The missing link on gun control

posted at 9:21 am on July 24, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Once again the long running debate over gun control is being beaten into the ground in the wake of the maniacal attack in Colorado. So why drag it out further? Even after writing about it this weekend and sitting through hours of largely unbalanced coverage on television, there was something stuck in my proverbial craw. Two things brought an additional point of clarity to me on the subject today and made me realize that I’ve been cowed by social conventions into dancing around, side-stepping and outright ignoring what may be one of the most fundamental truths which needs to be highlighted when dealing with those who seek greater restrictions on gun ownership.

One was this opinion piece at CNN, which goes beyond the normal let’s do this and let’s do that to get guns out of people’s hands and casts a far wider net over one of the fundamental “flaws” in the fabric of America going back to the revolution.

What is it about Americans and guns? How much time do you have?…

There are an estimated 270 million guns in the hands of civilians in the United States, making Americans the most heavily armed people in the world per capita. Yemen, a tribal nation with no history of strong central government or the rule of law, comes in a distant second…

America’s collective memory — of the Wild West in the 1800s, the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King half a century ago and the front-page news from last week — is marked time and time again by guns…

But America seems to be the place the whole world thinks of when apparently ordinary people use guns for grotesque acts of violence. America stands alone in its historic and cultural attachment to guns. America stands armed.

(We’ll circle back to that in a moment, I assure you.)

The second was a radio interview I did in DC this morning with John McCaslin and Dana Mills on America’s Morning News. (A really great show weekday mornings, by the way, which is on in well over 100 markets now.) We were chewing this over again and Dana – playing a bit of Devil’s advocate – spelled out some of the common arguments you hear from gun control enthusiasts these days, asking for my reaction. The crux of the standard patter goes something like this, always delivered in a voice dripping in treacle and oh so reasonable:

Look, we’re not saying you can’t go hunting. (If killing helpless animals is your sort of thing.) And nobody is saying you can’t go shooting targets or skeet or clay pigeons or whatever you people call them. We’re not even saying you can’t defend yourself inside your own home! But honestly now… who really needs a semiautomatic handgun where you can just keep squeezing the trigger over and over again? Who needs a drum shaped magazine that can hold 100 rounds? Who needs an assault rifle? The deer will run away if you haven’t killed him with a couple shots. You can always stop and reload your clay pigeon thing. And you can defend your house if you keep the guns to a reasonable size and keep them inside your home! Can’t we all just get along?

Let’s face it… you only need those things if you’re planning on killing people.

That was the moment when it hit me. The combination of that premise taken by anti-gun groups with the previous historical perspective on our country reminded me of what may be the most important piece of the puzzle. When having this conversation, it’s far too easy to say, “Oh! Of course we don’t want to kill people! So let’s discuss your proposition.”

It’s time to come out with it and speak the plain truth which was born and bred into the very soul of the United States from day one:

There may yet come a day when you will have no choice.

I know.. I know.. heresy. But I submit the following premise to you. America was founded by and remains populated by people who, in many cases, realized that an armed population might be vital to our survival. There are three basic scenarios which are likely on the minds of many people, presented here in (hopefully) descending order of likelihood.

1. Some people have concerns that, in a very unstable world, things might eventually go completely pear shaped and the social fabric could be in danger of collapse. Nobody wants this and I’m not saying it’s even likely, but if that is one concern of yours, you’re going to have to be ready to defend yourself, your family and your property. And not against deer.

2. There has been a constant undercurrent of worry that the United States might still, some day, be invaded by a foreign power using a land invasion rather than a nuclear attack. And if such invaders overwhelmed the troops and the National Guard, there would still be an armed force of tens of millions of Americans to deal with. More than a few people wiser than me have opined over the years that this is a large reason nobody has tried to invade us.

3. The last, worst, and – I hope – most unlikely scenario is one which persons as “radical” as Thomas Jefferson fretted over. And that is the possibility that a vastly swollen and powerful central government could forget and abandon the promises made to the people and violate the fundamental rights promised to them. The Founders came from a land and a time when that was hardly science fiction. And while I see no indication that such a thing is imminent today, an armed populace remains a constant reminder to those in Washington that, should they ever dare go so far as to employ the military to suppress their citizens and break those promises… You only rule by the consent of the governed. We outnumber you vastly. And we are armed. This isn’t a threat. It’s a reminder.

No, there is no reasonable person who wakes up in the morning hoping for the chance to kill another human being. But in times of war, ultimate disaster, chaos or – God forbid – the betrayal of those in power, killing another human being may, sadly, be part of the only path to survival. And to take a piece from the CNN article linked above:

America’s collective memory — is marked time and time again by guns..

