Indy Star article Warning: Very anti-gun

[Bobby]

I don't know if it is possible to reason with individuals like this. I have been reading anti-gun articles posted here by forum members for a little while now. The writer's blantant bias shocked me so much that I don't think I'll comment until I can form a rational response. Even then, I won't be doing is for him but the readers who might read the article.

Here are some choice quotes from the article :
"In other words: Our president can deal with all manner of big problems, but the American gun lobby is just too strong to let him push a rational and limited gun regulation through Congress.
It's particularly infuriating that Obama offered this statement of powerlessness just a few days before the 10th anniversary of the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado -- and during a month in which at least 57 people were killed in eight mass homicides across the U.S."

"No other democratic country in the world has the foolish, ineffectual gun regulations that we do. And unfortunately, what Obama said is probably true."

"And why can't we at least close the gun show loophole? Licensed arms dealers have to do background checks on people who buy guns. The rules don't apply at gun shows that, as the Violence Policy Center put it, have become "Tupperware Parties for Criminals."

The whole article is this way!!! Here is the link: Who will face down gun lobby? | IndyStar.com | The Indianapolis Star

 

[Joe Williams]

You cannot reason with them. They are an ideological enemy more determined, organized, and more full of hate for our freedoms and our Constitution than Al Queda ever dreamed of being. These people hate liberty, and they hate what our nation is supposed to be. They cannot be reasoned with, but they must be defeated if our way of life is to stand.

 

[paddling_man]

Or with the head crammed so deeply up their posterior that they can't hear the words of reason.

See Mr. Freeman's quote below...

 

[dburkhead]

Replies I have made:

What is an "assault weapon" as used in the so-called "assault weapons ban"? That's easy, an "assault weapon" is a semi-automatic rifle (that means one bullet per pull of the trigger--just like grandpas old hunting rifle) which fires a round of relatively modest power (compared to hunting rounds like .308 Winchester, .220 Swift, or 12 Ga shotgun), but has cosmetic features that make it resemble certain military arms and which seem scary to some folk. Because these features are scary to some folk, they are considered an "easy target" for those who wish to ban firearms.

Fully automatic weapons (i.e. machine guns) are already registered by the Federal Government, require special background checks for transfer, and since 1986 no fully automatic weapons not already registered for civilian ownership could be registered. None of the automatic weapons used in Mexico have come from legal US sources. The same is true for grenades and explosive devices (also federally registered).

The old "90% of guns traced" is also nonsense. First off, only guns that are "expected" to be traceable are sent for tracing. That's a small part of the total and includes none of the fully automatic weapons. Second, "guns traced" will not include cases where the trace fails, which it will in most cases where the gun was obtained through illegal channels.

In addition, have you ever seen what they do in Pakistan? Using only the most primitive tools they make just about any firearm in existence. Full auto AK (as opposed to the semi-automatic lookalike that the news calls an "assault weapon"), built with no more equipment than a halfway decent home workshop. These people smuggle drugs by the hundreds of tons. Do you honestly think that any "gun laws" can stop them from getting guns? Don't be absurd.

Finally, there's the simple fact that gun control does not work. Take the level of "gun control" in each of the United States using some metric like the scorecard kept by the Brady Campaign and compare it to the rates of violent crime (per 100,000) in those States. There is no detectable effect of the increased gun control on violent crime. None. While there's a tiny correlation, it's so small that it's about 95% likely to come about by random chance.

People point to other nations with strict gun control in other nations coupled with low crime. However, a bit of digging soon reveals that in every case the low crime was present before the gun control was enacted. Ask for a case of a nation having high crime and no gun control then passing gun control and having low crime and listen to the crickets chirp.

And ever notice how these "mass shootings" always happen at gun free zones? When was the last one at a gun range?

Gun control just doesn't work.

 

[Fletch]

I'm just amazed he didn't pull out the old "43 times" BS from the Kellermann study. He did manage to touch every other talking point in the playbook, though.

 

[CulpeperMM]

this is one response E.J. Dionne received from a blogger in Alabama. The op-ed first appeared in the Washington Post...

TO: ejdionne@washpost.com

An Open Letter to E.J. Dionne: The "Gun Lobby" is YOUR last line of defense.
re: Who Will Face Down the Gun Lobby?"
Mr. Dionne,

Ho Chi Minh once cautioned his followers to "cherish your enemies, they teach you the most valuable lessons."

Ensnared by your own prejudices and cut off from a complete sense of reality by your isolation from other folks (us) who do not agree with your world view, citizen disarmament advocates such as yourself present our side of the argument with a moral dilemma. Should we explain to you how little clue you have about the dangers you face or should we just let you walk forward unwarned into a minefield that you unwittingly made yourselves?

As an owner of the types of heretofore legal semi-automatic rifles you are seeking to ban, I will try to save you from your own worst impulses.

