insulted by WAY better people than you.
Can you deny the fact that if Obama were trying for a position in his administration his record would keep him from being hired? Go ahead and listen to ABC NBC or CBS or any of the others, maybe you are like Chris Matthews and get a tingle running up your leg too. I don't, although I'm willing to give him the chance to prove how much he really does/n't know, or how many of his promises he really can/'t keep.
Why wasn't Obama at the Summit meeting about the Economy? why did he send a representative? Isn't the Economy important enough? It seemed it was a surprise to many in Washington he wouldn't appear.
And Larry save your effort, I will no longer respond to your rhetoric.
I'm not willing to "compromise" my freedoms away when I am getting nothing in return. That's not "compromise" at all. A "compromise" would be something like a ban on concealed carry nationwide, but open carry is made legal everywhere.
And we know what sort of response that compromise would receive from the Obamorons and the Brady Campaign. "Blood in the streets! The horror!"
Deep down inside, they anti-gun crowd doesn't believe in compromise at all. Their tireless efforts for the past few decades has clearly shown that they want their way, 100%, Constitution-be-damned.
With that sort of enemy, what other course of action can gun owners take to victory than total opposition at every instance of a threat to our freedom? Do people really think we're stupid enough to just give up?
Well Bill you have done it again.
When every other post includes naughty words such as poopy head and a- hole as well as traitor, liar, stupid, and idiot I know this will break 100.
Whats up for next week, big dogs or wilderness?
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Obamas-Job-Application-Includes-Questions/story.aspx?guid={8963715B-2C4B-4A6D-B717-68EF67D3327A}
Mr. Kralj,
If I am understanding her correctly, Question #59 on the BO job app could be what Ann is claiming.
"Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage."
Bill, you don't need a gun to defend your home and family? That's scary. If someone broke into your house with a weapon while you and/or your family was there what would you do? You wouldn't have any idea what he wanted. Money, property, to rape your wife after he murdered you? You simply woudn't know. Would you dial 911 and wait one minute? Five minutes? Ten, twenty, thirty minutes? Depending on how busy law enforcement is at that time it could be a long and horrible wait as the intruder continues his assault. The police are not 1st responders, we are, they are 2nd. They show up most of the time after it's all over. I hope you re-think this.
If it weren't for the 2nd Amendment there wouldn't be any other Amendments.
And the Militia was created exactly so the people could defend themselves from a possible tyrannical government. And the Militia is not the National Guard nor the Reserves like some like to say. They didn't come about until the early 1900s.
I've been fighing this battle for most of my 67 years, and, it's still not settled. The one thing that all should think about is that our Constitutional Rights were not created by either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. In fact they were never 'created' at all, they are a condition of your existence, attend your birth, travel with you through life, and, expire at the Grave.
In fact, the first known iteration of the "Right to keep and bear arms" was penned by Ur Nammu, King of Ur (just about 300 Kilometers south of my present location, Baghdad), in 2300 BC, and, he claimed to be 're-instating' the "Rights of Man," handed down by his ancestors.
My problem with anyone who would give up a right, any right, deserves none, and, will be rewarded with such for his choice (a somewhat paraphrase of a quote of Benjamin Franklin). The other thing that bothers me is a lack of knowledge of History or Historical precedent, concerning the most bothersome thing I can imagine, "The End of Golden Ages."
I won't bother to list all of them, or, even more than two, because they are considered not politically correct in this age of rampant Socialism. But, number one on that list is something that drives Feminists into paroxisms of panic: About 150 years into the life of a Civilization Women, brandishing their weapons of Genderbat, begin rising to positions of great power, pushing their primal biological imperative to build safe, healthy, wealthy and secure nests in which to raise children, who will never be exposed to violence. To ensure this, they begin lobbying to "disarm the common man."
That's Marker #1, strangely, Marker # 20 is when they finally achieve their goal, and, snatch the means of defense, of Nation or self from the hands of everyone except Police (City Guards), or, the now "Professional Military." This always seems to coincide with the advent of a conqueror coming over the hill (i.e. -Alexander the Great), or, shoved up a hill, such as Obama climbing the Hill to Washington DC.