You bet is is. And there were good reasons for that. Stop apologizing when you hear these arguments. They’re actually making your case for you.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The last, worst, and – I hope – most unlikely scenario is one which persons as “radical” as Thomas Jefferson fretted over. And that is the possibility that a vastly swollen and powerful central government could forget and abandon the promises made to the people and violate the fundamental rights promised to them. The Founders came from a land and a time when that was hardly science fiction. And while I see no indication that such a thing is imminent today, an armed populace remains a constant reminder to those in Washington that, should they ever dare go so far as to employ the military to suppress their citizens and break those promises… You only rule by the consent of the governed. We outnumber you vastly. And we are armed. This isn’t a threat. It’s a reminder.

You are blind.

bgibbs1000 on July 24, 2012 at 9:26 AM

If only those damned Revolutionaries weren’t armed, we could be just like Britain!

Washington Nearsider on July 24, 2012 at 9:26 AM

A gun (carried by an employee) in the store I worked in, at best saved my life, or at least me being shot.
You will never convince me, or my wife, or kids, that a gun does not have a place in everyday life.

right2bright on July 24, 2012 at 9:27 AM

…come get my gun!

KOOLAID2 on July 24, 2012 at 9:27 AM

71 y/o man scares off a couple of armed thugs by using his gun….
The thugs are released on bail that same day..

Enough said.

Electrongod on July 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Gee I wonder if the folks being mowed down in Syria by their government wish they had a 2nd Amendment?…ya think?

txmomof6 on July 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Mexico might be 2nd now, courtesy of Eric and the team.

hillsoftx on July 24, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Then lets fix Frum’s statement:

David Frum
It’s fear that’s driving opposition to gun control

Its ignorance that is driving the fear of gun grabbers.

cozmo on July 24, 2012 at 9:31 AM

“The way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”
….Wayne LaPierre VP NRA

tencole on July 24, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Gee I wonder if the folks being mowed down in Syria by their government wish they had a 2nd Amendment?…ya think?

txmomof6 on July 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Shhhhh..
Floating Rock will hear ya and post something about Romney wanting to arm them…or something.

Electrongod on July 24, 2012 at 9:33 AM

MSNBC actually went down the path of knocking conservatives for supporting gun rights while they ignore voting rights.

What idiots.

I think we need the same checking for each. None or a good ID card and lot of forms and a wait.

IlikedAUH2O on July 24, 2012 at 9:34 AM

Molon Labe, to misquote a famous Spartan. This entire country was founded because the redcoats went to remove the guns from Concord Massachusetts, in 1773. That was “the shot heard around the world.” LIberals deny that little bit of history.

Mini-14 on July 24, 2012 at 9:34 AM

How many times have legal guns, simply brandished–not fired, stopped a violent crime–even murder or kidnapping–before it even got started? Millions of times. Millions.

RBMN on July 24, 2012 at 9:34 AM

71 y/o man scares off a couple of armed thugs by using his gun….
The thugs are released on bail that same day..

Enough said.

Electrongod on July 24, 2012 at 9:29 AM

The vid still worth a look and demos the value of an armed citizen.

hillsoftx on July 24, 2012 at 9:34 AM

there was something stuck in my proverbial craw

I’ve never heard a proverb about your craw.

Akzed on July 24, 2012 at 9:35 AM

We outnumber you vastly. And we are armed. This isn’t a threat. It’s a reminder.

I disagree. It is a reminder and a threat. I actually want my representative to be fearful that the end result of his overreach could be a bullet to his midsection and not just a vote for the “other guy”. In the end, they all seek ultimate power over us. They must fear ultimate rejection. At the very least, they must know it is possible. The very survival of the Republic demands that our freedoms be more important than their lives. If you believe otherwise, you are already a slave.

swinia sutki on July 24, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Very good post, Jazz.

Naturally Curly on July 24, 2012 at 9:37 AM

http://rense.com/general76/armed.htm

Very good read on the effect of an armed citizen during a massacre, and the reporting by the LSM thereoff.

Mini-14 on July 24, 2012 at 9:37 AM

Seems there was an article posted here not long ago that echoed what Jazz is talking about. It was about the ban on the manufacturing of high-capacity magazines and how useless it was without confiscating existing magazines. In the next breath the author wrote “no officer or sheriff in their right mind would go door-to-door to confiscate these things.” There’s an unspoken assumption here: because the magazines are owned by people with the means to defend themselves.

That is EXACTLY the point. Agents of the government know better than to try tyrannical behavior because of an armed population. The most practical argument for owning a gun is that when people get the impulse to violate the citizenry’s liberty, they are reminded that it might end with a gun in the violators’ face. Whether it would actually happen is irrelevant, it’s always in the back of the governments mind. That’s the point.

Meric1837 on July 24, 2012 at 9:37 AM

…from my cold dead hands.

rightside on July 24, 2012 at 9:37 AM

You know, a similar thought crossed my mind the other day in that the Second Amendment is the “right to keep and bear arms.” Arms–as in weapons. Hunters don’t “arm” themselves. Soldiers do.

UnderstandingisPower on July 24, 2012 at 9:38 AM

I had people all over the world say good things about Amendment 2. Cabbies talking about Stalin in Russia. (Of course they bragged about having AK-47s and swore they would go nuts if Putin got back in and that did not happen.) They said our guns are the most precious thing we have.

