I’ve known Les Freeman for over 35 years. My ex-wife and I didn’t see nearly as much of him after he moved to Oregon in, I think, the 1990’s. But there was occasional contact and then when Facebook became a thing we were “friends” there. I don’t spend much time on Facebook but occasionally I would check out his posts. In the last few years I saw a lot of really hateful stuff about Republicans and his support for Sanders, then Clinton in the last election. Sometimes there would be rants about gun ownership but I ignored it all. Les has had a lot of stress in his life recently with the loss of all his siblings, the loss of both parents, the loss of his only child, and then brain surgery which required him to relearn talking, reading, and walking. I saw no need to add more stress in his life by confronting him on his home turf.

Occasionally he would make a comment on Facebook about one of my blog posts about guns. They were always negative and I would gently correct his errors and that would usually be the end of it for a few weeks.

Until last night.

It started with this comment about my QOTD by Saurus post, “STOP THE SHOOTINGS. STOP REPUBLICANS”. Les responded with:

I didn’t really understand what he was saying and asked for clarification:

He didn’t respond to that and started a new Facebook comment thread on my QOTD by the NRA post:

Ahh yes, a thinly veiled threat of violence. Progressives are all about forcing people who disagree with them to do what they want. It’s part of their nature.

I responded with:

Yes, I know. The first point was somewhat overstated. This is particularly true from a practical standpoint. But I wanted to cut off the common claim that the Second Amendment never meant individuals could own guns until the rogue Heller decision and this was the most succinct way I know of to do that.

I was then unfriended and blocked. Then he proceeded to make a half dozen or more anti-gun posts on Facebook (I have more than one account).

I guess he didn’t want to have a discussion. He didn’t even want to know what I had to say. I know this because from looking at my log files I could see that he didn’t read a single one of the blog posts I linked to. He just wanted to assert his opinion and then threaten me if I didn’t conform to his beliefs.

Typical. It’s called Reasoned Discourse.

In case the Facebooks comments are deleted (the next level of “Reasoned Discourse”) I’m preserving them here:

Les Freeman: The right to kill as many people as possible is far more important than the rights of the millions of Americans who have and will be murdered.

Joe Huffman: What are you talking about? No one has the right to murder another. But everyone has the right to defend themselves and other innocent life with the best tools available.

Les Freeman: The NRA and the rest of you may loose it all. The Second Amendment can be eliminated. If I were interested in having guns (which i do own) I would start working for sane gun laws. PS if any of you think that your small arms will protect you, you have not looked at our nation’s armory.

Joe Huffman: The Second Amendment protects a preexisting right. Even if the Second Amendment were “eliminated” the right would still exist. See U S v Cruikshank (more info here: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2006/12/13/an-individual-right/). This is settled, by SCOTUS, law. Currently 23 of the states are controlled by Republican legislatures. Only 13 are controlled by Democrats. The rest are mixed. Republicans control both houses of the Federal Government. A constitution convention is being seriously discussed by some people and some states have voted in favor of a constitutional convention. All these states are Republican dominated. Any “elimination” of the Second Amendment is far into the future. In the mean time gun owners are increasing their numbers and their supplies. Estimates range as high as 660 million guns in the hands of private citizens (details here: http://weaponsman.com/?p=33875). The most popular gun type? AR-15s. Private citizens consume 10 to 12 billion rounds per year just in practicing. During all of WWII the U.S. produced 41.5 billion rounds. We consume about as many rounds in practice each year as the U.S. did in fighting each year of WWII (more info here: https://blog.joehuffman.org/…/too-bad-they-dont…/).

I have looked at our nations armory. We know how that will turn out should some of the military and police decide to go to war against the gun owners of the U.S. It’s not even close (see here: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2013/02/07/boots-on-the-ground-2/). And most military and police support the right to keep and bear arms. We shoot with them at matches, we see them at gun shows and at our local gun club meetings, and we train them.

I’m all for “sane gun laws”. The existing laws and the restrictions being proposed by some are mind boggling stupid (see here: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2013/02/01/crazy-talk/). What do you suggest as “sane gun laws”? I propose a middle ground (see here: https://blog.joehuffman.org/2007/09/11/the-middle-ground/).


15 thoughts on “Typical

  1. I saw that and assumed his name was an attempt at humor on a throw away account.

  2. If “the people” in the Second Amendment aren’t the general population, who are “the people” in the 1st, 4th, and 9th amendments?

    If the Second Amendment doesn’t refer to arms particularly suitable for military/militia use, what kind of arms is it referencing?