FYI, all 20 of the Markers of the "End of a Golden Age," are now in play, save the last. Somehow, I believe that the last marker is travelling with him.
Thank you Judge.
But since I don't have indoor plumbing I, according to some, have no rights, nor brains.
"I happen to think other amendments to our constitution such as Number 1 (freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition), 13 (abolishing slavery), 14 (equal protection under the law), 19 and 26 (right to vote for women and all citizens over 18) and others might actually be more important than Number 2."
Well, without a strongly defended 2nd Amendment, you will find it much more difficult to protect and keep all the rest. That was the point of it, after all. Or did you skip out of your history classes?
Homo sapiens' only hope for survival is the second amendment.
With it we can continue to be efficient in our use of violence in response to other homo sapiens.
Without it we would be reduced to physical combat or ineffiecient weapons such as knives and clubs.
Vote Republican.
Well, after seeing the riff-off between Larry and Ann, I want to put Larry in the context of these comments.
He's an "Environmental Ranger." What is that? Well, some time ago after seeing his vitriol elsewhere, I did some poking about in the dark vaults of the Internet.
Apparently, the Rangers, who actually had a website for a while, don't know if it's still there, hit the radar of the Daily Telegraph and Arena magazine in the mid 1990s:
"
"We're environmentalists, we're treehuggers and we're armed to the goddamn teeth."
- Ric Valois, Environmental Ranger.
The Environmental Rangers (ER) were formed in the mid-1980s and are best described as an eco-militia. Staunch anti-racists and 'heartfelt environmentalists' they are mainly Vietnam War veterans who feel they owe their sanity to the healing influence of wild areas."
There's more, but I can't help but notice the rhetorical similarities between Ric and Larry.
Bill Donahue of Outside interviewed Ric in 1996:
Meet Rick Valois, commander-in-chief of the first eco-militia
By Bill Donahue
He's probably the only environmentalist in the United States with camo-clad, gun-toting foot soldiers at his command, and his battle plan is pretty straightforward: If anyone attacks Ric Valois or the Environmental Rangers, as his tiny green militia is known, the auburn-haired, 44-year-old tree trimmer from Vaughn, Montana, promises to "disarm the enemy, strip them naked, destroy everything they leave behind, and use their ammo to win."
Or something like that. In real life, the Rangers are perhaps 20 motley combatants who haven't changed the world just yet. Founded a few years back, they've spied on a Pegasus Gold Mine operation, stymied a group of bear trappers, and videotaped loggers illegally overcutting in Idaho's Nez Perce National Forest. Here, on the eve of "big doings" for the Rangers this spring, Valois's thoughts on what he believes is the coming green jihad.
and this from the LA Times.
Desperate Defenders of Nature
Environmental activists are hardening their tactics -- including some who don khaki and carry arms--in what they see as a last-ditch effort to protect the Northwest from a mining and logging boom.
Los Angeles Times (LT) - TUESDAY January 9, 1996
By: KIM MURPHY; TIMES STAFF WRITER
Edition: Home Edition Page: 1 Pt. A
LINCOLN, Mont. - Ric Valois knows the Blackfoot River. He knows where the deep pools lie and how the eddies swirl around the rocks. He knows some of the fish by name. Like legions of fishermen, he makes the pilgrimage from his home outside of Great Falls several times a year to stand along the cottonwood banks, scan the current of water over ancient stone and wait for a trout to rise.
Valois roams Montana these days with a 9-millimeter sidearm holstered on his hip. When he fishes the Blackfoot, it is with a scout's eye on the land near its confluence with the Landers Fork--where the Phelps Dodge Mining Co. and Canyon Resources Corp. want to blast a mile-wide pit, 675 feet deep, into the hills. It is the largest gold bonanza ever discovered in Montana, 3.7 million ounces worth at least $1.8 billion, and twice that much silver.
A coalition of environmental organizations has unleashed a campaign to stop the mine, seen as an economic hope for nearby Lincoln, a source of 390 new jobs, millions of dollars in tax revenue, $45 million a year in goods and services--and, by some, the beginning of the end for a fabled river already devastated by decades of mining.
