Friendly Fire: Gun Nuts Go Full-Auto on One of Their Own
Posted by
KTK
UPDATE by tgirsch: It’s not just the left that thinks that Zumbo got the shaft. Here’s hoping the net minions don’t decide to ruin Faulk for failing to toe the line.
It hasn’t made a major ripple in the sane world, but in the insular and paranoid kingdom of twitchy gun freaks there’s been a shock-and-awe campaign against one of the best-known pro-gun figures around, because he deviated from jackbooted-thugs-head-shots-head-shots orthodoxy in a blog post (copied here).
Jim Zumbo is was apparently a well-known hunting media star - hunting editor for Outdoor Life magazine, contributor to many hunting publications including those of the NRA, paid endorser of gun-related products, and star of his own popular big-game hunting cable show. Barely a week ago, while on a hunting trip promoted by Remington Arms, he got into a conversation with a small-game hunter who informed him - and he claims he did not know this - that military-style semi-auto weapons with large-capacity magazines* are quite popular among prairie-dog shooters. Zumbo, being a large-bore, bolt-action manly man, thought this was unsporting, and, worse, said so on his blog on the Outdoor Life Website, posted on a Friday night from the campsite.
Before Monday, literally thousands of outraged small-bore auto-fire girly men had flooded Remington, Outdoor, his endorsement sponsors, and his cable show distributor with demands that he be fired. Before the weekend had ended, his career was destroyed: he was forced to resign from Outdoor (for which he had been writing for 45 years) and they disappeared his blog, Remington and most of his other sponsors fired him, the NRA proclaimed they would never publish or be associated with him again, and his cable show was canceled mid-season. As the week progressed, more supporters abandoned him. Again, this was within just a few days of a single blog post that they didn’t like.
What did he actually say? After 50 years of hunting experience and a lifetime career in pro-gun media, did he somehow reveal himself as a “gun banner”? The substantive passage says only this:
I call them “assault” rifles, which may upset some people. Excuse me, maybe I’m a traditionalist, but I see no place for these weapons among our hunting fraternity. I’ll go so far as to call them “terrorist” rifles. They tell me that some companies are producing assault rifles that are “tackdrivers.”
Sorry, folks, in my humble opinion, these things have no place in hunting. We don’t need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them, which is an obvious concern. I’ve always been comfortable with the statement that hunters don’t use assault rifles. We’ve always been proud of our “sporting firearms.”
This really has me concerned. As hunters, we don’t need the image of walking around the woods carrying one of these weapons. To most of the public, an assault rifle is a terrifying thing. Let’s divorce ourselves from them. I say game departments should ban them from the praries and woods.
Hmmm . . . he doesn’t buy into the disingenuous semantical tap-dance that claims there is no such thing as an “assault rifle” or its semi-auto variation; he doesn’t think it’s good for the image of gun owners to be committed to defending weapons mostly associated with terrorists and other unlawful uses; he sympathizes with ordinary citizens who are concerned about the prevalence of large-capacity weapons designed around military objectives; and he doesn’t think a real hunter should be unable to face a prairie dog without a 30-round banana clip and a mounted bayonet. Note that he did not demand the banning of such weapons; he only expressed the opinion that they should be restricted from use in hunting. Note also that most or all states ban magazine capacities greater than 5 rounds for big-game hunting; he was essentially calling for the extension of that existing rule to small-game shooting as well. Obviously, he was hopelessly infected with sanity and had to be put down.
In less than 48 hours he had posted an abject apology, declaring he was the “best friend” of both hunters and “shooters” (non-hunting deadly weapons enthusiasts), acknowledging his complete ignorance of assault weapons (hard to believe, but possibly true), saying he hadn’t thought the issue through and had changed his mind, and promising to go assault-rifle hunting with Ted Nugent as soon as possible. (I’m not making this up.****) It did no good.
