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 ...
The following is by writer John Ross:
The biggest mistake we make is failing to take the moral high ground on our issues such as Natural Rights and the Second Amendment and letting our enemies define the terms.
THEY SAY: We’d be better off if no one had guns.
WE SAY: You can never succeed at that, as criminals will always get guns. That is FLAWED reasoning, as the implication here is that if you COULD succeed, it should be a reasonable plan.
WE SHOULD SAY: “So, you want to institute a system where the weak and elderly are at the mercy of the strong, the lone are at the mercy of the gang and you want to give violent criminals a government guarantee that citizens are disarmed and perfect prey. Sorry, that is totally unacceptable. Better that we should require every citizen to carry a firearm.”
THEY SAY: Those assault rifles have no sporting purpose. You don’t need a 30 round magazine for hunting deer. They’re only for killing people.
WE SAY: We compete in DCM High Power with my AR-15/M1A. You need a large capacity magazine for their course of fire. My SKS is a fine deer rifle and I’ve never done anything to give my government reason not to trust me…wa wa wa wa wa (a la adults in Peanuts cartoons). This is FLAWED as you have implicitly conceded that it is OK to ban your firearms with no sporting use. Eventually they can replace your sporting arms with arcade game substitutes.
WE SHOULD SAY: “Your claim that ‘they’re only for killing people’ is imprecise. A gas chamber or electric chair is designed for killing people and these devices obviously serve different purposes than firearms. To be precise, a high capacity military pattern rifle, shotgun or handgun is designed for CONFLICT. When I need to protect myself, my loved ones, my freedoms, my liberty and my Natural Rights, I want the most reliable, most durable, highest capacity weapon possible. The only thing hunting and target shooting have to do with freedom, liberty and Natural Rights is that they’re good practice for when they need to be protected from the overreaching tyranny of our government officials.”
THEY SAY: If we pass this CCW law or that Castile Doctrine, it will be like the Wild West, with shoot-outs all the time for fender benders, in bars, people will kill just to kill without any reason and they will actively seek out confrontation since they don’t have to run away from trouble, etc. We need to keep guns off the streets. If doing so saves just one life, it will be worth it. Think of the children…”
WE SAY: Studies have shown blah blah blah. This is FLAWED because you have implied that if studies showed CCW laws or Castile Doctrine equaled more heat of passion shootings or killings because someone sought out a fight rather than leave the trouble area, the CCW and justified actions with the doctrine should be illegal.
WE SHOULD SAY: “Although no state has experienced what you are describing, that’s not important. What are important are our freedom, liberty and Natural Rights. If saving lives is more important than anything else, why don’t we throw out the Fifth Amendment? We have the technology to administer an annual truth serum session to the entire population. We’d catch the criminals and mistaken arrest would be a thing of the past. How does that sound? Oh, by the way, the Supreme Court has ruled more than once that law enforcement has no legal obligation to respond to your emergency call, rather that they are charged with the general safety of a community. You should remember that when you say that one should call the police instead to protect yourself rather than defending yourself with a firearm.”
THEY SAY: They don’t see what the big deal is about a five-day waiting period or a limit on how many guns per month someone can purchase.
WE SAY: It doesn’t do any good as criminals don’t wait five days or restrict their purchases to a fixed number per month and it is a waste of resources to enforce it. The FLAW is you have implied that if waiting periods or a purchase limit DID reduce crime the measures would be good ideas.
WE SHOULD SAY: “How about a 24 hour cooling off period with a government review board before the news is reported? Wouldn’t that prevent lives being ruined such as the one of Richard Jewel? And the fact that this law applies to people who ALREADY own firearms tells me that it’s not about crime prevention, it’s about harassment and controlling someone. Personally, I want to live in a free society, not a ‘safe’ one with the government as chief nanny.”
THEY SAY: In 1776 citizens had muskets. No one ever envisioned these deadly AK-47s, M-16s/M-4s, M60s, M203 grenade launchers, etc. I suppose you think we should all have atomic bombs.