Valois isn't counting on the "Save the Blackfoot, Stop the Mine" bumper stickers and public hearing testimony organized by mainstream environmental groups. He sees his outfit of Environmental Rangers as the last line of defense, an army of citizens that will stand along the Blackfoot after the lawyers and the lobbyists and the peaceful environmental protesters have gone home in defeat.
"That mine is not going in," Valois said recently. "They're not getting these places without a war. And I mean a real war. . . . We're the ones who will put our lives on the line if that's what it takes."
So, Larry, who is the mild-mannered one? And who should be freaking out about xx number of guns in someone's possession?
Dave, you don't see no gold mine on the Blackfoot, do you? Yeah, we had some fun back then. We're gettin' a little long in the tooth now, be we still take on the bad guys when we have to. And you see, it's not just the rightwing wackjobs that like guns. All the Rangers do! We armed to the teeth with state of the art. Ric is a class III dealer, so he has all the goodies. You know, full auto, etc. So, in a sense, we are allies. Rightwing wackos want guns, and so do we leftwing wackos. We don't trust the government all that much either. It's simply not about politics. That's where gun nuts make their biggest mistake. To attack O'Bama is to insult most of the country. And that's just plain stupid.
And Judge, thanks for the link, but it didn't work. Try again.
Makes you wonder if using the outhouse makes it easier to use the computer not like it's real hard to find the questionaire.
http://www.wsbtv.com/download/2008/1113/17972158.pdf
#59 in Misc.
More about Obama's hatred of gun owners:
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY;=/www/story/11-13-2008/0004925425&EDATE;=
By Jim Fleischmann, 11-14-08
Couple of Points:
1) Those who feel that they need the second amendment as latent protection against a possible tyrannical government need to have their heads examined. The firearms that we own (yes, I'm a hunter) would be inconsequential against the military might and technology that our country's military possesses. Anybody that has a vision of good citizens hiding out in the woods and resisting the military might of the U.S. government a la "The Patriot" has either been watching too many movies or needs to have their head examined.
ACTUALLY - there is a big difference between a war, where the object is to destroy/kill, and establishment of a totalitarian state, where the object is to control. The latter circumstance is rendered impossible with a decent percentage of anonymously armed citizens, whereas only the former requires military technology.
2) Those of you that have repeatedly voted to mortgage your families' futures by voting solely on a candidate's position on guns are now free to vote for the candidate that will best provide your family with health care, insure that your children have access to the education they need, and make sure that we have a fair tax structure.
ACTUALLY - the Libertarian and Republican candidates are consistently the best to do all the above, so it isn't somehow a choice or trade-off. Huckabee even supported THE "FairTax!"
Yes indeed, insurgencies have no chance against a modern army.
Look how badly the Taliban was beaten by the Soviets.
Look how badly the Taliban is being crushed by the Americans.
Look how badly the Viet Cong were crushed by the French and Americans
Look how badly the Iraqi insurgents are getting beaten
Granted, American citizens have neither the balls nor the ambition to wage an insurgency against threats - both foreign or domestic. But to categorically sat that insurgencies fail is stretching it.
Sounds as though the Montana Militia only temporarily disbanded until such time as the nation was threatened by the election of a person of color.
The Militia's credo seems alive and well among rightwingcrazy members of the NRA...
I have no interest the president's color or religion or gender. I felt more threatened by Hillary, but now that she might become secretary of state, I feel safer because she'll be out of the senate. Obama with a moderate congress wouldn't scare me as much as the far left communist whackos that are in control now.
History tells us of the of the euphoria the Germans felt when Hitler became chancelor of Germany. The entire world thought he was the best thing for Germany. Seems a lot like what's happening now. He created class warfare, gave them all each other to hate,divided and conquered. Will the Montana Power Rangers be part of the Obama plan?
The past eight years were pretty much like Germany under Hitler, tom.
I don't think anybody here was very euphoric.
Perhaps you may be straining a bit too hard for similes?