As the WaPo article points out, and as becomes clear in discussion on many blogs, there is tension in the gun community between hunters and guns-for-all-sizes “shooters”. Apparently also there is feeling that the gun manufacturing community has been aimed largely at hunters and less supportive of what an ex-Marine colleague of mine used to refer to as “gun queers” - though happy to sell weapons to both camps, of course. So some of the massive reaction (Google Zumbo and see what you get - it’s eye-popping) is a sense of betrayal by “shooters” and resentment at what they perceive has been condescending treatment to date. Part of it also is the near-panicky fear that any voice of sanity - the suggestion that there is ever a time that any weapon is not appropriate - is the camel’s nose in the tent. They savaged Zumbo because they simply cannot, politically, and, it’s obvious, in many cases psychologically, allow any hint of a differing opinion to survive. Reinforcing orthodoxy by threat both preserves their political solidity and apparently makes them feel better.
For instance, from Tom Gresham, a well-known talk-radio host on gun issues:
this attitude of “just let them take those ugly, black guns” is common among hunters and competitive shooters. Anyone with that attitude is a fool. Sit down with a hunter from England or Australia, hear him tell the story of what happened there, and watch the tears well up in his eyes . . . . A ban on black guns, or “Saturday Night Specials,” or 50-caliber rifles, is a ban on all our guns. There is no such thing as a bad gun or a good gun. We can’t throw babies off the back of the sled, thinking it will keep the wolves away from us.
And from Michael Blane, host of a popular cable show on guns:
Jim Zumbo didn’t say a single thing I haven’t heard before from other “hook and bullet” writers. Such writings and statements are, indeed, based on an ignorance of how the market is shifting.
That ignorance is dangerous. . . .
The hunting lobbying groups need to make it clear that an attack on one is an attack on all …that there is no difference between an AR-15 and a fine Perazzi shotgun when it comes to the firearms community; that the community will no longer tolerate a discussion on which baby should be thrown off the lifeboat.
The hyperbole is deranged but revealing. The invective against Zumbo is amazing enough: he is a “traitor”, “5th-columnist”, “gun-banner”, a “useful idiot” (because being a pro-gun writer is like being a Communist stooge), and, in many quarters, a “Fudd” or a “Fuddite” (I gather a reference to Elmer Fudd, and often defined as someone who “sees no relationship” between hunting and gun rights - it’s interesting how willingly gun owners will accuse other gun owners of being stupid for agreeing with them on almost but not quite everything). Blane declared - immediately upon reading Zumbo’s post, and apparently without speaking to him - that Zumbo was a “defector” and they were no longer friends. Inevitably, some people posted Zumbo’s home address and phone number and made vague threats.
But, in addition, the siege mentality within the gun culture, and the belligerence it masks, is as evident here as always. Literally within hours and with no discussion, a collective decision was made to completely destroy one of their own most admired figures for a far-from-radical statement that other leaders acknowledge was not unusual or out of the mainstream, and that he himself immediately repudiated. It wasn’t enough to demand an apology - and simply discussing the issue was out of the question. Free speech rights? Yes, but, as many, many voices pointed out, that comes with consequences - and they were determined to ensure he suffered them. Tolerance for a range of views? Not if the issue is guns. Secondary boycotts? Perfectly legitimate . . . if the issue is guns.
(A boycott was immediately instigated against Remington because Zumbo happened to be in the presence of company executives when he had the conversation that led to his blog post! Before the weekend had even ended, their CEO was begging Blane and others to make it known they had fired him. As Blane points out, probably correctly, the market strength in the gun world has tipped toward “shooters” and away from “traditionalists” and hunters, even if that’s the face they like to project to the public. Remington turned on their own endorser with vicious swiftness, since, with a limited and highly ideological market, they cannot afford the least negative publicity.)
Even more than the vengefulness that always seems so close to the surface among “shooters”, the sense of moral apocalypse is startling: acknowledging any distinction between types of guns is “throwing babies out of the lifeboat” and “throwing babies to the wolves” (guns are babies, now?). Restricting one gun type is no different from banning them all. Merely holding an uncongenial opinion (one that would be considered radically unrestrictive in most of the developed world) makes on a “traitor”, “defector”, and “5th-columnist”. Even factual description must be put through the dudgeon-wrangler before being spewed out to the critical community: a ban on some guns is a ban on all guns. (No. It’s a ban on some guns.) Zumbo is an “elitist” who hates “plastic stocks” and think all hunters should carry “wood-stocked rifles weighing 30 pounds”. (Both pictures I’ve seen of Zumbo show him displaying what is clearly a composite-stocked rifle. Sadly, it was a bolt-action and his game trophies were not rodents.)