WE SAY: Uh, well, uh…
WE SHOULD SAY: “Actually, the Founders discussed this very issue – it’s in the Federalist Papers. They wanted the citizens to have the same weaponry, as were the issued weapons of soldiers in a modern infantry. Soldiers in 1776 were each issued muskets, but some individuals and private companies owned their own field pieces as part of the civilian militia and even had exploding shells. In 2006, soldiers are issued M-16s, M-4s, M249s, grenade launchers and more, but not howitzers and atomic bombs though artillery, mines, grenades and other ordinance are legally owned by private individuals right now. According to your logic, the laws governing freedom of the press are only valid for newspapers whose presses are hand operated and used fixed type. After all, no one in 1776 foresaw offset printing, web presses or electricity, let alone television, radio, computers, the internet and satellite transmission.”
THEY SAY: We require licenses for driving and registrations for motor vehicles, but the powerful NRA screams bloody murder if anyone ever suggests licensing these weapons of mass destruction.
WE generally say nothing, usually, and just sit there looking stupid.
WE SHOULD SAY: “You know, operating a motor vehicle on tax funded public roadways is a privilege, where the right to travel freely and the right to defend oneself through the ownership and use of firearms are both Natural Rights which existed before our Constitution. But let’s put that aside for a moment. It’s interesting you compared guns and vehicles. Here in the United States you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars or truck so any size as you want, and you don’t need to do anything if you don’t use them on public property. If you DO want to use them on public property you can get a license, depending on the state, between 14 and 18. This license is good in all 50 states. NO waiting periods, no background checks, nothing but a basic driving test, written test and vision test. If we treated firearms like cars, a teenager could go into any state and legally buy handguns, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, cannons, whatever, cash and carry, and shoot them all with complete legality on private property. And at a certain age he could get a state license good for anywhere in the country to shoot these guns on public property. However, as driving a motor vehicle on public property is a privilege and firearms ownership is a Natural Right, the former requires a government issued permit while the former must never require government sanction.”
THEY SAY: The government will never confiscate your deer rifle or turkey/duck shotgun.
WE generally act all paranoid and rant away at them.
WE SHOULD SAY: “In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina we saw rather clearly that our government did and will confiscate firearms from the law abiding while rendering them easy prey for criminals, many of which the government itself set free rather than keep them locked up. Additionally, even the government’s own employees, police officers in fact, abandoned their posts and took part in the looting rather than carry out their sworn duty to uphold the law and the Constitution.”
And finally, a comment that is useful with most all anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-Natural Rights zealots:
YOU SAY: “You know I’m amazed at how little you care about your children and grandchildren. I would have thought they meant more to you than anything.”
They say huh?
YOU SAY: “Well, passing this new gun control law won’t have a big immediate effect. I mean, in the next couple of years neither George Bush nor Ted Kennedy is going to open up interment camps like Roosevelt did fifty odd years ago. But think of your worst nightmare of a political leader. Isn’t it POSSIBLE that a person like that MIGHT be in control here some time in the next 30, 40 or 50 years, with 51% of the Congress and 51% of the Senate behind him or her? If that does happen, do you REALLY want your children or grandchildren to have been stripped of their final guarantee of freedom, liberty and Natural Rights? And do you really want them to have been stripped of it BY YOU?
Nope
Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.Emphasis mine.
I’m not twisting anything. Look at the arguements from frepers William Tell and tpaine. They are arguing all out that I am a Brady Bill gun grabber because I don’t think themonuclear explosives and fighter jets equipped with 2000lb bombs are protected for individual ownership in the constitution.
I would think that the author would agree with me (maybeeee) but he is still nutty in his writing.
Yep. Read the whole thread to see where I’m coming from.
Finally, you have found something worth dying for, but it is still just a lame straw man argument. None of your neighbors have any nukes, suitcase or otherwise.
LOL
The mere act of trying to buy a firearm by a prohibited person is a crime. Supposedly there are many thousand denials every years and some of them are prohibited felons. If your law works so well, why are there no more than a handful of prosecutions for these attempted purchases?
Why do you think that's so?
My rights are not determined by the bad acts of others. While the bad guy is simply reminded that he cannot purchase a firearm (and rarely prosecuted for trying) the law abiding citizen is often denied their right mistakenly and then have to pay some lawyer to win back his rights.
As I said the other day, you argue for the right to argue for a fee.
No wonder the country is such an utter mess — legalistic thinking by people llike you.
Wrong. “Arms” have been and always will be “any instrument specifically of war”.
