Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

If resistance to gun-control laws is based on guns, or the enjoyment of guns, rather than our inalienable right to life and the sovereignty of the people, if we are consistently perceived as concerned only that we be left undisturbed to enjoy target shooting, hunting or collecting fine firearms, if, in fact, that is all that we do care about the resistance by an angry few will likely prove futile, and we will lose — not secure — the right to keep and bear arms.

Jeff Snyder
2001
Nation of Cowards, The Line in the Sand, page 161
[This book should be required reading in school. And since it is not every gun owner must be strongly encouraged to read it.

I can open the book to any page and easily find something worthy of a QOTD. Sometimes there three or four QOTD are clearly available on a single page and even the titles of the essays alone can qualify as a QOTD. It is an amazing book.—Joe]

4 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Jeff Snyder

  1. It can be found, free download, at http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.txt
    The webmaster’s comment on the file says:

    I have obtained reprint permission for the Internet for Jeffrey Snyder’s “A Nation of Cowards”. It may be reproduced freely, including forwarding copies to politicians, provided that it is not distributed for profit and subscription information is included.

    I especially encourage you to copy and pass on this strong statement about firearms ownership to friends, colleagues, undecideds, and other firearms rights supporters. Your grassroots pamphleteering can counter the propaganda blitz now going on by introducing some reason to the debate. This essay is one of our best weapons.

    Jeff Chan
    webmaster@rkba.org

    • That is only one essay. I’m referring to an entire book of essays. I tried several Internet searches for this particular essay and came up completely empty.

  2. Back in the early years of this existential struggle between good and evil, when the evil ones needed free speech, no matter how obnoxious, to be able to spread their vile ideologies, Free Speech was interpreted as broadly as possible. The only speech that could be censored was speech calling for immediate and imminent violence. The antidote for “bad speech” was famously stated in once case as “more speech” (presumably from a good guy). Now, with the conquest of the schools, free speech is less necessary, so we see the concept of “hate speech” gathering supporters. It is the same for the Second Amendment and self-defense. The best defense to bad force, a bad guy with a gun, is more force, i.e. good force, aka a good guy with a gun.

Comments are closed.