I’m nearly certan we are about to enter into an epic political battle for liberty, and gun rights in specific, starting next month. But just because we engage in battle does not mean we will lose. I hope this guy is wrong:
Our country is about to change many approaches as to how it thinks and does business and that includes its viewpoint towards guns. It is well-beyond time the canard about Second Amendment rights for citizens to bear arms be put to rest. This amendment was instituted centuries ago when militias were an important element in the defense of the U.S. The number of guns that exist in our country, governed by archaic laws and control, is absurd. No other western industrialized society allows for such a condition. When an organization such as the NRA lobbies for assault weapons to be owned by private citizens, what more does one need to know?
I would like to suggest that before spouting his bigoted beliefs about guns again he attempt to answer Just One Question.
Update: Check out the comments here. He made some clarifications.
Hi Joe,
I noticed a number of people had linked from your blog to mine. I visited your site and read your opinion about my gun control comments. When you stated that I was spouting a bigot belief about guns I went back and re-read what I had written. You are correct and I owe my readers a fuller explanation. I was guilty of something that is going on in America for which I have been very critical – debating an issue in its extremes to prove one’s point. The result is leaving little possibility of reaching a common ground. Although I stand by what I said, it was what was unsaid that should be addressed.
I am not against the Second Amendment. I am not against lawful gun ownership. I am against criminals and people with certain mental illnesses having too easy an access to guns. My criticism is aimed at those who cite the Second Amendment against every attempt to bring reasonable gun control to our society. Many gun rights advocates seem to have taken the position that there can be no “control” because that would lead to banning private citizens from owning guns. I would hope that the debate about guns in our country will be over “reasonable” restrictions instead of a debate of no controls versus a ban on all guns. My interest is to reduce the number of illegal guns that are killing large numbers of innocent people and police in major urban centers such as Philadelphia, PA where I reside. Those of us who believe that there is a need for stricter gun control need to do a better job stating our positions. I appreciate your taking me to task and I will share this with my readers in my next blog post.
Thank you Stephen for your clarification. I look forward to your next post on the issue.
If you would, could you please address the “Just One Question” in your post as well?
Thanks.
I wonder where he thinks the reasonable line is?
NFA of 1934?
GCA of 1968
Hughes Amendment of 1986
Clinton Crime bill of 1994?
Funny how “reasonable” is always just one more set of laws beyond what is on place.
Like a spoiled child – “Always more, never enough”
Earl Harding.
“I am against criminals and people with certain mental illnesses having too easy an access to guns.”
Would liberalism count among those “certain mental illnesses”?
I guess since felons buying guns is already illegal, passing another useless law that makes it even more illegal is just what will fix the problem.
I expect he won’t get around to doing any research and will either drop interest in making another post or will merely parrot the Brady Campaign talking points.
Dear Mr. Stephen Weinstein,
If you would allow a couple of suggestions:
I would suggest that, rather than making criminals of inanimate objects, and the otherwise law-abiding people who own them, you might suggest making criminals of people who commit criminal acts (with or without various and sundry inanimate objects)?
I would also suggest that, as an echo of Joe Huffman’s request, you answer Just One Question: namely, please name a time and place where and when in history that law-abiding citizens were made safer by restricting their access to hand-held weapons?
Thanks in advance for your response,
Aaron Neal
“No other western industrialized society allows for such a condition.”
Rather than that always being said to prove America is bad, might it also be taken to mean all other countries lag behind us?
For example, some of my European (German) friends were appalled we Americans can just get in our privately owned aircraft and fly away without anyone’s permission. We are also the only industrialized western nation where that is permitted. I call that freedom.
Stephen Weinstein; Though your response was certainly an attempt at appearing to make a clarification, you in fact made no clarification at all. What, exactly, do you mean by a “reasonable” restriction, given that criminals and the mentally ill are already prohibited? What I want is the exact set of laws you’re calling for. You didn’t say. No gun control advocate ever tells us exactly where (under what exact set of laws) they’re going to stop calling for more restrictions (except for the few who have called for a total ban). Gun control, historically, has been a process, not a goal, in that once one law is passed, we hear immediate demands for the next one.
I would also like you to ponder the fact that, although certain recreational drugs are totally banned, there is a thriving, profitable and very violent trade in those drugs. For what reason, exactly, do you think the black-market gun trade would be any different even if all guns were totally banned in all sectors? What is your understanding of the era of alcohol Prohibition, for example? Did we as a society learn anything from that experiment in freedom suppression, or are we doomed to repeat it over and over? Some states have banned machineguns, but when the law-abiding in those states are without machineguns, do you think the criminals will just go along out of the kindness in their hearts, given that they have no qualms about committing murder? California has banned many types of guns. “Reasonable” you think? Yet criminals can have any weapon they want. We can go ‘round and ‘round like this all day, and in the end, guns will always be as available to criminals as crack and meth are today. I say more so, because a gun gives the criminal an advantage that mere drug possession does not, especially when the law-abiding are restricted in their choice of weapons.
I submit that your founding assumption in all of this (that gun restriction equals crime restriction) is completely wrong, and provably so. In fact we can make the case, fairly easily (and DC and Philly are decent examples) that gun laws of any kind, by definition, apply only the law-abiding, as they are they only ones who will obey them. Further, that gun restriction gives the criminal a particularly strong advantage and incentive, as it provides him with easier prey.
In that case, there is no such thing as a “reasonable” restriction (whether you’ve actually defined any or not) on personal weapons. This is the conclusion embodied in the Second Amendment. Today, with a long history of infringements in some areas including the total ban in DC, we actually have the data to back up that conclusion, while you and all gun bigots remain silent on “Just One Question”.
We already have laws against murder and assault. Are you going to suggest that the weapon used in murder is a legitimate basis for some murders being punished more lightly than others (“sure, murder is one thing, but do it with a gun and we’ll get really pissed” -or- “It’s terrible that she was murdered, but thank goodness she was stabbed to death instead of shot”)?
I therefore conclude that your position, common though it may be, is founded entirely on unsupported emotional responses, social influences, and bigotry against particular sectors of society that you’d like to see suppressed. You’ve heard the bigots. They frequently portray American gun owners as dumb, backwoods, drunken, paranoid hicks who need some way to compensate for their inadequacies, and are just itching for an excuse to shoot someone, etc., etc., etc.. Maybe you’re guilty of such portrayals yourself, or of accepting them when you hear them.
You’ve made an attempt to appear calm and personable. I’ve heard that from the KKK too, and from Radio Moscow during the Soviet years. It’s a tool. A shtick. It doesn’t impress me. What you have not demonstrated here is rationality.