Oleg Volk photo (click photo to enlarge)
Related Articles
-
Denying rights without due process
-
You, too, can be a 'terrorist'
-
Rep. Peter King plots terrorist act
-
How to disarm the citizenry in 3 easy steps
-
Exploiting Ft. Hood: Now it's the 'terror gap loophole'
-
John Rosenthal and MAIG: Due Process Not Necessary
-
NYC Mayor Bloomberg and friends step up 'terror gap' scare rhetoric
I won't say that in gun rights, the only thing to fear is fear itself, but fear is among the most effective weapons in the forcible citzen disarmament advocates' arsenal. Those who support more and more oppressive regulation of guns always couch their message as an appeal for urgent action that must be taken quickly, in order to prevent an armageddon of "gun violence."
Thus, we must ban so-called "assault weapons," or mall-goers will drop like flies; we must ban .50 caliber rifles, or mortally wounded jetliners will fall like rain; we must close the "gun show loophole," or criminals will (suddenly start to) arm themselves en masse at such shows.
The latest "emergency" is the fanciful "terror gap"--a concept that calls for a dramatic expansion of the "prohibited purchaser" list, allowing the Attorney General to block any gun sale on a whim, simply by designating the prospective purchaser a "suspected terrorist."
In an attempt to show broad-based support for their "common sense gun laws," Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns conducted a survey, which supposedly shows that NRA members are actually quite on board with the forcible citizen disarmament agenda, and NRA leadership is betraying members by being so intransigent.
Readers are informed that even NRA members are supposedly overwhelmingly in favor of banning private sales, requiring gun owners to report lost or stolen guns, and allowing the Attorney General to unilaterally revoke the Second Amendment rights of anyone he chooses. Looking at the survey, though, I note that even among non-NRA members, support for more restrictive gun laws in general is quite low.
Still, the survey did supposedly show a lot of support, even among NRA members, for some very anti-gun proposed laws. How to explain that?
The anti-gun jihad is fueled not only by fear, but by ignorance, as the Violence Policy Center knows well, and exploited in order to pass an "assault weapon" ban:
The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
In this case, the ignorance that helps the gun banners comes in the form of the public not knowing how insanely bloated the "terrorist watch list" is, how few criminals buy their guns at gun shows, etc. More fundamentally, the disarmers count on the people being ignorant enough of civics and history to think that they need the government to protect them from their neighbors, rather than the other way around.
Tragically, gun haters may be right to count on such ignorance. Here's the thing, though--I didn't authorize anyone to negotiate my rights on my behalf. No matter how many members of whatever gun rights organization are tricked into supporting the anti-gun agenda, there will always be some of us who will never agree to "reasonable" infringements on that which shall not be infringed.
You still have to deal with us.
Atlanta: Ed Stone | Austin: Howard Nemerov | Boston: Ron Bokleman | Charlotte: Paul Valone | Cheyenne: Anthony Bouchard | Chicago: Don Gwinn | Cleveland: Daniel White | DC: Mike Stollenwerk | Denver: Dan Bidstrup | Grand Rapids: Skip Coryel | Knoxville: Liston Matthews | Los Angeles: John Longenecker | Minneapolis: John Pierce | National: David Codrea | Phoenix: Douglas Little | Seattle: Dave Workman | St. Louis: Kurt Hofmann | Wisconsin: Gene German
Comments
The last line says it all. Excellent article (as usual), Kurt.
Ditto allthewayto11's comment, the last line says it all! Excellent article Kurt! The only thing I would add is from my cold dead hand's!
Hm, fear-based politics? You know, if I were running a protection racket...
It's encouraging to see more and more people recognizing that when "the law" no longer protects us from the state, it ALSO no longer protects the state from us.
We tried to be polite. We asked to be left alone in peace. But Master will have none of this, and brings us perpetual war, both abroad and at home, stealing our money to do it and committing the atrocities in our name. It lives, as the saying goes, by the sword.
Dang, now how does that saying end again?
Typical gun lobby propaganda. Nobody wants to take your gun, they just want a sensible gun policy.
The gun nuts are pathetic cowards who make a fetish out of a gun. It would be funny if it did not have such tragic consequences.
In 20 years the gun lobby will be viewed as the tobacco lobby is today: ugly scum responsible for the senseless deaths of too many Americans.
If the Limbaugh lunitics suceed in taking our weapons then who will save them from those who are not in fear of hot air? One needs to remember that in history, those who talk the talk start the trouble and those who walk the walk are sacrificed to repair the peace. A disarmed population is a slave to the power that controls the armed servants of those who rule and they have no reason to rule in your interest unless you control their greed!
