The gun lobby's flawed logic is riddled with bullet holes

New York Daily ^ | Monday, April 13th 2009, | Stanley Crouch

[presidio9]

If John Travolta, an avid user of his private jet and a reported Republican, were to be stopped by law from purchasing an armed fighter plane, would the film actor suddenly be surrounded by the same people who sanctimoniously claim that the Constitution protects the private citizen's right to buy and own an assault rifle?

That seems an absurd question, but we often find ourselves in absurd circumstances when we get to the gun issue. A hard fact leers before us: on the subject of guns, constitutional meaning and misinterpretation have been mixed together for so long that far too many people think our Constitution advocates things that it does not.

Confusion over history and the law are not new, but our trouble with gun ownership truly stands apart from the rules of how things are usually done.

In our democratic history a process leading to important policy changes has appeared over and over. It reveals a sense of ongoing injustice and the proof of blood sacrifice made by those who experience pain, mental suffering and death resulting from abusive policy.

The sequence of events is fairly simple: Something terribly wrong is discovered, it is then studied, conclusions are reached and a case is made for better laws being drafted.

Once the issue is raised into plain sight, the proverbial ball starts rolling.

Our attempts to create a mature and rational gun policy have not gone well. The lobby representing the NRA has had so much sway over Congress that the politicians run for cover rather than get on the lobby's enemies list. If they do, reelection becomes much harder.

The trouble has nothing to do with the right to hunt or the right to own a weapon for self-protection. The trouble is that any change is interpreted with the logic of a survivalist. Any limitations on what can and cannot be bought, can or cannot be stockpiled, are indisputable proof that "they" are taking our rights away and making us so docile or so vulnerable that "we" will be pushovers when the marching boots arrive and strip us of our liberty.

What is most startling about it all is how invulnerable that species of thought is to true domestic terrorism and lunatic slayings. The logic of freelance survivalists in government or the gun lobby is made ridiculous by the blood sacrifice all around us.

There is no civilized or reasonable reaction to all of the murders committed by urban street gangs or the highly publicized nuts so isolated from reality that killing becomes a terrifying way of getting attention or proving your alienation from others.

Add the fact that purported supporters of law and order manage to ignore the legions in law enforcement who oppose the sale of assault weapons to the citizenry. Why would they not? They know all of the details about the urban terrorism of street gangs and the tragedies unleashed by armed loons. We can add in the documented fact that weapons bought at unmonitored gun fairs are arming Mexican drug dealers who will end up fighting American troops very soon. Makes no difference. There is always a cost to following the Constitution. Enough said.

But not quite. Perhaps money is the real answer. I think that Russell Simmons, Arianna Huffington, George Soros and other limousine liberals should gather their forces and raise enough money from the wealthy who are actually interested in our civilization. With enough money, they just might be able to put a hole in the bucket of the gun lobby.

Worse things have been tried.

crouch.stanley@gmail.com

[AvOrdVet]

The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, not the delivery system for those arms.

If you're going to make a point about the Second Amendment, don't try to bend it to justify your point..."A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The object of the 2A is not to justify any "type" of weapon, it is there to ensure the people have the "means" to resist...

Within the true meaning of the 2A, you could own anything and as long as you don't violate another rights (as in shelling their corn field with your howitzer) it would be within the law. Arms back then had a pretty broad meaning.

Back in the day a few citizens had their own cannon and shot

Just as now you can pretty much own any type of military hardware (Selective Fire Rifles, Tanks, APC, Grenades, Rockets, etc.) as long as you pay the tax stamp and the enormous price.

[ExSoldier]

He probably won't read it, but I just wrote this guy a huge e-mail citing the Heller decision, the Federalist Papers (#8, #29 & #46) and the part of the Constitution dealing with letters of marque. (sp?) I'll let y'all know if he responds of if I get fired since I sent it from work, but after hours.

[AvOrdVet]

2A minds think alike! ;-)

[Condor51]

Stanley Crouch

What is most startling about it all is how invulnerable that species of thought is to true domestic terrorism ...There is no civilized or reasonable reaction to all of the murders committed by urban street gangs..

Ah-ha. Stanley, thank you.
You are admitting that your homey Street Gangs in 'Da Hood' are nothing but ... Domestic Terrorists.

So I guess what you want is that instead of having 'out gunned' Civilian Police patrolling those areas, that the US Army should be there in armored Humvees and shooting these Domestic Terrorists on sight if they have a weapon or caught in the act of Domestic Terrorism. And if captured alive after a fire-fight, they would be shipped off to GITMO pdq. No Miranda, no lawyer, just .. poof .. in a plane to Cuba and a lifetime in a cell with no trial.

