Keep Guns in, rightwingers out…

I support pro-gun legislation. I support the 2nd Amendment, and my right to arm myself. And sometimes, this too makes for strange bedfellows. Take the people at ““, for example.

Now, in theory I agree. I, too, don’t want the BoS infringing on my rights. I, too, feel compelled to stand up and speak up against a climate in which “freedom” is more or less a hollow phrase wrapped around the restrictive climate of “political correctness” and “I’m OK, you’re OK” bullshit.

In practice, however, this means aligning myself with a bunch of rightwingers whose goals include the strengthening of the NRA, a group of gun nuts whose guts I hate almost more than those of the anti-gun lobby. I have the choice between a Klan-springoff and the SF liberals, and neither group makes me very happy.

I support the Brady bill, oppose the sale of firearms at swap-meets without documentation or background check, and am a strong advocate of mandatory gun-safety training and re-evaluations on a timely basis. And, oh, if there’d be a law to send those possessing firearms unregistered to a pound-me-in-the-butt federal prison for all eternity, I’d be all for it, as well. Guess what, the only group fighting for my right to have a gun, however, wants to do away with Brady, kill background checks, sell guns to pretty much any domestic and foreign terrorist, and thinks it’s cool to get drunk and shoot at beer cans.

So, what’s an upstanding Patriot going to do. Stay silent? Not a chance in the world. Align himself or herself with the rightwingers? I’d rather sheer off my left nut with a belt-sander.

Does anyone have a solution? Other than moving to Montana, that is.

6 Comments so far

  1. morey (unregistered) on July 3rd, 2005 @ 3:02 pm

    Typical republicrat… “There ought to be limits to freedom!” “The bill of rights goes too far!”

    You’ve managed to spew a whole lot of insults and rhetoric, but where’s the beef? Why do you believe in the Brady bill? Why do you think registration and mandatory training will prevent crime? Do you think the “assault weapons” ban makes sense? Why do you think that the historical precedent of registration leading to confiscation couldn’t happen here?

    I’m serious. I’d like to know what makes people like you tick.

  2. Jonas M Luster (unregistered) on July 3rd, 2005 @ 3:18 pm

    Hey, I didn’t say it’ll prevent crime to teach people how to use a gun. It’ll prevent accidents, and it’ll make sure that my friends, family, and I don’t get killed by some drunken hillbilly shooting beer and deer.

    Brady mandates a background checks and a waiting period, amongst other things. Personal safety can wait 14 days, if the safety of the commons is at stake. And it is. The incidence of armed robberies perpetrated by felons who bought the guns from swap-meets is highest in areas where such places are common. Will it prevent crime? No! Does it cause harm? No. And in this case, why not err on the side of caution? It doesn’t infringe on anyone’s right to bear arms (within the confines of the ‘no felons’ law[1]), and it imposes but a brief wait. Which makes spur-of-the-moment things a problem of the past. One guy who doesn’t blow his brains out during that one depressive phase is a win.

    Lastly, registration that leads to confication. Your ownership is well known. From using credit cards which, under PATRIOT and other laws are available to the Gummint, to the mere fact that your purchase at a store is a taxable event and as such already part of the Treasury Dept. records, you’re no stranger to the Government. The common historical precedent about gun registration that’s being held up by a large number out there, is the Third Reich boogieman. I’ll save the argument for another day, but until you’ve read the original documents in German and spoken to a few Auschwitz and Treblinka survivors, I’m not going to discuss the difference between the two countries.

    [1] It’s interesting, how the same group of people advocating a no-check policy for firearm purchases is very outspoken about mandatory publishing of sex offenders (note, I didn’t say “predators”, the difference is huge). If a flasher can’t be rehabilitated, how can a former armed robber?

  3. Morey (unregistered) on July 3rd, 2005 @ 3:50 pm

    I contend that it’s the elitists such as yourself who are the real danger to both life and civil liberties.

    You feel it’s within your rights to prevent the battered woman from buying a gun as soon as she feels the need? Why 14 days? Why not six months? What gives you the right to determine when other people are sufficiently prepared for the responsibility?

    Many gun owners still do fly under the radar. Only now, we’re criminals for doing so. It contradicts your position to raise the issue of invasion of privacy, and then to state that ‘it’s happening anyway, so just accept it.’

    Since I’m obviously not experienced or educated enough to understand why “it could never happen here”, I’ll just drop those wild notions for now.

  4. Jonas M Luster (unregistered) on July 3rd, 2005 @ 4:04 pm

    What makes you think, that a “battered woman” is capable of defending herself with a gun? Where is your empirical data, that shows that firts-time gun owners are even remotely capable to operate the firearm securely? You know, I’ve kicked and bashed more than one gun out of the hands of someone who thought ownership was all he needed to kill me dead. And you know something else? With the exception of one, the guns that were drawn on me landed the person in a hospital. The one, well, that’s a morgue.

    Nobody gives me the right to determine preparation. Which is, why I advocate a set of mandatory steps before one can buy a gun. That would establish responsible ownership much better than your no-check policy or the current 14 days, would it?

    Privacy.. now, that’s a topic. You aren’t very private in owning a car. I’d be all up for a mandatory destruction of all gun purchase data after the mandatory checks are completed. Hell, if you want me one over, why not make sure that gun dealers enjoy the same rights as attorneys and doctors? I’d be up for it. License the dealer accordinly as we license docs and lawyers, and mandate the immediate destruction of all purchase records as soon as the sale is completed?

    In 1994 we started an advocay group to get exactly that. Actually, we opted for a slightly different way — give the cerification and documentation process to an independent thord party. Ensure that this party is and remains a non-profit, along the notions of a parole board. This entity keeps and maintains records of completed training and can do the background checks. To the dealer, other than when you’re willing to disclose it, your name isn’t known. Your firearm is registered to a number, and if law enforcement can show a valid reason to need ownership, including a subpoena from a federal judge, the oversight board releases ownership information. Consider the “firearm found near scene of a violent rape and murder” objection you’ll hear from pro-registration advocates a lot.

    14 days is, I believe and most studies done by social scientists show, a sufficient time to cool off after an affect. Simple as that. Make it as long as needed, and as short as possible.

  5. Jonas M Luster (unregistered) on July 3rd, 2005 @ 4:05 pm

    I blame the millions of typos on a new keyboard and a bad sunburn which, combined with an ear infection, doesn’t for a clear head make. Sorry about that.

  6. Morey (unregistered) on July 3rd, 2005 @ 4:29 pm

    Well obviously a mere gun is of no use against a badass such as yourself, but against mortals, it’s mere presence is often enough to send the bad guy running. This happens constantly, although unfortunately, I have no study to cite :(

    More bureaucracy isn’t going to prevent crime, and surviving records will, as you previously pointed out, certainly become abused at some point.

    I don’t know if you see the irony in your logic. You want to prevent people from owning a gun until your own arbitrary requirements are met, and you wish to do enforce this through the use of a gun. I don’t know under what pretense you will come after people like me (who mind their own business) next, but when you do, I want to be able to defend myself. And that is exactly what my man TJ was talking about when he said “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.