|
||
Only a 'Madman' Would Oppose All Gun Control, Says Gun World Editor
According to Jan Libourel, the editor of Gun World magazine, "Nobody but a madman would oppose some sort of gun control laws."
Libourel is no gun grabber in disguise. The statement, in a column titled "Panic Attack," comes after his personal observation, "It is true that the Democratic Party has for decades been much more receptive to punitive, repressive and unreasonable gun control measures."
But in the pro-gun world where everything -- from word to deed -- is seen through the gummy lense of the slippery slope, his comments may well be taken as an act of betrayal. Ask Jim Zumbo, described by the Washington Post in a February 2007 article as a "mustachioed, barrel-chested outdoors entrepreneur who lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park...[and]...spent much of his life writing for prominent outdoors magazines, delivering lectures across the country and starring in cable TV shows about big-game hunting in the West."
And how did Zumbo end up in the Post? Earlier that month he had written in his blog the following criticism of assault weapons and the men who love them:
"Excuse me, maybe I'm a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity...As hunters, we don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them....I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles."
In a community that cheers on the destruction of those who stray from the true path, Zumbo's world quickly collapsed: canceled television shows, lost endorsements, and a whole lot of hate mail.
So why does Libourel run the risk of traveling the Zumbo Trail? Because a significant portion of the pro-gun organizations and individuals that comprise the activist core of gun ownership in America do oppose "some sort of gun control laws." In fact, they oppose any sort of gun control laws.
And they don't consider themselves crazy.
Libourel's Quisling rating then ratchets up a few more points when he has the audacity to call into question the pro-gun myth of the modern-day 'citizen soldier.' You know, the heavily-armed guy who in his grandiose dreams is linked to a heritage that stretches from the Revolutionary War to the Wolverines of Red Dawn -- and is only seen by the rest of us when he snaps and his last "patriotic" act ends up on the evening news.
Noting the reported increases in sales of assault rifles like the AR-15 in the wake of President Obama's election, Libourel writes:
"I suppose the people rushing to buy up AR-15s 'before it's too late' are counting on the anti-gunners' being magnanimous enough to ban the future sale of such rifles yet leave existing owners in possession of theirs. Either that, or they are planning to hide them in anticipation of an armed uprising or social breakdowns. Although I was certainly no fan of the Clinton administration, I had to wonder about those 'patriots' and 'constitutionalists' who advocated arming themselves back then with an eye to overthrowing the lawfully elected government! Although I didn't much care for him, Bill Clinton was elected president under the United States Constitution, fair and square."
Libourel then goes on to question those who would follow the logic of "survival guru Mel Tappan," whose "shtick" was that they:
"should prepare for the inevitable social breakdown or nuclear war by acquiring a 'retreat' in a remote rural area where you could essentially live off the land and arm yourself to the teeth with state of the art high-firepower weaponry so that you could blow away any 'looters' who had the temerity to trample your Jerusalem artichokes! (I guess you would have to have a keen nose for trouble to effect a retreat to your retreat before the social blowup or the nukes started falling...) I suppose for defending an isolated ranch or farmstead from the concerted attack of a criminal gang one of these rifles would have considerable merit. The same would hold true if one anticipated in engaging in house-to-house fighting in some sort of urban warfare, as taught in the 'Urban Rifle' courses at the sundry shooting schools. However, being an old-fashioned, low-tech sort of guy, I always felt that a plain old short-barreled 12 gauge pump gun or autoloader was all the urban defense gun I'd ever need. In most urban jurisdictions, it would be pretty hard for a civilian to plead necessary self-defense if he engaged in a shootout at ranges greater than the 35 yards or so at which buckshot is effective."
In a world viewed by many of his readers in black and white, Libourel has staked out a little island of gray. It remains to be seen whether he's exiled to it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Same old Josh, same old tired pitch. Odds are he will Never acknowledge the Heller case's real meaning nor accept the conservative fundamentals on which this nation was founded - and was VERY successfull with for over 200 years.
Rome is burning, rights and freedoms are being restricted, class warfare is the rule, and oppressive taxes are the new expected normal.
The elite are worried, they should be. We must vote them OUT, and house cleaning is needed of the liberal ways which have corrupted the nation that has fought for freedom around the world many times and won every time we seriously wished to win (note the pattern change timing and the related timing of the increase in liberal policies).
Gun control is not the REAL issue, its PEOPLE control. Sorry Josh, ain't going to happen!
