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
| 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 Barack 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 Barack 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.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.




Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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!
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 wonder how many more there are like me?
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.)
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...
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 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.
Go F yourself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Honesty as defined by yourself, eh, bob?
Sorry about that, my mistake.
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
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
I hope so...
III %.
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
Traitor? Nothing so grand. Garden variety, worthless s***head is more like it.
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?
Definitely knows nothing of the 2nd A.
Hey dumba**, can you find the word
hunting in Article 2 of the B.O.R.?
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.
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?
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?
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."
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.
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.
But since I don't have indoor plumbing I, according to some, have no rights, nor brains.
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?
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.
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?
And Judge, thanks for the link, but it didn't work. Try again.
http://www.wsbtv.com/download/2008/1113/17972158.pdf
#59 in Misc.
http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY;=/www/story/11-13-2008/0004925425&EDATE;=
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!"
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.
The Militia's credo seems alive and well among rightwingcrazy members of the NRA...
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?
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..?
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.
Can't happen here? How many other countries have said that?
If you recall, after the 2000 elections, Jimmy Carter suggested that UN election observers be brought in to manage the 2004 elections.
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
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.
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?
Google Patty Coney and the New Orleans gun confiscations.
They would probably have helped in Ohio.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anyway, Tom brings up a good point here, about the 50 million killed by their own governments.
I recommend highly that the doubters here go to the library and call up "The Black Book of Communism" -- or maybe it's "Socialism." Think it's the C word, anyway. But it's a long, long dossier of savagery by Marxist governments worldwide. It makes one think very lowly of totalitarian government.
Well, yes. Forty-five years ago many people in government had ambitions of creating a Swedish-style social democracy, but Americans did not want to pay the taxes. (It's less attractive here because a third of our population is third-world. England would never have voted for socialized medicine if they had to fund it for their entire former empire.) So they tried to compel us to vote for higher taxes but increasing social services during the prosperous years and cutting back on police services during the lean years -- telling us that if we wanted protection we'd have to agree to higher taxes. In state and national congresses, you had representatives from poor districts opposing spending on jails and law enforcement unless it could be coupled by increases in social spending.
In other words, they were threatening us with criminal attack to make us give up our money. When we got a majority in congress we passed liberalized concealed carry laws and home-castle laws so that we could protect ourselves. Just a couple of weeks ago a columnist at Newsweek expressed curiosity as to why the crime issue did not play a role in the Presidential election like it had in the 1980s and 90s.
Now we can tell them, "If you don't want your precious robbers to die, keep them out of our homes and off our streets."
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2008/02/for-hunters-who-dont-believe-theyre-on.html
If he sees the opportunity to, he will write an EO or sign a bill increasing restrictions.
You're a "Red" man to the core. Prosit, comrade!
"I suspect gun nuts aren't even scared of our new president. They're scared that the voice of reason might become popular."
I think Senator Obama's landslide victory shows that it already has. This nation will be a better place when we all--gun owners and non-gun owners alike--reject the extremist and rigid dogma of those on the Far Right Wing.
Here's to 4 years of moving forward...
He's never met a gun control law he didn't like nor a gun-owner that he would not prefer to disarm.
Whether it be the poor people of Washington DC or his own crime-ridden Chicago - he doesn't care that hundreds of innocents (note that MANY of them are black in DC and Chicago) die despite that they live in "gun-free" zones.
I would point out that in Miami last month (Oct 2008) there were ZERO murders. Thats right, Miami, the home of drug dealers that prefer those evil assault weapons (yeah, right). Whats the difference between Miami and Chicago. hmmmm, oh yeah, in Miami you can own a handgun, and get a concealed carry permit just by filling out a form (assuming you have no criminal record).
In Chicago, unless you're a city councilman you CAN'T, period. They are on track for 400 murders this year. Yeah, I know, Chicago is bigger. So common size it. Miami still comes out better.
So now, tell me again how its better that we "gun-nuts" compromise.
For the gun-control references as causation or at the least correlation, with genocide - see Zelman's "Death by Gun Control" or the JPFO's earlier publication of similar title.
