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.
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!
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
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/oh_no_its_making_well_reasoned
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.
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.
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.
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?
"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?
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.
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.
"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....
Constitutional lawyers, discuss, please.
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.
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?
Two days this post has been up and Josh has almost 300 comments.
I guess no celebrities died this week.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I have to do that for my pilot's license, why not for my gun license?
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.