Whatever his position on guns, in some ways Zumbo’s critics have proven him right in a more general sense: “shooters”, it seems unmistakably, truly are not restrained, sporting, or even very sane. The herd mentality that drives that culture, with its codewords, endless cliches and slogans (apparently “throwing babies to the wolves” is this year’s equivalent of “cold dead hands”), and oppressively enforced orthodoxy from the NRA down to individual blog commenters, brings their “rugged individualist” posturing into harshly-lit profile. The pervasiveness of blind either/or thinking, the bare-faced factual inaccuracies, and the insistence that every policy change or even suggestion for change is a human rights violation, makes one suspicious that there just is no factually based critical thinking going on there, still less any sense of perspective. And this view of how they treat one of their own most committed and admired figures makes one wonder what would happen if they acquired any further political power over the rest of us. And all this, remember, was an attempt to disprove Zumbo’s claim that unrestrained shooters without a sense of proportion give hunters a bad name.
Perhaps we should thank Zumbo for this demonstration of what “gun rights” is really about.
* What are commonly called “assult-type rifles”** because they are similar to, and often almost identical to, full-auto military weapons.
** Although there is no strict definition of “assault rifle”, it being more a generic family than a specific type of weapon, thus allowing gun nuts who haven’t read Wittgenstein to claim that it is impossible to identify or ban weapons of this type.***
*** Spare me.
**** I wonder what happens to people who anger the alcoholic beverage industry? Do they have to promise to immediately party hearty with Ozzie Osbourne?
KTK, you’re an idiot. That’s nothing new.
He equated people with AR-15s with terrorists. Period.
There is no shock and awe campaign. people said they won’t buy product anymore if it’s associated with zumbo. Gun makers and other sorts had dropped him almost instantly for his comments. No one was twitchy. There was no boycott against Remington, who immediately dropped their sponsorship as did everyone else.
Prior to this, I can name no one who even knew who Zumbo was.
You keep referring to full-auto, auto-fire, jack-booted thug, and many other terms that are misleading. This just continues your idiocy to the point of intentional distortion.
you’re a liar or disingenuous or (as usual) have no fucking idea what you’re talking about. I’m guess the latter.
And, some more bad news: Hunting is on the decline. Has been for years. Yet, gun sales and firearm ownership is up. What are they buying, sparky? Handguns and politically incorrect rifles.
Comment 2/24/2007
[…] Guess which third? […]
Pingback 2/24/2007
One more:
“Although there is no strict definition of “assault rifle””
Sure there is. Did you even look? The standard is:
“An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle or carbine firing ammunition with muzzle energies intermediate between those typical of pistol and battle rifle ammunition. ”
Britannica says:
“Military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire.”
These were not the rifles Zumbo was referring to. He was referring to semi-automatic variants.
Comment 2/24/2007
Shorter KTK:
A huge grassroots movement of average janes and joes took it upon themselves, without any prodding or pleading from any lobbying groups, to inform Zumbo ex-sponsers that they were not pleased at all with Zumbo’s original post or his (first) lame-ass apology. This groundswell scares the crap out of your average hoplophobic person because it occurred days before the NRA issued it’s first press release.
Never the less, within hours of when the MSM (here the WaPo) brings this story to a wider public, KTK issues a talking points style blogpost
Kevin, this story is a week old already.
Comment 2/24/2007
Complement: Even though you hit every one of the Brady’s talking points, it appears that you actually put some effort in to this post. I have to tell you that 90% of the people linking to that WaPo stuff just blockquoted a chunk of the story and added a few lines of drivel.
Comment 2/24/2007
Geezus, KTK.