For the best international comparison of laws and crime and suicide rates, see Kopel's "The Samuari, The Mountie, and the Cowboy" - an award-winning and thoroughly referenced book.
For the best expose of the outright FRAUD and FABRICATION from the "gun control" supporters, see "Guns and Public Health - epidemic of violence, or pandemic of propaganda?" by liberal criminologist (i.e. not an "NRA shill") Don Kates & his physician co-authors. It is about 85 pages, from a law review journal, and 1/3 of the material is documented references and footnotes. Find it at Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws - http://www.dsgl.org, and look under "favorite links" and about halfway down the page.
For a more concise but similar article from the medical literature, see Suter's "Gun Control - a failure of peer review" also on the DSGL website.
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/11/a_tale_of_two_c.php
Oh, how about this -
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/11/on_stopping_sch.php
It seems that the police are waking up to the fact that schoolyard (or other) mass shooters will stop or suicide as soon as ANYONE with a gun intercepts them.
But I guess Freedom4All would rather they be left to keep shooting until an "only one" (hat tip to David Codrea at http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/11/on_stopping_sch.php) shows up.
Freedom4All seems to want freedom for mass shooters but not their intended victims. Interesting orweillian moniker he has.
Illinois has the higher murder rate if you correlate for ethnic background. Nationwide, hispanic immigrants have a higher murder rate than Anglos, and the African American rate is much higher than that. Essentially, you're praising Illinois for having less racial and ethic diversity than Florida.
I recall early papers that said he did not oppose firearms registration. That goes against the NRA's position. But more relevant to his liberalism is his work in other areas. His Wikipedia page says, "During the Civil rights movement, he worked in the South for civil rights lawyers including William Kunstler. Thereafter, he specialized in civil rights and police misconduct litigation for the federal War on Poverty program. After three years of teaching constitutional law, criminal law, and criminal procedure at Saint Louis University School of Law, he returned to San Francisco where he currently practices law, teaches, and writes on criminology."
The only reason I identified him as a "Liberal" is that I find most people who hate guns and/or gun owners are obsessed with labels and categorizing people, and since they can't use facts to make a case for gun control, they typically refuse to read or view anything they label as "gun lobby" material. Of course, whatever the source, if the conclusion is against gun control, they will then label it "gun lobby" tainted. I find it fascinating that the mere fact Kates agrees with the NRA's 'side' of the issue indicates he can't be a "liberal" - since when is gun control truly a "liberal" concept. Oppression and tyranny and genocide are not possible in an armed society, but are facilitated by 'gun control' - these shouldn't be things a true "liberal" would desire.
How do you "compromise" on a Consitutional right thats explicitly stated.
Dave Skinner's expose` of Larry Kralj seems to me to have been little more than the act of a vandal. I am shocked that a person old enough to have access to a computer would find a reason to do such a thing. What was gained by such an act of pointless nastiness?
Perhaps I am mistaken.
It may be that a wide cross-section of New West readers may have found the post of value. If that is the case, I suppose there will be other such acts of irrational scholarship...
http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
If it happened near me patriots won't have to depend upon finding arms in government armories. I've already got more Garands than the GI's of Athens found! And I'd rather have an M1 than an EBR (but I"ve got a couple of those too).
When the ballot box and the jury box fail to protect the lives and freedoms of man, the cartridge box becomes the only hope. So without arms freedom is living on borrowed time at the pleasure of tyrants already in office.
I think you are mistaken in believing that us gun nuts only care about the 2nd amendment. We care about the WHOLE constitution. The second amendment is currently under attack, both overtly and covertly. So of course, that is where our primary defense must be.
Without the second amendment, the constitution is simply another piece of paper. Defending the rest of the bill of rights would be impossible without it.
Well hell yeah, he's mistaken. I'll just go ahead and say here what I said elsewhere: Bill Schneider must not be a very well-read person, at least as far as today's gun culture and gun bloggers' representation of that culture goes. The fact is if you read just about any of the gun bloggers out there, it's a safe bet that you'll find 99 percent of them commenting regularly on violations of other constitutional rights and general civil liberties.
