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 ...
Thank you for that post. I will be forwarding it to my friends.
Why in the world do you believe that they do? Are you that paranoid?
You brought up nukes, not the author and not the other posters. If I didn’t know better, I’d say that your intent was to disrupt the thread. In fact, I have no reason to believe that this isn’t your intent.
We are talking about personal arms and the attitude of politicians towards the right of the people to keep and bear said arms.
If you are not a disruptor or troll, stay on topic, okay?
People should use words like “troll” and “disruptor” carefully, especially people who signed up just a month ago.
Blame? They simply failed to heed the old proverb. Be prepaired! They were probably content in pasture, before the danger showed up.
Re: "None of your neighbors have any nukes, suitcase or otherwise." Why do you think that's so?
"Why in the world do you believe that they do? Are you that paranoid?
That's not an answer. It's a dodge. The reason, which is particularly relevant to the topic at hand, is that they don't have them, because "my neighbors" can't buy in the legitimate nuke market.
"It is the essence of the violation of the basic right to keep and bear arms by requiring government permission."
THe buyer doesn't need, nor do they apply for, or receive permission. The buyer simply picks out the gun and buys it from the FFL. The FFL in turn does business according to the law.
You stand for and support anarchy,
Simply not true. You cannot cite any such argument I've ever made.
-- by the use of faulty logic and pure BS to gut the Constitution.
Again, you are simply trolling, "flaming" me as attempting " -- to gut the Constitution --", by defending our right to buy guns without 'background checks'.
Such 'checks' are unconstitutional infringements made by Congress under the pitiful guise of regulating commerce. -- And you pitifully defend Congress.
Can you refute John Ross?
"-- You know, -- 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.
Here in the United States you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars or trucks, of 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 latter must never require government sanction. --"
Any 'faulty logic' comments spunk?
"NO waiting periods, no background checks"
There are background checks for DLs. You're just not aware of them. The check isn't complete and refers to State DOT records and any sent to that State.
THere's no point to the Brady waiting period, if one can already slap a gun down. In that case they're clearly a violation of right, w/o justificaiton. If not, and the person ignored, "be prepared", they'll have to suffer the few days, because the law is there.
"--- Here in the United States you can AT ANY AGE go into any state and buy as many motorcycles, cars or trucks, of 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. ---"
Any 'faulty logic' comments spunk?
There are background checks for DLs. You're just not aware of them. The check isn't complete and refers to State DOT records and any sent to that State.
How pitiful. -- John's entire essay blows away your 'check' concept, and all you can critique is a bit about how we are unaware of State to State sharing of info?
You need rest. - Read some more Bellesile's and get back to us with some fresh agitprop on this issue.
Most people live in the same State. Try to get a licence renewed after you've lost your privilege due to forfieture of that privilege by some infraction, or lost it for health reasons. They won't do it, because they run your name through the records. When one moves to another State, the relevant records are forwarded when the new state notifies the old one that you've moved.
"John Ross wrote:"
When Mr. Ross can document thta cars being used as tools to threaten and kill people with, as guns are. Let me know.
When Mr. Ross can document thta cars being used as tools to threaten and kill people with, as guns are. Let me know.
Well, there we have it sports fans, proof positive that the real inspiration behind spunket's defense of the 'Check' system is that guns are " -- being used as tools to threaten and kill people --".
Thanks. Gotta love an honest confession.
No sport. The IBC is used to deny those that have disqualified themselves by forfieting their rights, or those that are a danger to themselves, or others due to mental defect, from being able to obtain them in the legit market to threaten and kill people with.
“Although they may have been too expensive for typical private ownership.”
Most of the commerce-raiding warships in American service during the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 were privately owned.
I’m not a disruptor troll. I DO think the author is a Kook, destined to do more harm than good to the right to keep and bear arms.
You really should read the whole thread (I don’t mean in general as some threads grow too long to possibly do that, just this one in particular at this time).
EVERYTHING I have posted is on topic. Others (as I knew they would) have jumped my case because I’m not willing to play the “I can be as nutty as you game”.
Your arguement here is rediculous. It’s like saying we have a right to choke someone to death but we will be sanctioned if we are caught and convicted of it. You are wrong.
That’s the difference. As big of a rude jerk as you are, I don’t see you as an opponent. Just a jerk who, if they could get over themselves, would realize that we agree on many more things than we disagree on.
In Post #6, you brought up suitcase nukes and the thread was about firearms that could be purchased over the counter without a background check.
How is that on topic?
And I did read the thread and stayed on topic.
Our rights end where they (especially negatively) impact another person. Where do you get the idea that I suggest that it is okay to choke someone?
Yelling ‘FIRE’ when the intent is to clear a theater (or other building) when there is a bona fide threat (even if it is not a fire) is completely legitimate. ‘FIRE’ is quick and easy to say and is readily understood. Police and other safety experts instruct people to yell ‘fire’ if they are attacked. People don’t respond to ‘help’. They do respond to ‘fire’
Quit with the straw man arguments. They are weak and will get you nowhere.
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.
You really do need to learn to ping your opponents when you fantasize about what we are arguing.
That?s the difference. As big of a rude jerk as you are, I don?t see you as an opponent. Just a jerk who, if they could get over themselves, would realize that we agree on many more things than we disagree on.
There you go again, being rude to your "rude jerk" opponents.
You imagine yourself as defending our right to own and carry arms. -- Yet you agree that big bro can regulate virtually any aspect of the right.
We agree on very few things.
Look twit, you’re the one who started out by calling me a four-flusher and an enemy.
Buzz off.
Don’t you have something important to do like going to make sure someone isn’t oppressed by being denied their right have a thermonuclear explosive device in their living room?
Since we don’t agree on much I am sad to hear you say you don’t agree that we have the right to own sidearms, rifles and shotguns because I thought we would agree on that.
I would bet that I can list a hell of a lot more that we DO agree on than you can list that we DON’T agree on.
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.