You really did shit the bed on this one.
One point I’d particularly take you task on–the suggestion that we gunnies have a “siege” mentality.
Damn straight we do–because idiots like you keep trying to take away our basic freedoms. Like as though it was what you were born to do.
Gun control: giving good liberals a bad name since 1968
Comment 2/24/2007
What has got the gun rights people upset is simply that Zumbo, like you, has clearly bought into the absurd notion that what a firearm looks like is important. He was stupid enough to post his thoughts to his own readership, the vast majority of which considers that an heretical position.
No real mystery, actually, or nothing that a thoughtful person would find mysterious. Are you thoughtful people?
Comment 2/24/2007
Oh, look. Another member of the 4th estate who knows absolutely nothing about firearms yet makes lots of disparaging remarks about them and the people who use them. Color me surprised.
Probably jealous that nothing he’s ever written has generated the interest as Zumbo’s fall from grace.
Comment 2/24/2007
I don’t feel a need to go into the gun issue further, but I’ll note one thing about the general turn of events:
this story is a week old already
A week old?! You ruined the life of what seems to be a fairly decent guy - one who’s actually on your side, and eagerly crawled further in that direction after you’d threatened him - in less than two days without anybody speaking to him or giving him a chance to respond. A week later you think it’s so far in the irreversible past that it’s not worth discussing - there’s surely no way for a guy who made one ill-chosen remark an entire week ago to save himself from destruction. How could he possibly?
I saw a complaint from one of the other pilers-on, on another blog, explaining the “inexcusable” error Zumbo had made and saying he only reacted because he “couldn’t get it through Zumbo’s head” what the problem was. I had to point out that most of the reaction had gone down, and many of his sponsors had abandoned him, while Zumbo was still on his weekend hunting trip and was not even aware there was any problem.
This is just a bizarre and unsettling event. You can chalk it up to the “speed of new media”, but that is a digression from the real problem. What the speed of blogging and the Internet have really done is removed any logistical brakes on the mob mentality. This wasn’t just a spontaneous expression of outrage by thousands of gun owners acting independently. It was a blog storm that whipped up a frenzy and then targeted at this one poor man. It was not planned and directed by anyone, but it was begun by influential bloggers who spread the word to others, who spread it through their blogs and so on, in such a way that the inevitable hotheads could set people off and suggest mischievous, vengeful reactions that could spread to an audience of thousands in hours, and required no effort to carry out.
Normally a riot or a lynching at least take some effort: you have to go to the trouble of getting out of the house and standing out in the wind for hours; pitchforks and torches aren’t just lying around, they have to be collected; if enough people don’t show up in the same place at the same time, nothing happens; and when some fool shouts about burning down the jail or hanging somebody, there are real consequences to be faced that will deter most people. But threatening somebody by e-mail costs nothing at all. (Some Freeper asshole proudly reported that he had sent Zumbo a hate letter and enclosed his business card, because “when I call for somebody to be fired, I damn sure don’t do it anonymously.” Wow. I’ll be that’s the way Gary Cooper did it, too.) By one account, Remington got 6,000 e-mails demanding they crap on Zumbo on pain of losing all business from the writers. Outdoor indicated they got inundated with e-mails and 95% of it was angry, with the usual threats to cancel subscriptions and the like. One blogger posted a running list of which of Zumbo’s sponsors had dropped him as yet, with the explanation that ones that did not would never get his business, and ones that did he would make a point of buying from. Yet another indicated he was specifically going to buy products from certain firms because they had dropped Zumbo, and encouraged others to buy things from the Web sites of bloggers who had criticized him. In less than a day, there was a nice little mob composed of people who had never met, but whose thoughts and actions were mutually reinforcing, unrestrained by any calming influence, and bound for vengeance, and they were collectively wreaking havoc not only on one man’s life but across an entire industry. (The Remington CEO’s pleading post on Michael Blane’s blog, promising to punish Zumbo just as soon as the weekend was over, is just mind-boggling.)
How is this reasoned discourse? How is this a way to deal with disagreement?
