You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
-Land of the Free
No one is coming for your guns ...yet
2014-09-28
Via Bearing Arms, the proprietor of which said this piece has to be one of the dumbest editorials he has ever read. From the gun control crowd, that's saying something.

I'm sure I lost a lot of readers right off the bat with my headline, but for those of you who are willing to hear me out (and if you are still reading I am going to assume that you are), let me explain my position to you.
Position being: grab ankles and ask not to push too hard... at first.
Gun control is an absolute joke in this country. Background checks are all well and good, but if you can turn around and sell the gun to your neighbor without one, they're utterly pointless. Assault weapons being sold to the general public is ridiculous. Nobody needs an AR15 to shoot a deer. And this whole open carry movement just terrifies me.
1) You don't get to determine how a gun, a piece of private property is used.
2) You don't get to determine which gun is used to kill a deer.
3) If open carry terrifies you, I have a suggestion: get a gun.
I don't understand the writer's last point. If people carrying guns terrifies the writer, wouldn't it be better to know of whom and when to be terrified? Open carry allows this, whereas with concealed carry one would need to be terrified all the time on general principle. There's a reason there are medications for that, and locked wards.
It seems to me that while some people are so adamant about their Second Amendment rights, they've forgotten all about my First Amendment ones " specifically my right to life. Sorry, that should trump your “right” to sling a semi-automatic weapon over your shoulder and sit in the booth next me at a restaurant.
Huh? Right to life? I guess reading that pesky Constitution was a bit too much research for this editorial. Your remark hits at a controversy within the gun owning community: under what circumstances should you go into a private establishment with a rifle over your shoulder? I'd say condition four, because as such, if you insist on openly carrying a rifle in the open it should be clearly safe. Handguns are different. But that's a different discussion from sitting in a restaurant booth next to a nervous 20-something woman with a rifle slung on your back. My bet is that that it would be so uncomfortable to eat while carrying your rifle, you may not want to do it again. YMMV
Gun control is a political platform utilized by both parties to pander to the masses and garner votes. It sickens me that human lives are the cost of winning an election nowadays.
Elections in the United State have yet to cost lives, but if control advocates keep pushing to first take away guns, that may be a cost.
Because this is a column, inherently an opinion piece, I'm not going to pull out a bunch of stats and quotes to support my cause (although they are abundant.) But there is one that I can't let go. The majority of people I talk to seem to think that President Obama is “out to get your guns” when in reality, the first Bush administration had stricter gun laws.
The comedy gold begins here
In fact, two of the most critical gun control measures that ever passed took place in the 1990s: 1993's Brady Bill and 1994's Assault Weapons Ban, both passed by a Republican president (George H.W. Bush) with the help of strong vocal support by former President Reagan.

The reality is that our forefathers in 1791 had no idea about the weapons technology we would have in the future. The notion that the constitution
...which should have been capitalized. Where are those layers of editors and fact checkers when they're needed?
is static is absurd. This is why they are called "amendments"
...comma needed, but do go on, dear...
so that they can be amended to keep up with the times.