Don't take this personally, but stick it in your ear, okay?
I was struck by Larry's riffing on gun wackos and all that, given his history. I found it very ironic, and given Larry's stridency both here and in other forums, perhaps this was the time to note that irony in this context.
The fact remains, Larry K was in fact in an "eco-militia." Still calls himself an environmental ranger, which the group called themselves.
The only difference is that the Rangers are on the Left, which somehow, if you read the tone of the contemporary coverage, made them an "okay" kind of "militia." There's a double standard there.
Just imagine if I myself had formed a "logger militia" to keep ecoteurs from wrecking logging jobs and tooted my horn about being locked and cocked with full auto toys.
So I must ask, "Jedediah Redman," why is it wrong for me to point out real stuff, over my real name, while it's okay for you to say -- under a pseudonym -- I'm just being pointlessly nasty? Double standard there, too.
Have a nice night.
The second ammendment makes hunting possible, not the reverse. It must be protected from liberal idealogues who would disarm a nation "to make it safer".
Charlton Heston was once a Liberal as well, but there's nothing Kates has written in the last 20 years that would even remotely suggest he's Liberal, must less moderate, politically. If I'm wrong, then prove it by linking me to a paper he wrote that demonstrates otherwise.
The academics you guys cite (Kopel, Malcolm, Kates, Mauser, etc.) is the exact line-up that appears every year at the NRA's annual Second Amendment conference at George Mason.
Just in case you were wondering why they called them "gun nuts"...
ok, Lawrence Tribe. It took him 3 tries but in his 3rd revision of his constitutional law book used at Harvard (and the MOST CITED book in SC decisions) he agrees that the 2A protects an individual rights.
Also, Sanford Levinson (1989 - "The Embarrassin Second Amendment"). Embarrassing because as he points out, an intelligent reading of the 2A comes to the same conclusion that Tribe did 20 years later.
But I suppose now because Tribe and Levinson have broken with the LIBERAL ORTHODOXY the frothing-at-the-mouth anti-gunners will not accept them as "liberals" either.
It's a joke to attempt to converse with people like that.
Also, Sanford Levinson (1989 - "The Embarrassin Second Amendment"). Embarrassing because as he points out, an intelligent reading of the 2A comes to the same conclusion that Tribe did 20 years later."
I am no expert on constitutional law, and I suppose the recent Supreme Court decision pretty much establishes that the 2nd amendment grants an individual right to bear arms. The president can't overrule the Supreme Court, so you gun owners can all chill out.
I just question the often repeated argument that the 2nd amendment is the most fundamental right of all, because it somehow mystically protects all the others rights. There are many successful democracies which have no equivalent right and very strong restrictions on gun ownership. How do you explain them? Luck? Less corrupt politicians? I'd say the most straightforward explanation is that these two things (gun rights and other democratic rights) have nearly no correlation. This is not an argument for abolishing the 2nd amendment at all, it just puts it into perspective.
And even though some here claim that "gun nuts" want to protect all amendments and the constitution equally, I'd bet that a poll would show a significant opposition among "gun nuts" to the 16th amendment (the Federal Income Tax one).
What kind of liberals _would_ the NRA invite as speakers, if not pro-2nd Amendment liberals? Both Don Kates and Charleton Heston established their liberal credentials in the Civil Rights movement. Neither of them have given any indication _whatsoever_ that they've reversed their positions on the issues since then. Therefore, they remain liberals.
Now, if you want to argue that most of the Democrats have become radicalized since then on many issues and these fellows haven't followed -- that's a different issue.
I don't know of _any_ democracies that have maintained strict gun prohibitions for more than a few decades so far, and those are seeing their other civil rights (e.g. privacy, right of the accused to face his accusor in court) gradually diminished now as well.
