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.

Comments

[molonlabe]

As Thirdpower already points out, Josh has based a whole post on a logical fallacy. Most gun owners I know do in fact support true common sense gun control laws.

I support background checks through FFL purchases.
I support age limitations.
I support purchase limitations for violent felons and the mentally ill.
I support lengthy prison sentences for those convicted of violent crimes involving firearms.
I support life time prison sentences for felons in possession of a firearm.
I support firearm training.
I support firearm education classes (even though Josh doesn't)
I support restrictions for convicted domestic abusers.
I support criminal background checks for all firearm transactions, provided that all individuals had access to the NICS system (which the anti-gun platform opposes).

Once again, Josh misrepresents the issue by focusing on an extremist position supported by only a handful of gun owners. How quickly Josh forgets that if it weren't for the NRA, the NICS Improvement Act would have never been passed.

[Thirdpower]

Josh is just hoping for another 'Zumbo' affair so he can continue to justify to the Joyce Foundation their bankrolling of his organization. Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Ownership just folded after the Joyces cut them off from the trough.

[djkrlsn]

Molon--I am with you on most of your list--big difference is I don't want Helmke, Henigan or Sugarman writing the training standards--since they know nothing about gun safety, shooting or what "reasonable' means in relationship to gun legislation. Zumbo lost much cred because he was totally unaware of the hunters using the AR as a varmint rifle or Ruger Mini30s and SKSs being used as brush rifles and to protect livestock from 2 and 4 legged predators. FWIW--I don't oppose all gun control--just 99% of what is proposed by the BC and the VPC because the BC/VPC proposals are aimed at the law abiding and not at stopping criminal misuse of guns

[CoolPapa]

It's good to hear from reasonable gun owners. Honestly, I'm not a fan of guns. I've fired them. My family hunts. My brother is fighting in Afghanistan. I'm the family's most liberal/pr­ogressive, and I've had guns pulled on me as well as knifes pulled on me in the streets of NY and I'm still here. But I've lived in several countries around the world with far fewer guns per person than we have over here, and I always felt much safer. I always said I'd take my chances with a knife pulled on me rather than a gun--obviously.

I just see so many irresponsible gun owners as we all know how many idiots have children, own guns, drink and drive cars, and I've even thought back to my Irish temper and if I had a gun in college would I have pulled it out at the bar while loaded and waved it around.

It's good to see that gun owners like yourself are in favor of background checks and the list you've provided..­.because it should be difficult to get a gun if you've ever broken the law or had other problems. Of course, anyone can get a gun, any moment of the day or night in this country if you want one bad enough. But what is really needed? How many are needed? How much is too much? How long should a waiting period be? Whose 'common sense' do we use as a model: yours or mine?

[Berettasskeeter]

I agree with the violent felons/mentally ill; sentencing requirements; the felons issue; training.
I do not agree with age limitations. My 20 year old son is a seaman in our Navy. Why should he not be able to purchase a handgun?
I do not support background checks, an argument the NRA does not share.
I do not support restrictions for convicted domestic abusers. Convictions are heavily skewed in favor of wives, and historically the burden of evidence has been forced more and more onto the defendent.
So, I do support a few restrictions, but to a lesser extent.
Semper fi

[molonlabe]

Re: age restrictions.

I completely agree. I was thinking more along the lines of 12 year olds. Someone who can legally carry a weapon in the course of serving his/her country should not be restricted from doing the same on his/her own soil.

[CanisLatrans]

Has Sugarmann conveniently forgotten that most gun owners have no problem with, and even support, the 1934 and 1968 gun control acts? That it was the NRA that supported the national computerized insta-check system at gun dealers? That gun owners and the NRA have been universally calling for the enforcement of existing gun laws, of which there are thousands?