Mass shootings have almost become common place in today's media, and every time one happens the same rhetoric is replayed: "Now is a time of mourning, and not an appropriate time to discuss gun control."
"Almost". Love that bit of legerdemain.
So, my question is: when is the appropriate time? When do we as a society decide to finally catch up with the rest of the modern world and say enough? What exactly are you defending with your “well regulated militia?” Because I guarantee that whatever you may have in your personal arsenal is a joke compared to what the most well funded military on the planet has to bring to the field.
Actually, the modern world should catch up with us with regard to guns. And I doubt this individual could tell a tank from an infantry fighting vehicle, so the concept of Fourth Generation Warfare would be totally lost on her.
Well, there was that little incident with a beheading at the workplace the other day, where the second head remained attached to its body because there was a supervisor with a loaded gun in the vicinity. Militias don't merely practice march-countermarch techniques in order to get to set-piece battles more quickly.
As much as I would like to, I am not calling for the complete disarming of the American public. What I would like to see are some reasonable restrictions put into place.
I'd like to see "reasonable restrictions" removed because they are so draconian for a nation that is supposed to be free.
For starters, registration. This seems obvious to me. When you sell your car, the registration of the car follows it from owner to owner " it should be no less for firearms. Licensing to own a gun would then logically follow. I don't have a problem with hunting rifles or family heirloom pieces either.
You don't, but as laws get drafted a natural tendency among legislatures in the US is to pass laws that affect the broadest cross section of people, and pass laws that are as Constitutional as possible. That means that "hunting rifles" won't be exempt. IOW, you get gun control.
I'm not overly fond of handguns, but I've learned to pick my battles. This “open carry” nonsense has to stop. Everyone wants to strap on a six shooter like Wyatt Earp, but they forget that the gunfight at the OK Corral took place because Earp was trying to enforce the town's ordinance banning guns.
Another bit of straw man arguing. I know of no one and I know personally three concealed weapon holders, who would act like Wyatt Earp. It is a conscious choice to take your own responsibility to defend yourself in the face of an ever increasing hostile state and national government to individual rights. And leading the charge to destroy those rights are this individual, who knows history like the back of my hand.
America, for all her technological advances, is in reality a very young nation. Perhaps in time, as our country grows in age and experience, we will finally see the error of our ways and begin to make amends. If we can only get through this rebellious teenager phase, we might even stand a chance.
We will, missy. You probably won't...
Oh dear. Clearly she is not aware that America is one of the oldest continuous democracies in the world, following only Switzerland and England. Though it must be noted that we practiced self-rule at the local and sometimes colony level for a century or more before independence, which might upset the order of the two English-speaking societies. In comparison, Germany and France, though having a longer tradition as a Volk, have been democratic only since 1946 or so, and in Germany's case it was not voluntary.
Posted by:badanov

#8  Any person ( I use that term loosely) wanting me to give up any sort of gun are wanting one thing. To make me a slave. And before that happens, they will learn the hard way the difference between a free man and a slave.
Posted by: Silentbrick   2014-09-28 16:08  

#7  You don't need an AR-15 to shoot a deer. Wrong caliber.

But hitting that goddamn Coyote that keeps eating your chickens makes the AR-15 a perfect weapon.

Also shooting the coyotes that keep invading your land and smuggling people across is a perfect use for the AR-15.
Posted by: DarthVader   2014-09-28 15:45  

#6  If the gun grabbers were serious about reducing gun crime, they'd be taking illegally acquired guns away from gangsters. Living in a bad part of town on its own does not make the gun owner a danger to society.
Posted by: trailing wife   2014-09-28 14:53  

#5  If the gun-grabbers were serious about reducing gun violence, they would be working to get guns out of the hands of urban blacks. That would give you the most bang for the buck.

Note that handgun laws have little actual effect on the criminal population. See crime rates in Chicago or Washington DC for examples.
Posted by: SteveS   2014-09-28 13:51  

#4  passion, unleavened with common sense or actual historical knowledge.

The writer seems to know a great many things that aren't so, though.
Posted by: trailing wife   2014-09-28 13:47  

#3  passion, unleavened with common sense
Posted by: Titus Borgia3899   2014-09-28 13:33  

#2  The usual gun grabber diarrhetic diatribe. Got to agree. This is one of the dumbest articles I have read on this.

It seems to me that while some people are so adamant about their Second Amendment rights, they’ve forgotten all about my First Amendment ones

Your 1st Amendment freedoms are insured by the 2nd Amendment Kasie. Many brave people paid for your freedoms.

In fact, two of the most critical gun control measures that ever passed took place in the 1990s: 1993’s Brady Bill and 1994’s Assault Weapons Ban — both passed by a Republican president (George H.W. Bush) with the help of strong vocal support by former President Reagan.

These were passed under Clinton, not Reagan or Bush.
Posted by: JohnQC   2014-09-28 11:19  

#1  The car analogy is stupid. By law if the vehicle doesn't see the street it doesn't have to be registered. And you're free to have the biggest fastest etc and use it as you wish. Oh and if you have a drivers license you can drive any car any time you want.

Typical socialist. She assumes since you disagree you must like Bush and be a Republican.
Posted by: BrerRabbit   2014-09-28 07:50  

00:00