Posted on 05/29/2003 9:23:28 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
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?
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?
I've written to mine several times about gun related issues and have been reassured that they are pro gun. Hah!! I read GOA's ratings on them and they're not only anti-gunners, but they're liars too.
-Empty-Barrel Gun Policies-A legacy of nonsense from Clinton, Blair, and the Left--
-A Problem With Guns (Long... but SOOOO good)--
Shooting More Holes in Gun Control
HCI Aussie Style (read it and weep-or laugh)
The Great Australian Gun Law CON!
Canadian Gun Control Has Little Impact on Crime (Home Gun Confiscation/Resisters)
Through the Looking Glass and Back Again - From Anti-gunner to Firearms Instructor in Four Months
BTTT
BTTT
Bump to the top!
So you think all guns should be outlawed?...Imagine if that were true and Bush was president?
They are left befuddled and stammering.
If as they claim, as is evidenced by the patriot act that Bush is a fascist dictator who wants to rule the country and the world at gun point, then why would you want to ban the only tool that can protect us from that? Why do you support a party that wants to deny your right to self determination?
I tell them that the Second Amendment is the only Amendment that can preserve the remaining Amendments.
To add insult to injury, I then quietly point out that it is your party, the democratic party that wants to strip the citizens of their weapons. If Bush and Conservatives are truly evil as you say they are, why is it then they are the party that wants to ensure you have the right to defend your liberty and throw off the shackles of oppression?
Excellent. ....I think I'll use that tactic on a couple of anti-gun "Ashcroft is the Devil" libs I know.
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.
Yes, and it pi$$es them (see above) off.
I have only two words for our readers: Molon Labe.
Oh, and BLOAT of course.
5.56mm
Though an admittedly hardcore non-joiner, I am a long time NRA member. Recently, I told them to take me off their call list. I regularly pay my dues and contribute when I feel the need, but I have more important things to occupy my time than to hang out with Bubba at a rally. LaPierre and his staff are well paid to lobby on my behalf. If and when I see the need to shoulder my .308 in defense of domestic freedom, I'll not hesistate to do so. Not everyone has to be a zealot for the protections to remain in place.
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 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?
And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them?
Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him?
If a weirdo (parasitical elite) politician won't trust you, don't trust him. If a cult-like gun advocate group or cult-like gun control group supports a politician or bill that doesn't trust you don't join their cult.
No person needs the support of any wierdo or moderate cult group. Each person needs to stand by their own firm individual and property rights authority. Live honestly, expose all cults, their leaders and media and academic facilitators.
Soap box, Ballot box, etc.
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Winston Churchill
Nope, sorry. If someone told me they would rather face death in the square than have a pleasant afternoon with friends carrying a picket sign, I would have to say they had a problem.
The coming civil war can't arrive soon enough for me.
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.