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 ...
>>I don’t think the constitution protects your right to own a suitcase nuke.<<
Does the first amendment apply to letters typed in MS Word, or only to ones written on parchment paper with quill pens?
Exactly. Not until the Congressional prohibitions of 1934 and 1968 did we have rifled breech-loading cannons 'outlawed'.
"-- Why, then, did privateering disappear? Many have assumed that the technological developments during the latter half of the nineteenth century---steam power, armored warships, and rifled cannon---made private ships of war obsolete, but that is false.
Privateering disappeared precisely because it worked so well.
It was effectively legislated out of existence in 1856 by means of the Declaration of Paris. The signatory nations wished to eliminate privateering, because it offered a low-cost but effective alternative to those nations who did not want to undertake the massive expenditures required by public navies.
The United States did not sign the declaration, but renounced the practice in the Hague Peace Conference of 1899.
Privateering was not a market that can be shown to have failed.
Clearly, national defense, at least insofar as naval warfare is involved, need not be the exclusive province of the government. --"
If that's not already on a bumper sticker, it certainly should be.
If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about [you] 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.
-- he seems to be pushing the edge of kookville prety hard to me. I am all for gun rights but as much as I may get flamed for it, I don't think the constitution protects your right to own a suitcase nuke.
I do believe your unhindered ownership of rifles, shotguns handguns and a whole lot more is protected.
You're "pushing the edge of kookville" by comparing possession of a "suitcase nuke" to owning and carrying arms.
Why the silly comparison?
-- You claim "I am all for gun rights, but", -- but what, [besides nukes] -?
Well... based on past experiences with you, I care very little what you think about this fellow freeper.
Look in the mirror, fellow freeper. You're opposing the principles, [as outlined by a quite rational L. Neil Smith] of our 2nd.
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'.
Not too long ago, [till 1968] it could be done. It was up to the discretion of the seller. The USA has lost personal freedoms since then, because people like you think it's "pushing the edge of kookville".
If I am misinterpreting that to include 'suitcase nukes' (which it obviously does at the very least symantically if not intentionally by the author)
You are hyping the 'nukes' point to what, -- concede that the government can 'reasonable regulate' away [prohibit], our right to own and carry certain types of arms?
-- 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?.
Guess what. There is nothing illegal [yet] about owning fighter planes -- or, - 2000 lbs of explosives.
Finally, But what yourself? I said what I meant don't take away or ad to it. Just say what you think.
I do say what I think. -- I think you are wrong about setting limits on what kind of arms we can own.
Freedom of speech doesn’t give anyone the right to scream an inch from someone’s ear and damage their hearing. Freedom of assembly doesn’t give anyone the right to jump out in traffic with their friends and hold a tea party. Freedom of the press doesn’t give anyone the right to put a banner loaded with obcenities on the wall of an elementary school.
You are within your rights as long as those rights don’t endanger others simply by their mere existence such as the radiation of a nuclear device. By the way, nukes aren’t exactly arms. They are devices such as walking around with a ticking time bomb. I don’t think the Second Amendment covers endangering people if you decide to commit suicide by bomb in a crowded subway.
I can't speak to that specific detail. But there were certainly cannon used to eject the government's navy from Boston Harbor. These cannon were taken by force from Fort Ticonderoga, a government fort, and hauled overland to be placed on Dorchester Heights, where they had total command of Boston Harbor. The threat that the militia would destroy the warships in the harbor was used as a negotiating point to prevent the occupying government forces from setting fire to the city as they evacuated.
Certainly a militia force that found it necessary to take cannons by force would see that the militia must have access to cannon, regardless of the wishes of the central government.
To the extent that the government is permitted to disarm the people, the fighting of a revolution against it will be even more difficult.
But one must realize that the enemy will not be the loyal troops, but rather the civilian power that would misuse those troops to deny people's inalienable rights. Tyrannical judges, politicians, and bureaucrats would be the main targets.
So the SALT talks with the Russians, the "Strategic Arms Limitations Treaty" talks, were about the personal weaponry carried by foot soldiers?
Nonsense.
And if, by chance, some foreign power, whether the Japanese, Chinese, Muslims, or Russians, invade and conquer the US, are suitcase nukes in the hands of the militia necessary to the security of a free state?
If arms in the hands of the government are sufficient, then there need be no arms available to the people. YOU, PERSONALLY, have a right to keep and bear ANY arms necessary to secure our free state. Your enemies, whether foreign or domestic, WILL USE all arms available to them to defeat you.