You are all forgetting one major point, specifically pertaining to the intent of the men who wrote the second amendment. The need for a "well regulated militia" is to keep the country safe from our potential internal, not external, enemies. Namely our own military and police force. That is exactly why it was written the way it was, to allow for changing times and weapons. To ensure that every citizen, in the interest of National Security, had the right to freely "keep and bear arms" that were equivalent or better than the one's wielded by the soldiers and police we may one day have to fight in order to keep our country. What good is the second amendment if we are only allowed to have single shots and pistols when our military and police carry automatic weapons, grenades, bombs, etc.
for malkin71....exactly what were the restrictions that the authors of the bill rights were in favor of...last time i look some of the most learned men in history believed in "shall not be infringed"...what part of "infringed" do you not understand...from websters....
Main Entry:
in·fringe Listen to the pronunciation of infringe
Pronunciation:
in-ˈfrinj
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
in·fringed; in·fring·ing
Etymology:
Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break
Date:
1513
transitive verb1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another 2obsolete : defeat, frustrateintransitive verb: encroach —used with on or upon
What part of "well-regulated" do you not understand?
We've been over this Jade. What part of "unorganized militia" do you not understand?
"well regulated" means "properly functioning". Its derivation is traced to a colloquial term during the pre colonial and colonial period that originated from adjusting pendulem clocks. To insure a pendulem clock was accurate. it was necessary to adjust the length of the pendulem so it would give the right time. This was accomplished usually by adjusting a screw located at the bottom of the pendulem. This action was known as regulating and when the clock was accurate,it was said to be well regulated. This terminology was then applied to all manner of things to express the need for something that functioned as it was intended to do. In fact the terminology "well regulated states" was employed by Blackstone in his commentaries. This colloquial usage survives to this day in some aspects. Some pendulem clocks are "regulators". Anything else you wish to know?
"Well regulated" applies to militias, not to the RKBA.
The first thirteen words of the Second Amendment are what is known in grammar as an "absolute phrase" (a common mistake is to refer to it as a clause - it is not). Such phrases exist outside the grammar of the main clause and do not modified the subject of the main clause in any way. Instead they act adverbially through the verb of the main clause to provide background information as to the action.
The subject of the sentence is "the right" which is first modified to be "of the people" and then modified again by an appositive renaming the right to be "to keep and bear arms". This complex subject is in existence just as it stands. It is not created by the sentence, but rather recognized as pre-existing. The absolute phrase does not modify, limit, or restrict this right or cause this to exist.
The predicate tells use what is happening to the subject (passive sentence structure). In this case it is being protected.
The absolute phrase then, acting adverbially, tells us an important reason why that action must take place. In this case, with the action being that of protecting again infringements, it gives an important reason to be protected -- because it is paramount for defense.
In period regulated meant trained as in knew how to use their weapons. You have to study these things in context.
The anti on this blog have tried just about every trick in their playbook for internet discussion.
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/oh_no_its_making_well_reasoned
In Switzerland, with one of the lowest murder rates in the world, most adults keep a full-auto battle rifle at home, and demonstrate their proficiency often. The highest murder rates in America correlate with the most draconian gun control laws. Can anyone show a "reasonable" gun control law which actually works? Such laws disadvantage ordinary law-abiding citizens and benefit criminals; this was the real intent of Tim Sullivan, after whom the Sullivan Act was named; his criminal backers wished to disarm their victims. Similarly, early gun control laws disarmed blacks. The power of the KKK was not broken until the armed Deacons for Defense demonstrated their willingness to shoot back in self-defense. The JPFO documents the provenance of our 1968 gun control law, closely patterned after a Nazi gun control statute which disarmed Jews.
In today's language, the Second Amendment could be read "the security of a free state depends upon an armed population" - as true today as ever. Why have so many superpowers had so much trouble conquering Muslims? People in many Islamic countries understand and implement a bottom-up defensive militia far better than a Western top-down military command ever could. In spite of not having tons of expensive equipment, they succeed in making lives really miserable for would-be occupying armies - just as a small band of Jews did in Warsaw, against the might of the Nazis.
Let's debunk the wonders of Switzerland, shall we?
The state-issued militia weapons are required to be locked up and securely stored and all ammo sealed and strictly accounted for. IOW, a Swiss militia member isn't free to take his militia weapon out to the range, hunting, or whatever. The ammo is sealed and accounted for. And guess what? Privately owned firearms and ammo are required to be registered.
"The highest murder rates in America correlate with the most draconian gun control laws. "
Nope--the city with the highest murder rate is New Orleans--which also happens to have very lax gun laws.
Oh slimyone--do not forget the violent crime rate in your favorite cities of Chicago and DC which have crime rates as high as NOLA
"The state-issued militia weapons are required to be locked up and securely stored"
When not in use.