I don't know of _any_ gun-prohibitionist democracies which have stood the test of time WHILE IN THAT PROHIBITIONIST CONDITION. Most of the continental European democracies were not set up until the U.S. occupied Europe after WWII, and it was only twenty years ago or so that we withdrew our troops. Perhaps without our occupation and CIA meddling they might not even be democracies today. That's what the Soviet Union claimed when we critized their control over eastern European satellite countries -- they said western European countries were _our_ satellites, and maybe they were right.
I've not made ANY arguments here as to who would or would not believe each of the amendments is of equal value, or greater or lessor value.
As with any discussion like this EVERYONE will have differing shades of opinion, and gun-owners are no different. And some may be either MORE interested in ALL the BofR (like I think I am) or less, as you think some of them might be.
I tend to believe that on average, gun-owners are more likely to support ALL the BofR than are non-gun-owners, and particulalry the ANTI-gunners.
I would point out that the BofR does NOT include the 16th amendment.
I've also not made any comments about whether "succesfull" democracies around the world do or do not have restrictive or not gun-control laws. I pointed out Tribe and Levinson since the examples of Kates didn't satisfy Freedom4All (and I doubt he really wants "freedom for ALL").
As for the president "over-ruling" the SC, of course he can't, but Obama seems to think that an "assault-weapons" can be constitutional. I expect to see an "assault-weapons" ban out of Congress THIS YEAR, so I fully understand why many gun-owners including myself, are buying them as fast as we can.
And of course the whole point of "wild Bill's" original thread is that we gun-nuts need to calm down and compromise, and "not alienate" the rest of the gun-owners. Our argument to his is that even he "they" sacrifice "us" (the evil black rifle owning bunch) that "they" will probably lose their (traditional wood stocked hunting rifles) eventually.
Despite that Heller says the 2A guarantees and individual right, I don't think the battle is over. The Brady Bunch etal are still interested in restricting semi-automatic weapons along with a host of other desires. It's still VERY possible for America to go down the road of the UK and one day Americans might wake up and find their "right to keep and bear arms" is still in the Constitition but virtually gone on a practical basis.
Of course it depends on what you mean by prohibitionist, but I assume that the Netherlands would qualify. Obviously you've never heard of the Netherlands then? What about France? Ever heard of that? It's a country, too.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2739
oh, and we're already starting to see violent Islamic intimidation in the US. How long before we have a list of "sensitive urban areas" where US citizens dare not go. especically after we're disarmed.
I was not talking about crime and self-defense (and the quite speculative notion that this woman who was raped and murdered would have survived if only French gun laws were different), I was talking about using guns to protect the people's rights.
Talking about violent intimidation, anti-abortion groups and right-wing terrorists have done this for decades in the US. I don't think the Islamists are even close yet. Funny enough, the most effective weapons against violent intimidation seem to be non-violent, like the lawsuit by the Southern Poverty Law Center that brought down Aryan Nations.
You have made it as a rightwingcrazy--and nowas a rat...
we are thru the looking glass folks.
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/11/19/the-insane-rage-of-the-same-sex-marriage-mob/
Among other cuties in his resume, Holder is listed Number Three under Janet and one of Lyndon Johnson's AGs as an amicus curae for former DOJ people putting forth a brief to the Supremes in the Heller case.
The bottom line of that brief was, of course,
"ARGUMENT The Second Amendment Does Not Protect Firearms Possession or Use That Is Unrelated To Participation In A Well-Regulated Militia."
Yeah, youbetchanothingtoworryabout.
Lukas: "I assume that the Netherlands would qualify. What about France?"
Neither of those democracies is even a single lifetime old (they were fascist 65 years ago), and their strict gun laws are even younger than that. That doesn't qualify to me as "standing the test of time" -- unless a few decades of democracy is good enough for you. Plus, their civil liberties are now under threat. (In Holland, the penalty for making a film critical of Islam's treatment of women is now death. Of course, it wasn't the _official_ government that administered the death penalty to Theo Van Gogh, but if that makes it different we can arrange to have private parties administer the death penalty for various crimes here in America.)
Lukas: "scott, I was not talking about crime and self-defense..., I was talking about using guns to protect the people's rights."
