Earlier in July, the Violence Policy Center’s Josh Sugarmann – writing on the Huffington Post website – made what had to be one of the more bone-headed attempts in recent memory to drive a wedge between people in the firearms community when he critiqued remarks written by Jan Libourel, editor of Gun World magazine.
Libourel is an extraordinarily bright guy, well-read in every sense, and – as is common among gun writers – unabashedly opinionated. As a recognized firearms authority, he’s supposed to be opinionated. That’s his job, and he is very good at it. Gun owners enjoy those opinions, even if they don’t always agree with them; it’s a “First Amendment thing.” Evidently, Sugarmann doesn’t get this; not at all surprising since people in the gun prohibition (it’s never been about “control” of guns, but banning them altogether and those guys know it) movement do not seem to “get” much about anything.
Sugarmann tried to exploit something Libourel wrote about semiautomatic rifles, suggesting that his remarks could land him in the same hot water as legendary hunting authority Jim Zumbo a couple of years back. Zumbo said something foolish about AR-15 rifles which he quickly regretted and retracted, turned into a learning experience and ultimately a personal triumph. Zumbo is a friend of mine, and he gained in stature because of his gaffe. I thought his initial criticism of the AR-15 was off base and he knows it, but today Zumbo is one of the last guys in the universe with whom I would wish to tangle on the issue of gun rights, to say nothing of individual character.
Now comes Libourel with this remark, “Nobody but a madman would oppose some sort of gun control laws.” Sugarmann landed on that like a fly on cow dung – possibly with the same intent and motivation – asserting that “a significant portion of the pro-gun organizations and individuals that comprise the activist core of gun ownership in America do oppose ‘some sort of gun control laws.’ In fact, they oppose any sort of gun control laws’.”
No, Josh, they oppose your sort of gun laws; you know, licensing, registration, Draconian storage requirements, retroactive disqualification, mandatory locking devices, bans on legal concealed or open carry, bans on certain types and classes of firearms, confusing paperwork, contradictory language, yadda, yadda, yadda. All of the nonsense that gun owners know has never prevented a single violent criminal act.
Murder is against the law, but people keep doing it, with guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, rocks, poison, you name it.
I have yet to meet a gun owner, including the most rabid gun rights extremist (some people use that phrase to describe me!) who opposes keeping guns away from illegal aliens, violent convicted felons – rapists, murderers, bank robbers, etc. – or people who have been adjudicated as mentally unstable or incompetent. Sugarmann would have the world believe all of these misfits and average American gun owners are one and the same.
You know, the heavily-armed guy who in his grandiose dreams is linked to a heritage that stretches from the Revolutionary War to the Wolverines of Red Dawn -- and is only seen by the rest of us when he snaps and his last "patriotic" act ends up on the evening news. - Josh Sugarmann
Gun owners would support a law requiring mandatory firearms safety training as part of the public school curriculum, and another law restoring high school rifle teams. Sugarmann’s crowd would oppose such laws. Their idea of “gun safety” is promoting an irrational fear of firearms, in the home, the classroom, on public property and in all business establishments. That hasn't worked.
Gun owners supported a sensible federal proposal that would have required states to honor one another's concealed carry licenses and permits, but Sugarmann's VPC opposed it.
Indeed, when it comes to gun laws, it is the firearms community, not prohibitionists like Sugarmann, who have supported – and demanded adherence to – the ultimate federal gun law, the Second Amendment; prohibitionists want that repealed, not us.
Elsewhere in his Gun World column, Libourel made some remarks about people who had rushed to gun shops since the 2008 elections, buying up AR-15 rifles. I’ve written about that phenomenon in Gun Week. It falls under what we call in the news trade as "fair comment" and is protected by the First Amendment. That's the one that comes right before the Second Amendment.
Sugarmann suggests that Libourel was demonizing these people and the guns they bought, because Jan is self-admittedly an “old fashioned” guy who prefers a “a plain old short-barreled 12 gauge pump gun or autoloader (as) all the urban defense gun I’d ever need.”
Josh, this will come as a life-altering shock, I’m certain: Not everyone in the gun community shares the same lockstep affection for every type of firearm. We’re “rugged individualists” in that sense. I don’t own an AR-15. They’re fun to shoot, some are remarkably accurate, but they simply don’t interest me enough to invest the money, same as a sports car may be fun to drive, but I own a pickup. My pals who are AR-15 aficionados joke that they love me for not owning one of these rifles, contending that “it leaves one more for us to buy.” You’re welcome!
Now, here’s the major difference between guys like Sugarmann, and guys like me and Libourel. We don’t care if our neighbor owns a house full of AR-15s. We don’t consider it any of our business what kind of gun our neighbor owns. Josh should take a lesson from that.
Sugarmann suggested that Libourel’s remarks just might get him banished from the gun community. What is he smoking?
Libourel is a cornerstone of the gun community, and the gun community knows it. He’s not going to get exiled. Now that he’s been singled out by Sugarmann, he’s probably going to get a medal.
Visit with other Gun Rights Examiners:
Comments
I once planned to write about this topic, but I wanted to talk to Libourel and never got in touch with him. I'm glad you took care of it; it needed to be said and you did a better job than I would have.