"all ammo sealed and strictly accounted for"
Not 'all'. Only Gov't issued. They get discounts on privately purchased.
"a Swiss militia member isn't free to take his militia weapon out to the range, hunting, or whatever."
Except when they take it to the range or state sponsored competitions, etc.
Poor Jade doesn't want to believe the truth.
Under Swiss law. Most long guns purchases (including semi-auto) require no permit nor or they registered or regulated, Handguns require a permit to purchase but no other regulation is required. and the permit allows you to carry same... in effect it is a CCW permit. There is no limit on gun purchases of any kind except getting the permits if you are purchasing a handgun. After you have a certain level of guns (5) you are considered a collector and can now apply to purchase and own FULLY-AUTOMATIC weapons. Fully automatic militia weapons are not only allowed to be taken to the range, such usage is encouraged. Web site for civilian gun regulations
http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/swiss-switzerland/3-2-2-Switzerland-Regulations-on-guns.html
Web site for militia weapons:
http://stason.org/TULARC/travel/swiss-switzerland/3-2-1-Switzerland-Military-service.html
Your debunking has been debunked.
"Privately owned firearms and ammo are required to be registered."
Ammo, no. Firearms, yes.
"IOW, a Swiss militia member isn't free to take his militia weapon out to the range, hunting, or whatever. "
Actually if they purchase the ammo, they are free to take it to the range. I shot with folks in Switzerland and they did exactly that.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/10/pornblaring-man-to-take-a_n_229890.html
Should this guy's right to free speech be taken away?
If so, how do you square that with the notion that Constitutional rights can't be limited?
Still can't find anyone who fits that description so it's time to play 'top of the post' again.
There's a big difference between exercising free speech and creating a public nuisance, and exposing minors to audio porn.
And a huge difference between reasonable gun control and what Helmke/Sugarmann/Henigan and company advocate
I'm seeking some honest input from any anti-2A folks out there concerning this statement by Josh...
"In fact, they oppose any sort of gun control laws."
Who is this mysterious "they"?
Can anyone name a single individual who opposes all gun control laws? I mean, with 6 billion people on the planet, I'm sure there has to be a few.
Can you name even one?
And in fact, on Huffpo==it tends to be the proRKBA people who are more supportive of going after violent felons instead of worthless waiting periods, magazine restrictions or gun bans based on cosmetics
I'll give you at least one - me. Shall not be infringed means exactly that. No limits. Period. The only limits on weapons should be on government agents while on duty.
Honestly, I'm a little disappointed in you "pro-gun" guys, most of these arguments have been the same standard issue talking points over and again.
If you want the best evidence to support the RTBA argument...it's the Somali Pirates.
A couple of malnourished Goat herders pile into a boat and armed with nothing more than a slingshot and the courage that poverty brings hijack ship after ship after ship...all because they were unarmed.
I believe the "pirates" are wielding weapons a bit more substantial than slingshots. Maybe you could provide some evidence that I am mistaken.
On a side note, in my home state, I have a Concealed Handgun Permit which allows me to carry an AR-15 pistol with a 120 round drum mag hidden from view. However, if I get caught carrying a concealed slingshot, I go to prison. Yes, slingshots are mentioned by name in our laws.
Go figure.
So I leave the slingshot at home and carry the 1911, the .357 magmum, or the PPK depending on the weather and therefore my choice of clothing.
Is this something they teach at NRA debate school?
"I believe the "pirates" are wielding weapons a bit more substantial than slingshots. Maybe you could provide some evidence that I am mistaken."
I have never seen a debate that consisted ENTIRELY of footnotes.
I have read all of those studies that say that conservatives don't get satire and take everything literally, but...
C'mon...did/do you really think that I thought the pirates only had slingshots??? I doubt they had any slingshots. I am aware they had guns.
Sorry, I was trying to use some "creative license" to show how poorly armed the pirates were by comparing their arms to slingshots...but you got me....they didn't actually have sling shots....
He won't provide any evidence. It's just what he 'believes'.
Translation: You still have NO evidence to support ANY of your assertions and are now reduced to just making things up.
From my understanding, the Second amendment was designed with an objective being to break the state's monopoly on violence, to allow the citizenry to have the means disposable to mount a credible threat to its power in case it turned tyrannical. Thus one would have to conclude that either, we should amend the Constitution, or all arms should be legal except potentially controlled by international treaties, NBC weapons, or those that would involve inordinate civilian casualties should be controlled.
Constitutional lawyers, discuss, please.