Asians said they would dread a fight with the US if they invaded. They saw The Deer Hunter, I guess.

IlikedAUH2O on July 24, 2012 at 9:39 AM

A Texas Ranger once was asked about the .45 in his hip, “isn’t that dangerous?”. He replied “Well yes, I certainly hope so.”

juliesa on July 24, 2012 at 9:39 AM

Molon labe!

Pork-Chop on July 24, 2012 at 9:40 AM

Since we are talking about the killer in Aurora let me posit this idea.

There are those that say IF someone else in that theatre was armed, the damage could have been minimized. And I Agree.

However, if the shooter (who did not have a death wish because if he did, he would have drawn on law enforcement when he had the chance)knew that there was a good chance that more than a few people in that theatre might be packing a weapon—would he even have attempted to do what he did?

And if that is the case, wouldn’t the idea of the theatre being a “gun free zone” probably have gone into his picking of that particular theatre?

Just asking

dirtseller on July 24, 2012 at 9:41 AM

The main question asked by liberals is, in one form or other, “Why do you have a fetish for guns?”

My answer is, “I don’t have a fetish for guns. But I have a fixation on liberty. Firearms are the thing(s) that keep it for me.”

Liam on July 24, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Well said.

cicerone on July 24, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Electrongod on July 24, 2012 at 9:33 AM
Yes, but even he can’t deny that they themselves probably wish they had weapons to defend themselves regardless of where they come from.

txmomof6 on July 24, 2012 at 9:42 AM

4. A criminal tries to take your property or life (e.g., imagine you’ve gone to see a movie and someone shows up starts shooting people).

gwelf on July 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Some people just need killing, but not all killing is equal. That’s why we have different words for different kinds of killing: like murder, and execution.

Pretty simple really.

Akzed on July 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM

And you can defend your house if you keep the guns to a reasonable size and keep them inside your home!

oooooh….a reasonable size???? what else can i do for you to make YOUR life comfortable???????????

GhoulAid on July 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM

What gun-control nuts never realize, is that taking away the guns doesn’t make anyone safer. So I can’t carry a gun. Well, how about a weapon from before the invention of the gun? Bow, sword, dagger, club? Ever try carrying one of those out in public? It’s not just about guns. It’s about not allowing any means of defense so the populace can easily be controlled.

Nutstuyu on July 24, 2012 at 9:44 AM

You know, a similar thought crossed my mind the other day in that the Second Amendment is the “right to keep and bear arms.” Arms–as in weapons. Hunters don’t “arm” themselves. Soldiers do.

UnderstandingisPower on July 24, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Hunters do “arm” themselves, even by your faulty distinction. My cousin shot a deer, and by the time he got to it, a big black bear apparently thought he shot that deer, and the bear wasn’t giving it up.

RBMN on July 24, 2012 at 9:44 AM

…nice post Jazz…gave me some ammo to use in arguments.

KOOLAID2 on July 24, 2012 at 9:45 AM

We outnumber you vastly. And we are armed.

And you have done nothing but throw temper tantrums and rant.

The left ain’t scared of you, bub.

MelonCollie on July 24, 2012 at 9:46 AM

And you can defend your house if you keep the guns to a reasonable size and keep them inside your home!

oooooh….a reasonable size????

GhoulAid on July 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM

I agree with that part.

I have rather large hands and a I find a Desert Eagle to be a reasonable size.

cozmo on July 24, 2012 at 9:47 AM

How many times have legal guns, simply brandished–not fired, stopped a violent crime–even murder or kidnapping–before it even got started? Millions of times. Millions.

RBMN on July 24, 2012 at 9:34 AM

If you’re keeping count, add one from me to that millions.

PXCharon on July 24, 2012 at 9:48 AM

dirtseller on July 24, 2012 at 9:41 AM

When liberals boast about ‘gun-free zones’, they put a crosshair on a map (that sound familiar?). In other words, they created a target that doesn’t have to be a target.

When some liblet talks about gun control, I always ask, “Do you think a criminal would dare try robbing a McDonald’s if the odds are that half the patrons there are armed?”

Liam on July 24, 2012 at 9:50 AM

First of all, David Frum is an idiot. Agreed? Good, I’ll move on…

The third scenario above is not as remote as most people think. A President who sues a state for protecting it’s own borders, illegally refuses to enforce laws passed by congress and signed into law, and blatantly pays millions of taxpayer dollars to his cronies is possibly tipping his hand. Once he sees that we’re about to kick his sorry butt out of office, he may simply declare martial law and refuse to leave.

MikeinPRCA on July 24, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Stop apologizing when you hear these arguments. They’re actually making your case for you.

Some of us never have apologized for supporting the Constitution.

Happy Nomad on July 24, 2012 at 9:54 AM

I agree with that part.