I said that the incident was revealing, and it is. Irrespective of what is good or bad about certain types of guns, these events have shown the rest of us what the more extreme side of the gun community is like, and what it is capable of. One man who supports gun rights said he thought assault rifles were not good hunting weapons. He was ruined by a mob, and abjectly abandoned by major figures in the firearms industry who had been using him for their benefit for decades, in less than two days without being given a chance to defend himself. He was tarred for millions to see with the most unhinged and nonsensical slurs and insults.
OK. That’s how you behave. That’s how you treat your own allies when they disagree with something you think is important. That’s the kind of reflective, mature engagement you bring to a disagreement over a hypothetical question of public policy. Now we know. It was tempting to think all that blustery macho rhetoric was just insecurity and projection, but apparently it’s more than that. You really are ready to do harm at a moment’s notice to anyone who doesn’t think like you. I don’t imagine that - you demonstrated it. You showed what happens to anyone who uses the wrong words, thinks the wrong thoughts, or fails to be as excited as you about your guns in all cases without reserve or exception. The least the rest of us can do is learn the lesson you’ve taught, and factor it into what we think about you as citizens and neighbors, and about your likely exercise of responsibility in wielding high-capacity military-style weapons designed for combat.
That’s useful knowledge about gun enthusiasts. But my real point was about mob vengeance in the Internet era. We don’t seem to have a way to moderate these Net-mediated mob outburts. It isn’t just the Zumbo incident. That was preceded by only a couple of weeks by the attempted destruction of Amanda Marcotte and Melissa Smith(?), and John Edwards by extension, over things they had posted in a different forum on unrelated issues. That one was planned and organized, but proliferated through the same mutually reinforcing conservative blog network as the gun issue. There again, by the time the mass media caught on a week later, there was a howling shitstorm in full roar, and no possible way for calmer voices to be heard. Like Zumbo, they lost their jobs - though likely not their careers - because, in this case, one particular nutbar set himself to destroy them, and the mob did his work for him. The Swiftboat liars pulled a similar con on unsuspecting media two years ago, but they look crude in retrospect. Blogs only repeated their tales, spread through the mass media. Today, blogs create the outrage before the full story can be told. And there seems no end to it. The Zumbo incident is particularly telling because it wasn’t deliberately orchestrated. The mob did its work without being told to, unlike in the Marcotte case where they willingly played along with someone’s religious agenda.
Admittedly, this was the work of an inherently belligerent and hyperreactive crowd, but it bodes ill for the possibility of any discussion of any issue, in an age when thousands of hotheads can key off the inflammatory rhetoric of a few opinion leaders without compunction, consequence, or any direct confrontation with the results of their intemperate outbursts. The phenomenon of “flaming” posters on bulletin boards and Web sites arose soon after the Internet became publicly accessible. Now that same lack of inhibition can reach into individuals’ private lives and livelihoods, on the merest coincidence of circumstances, rhetorical triggers, anger, and lack of self-restraint. I can’t think this is a good thing.
Comment 2/24/2007
No, Zumbo was not one of our allies. He represents an elitist hunting fraternity of “sportsmen” who can afford to do extended hunts on someone else’s dime anywhere in the world whenever they so desire. They don’t give a damn about the gun rights of the average Joe. Criticize us if you will for the speed and ferocity of the response to Zumbo, but “sic semper tyrannis” and be instructed by it. I read the comments on Zumbo and yes, some of them offended me and struck me as “over the top” and abusive. They have a right to say what they think. That’s in the First Amendment. Read the Constitution some time. You might find it illuminating.
The fact is that when a person in a prominent position in the media expresses opinions that are destructive to the on-going struggle for our civil rights, we have a right and obligation do everything we can to stop him from making those kinds of utterances. It’s just as if some prominent liberal started saying we ought to re-institute slavery and deprive black people of the right to vote. It’s the same thing. That kind of poison has to be countered. Black rifle, hunting rifle, handgun, shotgun — they’re all the same. Throw one to the gun grabbers and you throw them all.