What you must understand is that the old political verities no longer apply. You berate Obama and other members of his party for failing to embrace further gun control while you are in ignorance of the fact that there are gun owners far more uncompromising than the NRA who refuse to obey any more gun restrictions. Such "bitter clingers" are known as "Three Percenters."

If such a law as you propose is passed, we will resist it and defy you to enforce it upon us. And the Government, being the government, will attempt to do just that. Shots will be fired and the next American civil war will be joined.

Now, as we come from entirely different world views, you may not believe this. It is nonetheless true. And as an advocate of other people's disarmament and the official theft of their liberty and property, you should hope that they don't choose to play by Bill Clinton's rules should push come to shove.

Surely you recall when Clinton decided to expand the rules of engagement with the Serbs in 1999, declaring that the political, media and intellectual underpinnings of their regime were legitimate targets of war? Do the precision guided munitions he had directed into the headquarters of Serbian Television and Radio ring a bell?

At the time this was roundly condemned by free speech and press advocates all over the world, and rightly so. Yet, the precedent WAS set, the point WAS made. Can you be entirely confident that it won't be invoked once more against you?

Here's the thing about "enemies lists" such as Napolitano's "Right Wing Extremists" report -- the sloppy scholarship represented by the elisions and conflations of the very real differences between veterans, constitutional militias and small government activists and mad dog white supremacist terrorists convinces all of us that we are intended victims regardless of what we believe. And the dangerous thing about "enemy of the people" lists in the real world is that they work both ways.

So cherish the "gun lobby." The way many on our side see it, as long as they exist and are able to use traditional politics to protect our rights, they protect YOU from uncompromising gun owners and not the other way around.

This may not be the "hope" and "change" you were looking for, but it is the hope and change you got.

I expect to be in Washington in the month of June and would welcome the chance to discuss these issues and answer any questions about the great percentage of your countrymen of whom you seemingly know so little.

Mike Vanderboegh
PO Box 926
Pinson, AL 35126
GeorgeMason1776@aol.com
sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com

 

[misconfig]

You cannot reason with them. They are an ideological enemy more determined, organized, and more full of hate for our freedoms and our Constitution than Al Queda ever dreamed of being. These people hate liberty, and they hate what our nation is supposed to be. They cannot be reasoned with, but they must be defeated if our way of life is to stand.

That was beautifully written Joe.

 

[Roadie]

My post on the article:

Once again, we see another rant about gun control, yet, once again we see no offer of a real solution. I have never once seen, in any anti-gun rant, a solution offered, or a method suggested, of just HOW we are to get all of the illegal guns off the streets. Do you really think the criminals, gang-bangers, etc are going to just run in their weapons?

"Oh, it is even MORE illegal now for us to use guns in a crime, I think it's time we stop and turn our guns in!"

We someone offers a viable solution for getting the illegal guns off the streets, then I might see this as a serious conversation. Until then, it is nothing but a empty, meaningless rant.
4/23/2009 2:17:35 PM

 

[VN Vet]

With their head where it must be and they hear the word "reason", they think it's cholocate and take a bite. I hope they enjoy the taste.

 

[jrogers]

The IndyStar tends to take anti-gun stances. I suggest not wasting your time reading it.

You cannot reason with them. They are an ideological enemy more determined, organized, and more full of hate for our freedoms and our Constitution than Al Queda ever dreamed of being. These people hate liberty, and they hate what our nation is supposed to be. They cannot be reasoned with, but they must be defeated if our way of life is to stand.

Wrong. Wrong and covered in a thick layer of tinfoil.

Those who oppose firearm ownership are certainly our ideological opponents, but they don't hate "our freedoms and our Constitution" or "liberty." They're simply opposed to firearm ownership. Similarly, some here may oppose perfectly legitimate exercise of the 1st Amendment (e.g., **** Christ), but that doesn't mean that they're "OMGWORSETHANALQAEDA!!!!!"

If "they cannot be reasoned with," how do you propose to "defeat" them?

 

[Lt. Dan]

I bet if the United States banned gun production altogether, these Mexican drug cartel thugs wouldn't be able to find any weapons

It's kind of funny that these sorts of articles never fail to mention the big bad evil "gun lobby," like it's a bunch of evil corporations conspiring to supply criminals. I think the truth of the matter is that these Congressmen (and women) are scared of a repeat of 1994...losing their seats because they know that the "gun lobby" is really a significant grassroots portion of the voting population.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The IndyStar tends to take anti-gun stances. I suggest not wasting your time reading it.



Wrong. Wrong and covered in a thick layer of tinfoil.

Those who oppose firearm ownership are certainly our ideological opponents, but they don't hate "our freedoms and our Constitution" or "liberty." They're simply opposed to firearm ownership. Similarly, some here may oppose perfectly legitimate exercise of the 1st Amendment (e.g., **** Christ), but that doesn't mean that they're "OMGWORSETHANALQAEDA!!!!!"

If "they cannot be reasoned with," how do you propose to "defeat" them?