    If “keep” doesn’t mean to own or possess, what does it mean?

    If “bear” doesn’t mean to carry on your person, what does it mean?

    • I’ve also wondered how “people” the 1st Amendment could refer to an individual right while the same word in the 2nd Amendment *must* mean a collective right. Or how “people” could refer to the right of the military (which our Founders had just fought a war against) to keep and bear arms. Or refer to the national guard, which didn’t exist until something like 1902. Looney tunes.

      • If you’re a communist at heart, it all makes perfectly good sense. Lying is what you do, it’s the way to achieve your totalitarian purposes.

  3. “if any of you think that your small arms will protect you, you have not looked at our nation’s armory.”

    Our government wouldn’t be trying to ban our guns if they believed their “armory” gave them total power over us. QED.

    You can’t say “give up your guns” and at the same time say “you and your puny small arms pose no threat to a modern military”– You’re revealing either a blindness to the situation, or a blatant hypocrisy.

    The more you freak out about our guns, the more you reveal how much of an obstacle (to total government power) you believe them to be.

    Never confuse the public assertions of the left with their motivations and goals. No one orchestrating and moving the agenda of disarmament ever believed they were fighting crime or trying to reduce gun accidents. Those are just the lies, the false advertising, used to push the issue.

    Once you understand that, the things you used to think made no sense, the things you saw from the left as hypocritical, or shockingly stupid, suddenly all make sense and appear consistent. They not only make sense, they are thoroughly predictable– Of course a proponent of coercive government power, of “Redistributive Change”, of “Fundamental Transformation”, etc., will hate the right to keep and bear arms. Of course you want the citizenry disarmed if you want to turn the U.S. into the opposite of her founding principles. Of course you hate patriots, and want them put down under any pretense, if you’re a Progressive Marxist authoritarian.

    None of this argument has ever had anything to do with crime or accident statistics. Therefore, to fall for those arguments, to take that bait, is to miss the point. It is to participate in the tactical distraction from the point.

    I point out the total indifference the American left has always shown to crime, oppression and even mass death in Democrat-controlled U.S. cities, and communist countries worldwide. They always defended the Soviet Union, and they defend North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba to this day, while calling for the same sorts of Marxist/socialist “policies” for the U.S. (including, of course, citizen disarmament).

    They don’t care how many people get killed. They never have. They’ve been entirely consistent about that. They’re in fact more concerned about “overpopulation” or what we were taught in elementary school to fear as the “Population Time Bomb”. A bomb, mind you. Bombs are scary. A bomb is a weapon. They see the development of human life as scary and offensive. A bomb. They see humanity as a stain on an otherwise pristine Earth. Mass death is therefore a feature of leftist programs, not a bug. Make THEM defend THAT, rather than running off after the shiny objects they throw at us as distractions.

    Guns in the hands of principled citizens save lives, and THAT is the left’s problem with an armed citizenry. That’s why they hate you with a burning passion that drives them to say and do irrational things.

    • Well said.
      Neil Smith said it in a short and clear way: “Make no mistake: the only reason that they want to take your guns is so they can do things to you that they can’t do if you keep your guns.”
      In that, they are no different from Hitler, Stalin, or any other totalitarians in history who disarmed the subjects in preparation for killing them.

  4. Considering the above pro-2A commentary, all valid as it is, we must consider this:

    The solid statement of the spiritual, moral and legal origin of the right of self-defense against both evil individuals and collectives, we will never convince the proto-tyrants or the standing tyrants to accept our bona fides. History tells us to cease talking and take the field against them if we want to succeed.

    There is such a thing as morally valid violence, so to fail to employ it against such an obviously amoral opponent makes us deniers of morality itself.

    • Trying to convince tyrants or would-be tyrants is obviously a waste of oxygen. Keeping your powder dry is the correct answer.

      The right to self defense actually follows from the fact of being alive (and every living being’s goal to stay that way). As I’ve pointed out in the past, “even mushrooms understand self defense”. Spiritual, moral, or legal discussions of the topic simply follow from that principle.

  5. Joe:

    Some of us don’t Facebook – I aggressively don’t, to the point that I have the entire domain blocked at my boundary router.

    Could you post screenshots instead of embedding stuff from Facebook? Links back to the original content are okay for reference proof, but I would like to read the comments you’re referring to, and your text transcript apparently isn’t complete w/r/t the embeds.


    • The copied text is at bottom of the “split”. Click on the “Continue reading →” link to see it.

  6. Pingback: Quote of the day—Hope Jahren @HopeJahren | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.