I have rather large hands and a I find a Desert Eagle to be a reasonable size.

cozmo on July 24, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Silly cozmo. You don’t get to decide “reasonable size”. Smart people like David Frum and the folks at CNN get to decide that. When they are through you’ll be lucky to keep possession of a single-shot .22 CB cap.

swinia sutki on July 24, 2012 at 9:54 AM

And you can defend your house if you keep the guns to a reasonable size and keep them inside your home!

Yeah, but…If someone is trying to steal a man’s cattle from a field that is on his own property, doesn’t he have right to shoot, if necessary, to stop the crime?

I say ‘yes’ but liberals say ‘no’.

So I also say, ‘screw liberals’.

Liam on July 24, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Brilliant analysis. One other point: Perhaps people have forgotten the imagery from the last 50 years of episodes of societal breakdown: Katrina, the LA Riots (1990s and 1960s), and others. Local governments in smaller cities and towns can quickly become overwhelmed in moments of profound crises (and not so profound crises–think violent snowstorms and regional floods). Residents of New Orleans were completely helpless for at least 48 hours, and this was in spite of valiant air and National Guard rescue efforts (read the relevant Popular Mechanics article for a non-political discussion of the great and brave helicopter pilots and others during the Katrina tragedy). In these scenarios, one simply has the right to defend oneself and property from marauders and others).

As a physician, I’m aware of the elevated rates of incidental gun tragedies. As someone with public health training also, I’m disturbed by gun fatalities in the home–it IS a national disgrace that children without gun safety training can accidentally be harmed by guns. Nonetheless, simple solutions to this problem abound without further restrictive gun legislation. Every pistol is sold in my state with an effective gun lock. If one has small children in the home, all firearms should be stored safely and securely. Hopefully, we will soon lead the world in gun safe purchases as well. All gun owners should do the responsible thing and keep their guns secure when not in use. Accidental gun discharges can be reduced by training and education and not nanny-state legislative restrictions.

The fact is, in the event of environmental, terrorist, or societal breakdown, individuals have the right and responsibility to protect themselves and their families until help can arrive. As we know, help sometimes IS NOT merely a phone call away.

Drownings are also a national tragedy, by the way. No one seems to be advocating for banning swimming pools…education and water safety training are the solutions in this case as well.

DoctorJohn on July 24, 2012 at 9:57 AM

We outnumber you vastly. And we are armed.

And you have done nothing but throw temper tantrums and rant.

The left ain’t scared of you, bub.

MelonCollie on July 24, 2012 at 9:46 AM

Aren’t you just precious.

Naturally Curly on July 24, 2012 at 9:59 AM

But America seems to be the place the whole world thinks of when apparently ordinary people use guns for grotesque acts of violence. America stands alone in its historic and cultural attachment to guns. America stands armed.

….ever occur to genius here that they may be pointing their fingers at America so that they don’t have to answer for their own failed policies….especially the absolute failure of strict gun laws….


Gun crime soars by 35%

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html#ixzz21XzbUwAw

Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871.

HIGH CRIME RATES IN COUNTRIES WITH GUN CONTROL

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1083303/posts


Australia`s Gun Ban, Crime & Video Tape

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2000/australia%60s-gun-ban,-crime-video-tape.aspx?s=%22Registration+%26+Licensing%22&st=&ps=

“Crime involving guns is on the rise despite tougher laws. The number of robberies with guns jumped 39% in 1997, while assaults involving guns rose 28% and murders by 19%.”

“The environment is more violent and dangerous than it was some time ago.”
–South Australia Police Commissioner Mal Hyde, reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, Dec. 23, 1999.

….Whether it’s Chicago…NY…LA…Australia…Britain….or many other places that have strict gun laws…..the results are always the same….

….Crime goes up.
This would be viewed by intelligent,rational people as …”failure.”

Baxter Greene on July 24, 2012 at 10:02 AM

America stands alone in its historic and cultural attachment to guns. America stands armed.

He says that like it’s a bad thing . . .

tpitman on July 24, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Drownings are also a national tragedy, by the way. No one seems to be advocating for banning swimming pools…education and water safety training are the solutions in this case as well.

DoctorJohn on July 24, 2012 at 9:57 AM

It is telling that the liberal solution to most situations is education or indoctrination (like “sex” ed) except for guns.

gwelf on July 24, 2012 at 10:03 AM

You only rule by the consent of the governed. We outnumber you vastly. And we are armed. This isn’t a threat. It’s a reminder.

Precisely so.

Abandonment and betrayal of the Constitution is not ‘cost-free’.

Americans have an established (by history) attitude to tyranny and lawlessness.

And the ballot box is the typical venue for correcting such problems and misbehavior.

Fraud, lawfare, and mischief aside, people expect their elected leaders to respect their vote, and do their duty.

The gun, if necessary, serves as a ‘or else’.

CPT. Charles on July 24, 2012 at 10:06 AM

It’s amusing when leftists talk about semi-automatic weapons: “It shoots every time you pull the trigger!!!”

What they’re really talking about is any loaded gun.

Akzed on July 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM

What we really need are laws for maniac control.

