Politicians

[jpk1md]

I confess that I highjacked the link from THR and we've all heard/read the relevent portions of this but its always a good refresher....particularly here in Md with officials that make public proclamations that they cannot understand why the avg cit needs a firearm......

www.lneilsmith.org/

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?

 

[reiflame]

I mostly agree with this. Obviously I should be able to walk into a store and walk out with a gun, and you should be able to do it. But there's a lot of unsavory people out there that should not be able to legally purchase a firearm.

The point that he makes, though, is good. If a politician doesn't trust me enough to protect myself (especially since the police does not actually have an obligation to protect me) then I don't trust him/her to make political decisions for me.

 

[slayr15]

if only more people thought this way.

 

[jpk1md]

But there's a lot of unsavory people out there that should not be able to legally purchase a firearm.

OK..Why?

I mean...If guns were more prevalent then the effect of these so called unsavory types would be totally nullified.....you also forget that these so called Unsavory Types already get their weapons.....they just get them illegally so whats the point?

More people armed with the tools to protect themselves is the ONLY method proven to reduce crime.....I want CRIME REDUCTION not Law Enforcement.....there's a difference....the latter is primarily a cleanup effort...the deed is already done....the former actually keeps people safe, alive and free to pursue freedom/happiness etc.

 

[reiflame]

OK..Why?

Because I have a moral problem with giving a violent criminal a deadly weapon legally. And before someone makes the "cars can be deadly weapons" argument, it's really hard to kill someone with a car in their own home. Especially if it has more than one level.

I mean...If guns were more prevalent then the effect of these so called unsavory types would be totally nullified.....you also forget that these so called Unsavory Types already get their weapons.....they just get them illegally so whats the point?

You can't force everyone to get a gun....there are people out there who are not and will never be comfortable with them. That's their problem, not mine.

Yes, yes, there are some criminals out there that will always get their weapon. However, there's another population that does not have the desire or know-how to get a weapon illegally. Preventing those people from buying a gun legally is argument enough for me.

 

[Scott7891]

Because I have a moral problem with giving a violent criminal a deadly weapon legally. And before someone makes the "cars can be deadly weapons" argument, it's really hard to kill someone with a car in their own home. Especially if it has more than one level.



You can't force everyone to get a gun....there are people out there who are not and will never be comfortable with them. That's their problem, not mine.

Yes, yes, there are some criminals out there that will always get their weapon. However, there's another population that does not have the desire or know-how to get a weapon illegally. Preventing those people from buying a gun legally is argument enough for me.

That is the price of liberty and freedom. People will use it for twisted and sick purposes I know but it is something we must deal with in a free society. I shouldn't have to bend backwards because of some messed up whacko or drug dealer who wants to cause harm.

 

[reiflame]

That is the price of liberty and freedom. People will use it for twisted and sick purposes I know but it is something we must deal with in a free society. I shouldn't have to bend backwards because of some messed up whacko or drug dealer who wants to cause harm.

This will just have to be something we agree to disagree on. I hope that you at least recognize that your position is extreme and doesn't really help us in the dialog about gun control.

 

[zoostation]

I don't feel his position is extreme in the least. For 200 years we didn't have NICS and the republic didn't fall. In fact for most of that 200 years you could buy a rifle in the mail (without a C&R ) perfectly legally and it didn't seem to contribute to the crime rate.

Violent criminals don't buy their guns in stores. They buy their guns on the streetcorners and in crackhouses for 50 or 75 bucks. Which is the argument the anti-gun lobby likes to use, "well even if maybe you're not personally a threat you still contribute to the problem just by owning a gun that could be stolen." And Scott is right, any time there is freedom, there is a price to be paid. We could also save lives by outlawing all motorcycles, skydiving, processed food, cigarettes, cars that go over 55 mph, and just about anything else fun. But we choose to live our lives alive, not wrapped in a nerf cocoon.

All gun control laws will always be used to further the ultimate aim of the gun control lobby, which is regulation as a road to confiscation. I'm not saying everyone in the anti-gun movement feels that way, I realise many of them are just the useful idiots of the true believers. However I see no advantage to any but the most basic of gun control laws, such as those that punish felons for owning a gun. But all this regulatory stuff is a bunch of crap in my opinion that is only good for harassing lawful gun owners, and moreover slowly expanding the categories of prohibited persons to encompass more and more of the population.

 

[reiflame]

I don't feel his position is extreme in the least. For 200 years we didn't have NICS and the republic didn't fall. In fact for most of that 200 years you could buy a rifle in the mail (without a C&R ) perfectly legally and it didn't seem to contribute to the crime rate.

It's very nice that you don't "feel" his position is extreme. However, I wasn't talking about you; I was talking about the general public. You won't win any political allies or change the minds of people on the fence about gun control with an attitude like that.