"the Second amendment was designed with an objective being to break the state's monopoly on violence,"
First misconception is that it was to break the state's monopoly. A more accurate term would be "to prevent the state from obtaining a monopoly". The very terminology used in the 2nd assumes the presence of a preexisting right and not the creation of a new right. The right to arms, as explained by Blackstone, insures the underlying "natural right" of resistance and self preservation. The right of resistance is uniformly used by Blackstone in the Commentaries to refer to the opposition to actual or pretended authority. The "natural right" of self preservation is uniformely used by Blackstone in the Commentaries to refer to self defense.
"Thus one would have to conclude that either, we should amend the Constitution, or all arms should be legal except potentially controlled by international treaties, NBC weapons, or those that would involve inordinate civilian casualties should be controlled."
Second misconception, a treaty may not impose a limitation which is otherwise explicitly prohibited by the Constitution. Thus a treaty can not be made which would impose unconstitutional limitations upon freedom of speech.
The fact is, the terminology "arms" as used in the 2nd negatives any argument that it includes nukes, wmd's, or even tanks and/or military aircraft. It refers to single man carryable weapons commonly used to attack or defend in man to man combat.
Is this the same "Josh Sugarmann" who wrote: "The weapons' menacing
looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine
guns vs. semiautomatic 'assault' weapons — anything that looks like a
machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun — can only increase the
chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
Josh, that horse is dead; further flogging only makes you look reality-challenged. EVERYONE understands the cosmetic appearance of a firearm has absolutely NOTHING to do with its criminal use. Once the decision has been made that killing is justified, the means becomes trivial. Is "gun dead" worse than "stone dead," or "2X4 dead," or "fist dead"? Don't be silly.
And, can you remember the Korean store-owners in the Los Angeles riots? No useful purpose, eh?
Well I'll be!
Two days this post has been up and Josh has almost 300 comments.
I guess no celebrities died this week.
But let's talk take up the challenge that Josh Sugarmann never wants raised: what would qualify as "reasonable" gun control.
How about starting here.
For a gun-control law to be reasonable is has to be proven to work. No gun control law has ever been shown to reduce crime. On the contrary, history shows the opposite: that gun control increases violent crime by shifting the balance of power from illegally armed criminals to disarmed victims.
So "reasonable" gun control has to be aimed at disarming violent criminals and not disarm their law-abiding victims. If it impacts only honest and decent people it's not reasonable.
As for keeping guns locked up -- well, that's a threat assessment that every individual needs to make for herself. But in most urban areas the greater risk is having your defensive firearm unavailable when you need it.
Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized the Second Amendment as enshrining an individual right to keep and bear arms, Josh Sugarmann and his ilk need to be recognized for what they are: fascist enemies of the Bill of Rights whose true agenda is eliminating the people's ability to resist tyranny. And if you don't think that's relevant, talk to the people of Estonia who were invaded by both the Nazis and the Communists.
J. Neil Schulman, author
Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns & Alongside Night
Writer/Director, Lady Magdalene's
Gun control has never been tried in America.
Of course, there is no shortage of international evidence showing gun control can and does work.
OTOH, let's take the flip side of JNeal's argument--show us the results of no gun control. There's plenty of evidence an absence of no gun control leads to lawlessness, high homicide rates and all the attendant ills.
Not to be flippant, but could you provide your evidence? I have seen that Europe, for example has lower rates of violent crime, but how much of that is dependent of arms control versus unemployment, education, social support, cultural bias,etc?
"Gun control has never been tried in America"
America has more gun control laws than you can shake a stick at.
"Of course, there is no shortage of international evidence showing gun control can and does work."
No, not really.
"There's plenty of evidence an absence of no gun control leads to lawlessness, high homicide rates and all the attendant ills."
Also, not really true.
Would you care to show how it works? First, you must abolish the Bill of Rights, which does not establish anything, but merely highlights Rights as given by God, to be protected from molestation by the government!
Then, you must tax the people to the point where the exercise of this Right is too expensive.
Next, you must take away the Rights of Habeas Corpus, which does not exist throughout Europe, in order to terrify the People, and cow them into submission.
These are steps which would have to be taken, and... oh yeah, would an armed citizenry stand still for it?! Maybe, maybe not.
Semper fi
"Gun control has never been tried in America."
Nice one, Jadegold.
This is why you provide so much entertainment.
"Gun control has never been tried in America."
Jade, you are truly delusional. Didn't you ever see 'Wyatt Earp'? They tried it in Tombstone and Dodge City 130 years ago. They enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968, in 1968. Washington DC and Chicago have had gun bans for years.