Qzsusy on July 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM

When criminals and lunatics and the government give up their deadly arsenal and exclusively employ water guns or nerf guns to shoot innocents, then I’ll consider giving up my arsenal of pistols, rifles, and assault weapons (er, I mean, sports utility guns).

No, not even then. By definition, you just can’t trust criminals or lunatics or the government, something our Founders were well aware of and the passage of time has proved them right, again and again.

TXUS on July 24, 2012 at 10:08 AM

This would be viewed by intelligent,rational people as …”failure.”

Baxter Greene on July 24, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Like most liberal constructs success is never measured by results, only by intent.

swinia sutki on July 24, 2012 at 10:09 AM

I look at my concealed carry pistols the way I use seatbelts when I’m in a vehicle. It’s not %100 guaranteed that using seatbelts will save your life in an auto accident, but your chances of survival are higher. You could be a bad guy’s first victim and never see it coming. That pistol under your jacket or in your pocket might not save your life in that instance. But if you are lucky enough not to be one of the first few victims, having that pistol(and using it correctly) gives you a higher chance of survival…just like using a seatbelt. Seems reasonable to me…

Battlecruiser-operational on July 24, 2012 at 10:11 AM

And you can defend your house if you keep the guns to a reasonable size and keep them inside your home!

oooooh….a reasonable size????

GhoulAid on July 24, 2012 at 9:43 AM

I agree with that part.

I have rather large hands and a I find a Desert Eagle to be a reasonable size.

cozmo on July 24, 2012 at 9:47 AM

Agree, I’m 6’4″ 225, I need a 50 Cal to feel like I’m fulling utilizing the size God granted me.

kirkill on July 24, 2012 at 10:11 AM

What we really need are laws for maniac control.

Qzsusy on July 24, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Hear, hear! It’s clearly Political Correctness that causes all mass murders to go on rampage. Re: Fort Hood.

kirkill on July 24, 2012 at 10:13 AM

I am Mormon. When the Mormons were in Far West, Missouri in the late 1830′s, well, let’s just say that the Mormons were not well liked by the local government and their people.

They attempted to keep Mormons from voting.
There were a few armed standoffs, with mobs trying to kill Mormons just because they were Mormon.

Finally, the Mormons agreed to turn over their weapons after the government promised to protect them. Bad mistake. The government led mobs raped and raveged our women as the husbands were forced to watch. Mormon leaders were imprisoned and then Govenor Boggs issued his infamous extermination order.

Good luck convincing a Mormon to give up their weapons.

In our form of government the people are sovereign (ultimate authority). How can unarmed citizens (subjects) be sovereign?

Just can’t happen.

The Rock on July 24, 2012 at 10:14 AM

My personal take is that full auto should never have been restricted to class 3 license holders.

Bmore on July 24, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Bill Whittle said it best in this video:

What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRAw3VWVyD8

Galt2009 on July 24, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Like most liberal constructs success is never measured by results, only by intent.

swinia sutki on July 24, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Exactly…..

….facts don’t matter because “I feel like I am right”……

Delusional.

Baxter Greene on July 24, 2012 at 10:19 AM

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.

So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.”

–Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

LaRepublican on July 24, 2012 at 10:21 AM

who really needs a semiautomatic handgun where you can just keep squeezing the trigger over and over again? Who needs a drum shaped magazine that can hold 100 rounds? Who needs an assault rifle?

Jazz, the entire premise of this argument can be rejected out of hand. I’ve said it before here, and I’ll keep saying it until I’m blue in the face: This is the USA. I don’t have to need something in order to have it.

CurtZHP on July 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM

The Wild West is a Hollywood myth.

Dante on July 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Jazz, do you seriously think #2 is more likely than #3?

DarkCurrent on July 24, 2012 at 10:31 AM

We all know that ending government corruption with our weapons MIGHT be a possibility, lets hope we don’t have to

angrymike on July 24, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Since WWII, Japan has outlawed the possession of firearms by the general public. Only three classes of people have access to firearms:

1) Self-defense forces
2) Police
3) Japanese gangs

As for Frum, just another of the intellectual elite who display their ignorance as enlightened truth.

GarandFan on July 24, 2012 at 10:33 AM

1. Has happened in the world in this year.
2. Has happened in the world in the last 5 years.
3. Has happened in the world in the last 10 years.

“But it couldn’t happen here!”

Right.

axshon on July 24, 2012 at 10:35 AM

This post is a big effin deal.

nice work, Jazz.

ted c on July 24, 2012 at 10:35 AM

RBMN on July 24, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Hopefully your cousin didn’t shoot the bear-because if he did-he did TWO horrible things.
*Pro-Second amendment but VERY anti-hunting.*

annoyinglittletwerp on July 24, 2012 at 10:36 AM

The Federal Govt came to confiscate Wayne Hage’s cattle back in the 90′s.

The Federal Govt agents brought weapons to steal his cattle.

