Posted on 05/28/2002 2:27:07 PM PDT by 45Auto
For those of you sufficiently uninformed to think gun control is a good idea, I have disastrous news for you: The Democrats, on seeing that there aren't quite enough of you to be useful to them, are cutting you loose.
This has been written about a few times now in the mass media. The latest broadside may be found at the Christian Science Monitor: www.csmonitor.com/2002/0510/p02s02-uspo.html
This is a common peccadillo for the two parties who, in terms of principle, represent nothing. Any of you who were, for whatever reason, opposed to capital punishment have undoubtedly already noticed that the Democrats cut you loose decades ago. A person opposing the death penalty understands precisely what is meant when it is argued that there isn't a "dime's worth of difference" between the two parties.
If your pet-favorite issue is the subject of that "dime's worth," just keep in mind that your issue could be next, so watch where you invest both your campaign funds as well as your illusions.
The reason for this about-face on guns seems petty straightforward; several analysts have shown convincingly that, had Al Gore not supported gun control, he would probably have been elected president.
(A pro-gun control USA TODAY article noted this at www.usatoday.com/news/e98/raasch/r086.htm)
And the big news is that the Republicans have capitalized on this with the administration's revolutionary announcement that the Second Amendment is what it says it is. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=514&e=5&cid=514&u= /ap/20020508/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns_3
But there's much more to this seemingly-sudden national shift.
The MONITOR story cited above soft-pedals this, but Democrats (and Repubs) have long known that many gun advocates are one-issue or critical-issue voters. On the other side, the gun-control people are a more generalized lot. They tend to want government controls on many things, so a freedom-oriented candidate is not an option even if their favored candidate takes little or no position on guns.
Many gun advocates feared that the various school shootings would bring the same parity to their cause, but it never occurred. There are a number of reasons why.
I believe that September 11 was a big one. Many on the gun-control side of the debate are there because they've implicitly accepted pacifism. That's an easy error to make when you have the advantage of living in one of the most peaceful places on Earth, which the United States is.
September 11 re-acquainted Americans with the notion that violence in defense of your country, or your family, or even your person, is no vice. The nation's been a century-and-a-half without domestic warring except for two singular assaults. But one of them was, well, just the other day.
But the really huge problem for gun-banners has been right there in front of them for decades, and there is simply nothing they can do to stop it, argue against it, or refute it.
It is, of course, Vermont.
The central idea that propels gun-control is that you simply cannot let guns loose. People (and by that we always mean "other people") simply cannot be trusted to own and use guns safely. Guns must be regulated and carefully watched by law enforcement. In at least some significant degree, this is how it is done everywhere.
Except, of course, in Vermont. No gun laws in Vermont. Period.
There are indeed jurisdictions that allow many people to carry and use guns, but those exist in far-away, culturally-odd places like Missouri or South Dakota.
But you can drive from Manhattan to Vermont in a few hours.
And we are told that it is certainly guns that are the problem, not people. If guns are freely available, it stands to reason that there's going to be more violence and more crime.
But somehow, in Vermont, there's less of both than anywhere else in the United States.
Where is the "common sense" on Vermont? Are people there so different that they don't draw guns in traffic disputes and kill one another? Isn't this scenario what's supposed to happen when guns are unrestricted? Why doesn't it happen in Vermont any more often than anywhere else? And then ask yourself why it actually happens in Vermont LESS often than almost anywhere else?
How is it that Vermont has flirted with this dangerous idea of leaving people free for all these decades and remained unscathed?
On the gun issue, the ignorance is both deep and wide. The world's number-one newspaper - The New York Times - employs a fellow named Bob Herbert to write opinions for them. Yesterday, he said: www.nytimes.com/2002/05/09/opinion/09HERB.html
"I had a .45-caliber pistol hanging low on my hip many years ago when I was in the Army. And I can tell you, I'm not anxious to think about that kind of weapon (or something smaller and easier to conceal) being in the pockets and the purses and the briefcases and the shoulder holsters of the throngs surrounding me in my daily rounds in Manhattan."
This is such a statement of vile ignorance that the residents of Vermont would be understood (though not forgiven) if they indeed made Herbert's nightmares come true during any visit he might make. But they do not, and have not, and would not. Too bad Herbert is so utterly outside of reality that he can't imagine how that might be so.
Vermonters needn't worry, however, since Herbert, if he is sincere, will stay, comforted, in the gun-safety of NYC.
- - - For more information on the facts alluded to in this article (for example, that Vermont has the lowest rate of crime in the nation), the best source is John R. Lott Jr., a scholar who has produced research on these issues. His latest commentary in USA TODAY can be found at: www.usatoday.com/usatonline/20020509/4097089s.htm
Bwaaaaaaaahahahahaha!