Founders weren’t fools who thought it would be OK to leave the “big guns” only in government hands while the Joe Schmoes are stuck with the inferior stuff.
If so, then their very point of rising against unjust government would be moot.
The law is near 100% effective. The failure of the feds to act on these known violators is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Obviously, most of them will attempt to get them somewhere else. The fact that they're not prosecuted, could reflect on the nature of the disqualification. I wouldn't like to see those disqualified by Lautenberg, or mental illness jailed, just the scumbags. If they're being ignored, then it's clear they're not interested in preventing scumbags from continuing on preying on the public. So, the code dinks and other grabbers should be ranting on the feds, not in the legislatures to disarm their fellow citizens.
“Ummmm.... It would be illegal to shout fire in a crowded theatre if there was no fire correct? Yes there are points of free speech which are abridged”
Umm. No, not necessarily.
Yelling fire will get the attention of the crowd even if the threat is something other than a fire. You have resorted to the oldest and lamest argument yet. It will depend on the totality of the circumstances that determine if yelling “FIRE” is a crime.
We have the right to free speech. We should however be sanctioned when we misuse that freedom to cause harm.
The Consitution is supposed to be the chains that bind down the government, but the covenant is that we will obey the government and it’s laws when it is faithful to the Constitution. When a law forces me to choose between legality and morality, I will always choose morality. I will not obey laws that are repugnant to the Constitution.
And you have the nerve to talk about my logic. Aren’t you loyas supposed to be wordsmiths (and good spellers)?
How does my exercising my right to KABA arms in any way compare to ‘taking a dump’? And when was ‘dump taking’ a common and civilized practice?
Get over the ‘legit’ market. That’s not the only place to get guns and most bad guys don’t shop the legit market.
No. They are rarely denied.
"and then have to pay some lawyer to win back his rights."
No. Mistakes can be handled with a phone call, or letters. The lawyer might be needed to regain rights that the person lost due to mental defect. Congress still refuses to fund the ATF to provide remedy for the rights restored postfelony confiction and punishment. I think that funding should be tied to this recent bill regarding disqualification records.
Legalistic refers to law. If truth and rationality don't apply to the law, then there's nothing, but the arbitrary rule of scoundrels. If the law doesn't apply, then there's just anarchy, which amounts to rule by the most skilled at the application of violence to impose their will.
The Lord Himself did it many times. It is a fundamental right, no less important than the rights to keep and bear arms, and is protected by the Constitution by virtue of the 9th Amend.
"How does my exercising my right to KABA arms in any way compare to ‘taking a dump’?"
The exercise of both rights can not be infringed. The RKBA is effected by a lawful IBC, that does not violate any rights, but mearly imposses a requirement that is a minor inconvenience on sales transactions. The right to dump has imposed upon it, the minor inconvenience of requiring it to be done in appropriate facilities, but the right to dump itself, is not infringed. In neither case is permission required to exercise the right.
"most bad guys don’t shop the legit market.
Why do you suppose that is. Do you suppose that can't shop there, even if they wanted to?
"Get over the ‘legit’ market. That’s not the only place to get guns"
Well then, those folks that are offended, because they imagine their rights are violated in the legit market, can shop the other one.
What I had in mind for LONG RANGE was something more like the 338 lapua cartridge and the weatherby magnums and some of the other high powered remington magnums. These would represent grey areas. I think the 50 caliber sniper rifles are a bit much for civilians. But I would not budge and inch in my current right to own one until the law allows me to own a shortbarrelled shotgun or an uzi full auto or a 3 round burst M16 or any machine pistol such as a MAC-10 or similar. Once those rules are done away with, I probably wouldn’t have a problem with stricter rules regarding a 50 cal.
Basically, I think the gun control laws are all backwards and totally stupid.
Oh, I forgot the american 180. I really would like to have one of those.
Better that you don’t surrender them in the first place.
I shouldn’t surrender my cannons?
Dang. ~now~ you tell me.
JUST.
You toss that word around as though it means nothing. It is the essence of the violation of the basic right to keep and bear arms by requiring government permission.
And now you blame the victim for not being prepared ahead of time. Some people come to the party late due to lack of awareness and indoctrination. Then you want to add injury to insult and make them wait capped off with blaming them for not acting sooner.
Unbelievable.
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.