Also, I've read that prior to NICS being instituted 20% of guns used in violent crime were purchased legally. NICS currently rejects around 2% of applicants; meaning that yes, criminals WERE in the past buying guns legally and are no longer doing so.

 

[jpk1md]

It's very nice that you don't "feel" his position is extreme. However, I wasn't talking about you; I was talking about the general public. You won't win any political allies or change the minds of people on the fence about gun control with an attitude like that.

Also, I've read that prior to NICS being instituted 20% of guns used in violent crime were purchased legally. NICS currently rejects around 2% of applicants; meaning that yes, criminals WERE in the past buying guns legally and are no longer doing so.

There are several issues with your argument.

First: For the 200 years prior to Gun Control violent crime rates were relatively low...Even in major cities like London. I have a copy of 100 years of Crime Stats for the UK that clearly demonstrate that coincidentally increases in violent crime FOLLOW implementation of Gun Control...that is the FACT.

Second: We need to reconsider the law that disqualifies someone from purchasing a firearm....I mean do you really think that a White Collar Crime should be a disqualifying event for owning a Firearm? These crimes are nonetheless Felonies and disqualifying events....same with the Laughtenberg Ammendment....that law is abused left and right.

Violent Felonies and ONLY Violent Felonies should even be CONSIDERED to be disqualifying events and on top of that there NEEDS to be a process for restoring a persons rights over time.

 

[Spot77]

Also, I've read that prior to NICS being instituted 20% of guns used in violent crime were purchased legally. NICS currently rejects around 2% of applicants; meaning that yes, criminals WERE in the past buying guns legally and are no longer doing so.

That 2% is misleading. Do you know how many people are rejected based on having the same name as a disqualified person? I was denied via NICS once because of some type of alleged computer error on THEIR end. I'm crystal clean and have been approved easily many other times. But yet I've contributed to that number of rejections.

 

[3rdRcn]

Second: We need to reconsider the law that disqualifies someone from purchasing a firearm....I mean do you really think that a White Collar Crime should be a disqualifying event for owning a Firearm? These crimes are nonetheless Felonies and disqualifying events....same with the Laughtenberg Ammendment....that law is abused left and right.

Violent Felonies and ONLY Violent Felonies should even be CONSIDERED to be disqualifying events and on top of that there NEEDS to be a process for restoring a persons rights over time.

WHAT?!

A criminal is a criminal, a felony is a felony, at what point do you say "well he didn't hurt anyone so it's ok". That imo is absurd, if they broke that law and had no respect for the laws of our land then what law are they gonna think it's ok to break next. The offender had no consideration for the person or persons he hurt when he broke that law and in turn we should not give him the same space or rights as the person who has never broken a law. I do agree however with a person being able to restore their rights over time, most of us have done stupid things as young people or as young adults, so I think that after 30 years or so as a law abiding citizen they should be able to have a non violent felony expunged from their record.

 

[Deacon51]

Ha, I say that when ever anyone is released from jail they should be given a Uzi and 500 rounds of ammo. There first week out, they must live at the home, and with the family, of the person that signed the order.

I bet the numbers of repeat offenders would drop to almost nothing overnight.

 

[jpk1md]

Because I have a moral problem with giving a violent criminal a deadly weapon legally. And before someone makes the "cars can be deadly weapons" argument, it's really hard to kill someone with a car in their own home. Especially if it has more than one level.

Throughout history when leaders attempted to limit access to the weapons of the time people innovate....when the English Monarchy banned the Scots from having Swords they resorted to rocks, sticks and clubs....literally.....in our society I've been told that it is incredibly easy to MAKE your own firearm....you cannot and will not be able to keep weapons out of the hands of people that want them...its not possible...look at the UK....they have had essentially a total ban on firearms since 1997, they have attempted to ban knives and other weapons but Gun, Knife and other violent crime is up dramatically.....to the point where overall there is more Violent Crime in the UK than there is in the USA....

Yes, yes, there are some criminals out there that will always get their weapon. However, there's another population that does not have the desire or know-how to get a weapon illegally. Preventing those people from buying a gun legally is argument enough for me.

Unfortunately there appear to be a lot more people out there that are obtaining their weapons illegally....history has proven that when you crack down on a society too hard (USSR etc etc) a black market will always thrive and when the black market becomes the place where most people get their goods (food, clothes etc) then.......you get my point?

Of the 2% of the people that NICS denied I would like to see how many were denied for a Violent Felony and how many were denied for ********....then we'll see how effective NICS is.

 

[jpk1md]

WHAT?!

A criminal is a criminal, a felony is a felony, at what point do you say "well he didn't hurt anyone so it's ok". That imo is absurd, if they broke that law and had no respect for the laws of our land then what law are they gonna think it's ok to break next. The offender had no consideration for the person or persons he hurt when he broke that law and in turn we should not give him the same space or rights as the person who has never broken a law.