Hage drove to the site to survey what needed to be done and found himself surrounded by 20 to 30 federal agents armed with semi-automatic weapons and garbed in flak jackets. Some of them were stationed on high points expecting a confrontation. Hage got out of his vehicle, reached under his jacket and pulled out a 35 mm camera, pointed it at some of the Forest Service swat team and told them, “Smile pretty, boys.” To the chagrin of the agents, there was no violent confrontation. The only “violence” was in the heart and mind of Hage who wondered at the lengths his government would go to get what it wanted—namely property rights which belonged to him.

So Jazz, what was that again how it hasn’t come to that point yet where the govt is that threatening yet?
Wayne had the sheriff later come to his rescue.

But folks, bcs it didn’t happen to someone you know, you may not be worried it could happen.
But it can. And has to some of our citizens already.
And will again.

Badger40 on July 24, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Hopefully your cousin didn’t shoot the bear-because if he did-he did TWO horrible things.
*Pro-Second amendment but VERY anti-hunting.*

annoyinglittletwerp on July 24, 2012 at 10:36 AM

The bear isn’t an endangered species, I’m sure.
And I would have shot the bear bcs someday that bear might kill somebody bcs it will be in the habit of taking a human’s kill.
Be anti-hunting all you want.
But understanding how animals work, this bear will learn it can confront humans & win.
Think of it this way. If it were another bear, that bear would kick the $hit out the thieving bear for trying to steal it’s kill.
Somebody’s gotta teach that bear some manners.
And if you can’t scare the bear away, which it is possible I’m sure, then it needs to be shot.
Animals, when dealing with man, especially predatory animals, must know their place.
I realize there are people who cry foul at this necessary reminder to the animal kingdom that we be top dog.
But somebody has to be top dog.
I kill animals to eat them, & if it’s for a trophy, I still eat it.
Nothing is wrong with hunting. Bcs it is why humans are alive on this Earth.
Your ancestors were hunters.

Badger40 on July 24, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I am Mormon. When the Mormons were in Far West, Missouri in the late 1830′s, well, let’s just say that the Mormons were not well liked by the local government and their people. The Rock on July 24, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Maybe everyone just wanted their daughters back…?

Akzed on July 24, 2012 at 10:44 AM

I tweeted yesterday “Our Founding Fathers didn’t write the #2ndAmendment so all Americans could go rabbit hunting!”

The possibility of tyranny is what impelled them to insure American citizens could arm themselves.

svar42 on July 24, 2012 at 10:47 AM

LaRepublican on July 24, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Very nice. Thanks.

a capella on July 24, 2012 at 10:53 AM

I think the big problem liberals have with guns is that they are afraid of loud sudden noises. That is the reason they don’t like guns or 4th of July fireworks. (snicker)

kurtzz3 on July 24, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Hopefully your cousin didn’t shoot the bear-because if he did-he did TWO horrible things.
*Pro-Second amendment but VERY anti-hunting.*

annoyinglittletwerp on July 24, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Perhaps you should consider Jainism for your next religion Twerp.
You never really liked carrots anyway, right? ;)

DarkCurrent on July 24, 2012 at 10:53 AM

That the “Little Frummer Boy” (Taki) AKA “the Egregious Frum” (Pournelle) is an idiot is widely known. That he is not a conservative is also widely known among conservatives, but not among the ignorant libtard intelligentsia.

The case for gun control has collapsed in this country because people have seen it accomplishes exactly nothing. Mexico is one of teh most violent countries in the western hemisphere, and it has a tyrannical gun control scheme. The most violent cities in the US all have idiotic gun control schemes that disarm only the the normal citizenry.

The libtard experiment has been done, and the outcome was dismal. This applies to everything the libtards have pushed, not just gun control.

Quartermaster on July 24, 2012 at 10:55 AM

Gun control is the Left at their most despicable (minus one, the Big A) and transparent. You get the sense that they’re exasperated that all their “winning arguments” don’t immediately take hold when one emits from one of their speech apparatuses. And their frustration is multiplied from having the MSM amplifiers on their side. Luckily their side also O includes plenty of brain-dead Brian Rossbot-type units who tend to put their foot-parts in their speech apparatuses.

I’m not even a gun owner (yet) but am a whole-hearted supporter of the work-of-genius US Constitution, and the enormous utility of the Second Amendment. It would not have been the same country without it. It will not be the same country unless it’s saved. I’ve always wondered where the concept of “shall not be infringed” was lost. It doesn’t really take much to infringe something. “Infringed” would seem to be a very low bar for violation and knowing how the Founders probably labored over wording would have been chosen quite intentionally. This amendment has been widely infringed.