Syd
Comment 2/24/2007
Well KTK still completely misses the point and continues to make the insults. Shock.
Zumbo, a major figure in the hunting industry, insults hundreds of thousands of people by implying they’re terrorists, calls for more restrictions on firearms that he admits he knows nothing about, and gets called to the carpet for it. He chose to make his life public and to publicly express his opinion on the media. His sponsors chose to drop him after, not just a few, but THOUSANDS of people stated thier opinions on it.
Amanda Marcotte and Melissa Smith made highly offensive remarks publicly while acting as representatives of a maor public figure. They got called to the carpet for it.
Freedom of Speech /= freedom from consequenses.
You can make all the ad hominem personal insults you like. You have the freedom to do that. It also shows your own ignorance and the contempt you have for those not in the 4th estate.
Comment 2/25/2007
BTW, this statement:
One man who supports gun rights said he thought assault rifles were not good hunting weapons.
Is patently false and disingenous at best. Had he just said “they’re not good for hunting”, he would have probably only gotten his usual 20 odd comments.
He called semi-auto firearms “Assault Rifles” (which they are not), called them “terrorist weapons”, that they should be banned from the hunting ranges, and that hunters should not associate themselves w/ them. Is being intellectually dishonest the way to go?
It’s interesting that you also state”We don’t seem to have a way to moderate these Net-mediated mob outburts. ”
So you want moderation on speech? Really? Would you accept that for your own writings or just those not of the elite?
Comment 2/25/2007
“It hasn’t made a major ripple in the sane world, but in the insular and paranoid kingdom of twitchy gun freaks”
You can’t even make it to the second sentence without a personal attack. Lovely.
“there’s been a shock-and-awe campaign against one of the best-known pro-gun figures around, because he deviated from jackbooted-thugs-head-shots-head-shots orthodoxy in a blog post (copied here).”
Never heard of him. Neither have my friends.
“Jim Zumbo is was apparently a well-known hunting media star - hunting editor for Outdoor Life magazine, contributor to many hunting publications including those of the NRA, paid endorser of gun-related products, and star of his own popular big-game hunting cable show. Barely a week ago, while on a hunting trip promoted by Remington Arms, he got into a conversation with a small-game hunter who informed him - and he claims he did not know this - that military-style semi-auto weapons with large-capacity magazines* are quite popular among prairie-dog shooters.”
Relatively inexpensive, reliable semi automatic firearms are popular with small game shooters? I would have never guessed.
“Zumbo, being a large-bore, bolt-action manly man, thought this was unsporting, and, worse, said so on his blog on the Outdoor Life Website, posted on a Friday night from the campsite.”
Nevermind that he equated the owners of “scary” looking semi automatic firearms with terrorists.
“Before Monday, literally thousands of outraged small-bore auto-fire girly men had flooded Remington, Outdoor, his endorsement sponsors, and his cable show distributor with demands that he be fired.”
Yay, more personal attacks!
You mean people get upset when you equate them with terrorists? Shocking!
“Before the weekend had ended, his career was destroyed: he was forced to resign from Outdoor (for which he had been writing for 45 years) and they disappeared his blog, Remington and most of his other sponsors fired him, the NRA proclaimed they would never publish or be associated with him again, and his cable show was canceled mid-season. As the week progressed, more supporters abandoned him. Again, this was within just a few days of a single blog post that they didn’t like.”
Isn’t the Internet great?
“What did he actually say? After 50 years of hunting experience and a lifetime career in pro-gun media, did he somehow reveal himself as a “gun banner”? The substantive passage says only this:
…”
You can’t see how that would be inflammatory? Wow.
“Hmmm . . . he doesn’t buy into the disingenuous semantical tap-dance that claims there is no such thing as an “assault rifle””
Only someone as ignorant as yourself would say such a thing. Nevermind that the whole class of weapons have been heavily restricted since 1934. Not that facts mean anything to you.
“or its semi-auto variation;”
What could be more terrifying than a semi automatic rifle that LOOKS like a military rifle? Oh the horror!