You were already given the example of the "Battle of Athens, Tennessee." And I already told you of how our right to vote against higher taxes was infringed by opponents in government threatening violent retribution at the hands of criminals (via the removal of police protection) -- until we acquired the ability to protect ourselves.
Lukas: "Talking about violent intimidation, anti-abortion groups and right-wing terrorists have done this for decades in the US. I don't think the Islamists are even close yet. Funny enough, the most effective weapons against violent intimidation seem to be non-violent, like the lawsuit by the Southern Poverty Law Center that brought down Aryan Nations."
And the guns of the government had nothing to do with that? If the government had had the same attitude towards the Aryan Nations as they have toward illegal immigrants and La Raza, the lawsuit would have accomplished as little as a lawsuit against the KKK in 1925.
Yes, they were occupied by Germany for a while, but if you exclude all countries which suffered invasions/occupations for a few years, you make your sample size ridiculously small. Then only a few lucky democracies stood the test of time at all (no matter whether gun control or not), and what does this imply? Not very much at all.
"In Holland, the penalty for making a film critical of Islam's treatment of women is now death. Of course, it wasn't the _official_ government that administered the death penalty to Theo Van Gogh, but if that makes it different we can arrange to have private parties administer the death penalty for various crimes here in America."
You would have a point if the government tried to cover up the crime or didn't prosecute the murderer, but you don't. This was an ugly hate crime, and unfortunately these happen all over the world all the time. (If you don't believe that similar things happen/happened in the US, you are obviously not following the news.)
"You were already given the example of the "Battle of Athens, Tennessee.""
Actually, this seems like the only good example I have ever seen, and at least it didn't happen too far in the past. Thanks for pointing this one out.
"And I already told you of how our right to vote against higher taxes was infringed by opponents in government threatening violent retribution at the hands of criminals (via the removal of police protection) -- until we acquired the ability to protect ourselves."
This, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have anything to do with gun rights. Or am I missing something?
"And the guns of the government had nothing to do with that? If the government had had the same attitude towards the Aryan Nations as they have toward illegal immigrants and La Raza, the lawsuit would have accomplished as little as a lawsuit against the KKK in 1925."
I never claimed that I wanted to disarm the government. Laws always have to be backed up by force, sure.
Jed. don't you mean the leftwingnuts. Isn't that what E.L.F. does? and PETA?
Are you saying posters that sign their name have nothing to fear from, to use your phrasing, "leftwingcrazies?" Only those on the political right can be crazies? That's not true, and you know it. Father Pfleger, for one. Billy Ayers for another? I mean, the padre made public death threats, and is now kind of on a blacklist where he belongs. Billy and his weather crew blew stuff, and a few people, up!
Furthermore, what about any number of writers that work under their own name? How come Pat Buchanan or Michelle Malkin or Harold Meyerson or Paul Krugman et cetera...all these folks manage to annoy and anger readers on a regular basis, yet it's been a long time since anyone's been attacked...excepting that Berg radio guy in Denver, that was neo-Nazi kooks.
Never mind the animal-rights people on the left, blowing up labs and burning down forests, or good old Ted Kaczynski blowing people up...
If you're so paranoid and chicken that you can't "name" your attacks on others, or pejorative adjectives such as "rightwingcrazies," I agree with Mike above. Those who snipe from behind the electronic bush with some "non de zap" aren't worth the electrons. It's no better than making crank phone calls.
And I never imagined I'd say this, but Larry K at least has the backbone to name his rants, and not hide from accountability for what he says. For that reason alone, I must give him due credit.
I must concede that he, another others here with whom I vehemently disagree, are FAR higher up the food chain than certain nasty anonymous anklebiters.
Lukas: "Yes, they were occupied by Germany for a while, but if you exclude all countries which suffered invasions/occupations for a few years, you make your sample size ridiculously small. Then only a few lucky democracies stood the test of time at all (no matter whether gun control or not), and what does this imply? Not very much at all."
