Posted on 09/11/2007 9:52:52 AM PDT by JZelle
Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.
People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.
Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.
If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
(Excerpt) Read more at lneilsmith.org ...
Not in New York or New Jersey, where I must apply for permission to OWN a handgun.
"-- If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.
What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?
If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.
He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons?
What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you.
And that, of course, is why they hate it.
And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.
But it isn't true, is it? ---"
Smith says:
"-- And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? --"
Then there's that enemy of the US to consider...
Even more reason to conform to our supreme "law of the land", -- the idea of any man, woman, or responsible child, - paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything — without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper,
The word "arms" has a fairly specific meaning, and that is personal weaponry carried by a foot soldier. Cannon and such larger weapons are more properly classified as "ordnance". I think the founders knew the difference and had they meant something beyond the "arms" of a soldier they'd have said it.
There's a practical matter to it as well. The militia was expected to keep and care for their own arms, and when the call came to muster... to show up with those arms. Logistically, treating the big stuff that way would have been awfully complex. Having all the larger ordnance bought and owned by the governor and kept and cared for down at the armory just makes more sense.
if the 2nd amendment clearly and unambiguously gave everyone the right to own a suitcase nuke then it would be amended.
I don’t see the right to bear arms as a potential checkmate against the government. I see “being necessary to the security of a free State” as the factor.
Hamilton wrote in Federalist #29
“The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.”
Now, are suitcase nukes in the hands of immigrant muslims necessary to the security of a free state? No, it would lead to insecurity.
What is the best (serious) response to this sort of exaggeration?
We can trust them with guns if the government ensures that they are trained effectively in their use. The swiss model but not the ‘anything goes’ American model.
read at home tonight BUMP!
Oh, yes of course. There were privately owned cannon, and more to the point I don’t think there is anything suggesting an early move by any legislature to outlaw them (which is interesting all by itself).
But it wasn’t common practice for households around the colonies to have their own cannon or other heavy ordnance. What they did all have were personal arms— and that is what the founders were specifically attending to... That freedom depends on the rank and file citizen to have the means to fight. I think they meant it as a starting point, the essential minimum for the formation of a militia, and left silent any discussion of heavier weaponry.
“DEMOCRACY IS TWO WOLVES AND A LAMB VOTING ON WHAT TO HAVE FOR LUNCH. LIBERTY IS A WELL ARMED LAMB CONTESTING THE VOTE.”
oh I like that
Did they still have legal privateers in the late 1700’s?
Off topic - Captain Kidd was actually a privateer (not a pirate) back in the 1600’s and hired by NY businessmen and backing of the king to go after pirates. I read a great book on the “TRUE” story of Captain Kidd, and it was very well documented and he followed the rules of engagement of being a privateer, but took the fall when he was too agressive. One was taking a ship flying a French flag which was okay, but the ship was actually Dutch or something and carrying Indian textiles. He was legal in taking it, but pissed the Dutch and Indians off - who were friends with the British. There are actually the legal documents (shipping records, seals, etc.) still in London that prove his innocence but were not brought up in his kangaroo court trial.
“Would you trust citizens to defend themselves with rocket launchers, tanks, or nuclear weapons? Then why should we trust them with guns?”
My opinion/response to that is, rocket launchers, tanks, and nuclear weapons are designed to kill a whole lot of people all at once. It is almost impossible to kill just one assailant, or one small group of assailants, with these weapons. Of course you could just drive a tank around, so that may not quite apply, but anyway. . .
I have a right to bear arms, to defend myself/family/property, but I don’t have a right to do a mass indiscriminate killing.
Anyway, that’s how I see it.
A quick internet search found the followong on:
Privateers and Mariners in the Revolutionary War
The 13 Colonies, having declared their Independence, had only 31 ships comprising the Continental Navy. To add to this, they issued Letters of Marque to privately owned, armed merchant ships and Commissions for privateers, which were outfitted as warships to prey on enemy merchant ships. Merchant seamen who manned these ships contributed to the very birth and founding of our Republic.
Comparison of Navy vs. Privateers in Revolutionary War
........................Continental Navy.....Privateers
Total ships.................64.............1,697
Total guns on ships........1,242..........14,872
Enemy ships captured........196............2,283
Ships captured by enemy.......?............1,323
He did say “anything”. And no I don’t think a “responsible child” is protected to be able to purchase firearms.
I think his overall tone is part of what makes him kooky.
Uuuuuh . No. You can’t have fighter planes w/2000 pound bombs.
Koo koo...
Koo koo...
Well... based on past experiences with you, I care very little what you think about this fellow freeper.
However, for the sake of the thread...
The nutty author of this article with his “infantile” writing style is the one who said a “responsible child” should be able to go into the store and purchase “anything”. If I am misinterpreting that to include “suitcase nukes” (which it obviously does at the very least symantically if not intentionally by the author) then you need to correct William Tell in another post here where he informs me that it includes all the way up to and exceeding “fighter planes” and “2000 pound bombs”.
Finally, But what yourself? I said what I meant don’t take away or ad to it. Just say what you think.
I whole heartedly agree.
Ya think Ben Franklin's idea of newspaper circulation ever approached today's numbers? Radio, TV dawn on any founding father? Maybe we should redo the First Amendment in light of the same manner some want to redo the second?...AND limit the FIRST?....LOL....
Whoops...forgot McCain Feingold..already done that!
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.