The gun control crowd has been trying to drive a wedge between the gun owners who are dedicated solely to 'hunting' vs. all other gun owners. They finally found a weak individual who fell for it; thinking that the folks at Brady would let them keep their hunting rifles after all the other "nutty" gun owners had been purged. They forget that hunting rifles have been the target of derision as well, as "high-powered sniper weapons" that need to be regulated, then banned, then forgotten.

[springsm]

Sounds false too me...have you listened to the rants from the NRA these days. Blackwater is where they belong and IN Afghanistan. geeeezus

[twogunmojo]

actually i listened to the supreme courts rant about how guns are an individual right separate from the militia clause....

[Thirdpower]

So you don't really have any evidence for your claims besides what you believe?

[OdinsEye]

Blackwater no longer exists.

The only things you appear to know about the NRA seems to be typical anti-gun propaganda

[Berettasskeeter]

Which rants are those? And what does Blackwater have to do with the discussion?
Semper fi

[Terry Mcintyre]

This "hunting rifle" versus "deadly weapon" dichotomy is nothing but a red herring argument meant to divide and distract. The truth is, if your rifle can kill a deer at 200 yards, it can kill humans quite effectively. The right to keep and bear arms is not about hunting. The word "hunt" is not in the 2nd amendment. "The security of a free country" is.

[Ohio9]

Josh: "In a world viewed by many of his readers in black and white, Libourel has staked out a little island of gray."

Says the leader of the most fanatical gun control organization in America. Josh and his ilk at the VPC have never met a gun ban they did not love and would never say anything positive about gun owernerhip if their lives depended on it.

Yet they accuse their opponents of being too "black and white" or "extreme"

Typical case of "projection"

[LeftRight]

So the fact that he's been in a world of black and white proves that he cannot understand gray?

[Thirdpower]

If you can show an example of him promoting 'grey' , you might have a point.

[Ohio9]

The fact is that Josh is far more "black and white" then any gun rights supporter.

If you can find one positive thing about gun ownership on the VPC website or one gun law the VPC opposes, please point them out.

[Thirdpower]

"In fact, they oppose any sort of gun control laws."

A whole article based of a logical fallacy.

Congratulations.

[LeftRight]

Considering that there are many out there who DO oppose any sort of gun control...­.

Do I know what the solution is? NO. Do you know what the solution is? NO. The fact of the matter is that ONLY by sitting down together and actually talking over the problem and brainstorming solutions will anything reasonable happen. BOTH sides in this argument need to man up!

[djkrlsn]

Most of the proRKBA people here support gun laws aimed at disarming criminals and punishing criminal misuse of guns, we just happen to oppose the usual BC/VPC line of cowpies and roadapples--and if you had been active on 2nd amendment issues you would know this

[OdinsEye]

"Considering that there are many out there who DO oppose any sort of gun control...­."

Very few actually hold that view.

[Ohio9]

"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."

That's what happends to any writer who says things that piss off his entire fan base.

What would happen if Josh wrote an article advocating a universal nationwide system of concealed carry for allowing lawful citizens to get CCW permits in every state? On top of that, suppose he admits the who issue of "assault weapons" is a sham and calls anyone who disagrees with him a terrorist.

The entire gun control movement would turn their back on him overnight and the VPC would throw him out on the street

[LeftRight]

How about you do a more reasonable comparison. Such as "What would happen if Josh were to say that only a madman wants to ban all guns"!

[molonlabe]

Or, "only a madman would hold a federal firearms license while being an anti-gun advocate."

Oh, wait......­....

[Ohio9]

My original comparison was reasonable. Jim Zumbo called for a total ban on so called "assault rifles" and denounced anyone who owned them as a terrorist.

So really it's no wonder that gun owners shunned him after that. If any gun control supporter made a pro-gun statement using the same language (and denounced all his opponents in the same way), they would get the same treatment from their side.

[djkrlsn]

If Sugarman could get away with it--he WOULD BAN ALL GUNS--do not forget that little fact

[Thirdpower]

He would throw himself out on the street?