On the contrary, there were a number of European republics in the 19th century that didn't last (France had several), and among the many formed after WWI, not all of them were conquered by the Germans -- several became fascist on their own. (Spain, Romania, Hungary, Italy, Russia). Russia, too, was a democracy briefly. Then there are the dozens of democracies created after WWII in Africa that didn't last, and the many in South America which were subject to coups by dictators.
Until the American occupation of Europe, there were only two democratic traditions that stood the test of time -- the Swiss, and those derived from England -- I include the U.S., Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand. Not that any of these were perfect, free utopias, but they all had a tradition of growing self-government, individual rights, privacy, and distributed power. And all of them -- until the most recent few decades -- had a tradition of citizens being allowed to own firearms. (Until WWI, all had a tradition of private citizens being allowed to _carry_ firearms.)
Coincidence? Maybe. But then, since England outlawed the tools of deadly force, they've been losing their tradition of privacy (videoing the public everywhere), and the rights of criminals are under threat (because unarmed people cannot be expected to testify against violent criminals who threaten them). In fact, the growth of English liberty began when medieval kings decided to rely upon long-bow men. These were as powerful as crossbows, but could fire much more rapidly. However, they required regular, lifelong practice -- which meant allowing commoners to possess deadly weapons. This meant they had to be treated with more respect than commoners on the continent (where the easy-to-master crossbows were confiscated from the soldiers after release from duty).
As for the Theo van Gogh incident, I view freedom of speech as the right not to be forced to choose between silence and death -- not the right to hope that after I am put to death for speaking that my killer will spend a few years in prison.
me: "And I already told you of how our right to vote against higher taxes was infringed by opponents in government threatening violent retribution at the hands of criminals (via the removal of police protection) -- until we acquired the ability to protect ourselves." Lukas: "This, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have anything to do with gun rights. Or am I missing something?"
Without gun rights, we were forced to vote the way others wanted us to vote, lest our only protection from muggers (the police) be diminished. With the shall-issue concealed carry laws, we could tell the government, "We will vote as we please. If you don't want the muggers to die, then before they try to mug someone armed you will have the police arrest them and keep them in prison. Your choice. But we will vote as we choose, and we will not let violent criminals oppress us."
For another example of private guns protecting freedom of speech, see: http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel012402.shtml
There is no constitutional protection for any right to kill wildlife.
When PETA comes for Bill Schneider, will he go quietly to jail, or will he fight it? Will anyone raise a finger to help him?
Mr. Schneider has no authority to waive my rights. He should stop pretending that he does. I won't tell him to stop slaughtering animals for sport, if he will stop telling me that my 5'1" mother doesn't need a gun to protect herself.
Does that sound fair, Mr. Schneider?
Freedom lives.
You're just another "eat me last, Mr. Crocodile" sunshine patriot.
Good luck, sunshine. You're gonna need it in this brave new world.
III
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."
1) The Vietcong wore pajamas and sandals made out of old tires. Who won that war?
2) Al Qaeda has no tanks, no navy and no planes (except the 4 airliners they hijacked) and yet we are still in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Clinton administration conducted a survey of Marine recruits, asking them if they would comply with an order to confiscate guns from American citizens on American soil. Not surprisingly, nearly all said no (some more pointedly than others).
But only a deluded fool thinks that the Left does not want a herd of compliant sheep to rule over.
After 155 comments this thread is about out of bullets, I suspect, so I'm going to try to summarize what I see happening here.
People seem to have a very serious problem with what I said, and I really don't understand it. For example, I said….
1. I'm pro-gun, pro-2A, but I like other amendments as much or more.
2. We do not need any more gun laws and even agree we should take some existing laws off the books. We shouldn't even try to reauthorize the AMB.
3. If dems are stupid and bring gun control up on the agenda again, they will and should be swept out of power again.
4. I respect gun nuts for what they've done for all gun owners, including we lowly hunters, and a lot of groups could learn how to do it from you folks.