And I already have some neighborhoods in Chicago picked that would be perfect for the 'newly defined' 101^st Airborne Division (Air Assault) to operate in, and even where Base Camps can be set up. Natch, this includes house-to-house searches in the dead of night for illegal weapons, components for IEDs and any outstanding warrants on these Terrorists. [They can start patrolling in the Englewood Neighborhood, the most dangerous in Chicago, with the Base Camp set up in Washington Park₍₁₎ (plenty of room for Choppers).]

In two years Chicago would be livable again. Murders down to double digits, and no Law Abiding gun owner's Rights would be infringed upon. Yep Stan, this works for me. When do we start?

(1) After they clean out that Terrorist nest they can move to Lawndale and set up in Douglass Park.

[ctdonath2]

This tool would also do so if he knew what was, in fact, legal.

[tet68]

“There is always a cost to following the Constitution. Enough said.”

Ah but a cost to whom?
Statists? Communists? Liberals?
Those who trample on the constitution at every available instance?
Oh, there is a cost to NOT following the constitution and it is paid in freedoms lost to all.

[wastedyears]

I sent this long reply to the author:

First off, I would like to know where in the Declaration of Independece, Federalist Papers, United States Constitution, or Bill of Rights, barring judicial decisions, where the government has the power to regulate the manufacture or sale of firearms. Also, where does it state that at the time, single-shot black powder cannon and muskets are perfectly fine, but today’s advancements in firearms technology may be prohibited?

Second point, the Founding Fathers wished for the American government to stay as far away as possible from becoming a democracy. We are constitutional, representative republic.

Pray tell, what would be rational gun policy? Would single-shot .22 caliber rifles and single-shot .410 shotguns be fine? Or could that be moved up to 12-gauge pump shotguns and .223 caliber bolt-action rifles? Or, going further, 8-gauge elephant guns, .50 caliber anti-material, long-range rifles, and fully-automatic firearms?

This seems like a good source related to fully automatic firearms. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

Here’s another documented source of a crime committed with a fully automatic firearm. Even then the author of the article can’t get their facts right. http://members.cox.net/arporro/photos/Shooting.pdf - A Mac-11 is not a rifle, as the reporter claimed near the end of the article. At the beginning of the article, the author claimed that the Mac-11 fires 70 rounds a second. Well, that’s easily debunked by going to Wikipedia and searching for the Mac-11; the website lists the rate of fire as being 1200 rounds a minute. Doing the math, according to the author, a Mac-11 would fire 4200 rounds in 60 seconds. The only gun I know of that can match and beat that, is the Metalstorm being developed in Australia, which uses caseless ammunition and an electronic fire control system. Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/warriveiki/MAC-11

Going further down your article, I suppose you haven’t heard of the Civilian Gun Self-Defense Blog. Link here: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html - They have archives dating to 2003. As the name suggests, it’s a record of people defending themselves and others around the United States with the use of a firearm. More often than not, a firearm is never discharged. I will venture a guess that you’ve never handled a firearm before. They are actually very safe if you handle them with care and respect. If you would like to, you could take a class on the safe handling and use of a firearm in NYC. I don’t work there, nor am I affiliated with someone that works there in any way. - http://www.westsidepistolrange.com/hours.php

Police officers are not constitutionally obligated to protect you. The Supreme Court decided that in Warren vs. District of Columbia. Proof here: http://iarnuocon.newsvine.com/_news/2009/01/12/2303566-things-you-should-know-the-police-arent-obligated-to-protect-you, and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia. Also take note of the decision at the bottom of the page. The police arrive to cordon off the area, take pictures of your corpse, and draw a chalk outline of your final resting place. In the overwhelming majority of cases, they cannot get there in time to protect you or save your life. There is an adage used by those in favor of self-defense, that goes “when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.” I cannot think of anything more true than that. When somebody puts a gun in your face, your life is in their hands. You cannot put faith in them to leave you unharmed. A criminal holding a gun on you gives them the ability to do anything they please to you, because you’re not equipped to stop them. They could rob you, beat you, and kill you a day before your body is found. Believing that the police can be everywhere at every time is simply insane.

Staying in line with that, police never enter and clear an area when the crime is still happening. At Columbine High School and Virginia Tech, police waited hours before going in, which would have been hours after people have died. A person cannot live for hours if shot in the femoral artery if the bleeding is not stopped immediately. Heavily armed and armored SWAT waited outside Columbine, while students, teachers and faculty ran from the school with their arms in the air or behind their heads, as if they had something to do with the crime. Cho, the murderer at Virginia Tech, passed the background check when he purchased his pistols. Why might you ask? Because he lied on his form 4473, which is the ATF form filled out at a firearm shop when a person purchases a gun. Further compounding that, was the failure of his psychiatrist to enter his name in the database of those prohibited from owning firearms. That being said, it is easy to tell the gun was not the problem.