I may be an owner very soon if things keep spiraling down the way they are. Until then I take great comfort knowing I’m probably surrounded by law-abiding neighbors who own. Needless to say I don’t live in a Democrat-controlled city, where the law-abiders are strongly discouraged from providing for their own defense, and where the concealed carriers tend not to be licensed or law-abiding.

curved space on July 24, 2012 at 10:56 AM

I may be an owner very soon if things keep spiraling down the way they are. Until then I take great comfort knowing I’m probably surrounded by law-abiding neighbors who own. Needless to say I don’t live in a Democrat-controlled city, where the law-abiders are strongly discouraged from providing for their own defense, and where the concealed carriers tend not to be licensed or law-abiding.

curved space on July 24, 2012 at 10:56 AM

When you go shopping, keep repeating to yourself, ” John Moses Browning really knew what he was doing.” It will make the selection process easier.:)

a capella on July 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Looks to me like my friend twerp is trying to get someone fired up…..lol………;-D

angrymike on July 24, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Here’s why we’re having a debate about why inanimate objects are so much more dangerous now than they were just thirty or forty years ago even though there’s now a great many more laws to protect us from them. The operative term being, inanimate.

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Generations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z69ZhIeRbw

Speakup on July 24, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Here’s one of the left’s bestest arguments:

SusanSarandon
: The right to bear arms was referring to muskets. Maybe it’s time to re-think our gun policy on this day of slaughter in Colorado

.

And the fine people of Colorado agree with her:

“Between Friday and Sunday, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation approved background checks for 2,887 people who wanted to purchase a firearm — a 43 percent increase over the previous Friday through Sunday and a 39 percent jump over those same days on the first weekend of July.”

Idiot.

tru2tx on July 24, 2012 at 11:09 AM

High-capacity semi-autos are only good for shooting people. That’s why we buy them for our police officers — so that they can shoot people. Bad people who are harming others. And that’s why non-officers need to be able to have them, too.

And if you think that means it’s OK to disarm the populace because we have an armed police force to protect you, look up Warren v. District of Columbia, or Castle Rock v. Gonzales, or Riss v. City of New York, or any number of cases where police failed to protect, people got hurt or died as a result, and our courts ruled that the victim had no right to expect that protection. And rightly so. The only one responsible for your safety is you, and anyone who argues otherwise doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

(In fact, most states have laws on the books requiring citizens to come to the aid of police when asked, under penalty of a fine or jail. So, really, the only legal obligation is in the opposite direction.)

Socratease on July 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM

tweeted yesterday “Our Founding Fathers didn’t write the #2ndAmendment so all Americans could go rabbit hunting!”

The possibility of tyranny is what impelled them to insure American citizens could arm themselves.

svar42 on July 24, 2012 at 10:47 AM

This. People came up with explosives & guns so they could kill other people.
Turns out, guns are a big deterrent to criminals. GO FIGURE.
And this crap about the Wild West being so terrible & how everything would be like the OK Corral shootout if everybody had guns.
Well those people seem to misunderstand WTH that gunfight was about in the 1st place.

The Cowboys thought they could rule over everything & they clearly didn’t like the Earps getting in their way of that.
So ask the people of Tombstone back then did they want to live under the rule of a bunch of crazy a-holes like the Cowboys, or was life under the Earps’ protection, the LAW, a lot better?
The Earps were successful bcs they had guns & weren’t afraid to use them.
Soon every criminal understood this.

Badger40 on July 24, 2012 at 11:10 AM

“The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.”
…a Colorado Constitution quote

Well, they may want to rethink this one…

StarLady on July 24, 2012 at 11:17 AM

I may be an owner very soon if things keep spiraling down the way they are. Until then I take great comfort knowing I’m probably surrounded by law-abiding neighbors who own. Needless to say I don’t live in a Democrat-controlled city, where the law-abiders are strongly discouraged from providing for their own defense, and where the concealed carriers tend not to be licensed or law-abiding.

curved space on July 24, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Well like many of us who sold our guns last year {or lost them in an inadvertent canoe tip-over} keep in mind that you’re going to want to have a couple of guns – some to keep on hand and some to “store-away” for safekeeping – if you know what I mean.

Galt2009 on July 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM

StarLady on July 24, 2012 at 11:17 AM

Why carry a concealed weapon?
Weapons should be carried on the outside out the body.
This way, criminals know who to rob.

Badger40 on July 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM

We need gun control on movies and video games!

These two media are a bad way to introduce kids/folks to guns and the buzz of blasting away at “bad guys”. If gun use in these media were restricted to hunting and target shooting, gun use to become “famous” (like the Columbine duo, Virgina Tech guy) would probably decrease. Maybe if movies showed guys like the 71yr old in the internet cafe or “car jacker meets gun owner” crime rates would decrease.

O didn’t go to NYC this week despite the 18 gun deaths there. Was Anna Wintour covering that for him?