And for this I get nothing but grief and name-calling? Personally, I don't care. If I did, I wouldn't have written about guns in the first place. But I do care about my gun rights, and if this is how you treat people who are mostly in line with your thinking, we might lose our right to bear arms after all because regardless of how many nastygrams you send politicians, your voice will become more and more politically insignificant and gun control and registration might actually happen. So, as I said in the last paragraph, don't alienate other gun owners just because they aren't hardliners. Please think about this before you start shooting. We don't want the loss of the 2A to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Bill
However, I suggest you drop the two ridiculous arguments, they just make you look stupid. I mean the following:
"As for the Theo van Gogh incident, I view freedom of speech as the right not to be forced to choose between silence and death -- not the right to hope that after I am put to death for speaking that my killer will spend a few years in prison."
If this is supposed to be an argument that there is no freedom of speech in the Netherlands, consider these facts:
Between 1993 and 1998 seven people in the US were killed because they worked at abortion clinics. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-related_violence#Murders
The conflict in Northern Ireland has led to several politically motivated assassinations in the UK over time. Actually, since some of these were carried out by groups related to the government, this might even be an argument that the UK didn't quite have all the democratic freedoms you would expect. Of course, the situation got better in 1998, just one year after Britain banned the personal use of handguns. Coincidence? (See, I can ask these suggestive rhetorical questions, too. Just for the record, yes, I think it is a coincidence.)
Slice it any way you want, gun laws don't have much discernible influence on terrorism, or on violent acts by religious fanatics. As much as I'd like an easy solution to prevent crimes like the murder of Theo van Gogh, there seems to be none.
And this one is a complete non-sequitur:
"Without gun rights, we were forced to vote the way others wanted us to vote, lest our only protection from muggers (the police) be diminished. With the shall-issue concealed carry laws, we could tell the government, "We will vote as we please. If you don't want the muggers to die, then before they try to mug someone armed you will have the police arrest them and keep them in prison. Your choice. But we will vote as we choose, and we will not let violent criminals oppress us.""
The government tried to blackmail you into paying taxes by letting criminals run loose, and then you said "OK, we'll just shoot them ourselves"? This looks less like a rational interpretation of political history and more like a bad dream. Is there anybody outside of the circle of extreme gun lovers and anti-tax libertarians who subscribes to this theory?
One thing you never did do is admit that you "non-hardliners" shouldn't ALIENATE us also!
You still haven't figured out that the Brady Bunch etal are not going to stop at "assault-weapons" bans, closing the "gun-show loophole (whatever that is)", "sniper-rifle (those look suspiciously like guns I'm guess YOU like), or "saturday-night specials", and on and on.
So, Bill, don't write tongue-in-cheek DIATRIBES calling us names and then expect us to compromise with you and sell some of our rights down the river in favor of yours.
It's amazing how quickly you made my point. I never said, tongue-in-cheek or otherwise, that you need to compromise anything or that my rights are more important than yours (they're the same, aren't they?), but I did say I supported taking some of the current gun laws off the books.
Bill
"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'm guessing you've never heard of, or possibly forgotten about, a trio of fellows that wrote under the nom de plume of Publius. You need a remedial lesson on the history of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM
http://www.amazon.com/Death-Gun-Control-Victim-Disarmament/dp/0964230461
Gun control laws creats unsafe streets and unstable societies.
Thanks, JR, for being truthful for once, with your last message.
Bill, you are wrong when you say us Second Amendment types don't get upset when we see the First or Fifth stomped upon. But all the other rights will be indefensible if government is able to abridge any of them without any fear of retribution.
I belonged to the ACLU for a couple of years, but realized that the organization is only interested in three amendments at best, one, four and maybe five...and can't be bothered with four if it has to do with two. Or Five if there's a "public good" involved. At least ACLU hasn't gone over to supporting "hate speech" restrictions.
As for the Fudds, Tom Gresham put it pretty well. If you have guns and haven't had to beg government for permission to have them, then you are a passenger in the wagon. Maybe once in a while you need to pull and give us horses a rest. No wonder we lather.
Just look up mobs and/or scalawags.
I admire people who openly protest against the government or industry--or any out-of-control similar force.
Its the louts who gather together --or singly--take revenge on individuals in secret I abhor.
