Why Guns?

L. Neil Smith's Webley Page ^ | L. Neil Smith

[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?

[tpaine]

Yep, that article by Smith needs reposting every time the NRA apologists on this board open their mouths.. I was there in the trenches in '68, and these words of his strike home:

"FIRST, I'd want the NRA not to write any more legislation. It's said the NRA leadership wrote the Gun Control Act of 1968 (before my time, if you'll recall). I know they wrote the Maryland Handgun Ban because they were afraid that something worse was in the works. Fear seems to be their principal motivation, not anger or determination. Invariably it steers them toward a submissive, repulsive "strategy" of doing the enemy's work before he can do it himself."



Thanks for the repost.. I'll bookmark this one.

[Mr. Mojo]

BTTT

[Mr. Mojo]

BTTT

[Mr. Mojo]

BTTT

[Mr. Mojo]

BTTT

[Mr. Mojo]

BTTT

[dljordan]

But, but, you CAN'T applaud Smith he's a (gasp) LIBERTARIAN!

[Mr. Mojo]

And not just any Libertarian, but a Libertarian Presidential candidate (on the ballot in Arizona).

...and a great sci-fi writer to boot.

[Uncle Bill]

"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?"

BTTT

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..the NRA has become a cowardly, politicized, public relations empty suit...

What a load of crap. Without the NRA, we'd have President Gore to contend with, now.

Stay on the sideline, Geoff Metcalf. And keep your useless trap shut.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

FIRST, I'd want the NRA
SECOND, I'd want the NRA not
THIRD, I'd want the NRA to
FOURTH, in the same context, I'd want the NRA
FIFTH, I'd want the NRA
SIXTH -- and this may be the most
SEVENTH, in support of that objective
EIGHTH, I'd want the NRA to establish
NINTH, I'd want the NRA to give up
TENTH, while we're on the subject of prior restraint
ELEVENTH, I'd want the NRA to make
TWELFTH, I'd want the NRA to reduce
==========================================

Then why don't you run for the NRA board, Neil? 'Course, that takes a lot more effort, than sniping at them from the woods.

[tpaine]

"And keep your useless trap shut."
-BtA-


How apt.. 'Aussie' advice on gun control is worse than useless.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

There's no such thing as 'Aussie' advice on gun control, tp. Views here range right across the spectrum, just like they do in the States.

Just as similarly, hardworking Aussie pro-gunners are bedevilled by blokes whose 'contribution' is sniping at their efforts, from the luxury of a computer desk.

[tpaine]

Just as similarly, hardworking Aussie pro-gunners are bedevilled by blokes whose 'contribution' is sniping at their efforts, from the luxury of a computer desk...
-BtA-


Exactly me point 'matey', - hardworking American pro-gunners are bedevilled by appeasment crazed 'aussie' blokes whose 'contribution' is sniping at their efforts to reform the NRA, --- from the luxury of their computer desks down under, where they've already lost their battle.

Why should we take advice from lo0sers?

[Byron_the_Aussie]

Good question!

Exactly what FR thinks, when reading your posts.

[tpaine]

Dream on Byron.

- I'd bet that 'most' of FR's posters agree with the authors basic conclusion; -- the NRA has done a lousy job of leading the defense of our RKBA's.

As Smith said:


" -- I'd want the NRA to adopt as its principal and publicly-acknowledged objective the repeal or nullification of every weapons law, at every level of government in America. The Second Amendment is explicit about this and requires no esoteric legal interpretation. Check the dictionary meaning of "infringe" if you doubt my word."

[ApesForEvolution]

Thanks for this post. Can't be said often or loud enough.

[ApesForEvolution]

LOL! Lurkers unfamiliar should have gotten a (/sarcasm) tag.

[ApesForEvolution]

That best sums up why I stopped shelling out for the NRA years ago. Good post.

[ApesForEvolution]

Most excellent post!