Final point in your article is your claim that the “gunshow loophole” allows Mexican cartels to arm themselves with American weapons. Well, I have some news for you that you’re not going to like. The Firearm Owners Protection Act, signed by President Reagan in 1986, contained the Hughes Amendment, which ended the sale of newly manufactured machine guns after May 19, 1986 to the general public. Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#Machine_gun_ban_.28The_Hughes_Amendment.29

Fox News (yes, the evil Fox News) is the only media organization reporting the fact that only 17% of guns at Mexican crime scenes turn up to be smuggled from the United States. Proof: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/ - there is a huge difference between stating that 90% of all guns in Mexico come from the US, and 90% of those traced come from the United States. The Mexican government does not send firearms back to the United States for traces to be done on them. Fox reported that the majority of guns found are clearly marked as having not come from the United States. Also, you just simply can’t purchase fragmentation grenades in the US, or rocket-propelled grenades. That is simply not true, and dangerously so.

[Delacon]

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd"), also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument and derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original claim must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

[buccaneer81]

You might as well claim that the Second Amendment protects "bullets" but does not protect the delivery systems for them.

That won't fly. Guns are the "arms" referred to in 2A. The bullets are a component of the arms.

[Armedanddangerous]

He also has a British Vampire jet fighter..the one from the late 1940s early 1950s.

[smokingfrog]

Now called the Commemorative Air Force.

[TrueKnightGalahad]

There's a book mentioned in Atlas Shrugged, titled "Why Do You Think You Think?' and fictively authored by the uberthug character, Dr. Floyd Ferris. Reading mindless screeds like this, I am tempted to write my own book, and title it, Why Does Stanley Crouch Think He Thinks? What Crouch calls 'thinking' is a mish-mash of lies, half-truths, illogical leaps, undefined concepts, and emotional reductionism. This is all too endemic amongst libs; whatever tasks their brains may be performing (keeping their skulls from being crushed when wearing berets?), thinking is not one of them...and we must never respond to them as though their spoutings merit intellectual consideration. Treating them as though they are intelligent is in itself providing them with a sanction of the victim.

[ctdonath2]

Yup. Most entertaining kind of reasoning.

If John Travolta ... were to be stopped by law from purchasing

He already owns one. Legally. Argument closed.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Now called the Commemorative Air Force."

Too bad. The liberal uber-propagandists win another round.

[Gilbo_3]

sadly don, at this point ive come to believe that all these 'journalists' and especially the political pimps all know what their endgame is and more importantly why they need to do it piecemeal...

commie divide & conquer strategery is all they ever do, therefore I know that they know whats legal and whats desirable for their master...

[snowsislander]

The anti-gun left is making a strong push for gun control.

It's important that pro-gun folks participate in the RKBA community, and I believe that the most effective way is to join the NRA --- and a one-year membership is currently free: http://www.nrahq.org/nrabonus/ (and 2 years are only $25, a very good deal.)

[blackie]

It's all about power, the left-wing tyrants could care less about people; they want to control and they will do anything to accomplish those ends!

Freedom!

[ctdonath2]

I don’t think it’s quite so deliberately malicious. They simply have a world view, based heavily on ignorance, which when proceeded upon leads naturally to certain conclusions.

These are people who know practically nothing of law, yet feel authoritative pontificating thereon. Unfortunately, they thrive in an idiocracy which rewards ultimately destructive behavior.

...hence the importance of true conservatism: we may not be able to conveniently articulate WHY we hold particular values, but we hold them because they were arrived at through great suffering and cost spanning generations or longer.

[Malsua]

-”Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty, teeth and keystone under independence. The church, the plow, the prairie wagon and citizens’ firearms are indelibly related. From the hour the pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that, to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. Every corner of this land knows firearms, and more than 99 and 99/100 percent of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil influence. They deserve a place of honor with all that’s good. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.” - George Washington

Yet another quote from a founder that was never said.

Think about this a little bit and do some research. Do you think George Washington would talk about Prairie Wagons? They weren't used until the mid 1800s after the Louisiana Purchase. George died in 1799. The French still owned all that land at the time of his death.

[teeman8r]

buccaneer, your logic is flawed.... if we have the money, we can buy a heavily armed plane...

delivery system...?

shall not be infringed means just that.

teeman