An interesting piece of commentary that goes to the heart of the issue we discuss here, in my honest opinion. Thoughts? Why Did it Have to be ... Guns? by L. Neil Smith lneil@lneilsmith.org Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote. People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center. Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it? If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything? If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail? Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of. He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about? And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along. Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have? On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries? Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it. And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter. But it isn't true, is it? Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author—provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.
The left wants the state to have a monopoly on force. They know they cannot achieve this so long as the citizenry remains armed. Everything they do or want to do with regard to firearms is just a means to this end. The 2nd Amendment was written with these people in mind.
Maybe the high level leftists think the above, but the leftists I talk about truly are worried about safety and violence. They just don't understand unexpected consequences nor do they trust their fellow man. I'm pro-gun, because my basic assumption is that most people are good people, and the only people that won't have guns under strict gun control are the stupid criminals and the law-abiding. The smarter criminals will still have guns, but I won't.
Maybe there are die hard 2nd A supporters who go to this length, but none that I know of, including me. I will say that the #1 concern of mine when voting is that politicians position on gun control. If they are pro gun control they would have to ace every other issue I'm concerned with to even consider them.
The above demonstrates nothing beyond an inability by yourself to actually articulate a point of your own, and instead a dependency on others to try and make a point for you. Nothing has been demonstrated by yourself to explain exactly why individuals exercising their constitutional rights in the manner they see fit, is a legitimate problem in need of being addressed. Nothing has been presented on the part of yourself except for hostility and veiled threats that suggests a willingness to murder others for doing something that you do not agree with. The staff has removed problematic members before in the past, and reported them to the FBI for statements that have been made on the forum. Whether or not the same fate will befall yourself remains to be seen.
Ah. A meme from Occupy Democrats, an extremist partisan group with all the ethics and integrity of a rabid hyena. Telling. Oh, and a lot of those Open Carry people are military veterans who DID serve overseas and served honorably, and only engage in demonstrations such as the above to make their point known.
If you are so offended by "single issue gun obsession" as you define it, then why take part in the discussion here? Obviously, people come to a forum dedicated to gun laws to discuss the issues related to them.
Yes... OccupyDemocrats is a excellent source of endless entertainment. The -best- part about them is when you illustrate the inanity of their ideas/statements/memes, the block you.
I see that regularly with any organization that supports gun control. They make their arguments, and when you step in to argue the other side they insult you, denigrate you, and then block you to keep you from responding. Quite telling, that. At least I don't block someone until they've demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're nothing but an internet troll.
Not only does it illustrate their awareness of the inanity what they say, it also tell you what they do with opposing points of view when they have the chance.
This is a debate about "People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter................". I would suggest that there are indeed many obsessed with guns in this country, and that relates to me as an American. This meme represents people who take that obsession to a ridiculous point.
For making veiled threats of violence against others, such as suggesting that you will kill any open carry advocates you see in your neighborhood of residence.
Except I never said I'd kill anyone. And if anyone is making a veiled threat it's those walking around with guns out in the open.
Only because it has been recognized by yourself that to actually state such would constitute an offense that can easily be prosecuted. Instead you rely on veiled statements of "try it and see what happens" when addressing the notion of individuals legally carrying firearms openly in the location in which you currently reside, along with statements of treating them like enemy combatants. Where is the legal basis for such? The open carrying of firearms is legal in the majority of the united states, indicating that neither law enforcement, the courts, or even those tasked with drafting legislation, have ever felt it was a legitimate threat in need of being addressed.
This meme is stupid. Most soldiers have rifles and exercise our right to open carry. Ah wait. I see that you copied it from the alt left Antifa site "Occupy Democrats".