Hahahahaha....he he he.
YES!
The author makes the mistake of thinking that gun control (confiscation) is simply another issue to play with as needed. Gun grabbers think it's a great idea for their own reasons, and are to be found in both major parties. They will try to sell the idea, not just pander to some part of their constituencies.
A paraphrase of Barry Goldwater, one of two of my favorite presidential candidates.
The next time the Lefties wonder why there is no active draft or that the president receives his military briefings from the Chairman JCS, rather than each branch separately(as did LBJ), they can thank Barry Goldwater.
How is it that Vermont has flirted with this dangerous idea of leaving people free for all these decades and remained unscathed?
Vermont exposes the tip of the iceberg.
During Clinton's eight years as President 25,000 new laws and regulations were created. That's over 3,000 each year.
Big Question...
How is it that Americans and society remain unscathed for years and decades without next year's three-thousand new laws... but come next year politicians, the media and academia will be telling us we can't live without those new, "must-have" laws?
Compassion hoaxing, "I'll-use-government-to-help-the-little-guy" politicians and bureaucrats pass an ever increasing number of laws that empower alphabet bureaucracies to "justify" usurping unearned power and glory by undermining the individual-property rights of the little-guy the feign to protect. It's an inversion of justice.
The only justifiable purpose of government is to protect individual-property rights. That can be done with far less than 3,000 laws --- not to mention 3,000 new laws each year.
That's us if we actually believe that garbage. The anti's will never give up. Ever. If the dems actually believe that gun control costs them elections, then let's start rolling back all the gun laws back to the 1850's.
Nails it. This explains why many gun-control political figures are all in favor of possession and concealed carry as long as it's just them. (Not only in favor, but in practice - paging Senator Feinstein, paging the late Carl Rowan...) This has always been true of ruling classes, and firearms are a dandy means of ruling-class prevention.
Stainless Series 80 MK IV bump! :-)
And until they do, I won't be flying commercial- though I could do so for free. And neither will a lot of other former frequent fliers.
How many bankrupted airlines do you think it will take until they decide to *reevaluate* that policy?
-archy-/-
What's happened here is that the Democrats are out of power. They don't have a prayer of actually passing any gun control legislation and they've determined that it won't help them in this falls elections to make an issue of it, so for the time being they are letting it slide. But if they regain power you can bet that one of the first things on their agenda will be yet more gun control.
Vermont demographics is about 98% European American (I know that statement is VERY politically incorrect) and when you have that demography, the level of gun crime is almost always at low levels.
When will we begin to accept the reality that large populations of minorities and illegals tends to be attended by high levels of gun violence and crime?
It ain't the guns folks, it's the folks that wield them illegally!!
Vermont demographics is about 98% European American (I know that statement is VERY politically incorrect) and when you have that demography, the level of gun crime is almost always at low levels.
When will we begin to accept the reality that large populations of minorities and illegals tends to be attended by high levels of gun violence and crime?
It ain't the guns folks, it's the folks that wield them illegally!!
Ignorance is indeed both deep and wide, and the staff of the New York Times has wallowed in it for at least two generations that I know of. They are not the "world's number-one newspaper," except in their own eyes.
But you may be overly optimistic to think that the fight may be coming to an end. The Left is passionately intent upon reducing the independent, self-sufficient, rooted mainstream American type to dependency. Disarming him will continue to be one of their important long-term goals. It is all about taking away our ability to ever return to the intended Republic of the Founding Fathers--reversing the Socialist advances in the 20th Century.
To anyone who understands the ethos of traditional America, it should be clear that we have premised everything on a responsible and accountable citizenry. Having citizens, individually prepared to defend themselves and what is theirs, makes the same sense that having citizens individually prepared to make their own way in the free market--the genius of the market system--makes. They involve the same concepts. And they represent the American way. But the New York Times had not been very interested in maintaining the American way; not for a long, long time now.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
The simple fact is that different CULTURES place higher value on certain virtues (and vices). And despite what the "multiculturalist-all-cultures-are-equal" crowd, some cultures are better than others.
"Who are you to say that some cultures are better than others?!?!?" the morally superior, intellectually miniscule will scream.
Simple.
You judge cultures the same way you judge religions (as a man much wiser than me noted), by "the fruits they bear". Many cultures are simply oppressive, backward, corrupt, and pathetic. Our culture, quite simply has produced the greatest, strongest, freest(sp?) civilization in human history. There isn't any other civilization even close.
The simple fact is that it is not some of our ethnic sub cultures that produced this remarkable acheivement. It is the values of western civilization (our particular brand) that produced this success.
So what you said is not RACIST, it is factually correct. And for those of you who ARE racist, brown skin does not keep a person from embracing the values of western civilization and making a fine American.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.