Strong women and darkies worry you, eh?
But not as much as those demonic commies..?
Jim F, I'm not sure what you are driving at.
Our army could certainly level vast areas and "win," no doubt. But that would only be in a tactical sense. Strategically, it would fail especially when it comes to the oath taken by every enlistee and officer -- basically "I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me,"
Now, this nation depends utterly depends utterly on consent of the governed. All free societies do, all successful, non-totalitarian states. That's what our Constitution is about...notice the Oath does not say "I will defend the government" -- it says the "Constitution of the United States."
Faith and allegiance to. What happens when American soldiers are given unconstitutional orders? What happens when any officer of the law is given illegal orders repugnant to the Constitution? Boy, I bet that would make for charming barracks and ready-room discussions.
Let's not forget the KGB's penchant for taking dissenters away in the dark of night, with those taken away never heard from again. I would hope that doesn't become widespread practice in this country...and that's at least one reason to stay armed.
I would be more worried about the President going to the UN and requesting NATO "peace keeping forces".
Can't happen here? How many other countries have said that?
Tom,
If you recall, after the 2000 elections, Jimmy Carter suggested that UN election observers be brought in to manage the 2004 elections.
I know there are folks who think we should "compromise" just one more time (that would make the 20,001th time, by the way) on gun control. After all, it would make us look more "reasonable" to the folks who want to disarm us.
If you are still unclear on where "compromise" takes you, please take the time to read this piece from an Australian shooter. It's instructive. I honestly believe this is exactly what the gun banners (Brady, etc.) have in mind for us.
-----------------
Re Gun Control
Be wary of baby steps. It starts small. They say they want to take 12 inches and all the gun owners feel relieved when that gets negotiated back to an inch. But you can never get that inch back and inch by inch you find yourself where you never thought you could be. They won’t open up with: Ban Guns.
Beware of licensing; that’s one of the first steps. No harm done they’ll say, just a tool to keep guns out of the hands of those who really shouldn’t have them (and you’ll be surprised how many gun owners will agree with that). But now they know who has the guns. Next is registration. Then they know what guns you have, type and calibre, and how many. They won’t come for them all straight up. They’ll start picking away at the edges. In Australia it was self-loading rifles, in America I think it will be Assault Weapons (what else could an Assault Weapon be for but to assault people? No way it could be used for self defence could it? That would be a Defence Weapon wouldn’t it? And so on.)
They’ll have an excuse – there will be an inciting incident. In Australia it was the massacre at Port Arthur by an idiot who should have been on some sort of Prohibited Persons Register (we don’t have one by the way – but that’s the way to go) long before because he had already caused trouble and done stupid things with guns.
The government’s logic was so crazy. They banned all self-loading rifles and shot guns (even those shot guns that fire two rounds only but with a self-loading mechanism. How this is different from a double barrelled shot gun is beyond me). While they were at it they added pump-action shot guns to the list. I guess because they look mean and have been featured in movies so much. So, you had to hand in your pump-action shot gun but you could keep your IPSC self-loading hand gun with a 22 round mag (like a 38 Super) that could be reloaded in two seconds and a gun belt with a many mags as you could carry. Now, which item would you take to a massacre?
The next thing that happened in Australia was they gave a handgun licence (you have to be in a pistol club and maintain an attendance record) to a Chinese student (who couldn’t even speak English) over here on a student visa to go to university and he used a 45 auto to kill two people at the university. They used this as an excuse to take away all the “Large Calibre” hand guns. Now, see if you can follow this logic. I assume they figured picking up all the Large Calibre hand guns meant they’d be taking away all the “really powerful” guns that shouldn’t be in the hands of the public (as if you can’t kill someone with a 22). But they defined Large Calibre as anything above 38. So I had to hand in my 45 auto but I could keep my 357 Magnum. Go figure.
In Queensland the self-loading ban of 1996 had a very low compliance rate but in Victoria a very high compliance rate. The difference? In Queensland, where I live, we got a state Labor government only a few years before and they introduced licensing but not registration (they didn’t have time to get around to that) but in Victoria they had registration so they knew who had what. Same as I had to have in my 45 auto IPSC gun because they knew I had one. In 1996 I had a Ruger Mini 14, an SKS and several 22 self loaders.