How about an M79 grenade launcher?
Heh. Fair point taken.
No. You can not own a fighter plane still equiped with bomb delivery systems.
And though in certain contrived instances you can own 2000lbs of explosive.
You can NOT own 2000lb bombs, designed and equiped for combat applications.
ONCE AGAIN, the AUTHOR said you said a “child” should be able to buy “anythinig”. It makes him look like a friggn’ butcase friggin’ nutcase and you look like an idiot for defending him.
Minors are minors for a reason. They have not reached the age of majority nor attained all the rights thereof granted by constitution nor GOD. They are CHILDREN. Duhhhhhh!
Koo koo...
Koo koo...
While on the theoretical level I agree with you... Good luck legalizing personal nukes. Or grenade launchers for that matter.
I’d love to have one. Not sure that’s gonna happen any time soon. I might suggest that our efforts now are best spent preventing further erosion of our gun rights.
Anti-gunners are mostly ignorant about how recent most gun control is. I remember the liberal media was aghast at finding out that there were people who owned great quantities of World War II armament, including large field guns, personally and were storing it out in the desert where it was practical to make use of it. This was about 1960.
It's fascinating to watch Hollywood's product from prior eras and make note of the tremendous changes that have taken place in protecting our right to keep and bear arms.
In the movie "Charlie Varrick", Walter Matthau's character purchases dynamite over the counter in a hardware store. In the John Wayne movie, "The High and the Mighty", a character threatens others with a gun but has it returned to him after he calms down.
The anti-gun hysteria is an invention of the last half century. The half century prior to that was the era of disarming minorities.
How about this.
Do you or do you not believe that I have a right to own a full power nuclear bomb in the confines of my own home?
Do you or do you now believe that I have a right to own a full power 100 megaton nuclear bomb and drive it around on the back of an 18 wheeler pretty much anywhere I want to go?
This may sound absolutely unbelievable and out in left field to those of you under 50, but that's exactly what it was like when I was a kid - and it was like that until around 1968 when the feds passed the Gun Control Act after Bobby Kennedy was assassinated.
Before then, I could walk into any hardware store (and a lot of gas stations, roadside stores and department stores) and buy guns and ammo if I had the cash. Almost any store (other than a grocery store) worth it's salt had them available for sale.
It has been Control Freak City ever since.
I have heard that argument regarding the meaning of the word "arms" before. It appears to me that the anti-gunners just made it up. Kind of like creating a thing called an "assault weapon". It took three different laws in Kalifornia to even define such a thing, and the result is a joke since rifles almost identical to those which have been outlawed can be owned legally.
Except, that is, for that near-equivalent to the suitcase nuke, the dreaded plastic pistol grip. Attaching one of those to your rifle could make you a felon, subject to serious prison time.
Small arms.
It’s that simple, man. Get a clue. Anything that is issued to the basic army infantryman should be available to any citizen no questions asked. That means pistols, M16s with 3 round burst, grenades, submachineguns, etc, and no mag capacity limits.
Long range sniper rifles, recoiless rifles, shoulder fired rockets, heavy turret mounted machineguns and anti material guns would represent a grey area.
Obviously, anyone with half a brain would recognize that the average citizen should not be able to walk into a hardware store and purchase weapons of mass destruction. That is a no brainer. DUH!
Concur. And yes, California has the goofiest laws ever.
I think that’s part of why I felt driven earlier this year to go ahead and buy an AR-15 with plenty of 30rnd magazines, and just for giggles— a bayonet.
I got it for no better reason than people like Feinstein don’t want me to have one.
One need only look to Iraq to see what is needed to fight a well-equipped invader. It most certainly does include explosives of all types, including grenade launchers and anti-tank weapons. And air power.
The liberals make the mistake of always associating the value of arms with the non-government misuse of them that appears in the liberal media. My rifles have never killed anybody nor have they been used in any crimes. Nor is there any significant risk that ANY arms owned by me will be misused.
Criminals and terrorists will use whatever the world will supply as weapons, regardless of the laws. One hundred years ago there were virtually no federal controls on arms whatever. Somehow the Republic survived it. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was a knee-jerk reaction to the lawlessness created by alcohol prohibition. The gangsterism associated with the illegal drug trade today is totally unaffected by anti-gun laws. Only the law-abiding are affected.
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.