"The gun nuts are pathetic cowards who make a fetish out of a gun. It would be funny if it did not have such tragic consequences."
So saith those who would instead apologize for the forcible disarmament of the peaceable (and thus make a god of the state). I'm sure those tens of millions of people disarmed and murdered by their own governments (in the 20th century alone) would totally agree it was only "sensible gun policy". (See, at that level of magnitude, it's not "tragic" any more--just "statistical".)
And long as we're bein' so 'sensible' here, maybe you could educate your lessers on this open question: how, exactly, is some new 'policy/law' suddenly going to do what the thousands that preceded it have so utterly failed to do? Or can you just admit that the whole 'safety/statistics/crime' thing is a canard?
Forcible disarmament of the peaceable by prior restraint is wrong--always wrong--and no amount of hysterical sophistry can change that.
I have been a life member of the NRA for 20+ yrs now , i did not see when i signed up that i abdicated my voice to them when i signed up on my rights.so i will say this plain , so that both those that would whittle away my rights with "common sense " legislation , or try to make illegalmy rights under the second, neither of you speak for me , i do, You can legislate what you will , compliance is never a guarentee, and enforcement on those that disagree is impossable, the old saying while i was young so many yrs ago, when they outlaw my guns , i will become an outlaw, so now that that is clear , what part of "Shall not be infringed" dont you understand? because any and i mean any attempt at a compromise is an infringment on my rights , and since im not sitting at the table with you, what gives you the right to decide whats best for me? i reserve that right for myself and no others, now your move.
Hey Rogue,
fet·ish also fet·ich (ftsh, ftsh) KEY
NOUN:
An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices.
An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality.
Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.
Unfortunately for you Rogue, your pathetic and childish attempts at demonization and name calling is just another evidence of projection, transferring your own feelings of failure and impotence upon those you wish to deride.
We gun owners dont believe they can speak or command people much less have supernatural powers. We fully and truly understand that it take a human being to pull the trigger. We also cherish what it represents, ultimate freedom of choice..
A freedom that was won by the use of the gun and force when the tyranny of England sought to take that freedom away. Any comment, innuendo, or demonization from an individual and a cause that fails to stand on its own merits and facts as gun control fails to do on such a large scale, is just the last dying gasps of irrelevancy.
The tide has turned, the polls say so, the continued education of the masses proves so, the number of gun laws being relaxed is 10 times more numerous than those versus those constricting gun rights, the liberalized media whose support of such a failed experiment as gun control is losing readers at a record pace, senators and political parties "fear" the ability of the gun rights group to mobilize a vote. A group that is over 80 million owners and climbing. If that is irrelevant, then the antis are nothing but dog schit on the bottom of the gun rights community foot as we plant it up your collective anti's backside, get used to it!.
It is of little concern to me how "the gun lobby" will be viewed 20 years from now - favorably or unfavorably. I'm not a member of "the gun lobby". I'm a sovereign citizen deriving my power from the Hand of God and my authority from the "supreme law of the land".
If the Good Lord's willing and the creek don't rise, in 20 years I'll still be carrying 24/7; and might suggest that any attempt at "forcible disarament" will remain the same as it is today - most unwise.
"One man with courage is a majority." - Thomas Jefferson.
What is this about, rights or a popularity contest?
It is sad that so many people fall for the idea that rights can be voted away.
"Regardless of all the statistics to the contrary, we still feel that just another law will straighten out those pesky criminals. Ladies and gentlemen, we are fighting crime here and we cannot let the numbers stand in our way, pass this common sense gun law." Politician to No Clue people.
Insanity is doing the same failed thing over and over and expecting differing result.
I turned in my Life Member status with the NRA when they tried to Torpedo Parker, before it became Heller, because they were afraid it would lose. You can't win battles by running from the battlefield
I don't hire an army that won't fight because it's not an army...
GOA, JPFO, Firearms Coalition, etc. They get money from me because they aren't IDIOT APPEASERS who care more about Beltway friendships and cocktail parties than my personal freedom.
See ya around Sipsey Street
Passing more laws restricting weapons or people has done nothing to stop crime or make people safer.
Banning certain firearms is a big loser. If restricting the ownership or carrying of firearms really worked, Chicago, New York City and Washington, DC would be safe places. They are not!
roguewhat do you call the 20,000 some gun laws they have now not sensibe?in 20 years you will still be a dumbass
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!