Before licensing in Queensland in 1990 if you were over 18 (I think it should have been 21) you could walk in to a gun shop and buy anything and walk right out with it. There was no problems. In fact there has never been any sort of gun problem in Australia. The numbers have been the same for ages. About 500 people a year die from gun fire. But about 400 of these are suicides. Now, and I’ve argued this with any number of anti-gunners, you can’t have those 400 on the list because sticking a gun in your mouth and pulling the trigger is not a cry for help; it demonstrates clear intent, and anyone truly intending to kill themselves will do so – no gun, they’ll use something else. So we have about 100 people a year killed by guns. And of course many of those were planned murders – those victims were going to die no matter what. So, as you can see, the numbers are extremely low. In fact a high profile anti-gunner once admitted that the gun laws might impact (save) as little as half a dozen people a year (weigh that against all the people who have been bashed, robbed, raped and killed because they did not have a gun). If the government had of spent the hundreds of millions of dollars used in collecting guns on road safety or in the hospitals they could have actually saved lives. And of course we’ve had increase in “successful” home invasions.
In the act setting out the new law in 1996 it says to apply to own any sort of fire arm (even a BB gun or a bow & arrow because they have defined firearm as anything that can launch a projectile with enough force so as to do harm) you must have a legitimate reason. It immediately goes on to say; “Self defence shall not be considered a legitimate reason.” It is hard to imagine the US government getting that one to float but here in Australia it got by without a whimper.
How did they get compliance? Massive penalties. I can’t remember exactly but I seem to recall that the mere possession of a self-loading rifle or pump action shot gun is 10 years jail – more than most in this country serve for murder and certainly more than armed robbery.
Cry for Australia.
So, wait for the excuse (the inciting incident) and then fight for every inch. I don’t know if you are a Christian or not but I believe that this is how they’ll get the mark of the beast up and running. There will be a problem - I think of a financial nature - and the people will scream out for a fix. The fix will include a range of things … one of which will be the Mark. So they’ll sneak it in with a bunch of other stuff.
Regards, Steve
Well,just for those who may not know (from the Heart of Baghdad) the War in Iraq is over, and, I'm looking to move to Afghanistan, the first time I see an attractive opening.
At 67 one might not think my prospects are very bright, but, I've been doing what I do for more than 47 years, and, seldom has anyone questioned my expertise. However, the prospects of America do not look all that good, and, I may have to choose home over adventure...I'm one of the 3 Percenters.
I'm also a student of History, and, as some others have hinted, I see too many similarities with the rise of NAZI Germany to long ignore duty to my State, Community, Nation and Family.
The next three months will determine my choice.
Well,
you strike me as either Naive or a Phony. Real hunters do not go about killing Blackbirds for sport. As for the rest of your whining:
"I happen to think other amendments to our constitution such as Number 1 (freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition), 13 (abolishing slavery), 14 (equal protection under the law), 19 and 26 (right to vote for women and all citizens over 18) and others "
You apparently are not smart enough to realize that no one dares try to abolish or circumvent those other amendments. While there are national organizations and foundations whose goal is the destruction of the Second Amendment. And you miss the greater point...if someone would dare to infringe on such a plainly enumerated right...do you think they give a crap about the rest of your rights?
"of all the things going on in the world right now you "gun nuts" are actually worried about people coming into your homes to take your guns? give me a break. i'm starting to think "gun nut" is synonymous with "
Google Patty Coney and the New Orleans gun confiscations.
"If you recall, after the 2000 elections, Jimmy Carter suggested that UN election observers be brought in to manage the 2004 elections."
They would probably have helped in Ohio.
Ann (and Judge), that question from the Obama job interview basically asks whether the applicant or a family member has ever owned unregistered guns or committed a gun crime/misdemeanor. Seems like a normal question to me. First of all, you would want members of the administration to obey the law, and second, you don't want to deal with stuff like this after a person has been hired and the media/bloggers/Republicans dig it out.