I don't agree with Libourel, but I have a confession to make: I don't have an AR-15. Or any sort of AK-47 variant . . . or SKS. In fact, I don't own anything that would have been banned under the old federal "assault weapons ban" except a couple of Glock magazines. And my go-to home defense arms are a 12-gauge pump shotgun made in 1953 and an updated 1911 pattern pistol. Using those guns doesn't mean I think AR-15's are evil or even that I think I wouldn't be better served with one instead of my shotgun in many ways. I simply haven't felt like paying a silly premium for an AR rifle in a seller's market.
Sugarmann doesn't get it. No surprise there.
" Now comes Libourel with this remark, “Nobody but a madman would oppose some sort of gun control laws.”
Then I must be a madman. Because I oppose all gun control laws. I do not however oppose laws that penalize the misuse of guns, but then I don't oppose laws that penalize the misuse of anything to the detriment of others. That' probably why I am not in favor of cutting off everybody's hands and feet, even though a majority of murders and assaults are effected with their use.
I do, however, favor punishment for the misuse of those appendages when used to harm others.
Just color me madman.
Oh, and Josh Sugarman is an ass. A paid liar. Not a very smart one, but he doesn't have to be. His main audience isn't very smart either.
No, "Straightarrow" you are NOT a madman, but for some reason you just can't resist trying to portray yourself as a crusty hardliner. :-)
You acknowledge that you support the kind of "gun control" laws that make sense.
Dave, you say: "I have yet to meet a gun owner, including the most rabid gun rights extremist (some people use that phrase to describe me!) who opposes keeping guns away from illegal aliens, violent convicted felons – rapists, murderers, bank robbers, etc. – or people who have been adjudicated as mentally unstable or incompetent." Well, now you have, and I'm not the only one. The reasoning is twofold: #1 Those laws (designed to "keep guns away from" certain people don't work and cannot accomplish their purpose. #2 All gun control laws are about banning them, not controlling them. (See #1.). Moreover, to support any such laws assigns truth to two patant lies: #1 Righteousness can be legislated. (It can't be.) #2 Human behavior can be controlled by regulating (banning) inanimate objects, things, such as firearms. (It, likewise, can't be.) To support any such gun control laws is to assign truth to those premises that are patently false. contd.
contd. -- You, yourself acknowledged these truths when you said: "Murder is against the law, but people keep doing it, with guns, knives, baseball bats, cars, rocks, poison, you name it." Then you fall back into Sugerman's and Libourel's trap, " "Nobody but a madman would oppose some sort of gun control laws." That sounds so good by itself. The gun banners are very good at heaving insults when they don't have a leg to stand on. Then all of this nonsense is rolled into the final lie that all of this "control" is about preventing crime, when the hidden agenda is, was, and always has been about disarming America. All gun control laws are unconstitutional. Check the language of the Second Amendment: "the right of the people...shall not be infringed." read that as "regulated", "controlled" or even "done away with". Don't fall into the trap. Notice that the continuing warfare being waged on the Constitution now comes from the GOVERNMENT, not the true sovreign in this country, the people.
I resent "crusty". I bathed just last month.
contd. - I know the American "way" is to compromise, be reasonable, find the middle ground. But I don't think such exists here. To me, it's a little like Israel and Hamas. How do you negotiate your own demise? I think one day soon Americans are going to have to embrace one of two options, either gun control is good, needed, and necessary for the prevention of crime and the protection of the people, or that it is an evil, egregious, unconstitutional and therefor unlawful lie foisted upon the American people by tyrants intent upon destroying not only the freedoms guaranteed by law, but also the country itself. There is no middle ground. Either poison is poison, or it isn't. Gun control is either good, or it is evil. It can't be both. That's the issue. I think time will prove this premise true: It is evil. What do you say, Crusty?
Excellent article, Dave. I think that the only major gun control law that I truly support is that big one ... which forms part of the law of the land ... the second amendment. It is indeed a gun control law, in that it controls the government when it comes to guns (or arms, really). It's the right of the people, and it shall not be infringed.
I have followed Sugarmann's stuff for years, and I can objectively say that he's a paid liar. He has no principles larger than his agenda and therefore, he is a man that I cannot respect. And since the Joyce Foundation funnels the money that fuels his (and their) agenda, I cannot respect them, either.
Excellent article, as always.
It amazes me at times that people like Josh Sugarmann and Barack Obama who want "common sense" gun laws don't take the time to reflect that we already have them.
For their information "common sense" is NOT whatever they say it is.
I'm with Rabid and David Codrea who says: "Anyone who can't be trusted with a gun shouldn't be without a chaperone" (that's probably not an accurate quote...).
HB AR15 "Firearms Communication Act"
All persons who communicate in any manner [written, verbal or otherwise] in which said communication is construable to be relative to ‘guns’, firearms, policy, use, or any other firearms-related issue,
Who;- receive compensation [money, gifts, & / or etc.] for their communications;
Must under Federal law;-
personally own at least one firearm in working order; no less than 20 rounds of dischargeable ammunition of the appropriate caliber and necessary accoutrements required to facilitate discharge [magazine, clip or etc.] for at least one firearm owned.
Proof of ownership must be made available when required and date of purchase verifiable.
Any person found to be in violation of any part of this law will, upon conviction in a court of law, be subject to fines of no less than $10,000.00 for each offense and or, incarceration in a Federal facility for no less than one year.
Great article Dave. I don't own an AR-15 or AK-47 myself. My weapons of choice are a Ruger .357 mag. SP-101, and a Ruger Redhawk .44 mag. Somebody else might want a Mossberg 500 Defender shotgun, or a .454 Freedom Arms Casull. Whatever keeps you safe.
Aren't we supposed to love diversity, after all?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!