KenInIL on July 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Afterburner with Bill Whittle: Generations

I prefer this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRAw3VWVyD8

Socratease on July 24, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Liberalism is a mental disease. We should all try to get along, or something? When criminals actually get punished, when you kill someone while commiting a crime is punishable by death in a quick, speedy trial, you get one appeal. Then we can talk gun control, liberals are the cause of more guns, plain and simple. When they stop the pandering to bad folks, and start actually protecting people, maybe people will feel safer, but I expect to see Unicorns farting rainbows first. They push big government control and then are shocked when the people don’t bow down to their loser messiah. Fix the problem, No, Fix the blame all the time. Live happy productive lives No, tell others how they need to live their lives, All the time. Stop regulating, stop trying to control us and we will respond. Force your agenda on us and we will respond

stormridercx4 on July 24, 2012 at 11:23 AM

When you go shopping, keep repeating to yourself, ” John Moses Browning really knew what he was doing.” It will make the selection process easier.:)

a capella on July 24, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Will do, a.

Well like many of us who sold our guns last year {or lost them in an inadvertent canoe tip-over} keep in mind that you’re going to want to have a couple of guns – some to keep on hand and some to “store-away” for safekeeping – if you know what I mean.

Galt2009 on July 24, 2012 at 11:18 AM

Copy that, Galt.

curved space on July 24, 2012 at 11:31 AM

I am Mormon. When the Mormons were in Far West, Missouri in the late 1830′s, well, let’s just say that the Mormons were not well liked by the local government and their people…

In our form of government the people are sovereign (ultimate authority). How can unarmed citizens (subjects) be sovereign?

Just can’t happen.

The Rock on July 24, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Not being liked could be because of things like the Mountain Meadow Massacre.
Holding yourself above the law, not following the nation’s laws, is not a reason to use to feel you need to be armed.

Every thief thinks they should be armed just in case they get caught…

right2bright on July 24, 2012 at 11:34 AM

SusanSarandon
: The right to bear arms was referring to muskets. Maybe it’s time to re-think our gun policy on this day of slaughter in Colorado

.

tru2tx on July 24, 2012 at 11:09 AM

She is right, time to rethink our position…maybe all people should be given a firearm for protection…those muskets just aren’t effective anymore…

right2bright on July 24, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Let’s face it… you only need those things if you’re planning on killing people.

The 2nd amendment is about protecting our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from tyrannical bunnies.

The Rogue Tomato on July 24, 2012 at 11:39 AM

The reason that people seem to not that American history is marked by (the use of?) guns, is that it is actually a rare occurrence (nationwide – not Chicago). I mean, shootings like this STAND OUT, precisely because it is generally safe to walk down most US streets (and attend most theaters). MLK, JFK, TR (shot but not killed), etc. stand out because we do not have daily car bombings and assassination attempts in this country.

This nation was created by the use of force and firearms.

“Washington didn’t use his right of free speech to defeat the British, he shot them.”

So many above have it right on – training, responsibility, reason. The Constitution confirms the God-given right to defend yourself (from whatever the threat may be). It does not grant it.

Hueydriver on July 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM

She is right, time to rethink our position…maybe all people should be given a firearm for protection…those muskets just aren’t effective anymore…

right2bright on July 24, 2012 at 11:37 AM

Strictly speaking, if the government is really determined to get me, I don’t think even an AR-15 is going to do me much good.

The Rogue Tomato on July 24, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Not being liked could be because of things like the Mountain Meadow Massacre.
Holding yourself above the law, not following the nation’s laws, is not a reason to use to feel you need to be armed.

Every thief thinks they should be armed just in case they get caught…

right2bright on July 24, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Wasn’t the Mountain Meadow Massacre over 20 years after the Mormons were driven out of western Missouri?

DarkCurrent on July 24, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Ask the Korean store owners in Los Angeles during the 1992 riots, who’s lives and businesses were attacked strictly because of their skin color. How many bullets do you need in a clip when an anarchist mob is storming your place of business?

ttime500 on July 24, 2012 at 11:50 AM

And I would have shot the bear…

Badger40 on July 24, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Only if you had something big enough to bring down the bear!

Otherwise you’ll just make him mad.

cozmo on July 24, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Not being liked could be because of things like the Mountain Meadow Massacre.
Holding yourself above the law, not following the nation’s laws, is not a reason to use to feel you need to be armed.

Every thief thinks they should be armed just in case they get caught…

right2bright on July 24, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Wasn’t the Mountain Meadow Massacre over 20 years after the Mormons were driven out of western Missouri?

DarkCurrent on July 24, 2012 at 11:49 AM

I’m sure it had a lot to do with that.
Considering there was open season on LDS members via MO Exec. Order 44.

Badger40 on July 24, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Need guns?

I like guns.

They are fun to shoot.

I enjoy the history of all arms.

A high capacity magazine means I don’t have to reload as often.

An armed society is a polite society.

Queen Victoria was at the ribbon cutting opening of a range. At a pub. For members of parliament. There was no talk then about the dangers of drunk shooting, either, just how well you could hold your liquor and your aim. This was not unusual for the UK.

Boy I wish America was as civilized as that! Of course I wish the UK were as civilized as that, no, too. Ditto the rest of Europe which did similar.

The best gun control is two hands on the gun, steady your breathing and ignore the gun fire going off next to you… make your shot count.

ajacksonian on July 24, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2