Your article made me want to ask what the point of hunting is anymore? Why do you feel the need to track and hunt an innocent and harmless animal? When you think about it, it makes you sound a little creepy - sort of gun nuttish, if you get my drift. Dressing up in camo and crawling around in the woods "tracking" that "Big Game". You go, B'wana! You're the Man!
And please, don't even try to tell me that you do it for food. Afterall, unless you live in the Outback, you've probably got burger joints and coffee shops on almost every street corner and no doubt at least a couple supermarkets within a few miles of your home.
So what's your true motive for the tracking and killing Bill? Are you really just a closet gun nut and afraid to come out for fear of facing the harsh reality of it?
You see? It's not so bad being called names. As a conservative I've gotten used to it and it doesn't bother me much anymore. I find it serves to reflect the person doing the name calling for who they truly are.
Time will tell; there's a lot at stake.
me: "As for the Theo van Gogh incident, I view freedom of speech as the right not to be forced to choose between silence and death -- not the right to hope that after I am put to death for speaking that my killer will spend a few years in prison."
Lukas: (no government is 100% at preventing political murder, citing its occurrence in the U.S. and Northern Ireland)
My point is that even though there is no 100% protection, when someone threatens to murder those who disagree, freedom of speech implies the right to use a comparable level of force in self-defense -- specifically _because_ no government can issue 100% protection. I have a right not to have to choose between silence and my own death -- a right that is not limited to the government's ability to protect it.
me: "Without gun rights, we were forced to vote the way others wanted us to vote, lest our only protection from muggers (the police) be diminished. With the shall-issue concealed carry laws, we could tell the government, "We will vote as we please. If you don't want the muggers to die, then before they try to mug someone armed you will have the police arrest them and keep them in prison. Your choice. But we will vote as we choose, and we will not let violent criminals oppress us.""
Lukas: "The government tried to blackmail you into paying taxes by letting criminals run loose,"
(not just taxes, but ever higher taxes)
Lukas: "and then you said `OK, we'll just shoot them ourselves'? This looks less like a rational interpretation of political history and more like a bad dream."
About 18 years ago crime was terrible in high-tax New York City, and then-Mayor David Dinkins gave the usual "There's little we can do about crime until the root causes such as racism, poverty, and economic inequality are dealt with." This was a lie, because there was plenty of racism, poverty and economic inequality in the 1950s, but much less crime. He was voted out in favor of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani -- who was able to reduce crime significantly (although nowhere near to 1950s' levels). Called on this, ex-Mayor Dinkens explained, "When I said that, I was not considering the possibility of using Nazi tactics against crime."
Mayor Dinkins was using the threat of crime to force New Yorkers to agree to yet higher (!!!) taxes and more social programs. Most American cities had left-leaning mayors doing the same thing.
Across the nation, city governments were letting lots of muggers, burglars and carjackers run loose. And when they _were_ convicted, others like themselves were freed early -- on grounds of prison over-crowding. Some politicians promised to "get tough on crime" but there was little change. That, and the expectation we would just take it -- was the nightmare.
It was around that time when I and others like myself in many states put pressure on governments at the state level to pass laws forcing the police to issue concealed-loaded-handgun carry permits to ordinary private citizens who take training comparable to that of a private security guard. I cannot monitor a politician's day-to-day actions to know whether he truly is "getting tough on crime" versus whether it's an empty promise with business as usual. But I _can_ verify that gun carry permits are being issued, and I _can_ observe the way the government treats private citizens who shoot robbers. We don't have to settle for promises (lies) and excuses.
Lukas: "Is there anybody outside of the circle of extreme gun lovers and anti-tax libertarians who subscribes to this theory?"
What do the anti-tax libertarians have to do with it? We were _already_ paying taxes far higher than in the low-crime 1950s. But there's a limit.
next our cars?
refrigerators?
showers and commodes?
knives, forks and spoons?
irons and ironing boards?
cars? (yeah they are clearly dangerous)
bottles and glasses, glass windows?
surely our money!
lives?