"There's plenty of evidence an absence of no gun control leads to lawlessness, high homicide rates and all the attendant ills."
First, that's a double-negative so it looks like you are against gun control, but we know what you meant.
Wash. DC has had one of the highest homicide rates in the country, year after year, for decades. Chicago isn't much better. Their homicide rate exceeded 500 last year. NJ which has the most draconian gun laws in the US, has some of the most dangerous cities in the US; Camden, Trenton, Newark, etc.
Most mass murders seem to occur in 'Gun Free Zones', like VA Tech..
And if there's so much evidence in your favor, show some, and stop running off at the mouth.
"Of course, there is no shortage of international evidence showing gun control can and does work."
Yes, like those gun free Utopias of the British Commonwealth, England, Wales, Canada, and Australia. All of their violent crime rates shot up right after guns were banned, the worst being England. It skyrocketed, and didn't level off until 2004. And let's not forget South Africa..
You never run out of false statements, do you?
Exactly
For a gun control law to be "reasonable" and "make sense".
1. It has to be effective at reducing violent crime with firearms.
2. It must not impair the ability of citizens to own firearms or their ability to use them effectively for defense.
3. It must not levy prior restraint/pre-requisits on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
How many of the people who decry ANY limits of their Constitutionally protected right to bear arms support the various GOP attempts to stifle voting rights?
Suggest you re-read Jeff's words above and try real hard to stick to the topic. News flash--it is about the RTBA not voting rights.
Round and round we go, where we stop, nobody knows.
You've yet to provide any evidence for "people who decry ANY limits of their Constitutionally protected right to bear arms"
Beat that strawman down some more.
It's especially humorous in lieu of your support for stifling due process.
Perhaps you can cite specific examples of your claim!? Because we can certainly cite examples of Democrats attempting to stifle voting rights!
Semper fi
Once again Josh, the responses to your words are overwhelmingly pro-second ammendment. Even on huffpo the majority and best reasoned responses are contrary to your position!
Josh forgets that his ProRKBA opponents firmly support laws specifically and narrowly focused on criminals--we just oppose his agenda aimed at complete civilian disarmament while leaving criminals free to continue a life of crime
Well said
I don't understand why people object to reasonable requirements for owning guns. They are lethal weapons. It's just common sense to make sure people who have them are qualified to use them. We do it with drivers and automobiles. We should do it with guns. The Second Amendment is not absolute and does not stand by itself - it is subject to the "insure domestic tranquility" clause in the Preamble.
Define 'reasonable'.
You do realize you don't need a license or registration to own a car, right? Just to operate it on public roads.
Would you support a firearm license that allowed one to carry in all 50 states?
Yes. Provided it includes regular renewal with background checks, requirement for training and stiff repercussions for messing up and a loss of license.
I have to do that for my pilot's license, why not for my gun license?
perhaps we also need training for the other rights guaranteed in the BOR? How about Speach Training? Need to think about the difference between a right and a priviledge.
True. Drivers' licenses and pilots' licenses are priveleges, not constitutionally guaranteed rights. A license should not be required to exercise a right.
However, virtually nobody on the pro 2nd Amendment side is in favor of allowing the adjudicated as mentally ill, or convicted, violent felons to own firearms, despite the anti's claims that the NRA is all for it.
Well we might enjoy more "domestic tranquility" If we limited free speech to authorized "qualified "persons. We could have Authorized Free Speech Zones, maybe next to Authorized shooting ranges. I mean free unauthorized speech could lead to all kinds of domestic disorder. Look at Iran. Lucky they don't have the right to bear arms. Lucky for the Dictator that is.
Well, let's think about cars. Almost anyone, anywhere, can obtain a license to operate a car, by passing a simple test. Once you have such a license, you can operate your car in any of the 50 states. This is far more reasonable than today's gun control laws, which ban ownership of guns in some places, require that they be locked up and rendered unusable in others, and prevent one from carrying them in others.
Suppose you could own a car at home, but could not take it with you? Would that be a "reasonable" car control law? You could drive your car in Pennsylvania, but not in California? Would that be "reasonable?" Your right to operate a car, instead of being the result of a simple, objective test, would depend entirely upon the subjective whims of a Sheriff or Chief of Police, who could deny your right based upon your skin color, your politics, or any criteria whatever? Would that be "reasonable" car control? If you think DWB stops are bad, what do you think of illiberal states such as California, where minorities can be summarily denied the right to defend themselves by "may issue" CCW laws?
By all means, let gun control laws be as reasonable as car control laws. Let's hear some more of this promising line of argument, shall we?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