“he doesn’t think it’s good for the image of gun owners to be committed to defending weapons mostly associated with”
Service rifle competition? Civilian police departments? Our men and women in uniform?
“terrorists and other unlawful uses;”
Whatever. Once again you conveniently ignore the facts. So called semi automatic assault weapons are rarely used by criminals.
“he sympathizes with ordinary citizens who are concerned about the prevalence of large-capacity weapons designed around military objectives;”
Military objectives like reliability and ease of maintainence? Clearly only a terrorist would be interested in a firearm like that!
“and he doesn’t think a real hunter should be unable to face a prairie dog without a 30-round banana clip”
The correct term (not that you seem to give a shit) is magazine, not clip.
“and a mounted bayonet.”
Oh yes, bayonets. Terrifying.
“Note that he did not demand the banning of such weapons; he only expressed the opinion that they should be restricted from use in hunting.”
Let’s just ignore the fact that he equated the EBR folks with terrorists…
“Note also that most or all states ban magazine capacities greater than 5 rounds for big-game hunting; he was essentially calling for the extension of that existing rule to small-game shooting as well.”
No, he said he wanted them banned entirely from hunting. Did you even read what he posted?
“Obviously, he was hopelessly infected with sanity and had to be put down.”
Not sanity, just stupidity and ignorance. Much like yourself.
“In less than 48 hours he had posted an abject apology, declaring he was the “best friend” of both hunters and “shooters” (non-hunting deadly weapons enthusiasts), acknowledging his complete ignorance of assault weapons (hard to believe, but possibly true), saying he hadn’t thought the issue through and had changed his mind, and promising to go assault-rifle hunting with Ted Nugent as soon as possible. (I’m not making this up.****) It did no good.”
No it didn’t, because the damage is done. Now we have to listen to idiots like yourself rant and rave about the dangers of scary looking semi automatic firearms.
“As the WaPo article points out, and as becomes clear in discussion on many blogs, there is tension in the gun community between hunters and guns-for-all-sizes “shooters”.”
No, there’s tension between people looking to protect gun rights and hunters who would gladly throw the rest of us under a bus to save their precious bambi zappers.
“Apparently also there is feeling that the gun manufacturing community has been aimed largely at hunters and less supportive of what an ex-Marine colleague of mine used to refer to as “gun queers” - though happy to sell weapons to both camps, of course.”
Since I don’t hunt I’m a “gun queer”. Nice.
“So some of the massive reaction (Google Zumbo and see what you get - it’s eye-popping) is a sense of betrayal by “shooters” and resentment at what they perceive has been condescending treatment to date.”
Like being equated with terrorists? How dare they be upset!
“Part of it also is the near-panicky fear that any voice of sanity - the suggestion that there is ever a time that any weapon is not appropriate - is the camel’s nose in the tent. They savaged Zumbo because they simply cannot, politically, and, it’s obvious, in many cases psychologically, allow any hint of a differing opinion to survive. Reinforcing orthodoxy by threat both preserves their political solidity and apparently makes them feel better.”
Get a clue.
“For instance, from Tom Gresham, a well-known talk-radio host on gun issues:
…
And from Michael Blane, host of a popular cable show on guns:
…
The hyperbole is deranged but revealing. The invective against Zumbo is amazing enough: he is a “traitor”, “5th-columnist”, “gun-banner”, a “useful idiot” (because being a pro-gun writer is like being a Communist stooge), and, in many quarters, a “Fudd” or a “Fuddite” (I gather a reference to Elmer Fudd, and often defined as someone who “sees no relationship” between hunting and gun rights - it’s interesting how willingly gun owners will accuse other gun owners of being stupid for agreeing with them on almost but not quite everything).”
Agreeing that the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting is pretty fucking important if you ask me.
“Blane declared - immediately upon reading Zumbo’s post, and apparently without speaking to him - that Zumbo was a “defector” and they were no longer friends. Inevitably, some people posted Zumbo’s home address and phone number and made vague threats.”
Inevitable because we’re all insane, right?