Another point (and probably I don't understand it as an immigrant from Europe) is the continued insistence that the second amendment is a cornerstone of protecting all the other rights. This might have been true way back in past times, but can anyone tell me a convincing case where private gun-ownership has prevented the government from taking away rights in, say, the last 50 years? Face it (and be glad about it), the democratic process nowadays doesn't need armed citizens, we have evolved beyond the times of the Wild West. (I am not talking about shooting people who trespass on your property, but I don't think this was the original intent of the second amendment.)
>>"can anyone tell me a convincing case where private gun-ownership has prevented the government from taking away rights in, say, the last 50 years?"<<
Hmmm. More than 50 million people were murdered by their own governments in the last century.
(Think "ethnic cleansing.")
None of those populations was allowed to own guns.
Just a historical tidbit one may want to chew on.
Yes, I know. No one in any of those countries thought it could happen there, either.
"Another point (and probably I don't understand it as an immigrant from Europe) is the continued insistence that the second amendment is a cornerstone of protecting all the other rights. This might have been true way back in past times, but can anyone tell me a convincing case where private gun-ownership has prevented the government from taking away rights in, say, the last 50 years? Face it (and be glad about it), the democratic process nowadays doesn't need armed citizens, we have evolved beyond the times of the Wild West. (I am not talking about shooting people who trespass on your property, but I don't think this was the original intent of the second amendment.)"
Our country has not suffered a large-scale invasion on the continental US by any foreign nation in over 100 years. The Japanese made the very wise strategic decision not to invade California in WW2, because of "a gun behind every blade of grass." Our freedoms are not now trampled excessively (though they are abused) by our government because we have guns and we vastly outnumber our military.
We don't need incidents of insurrection to support the need for an armed populace, as our being armed is a deterrent to tyranny. We, by virtue of being armed and able to defend our right to vote, are citizens. Those who cannot be armed vote at the whim of their rulers, and therefore are subjects.
"I support the 2A, but..." blah blah blah.
You lost me at "black helicopters".
And the 2A just might pass if it said what it meant "The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED".
Learn it. Love it.
Peace out.
"More than 50 million people were murdered by their own governments in the last century. None of those populations was allowed to own guns."
This blanket statement is just flat out wrong. Where did you get this from? E.g., in Germany the very restrictive gun laws enacted after the first World War were relaxed in 1928, and the gun law of 1938 relaxed several of these regulations even further. Parallel to this change, the Nazis passed a law that made it illegal for Jews to own guns, but most Germans had the right to own guns. The problem was not restrictive gun laws, the problem was that the majority of the people supported the genocidal policies of Hitler.
If you are referring to recent genocides in Africa, countries there often seem to have restrictive gun laws but rather weak governments and strong militia groups who are well-armed. (See the recent history of Somalia.) Some of these countries had devastating civil wars and genocides, others didn't. It seems pretty far-fetched to make a causal connection with gun control laws.
"Our country has not suffered a large-scale invasion on the continental US by any foreign nation in over 100 years. The Japanese made the very wise strategic decision not to invade California in WW2, because of "a gun behind every blade of grass.""
I could think of several other explanations why the US hasn't been invaded in the last 100 years (for one, the only immediate neighbors are Mexico and Canada), and why the Japanese only bombed Pearl Harbor and did not try to invade California. I am not an expert myself, but your interpretation of the motives doesn't seem to be very popular among mainstream historians.
"Our freedoms are not now trampled excessively (though they are abused) by our government because we have guns and we vastly outnumber our military."
Again, I would say that the most rational explanation is that the main motivation of politicians is to be reelected. Why would they remove all freedoms and piss off everybody if they don't need to? Also, there is a system of checks and balances, and even though it is not perfect, it prevents certain excesses. And there is no reason to believe that the military would back those excesses, say, if a president tried to turn the US into a dictatorship.
If you look at successful democracies in the world, their gun control laws are all over the map, from very restrictive to very liberal. I think this is a pretty convincing argument that these two things (gun control and democratic freedom) are mostly uncorrelated.