I'm not talking about not punishing Criminals like they do here in Md with the Catch and Release Program...what I'm talking about is making sure that the Punishment Fits the Crime.

IMHO someone that A. commits criminal trespass in the first degree (Felony in the State of NY) should NOT be subjected to the same punishment as someone that B. Rapes and Murders someone.

In case A its pretty clear that the person needs to be punished for the crime but to strip them of the right to Vote/Own a Firearm is a bunch of bunk.

In case B they just need to be put down...period...no rehabilitation. (waiting for Novus to chime in )

Make sense?

 

[zoostation]

It's very nice that you don't "feel" his position is extreme. However, I wasn't talking about you; I was talking about the general public. You won't win any political allies or change the minds of people on the fence about gun control with an attitude like that.

No need for sarcasm, we're all adults here. Would it make you happier if I said I don't "believe" his position is extreme?

I believe what you are suggesting sounds (to me anyway) like agreement with the people who say it's "just common sense." You might be willing to crack the door open and see if the antis decide to kick it the rest of the way in, I personally think it's a bad idea.

 

[zoostation]

IMHO someone that A. commits criminal trespass in the first degree (Felony in the State of NY) should NOT be subjected to the same punishment as someone that B. Rapes and Murders someone.

Right after NICS was instituted there was a federal appeals case of a guy who was denied a purchase because he was convicted of a simple DWI in Massachussetts 20 years before in 1975. In MA at the time a first-time DWI carried a potential jail term of up to 3 years in prison, even though nobody ever got it. He lost the case, lifetime ban. I'm not defending drunk drivers, just giving an example of why I agree, the punishment should fit the crime.

The federal lifetime ban does not apply only to felonies, it also applies to any misdemeanor conviction which carries a potential sentence of greater than one year. It also applies to all minor common law offenses without a specified punishment, of which Maryland had many until they finally codified common law several years ago.

For instance, telephone misuse in MD carries a potential penalty of up to three years in prison. Now I'm not defending people who make prank or annoying phone calls, just saying that I don't think banning them from firearms ownership forever fits the offense.

But this is where we've gotten to. We seem to have this slow creep of regulation, expanding the lists of people who can't own guns while shrinking the list of guns people can own. It only heads in one direction.

 

[zoostation]

Also, I've read that prior to NICS being instituted 20% of guns used in violent crime were purchased legally. NICS currently rejects around 2% of applicants; meaning that yes, criminals WERE in the past buying guns legally and are no longer doing so.

Sure, now a few more are buying them illegally. Besides, I have no doubt many guns used in crimes, especially domestic ones, were and are purchased legally. I don't really get anything out of those statistics.

 

[reiflame]

Second: We need to reconsider the law that disqualifies someone from purchasing a firearm....I mean do you really think that a White Collar Crime should be a disqualifying event for owning a Firearm? These crimes are nonetheless Felonies and disqualifying events....same with the Laughtenberg Ammendment....that law is abused left and right.

Violent Felonies and ONLY Violent Felonies should even be CONSIDERED to be disqualifying events and on top of that there NEEDS to be a process for restoring a persons rights over time.

You'll get no argument from me there; and I never implied that I thought the current law was perfect in any manner, in fact I only ever used the term "violent criminal". Don't imply that I said anything differently.

No need for sarcasm, we're all adults here. Would it make you happier if I said I don't "believe" his position is extreme?

I believe what you are suggesting sounds (to me anyway) like agreement with the people who say it's "just common sense." You might be willing to crack the door open and see if the antis decide to kick it the rest of the way in, I personally think it's a bad idea.

It's not sarcasm, it's annoyance that some people on this board try to simplify this argument to fit their own little world view. It's not realistic and it's part of the reason that the pro-gun lobby has such a bad name.

 

[jpk1md]

It's not sarcasm, it's annoyance that some people on this board try to simplify this argument to fit their own little world view. It's not realistic and it's part of the reason that the pro-gun lobby has such a bad name.

Not only do I intend to so to speak "Kick In the Door" but I also want to rip it off its hinges and put it through a shredder along with the door frame and the wall it was attached to......In my lifetime I want to see all of these BS Gun Control Laws eliminated that do little more than harass law abiding citizens.....you may call that wacky...I call it Freedom...there can be no negotiating on principals of Freedom and the Socialists that every day seek to remove your rights to make choices in your personal life under the false premise of "The Greater Good" or "Common Sense". I will always abide by the law but we need to work towards changing these nonsense laws and get back to the basics...

Compromise on issues of Principle/Freedom is what has put us in the mess that we're in now....there can be no more further Compromise on issues of Personal Freedom.

We need to push/teach/reward people in our Society to take personal responsibility for their actions and severly punish those that fail/avoid doing so.

Until we do that there will be little or no improvement in Society and Criminals will continue to thrive.