Today's column concludes a three-part series (see part 1 and part 2, if you haven't already) critiquing "Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea," of which Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), is co-author. The focus today will be on the main part of the book's suggested strategy for dealing with us "Insurrectionists" (defined in the book as those of us who believe an armed citizenry is the final obstacle in a would-be tyrant's path). To the book:
Isolate the Insurrectionists by embracing the self-defenders and the sporting gun owners. The fact remains that most gun owners are not Insurrectionists. The majority of gun owners keep guns primarily for self-protection or recreation, not to prepare for some future Armageddon. Insurrectionists do not deserve the cover provided them by self-defenders and sporting gun owners.
Wait a second here . . . "embracing the self-defenders"? Are they planning to tell these self-defenders that until 1989, the group's name was not the "Coalition to Stop Gun Violence," but the "National Coalition to Ban Handguns"? How about the fact that the name change was motivated not by a loss of interest in banning handguns, but by a desire to expand the mission to banning so-called "assault weapons," too? From "Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America," by Kristin A. Gross:
In that year [1989], the National Coalition to Ban Handguns changed its name to Coalition to Stop Gun Violence to reflect its view that assault rifles, as well as handguns, should be outlawed.
Horwitz and Anderson don't really try very hard to hide their continued desire to ban handguns, as seen in the next paragraph of their book:
Legislation to ban handguns has been extremely difficult to pass, and even if new handgun sales were outlawed--an unlikely scenario for the foreseeable future--the effect would be entirely prospective, albeit significant over time.
Also note that CSGV has had the same president, Mike Beard, since the group's beginning in1974, so any radical change in attitudes about handguns seems rather unlikely. What Horwitz and Anderson propose is not exactly the kind of "embrace" any self-respecting self-defender should allow himself to be caught in.
But wait--Horwitz and Anderson also seek to "embrace" sporting gun owners, and separating those from both self-defenders and "Insurrectionists" is an old strategy (remember John Kerry dressed up as a duck hunter, or the American Hunters and Shooters Association--now defunct?). Couldn't a group support bans of handguns and "assault weapons," and argue against the value of an armed citizenry as defense against tyranny, without being a threat to those whose only interest in firearms is for sport?
Um--nope. Keep in mind that CSGV is a member of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA). As blogger Thirdpower reminds us, Rebecca Peters, while director of IANSA, called for a ban of any rifle that can kill at a range of 100 meters.
And that means that no -- civilians should not have sniper rifles, or rifles that they can kill someone at 100 meters distance, for example. There needs to be a much greater degree of proportionality in the firepower that's available.
That takes care of all centerfire rifles I can think of, and at least some rimfires--certainly any rifle that would be of any use hunting anything bigger than a squirrel. Of course, if she had thought about it, Peters would presumably have realized that with slugs, shotguns can kill at 100 meters, too (and eventually, someone would tell her that even if shotgun slugs are outlawed, some enterprising individual will figure out how to make them from birdshot rounds).
So, in other words, CSGV has never renounced its call, under its old name, to ban all handguns, and is a member organization of an international gun ban group whose director has called for the banning of nearly all hunting arms, and yet CSGV's executive director wants to "embrace" those who own guns for self-defense or sport.
Can they really believe we're stupid enough to fall for that?
See also:
Comments
He's a liar for trade, what do you expect?
He just wrote more lies today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-horwitz/who-you-callin-a-nazi_b_77520...
I might know the anonymous caller ID person, and he says that Horwitz hemmed and hawed, whilst politely being questioned as to how he could support victim disarmament for Jews as a Jew.
He spoke for the better part of a half hour without saying any straight answers to anything and asked the anonymous caller to call him at his office.
He describes it as "I answered and a man asked, "Are you Josh Horwitz?" I said yes and he explained that he is a supporter of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (a radical gun-rights group). He then went on to say that with a name like Horwitz I must be Jewish, and he expressed dismay that any Jew could be working for gun control, which he deemed a "Nazi agenda." At which point I hung up."
Which is as much a fabrication as his book and his organization's propoganda. Eluding questions for the better part of a half hour and asking a person to call them at their office isn't "hanging up."
Fellow has an ACTIVE imagination.
Marxists don't mind you having weapons as long as you are a party member of sufficient rank and have permission.
At some point you come to the realization that they are not interested in anything but power and control and that the debate is not winnable because your side won't be presented to the people. At that point, you stop talking.
I think Caligula said it best: let them hate, so long as they fear.
Our not so friendly neighbor to the South is a perfect example of how safe a population can be when the possession of arms by civilians is prohibited.
None are so blind as those who refuse to see. None are so deaf as those who refuse to hear.
If those folks who insist upon living in a Looney Tunes inspired world in which the wiley coyote is too stupid to find breakfast and momma rabbit is a caring grandmotherly type who wouldn't harm a fly, then so be it. They WILL learn at some point, probably too late for the realization to be of any use to them, that they have placed their faith in a system that will eventually destroy them.
[W3]
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!