Um... "removal from office" comes to mind?

Opposing firearms ownership by the public at large (and thus, by default giving the government a monopoly on them) is in diametric opposition to our Founders' intent.

A comparison to a crucifix in a container of urine is hardly the same thing. While I found that piece of "art" disgusting and offensive, I don't deny that the "artist" had every right to create it if he so chose. My objection was and is to any use of public funds (NEA grants) to support such "art".

Those who would disarm us do so only because they wish to do something to us that we might use those arms to prevent, just like a criminal who wishes to bind his captive/victim wishes to do something to them that they would resist if they were not bound, or someone ordering you into a car at gunpoint wants to take you somewhere where it will be easier for him/her to do something to you that you probably won't like than it is where you are at the time.

I see little difference between the latter criminals and those in office who would make us helpless.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[dburkhead]

The IndyStar tends to take anti-gun stances. I suggest not wasting your time reading it.

"Know your enemy" is a well established truism in more than just a military context.

Wrong. Wrong and covered in a thick layer of tinfoil.

Those who oppose firearm ownership are certainly our ideological opponents, but they don't hate "our freedoms and our Constitution" or "liberty." They're simply opposed to firearm ownership. Similarly, some here may oppose perfectly legitimate exercise of the 1st Amendment (e.g., **** Christ), but that doesn't mean that they're "OMGWORSETHANALQAEDA!!!!!"

If you'll look, not many oppose the idea that someone can do an "artwork" such as "**** Christ." What is objected to is providing Federal Funding for it. I don't see anything in the 1st Amendment about funding anything. So your comparison fails.

I'm an agnostic. I haven't seen any of the local Christian types trying to censor me based on that. I have seen folk on the Left try to censor me based on beliefs I hold that don't agree with theirs. So add the 1st to the Amendments that they don't believe in.

In fact all the "protect the rest of the Constitution" that folk on the Left try to claim for the left is belied by the actual policies they attempt to promote.

If "they cannot be reasoned with," how do you propose to "defeat" them?

Preferably at the ballot box because not everyone who voted democrat was a far left liberal nutjob.

 

[Robert Richardson]

Our president can deal with all manner of big problems, but the American gun lobby is just too strong to let him push a rational and limited gun regulation through Congress.It's not the gun lobby thats too strong, it SHOULD be the American gun owners are stronger!

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

Wrong. Wrong and covered in a thick layer of tinfoil.

Those who oppose firearm ownership are certainly our ideological opponents, but they don't hate "our freedoms and our Constitution" or "liberty." They're simply opposed to firearm ownership. snip

Which means exactly what I said it did. A hatred of our freedom, our Constitution, our liberty. An anti-gunner is a thug who wants to rule over people, who wants to create slaves, but one cannot enslave someone capable of fighting back. Anti-gunners glory in creating victims, because it gives them people they can "help."

Anti-gunners are evil, un-American thugs. No since in sugar coating what our enemies really are. Which is exactly what you are doing when you fallaciously state they are "simply opposed to firearms ownership." If they were simply opposed to firearms ownership and dedicated to the ideals of our Constitution, they would simply not buy guns, and perhaps try to talk other people out of buying them. Instead, they have a decades long history of spitting on our Constitution and the rights of their fellow citizens by trying to forcibly disarm us. I can't imagine what is to be gained by trying to whitewash such actions.

 

[finity]

Those who would disarm us do so only because they wish to do something to us that we might use those arms to prevent, just like a criminal who wishes to bind his captive/victim wishes to do something to them that they would resist if they were not bound, or someone ordering you into a car at gunpoint wants to take you somewhere where it will be easier for him/her to do something to you that you probably won't like than it is where you are at the time.

Bill,

You know I can't let that gross generalization pass.

You know very well that 'most' anti-gun people are very well meaning (even if mis-informed) people. They honestly think that if you could "just get rid of all the guns" it would make the world a safer place. I agree that if that were the case that gun crime would be non-existant (notice I didn't say all crime would be non-existant). They just really haven't figured out what we need all these guns for yet (granted some never will). They also haven't figurted out that just because you make guns illegal that criminals just won't turn "them all in". However, that kind of anti-gunner can be reached. It may not be easy but we definitely won't do it by using the kind of language against them that the gun-rights crowd always uses. (see examples above).

Some even inexplicably feel that violence even in defense of yourself is wrong. That's not evil. It may be strange but its not evil. Those are the ones you'll never reach. Those are relatively few in number. Luckily, nature has been pretty efficient at making sure we will do what's necessary to survive.

Then there are the truly evil intentioned ones who honestly do fear an armed populous as an impediment to their nefarious goals. I think that those gun-grabbers are the worst but luckily are also the smallest in number & probably the easiest to defeat.

Heck, its happening right now. Look at the huge increases in sales by members of both political persuasions at the possibility of a ban. The evil ones are being defeated & a lot of the other well-intentioned ones are coming around.