“But, in addition, the siege mentality within the gun culture, and the belligerence it masks, is as evident here as always. Literally within hours and with no discussion, a collective decision was made to completely destroy one of their own most admired figures”
Admired by who?
“for a far-from-radical statement that other leaders acknowledge was not unusual or out of the mainstream,”
Equating the owners of military look-a-likes with terrorists is a mainstream position? Are you fucking serious?
“and that he himself immediately repudiated.”
Because saying your sorry makes everything better.
“It wasn’t enough to demand an apology - and simply discussing the issue was out of the question.”
Because we’re all paranoid, deranged “gun queers”, right?
“Free speech rights? Yes, but, as many, many voices pointed out, that comes with consequences -”
Heaven forbid!
“and they were determined to ensure he suffered them.”
People tend to do that when you smear them.
“Tolerance for a range of views?”
Because equating people that own AR15s with terrorists is a perfectly reasonably viewpoint. Give me a fucking break.
“Not if the issue is guns.”
No, not if the issue is selling out your fellow gun owners.
“Secondary boycotts? Perfectly legitimate . . . if the issue is guns.”
You mean people will stop subscribing to your magazine if you insult them? Shocking.
“(A boycott was immediately instigated against Remington because Zumbo happened to be in the presence of company executives when he had the conversation that led to his blog post! Before the weekend had even ended, their CEO was begging Blane and others to make it known they had fired him. As Blane points out, probably correctly, the market strength in the gun world has tipped toward “shooters” and away from “traditionalists” and hunters, even if that’s the face they like to project to the public. Remington turned on their own endorser with vicious swiftness, since, with a limited and highly ideological market, they cannot afford the least negative publicity.)”
Or maybe the CEO of Remington owns AR15s and doesn’t like being equated with terrorists…
“Even more than the vengefulness that always seems so close to the surface among “shooters”, the sense of moral apocalypse is startling: acknowledging any distinction between types of guns is “throwing babies out of the lifeboat” and “throwing babies to the wolves” (guns are babies, now?).”
Or maybe we’ve seen this same scenario play out in other countries and we’re not going to play along and hope for the best.
“Restricting one gun type is no different from banning them all.”
That’s the smartest thing you’ve written so far.
“Merely holding an uncongenial opinion”
…equating AR15 owners with terrorsts.
“(one that would be considered radically unrestrictive in most of the developed world)”
That’s nice.
“makes on a “traitor”, “defector”, and “5th-columnist”.”
Yes, expect to be called bad names when you sell out your fellow gun owners trying to appease the gun grabbers.
“Even factual description must be put through the dudgeon-wrangler before being spewed out to the critical community: a ban on some guns is a ban on all guns.”
That’s the end result. You’d understand that if someone hit you with a clue bat.
“(No. It’s a ban on some guns.)”
Riiight…
“Zumbo is an “elitist” who hates “plastic stocks” and think all hunters should carry “wood-stocked rifles weighing 30 pounds”.”
No, Zumbo is an ignorant fudd who cares more about hunting that he does about protecting gun rights.
“(Both pictures I’ve seen of Zumbo show him displaying what is clearly a composite-stocked rifle. Sadly, it was a bolt-action and his game trophies were not rodents.)”
Who cares?
“Whatever his position on guns, in some ways Zumbo’s critics have proven him right in a more general sense: “shooters”, it seems unmistakably, truly are not restrained, sporting, or even very sane.”
There you go again with the personal attacks. And what does “sporting” have to do with anything?
“The herd mentality that drives that culture, with its codewords, endless cliches and slogans (apparently “throwing babies to the wolves” is this year’s equivalent of “cold dead hands”), and oppressively enforced orthodoxy from the NRA down to individual blog commenters, brings their “rugged individualist” posturing into harshly-lit profile.”
Yes, we’re all just deranged, brainwashed pawns of the evil gun lobby…
“The pervasiveness of blind either/or thinking,”
Either you support the second amendment or you don’t.
“the bare-faced factual inaccuracies,”
Coming from you that’s fucking hilarious.
“and the insistence that every policy change or even suggestion for change is a human rights violation,”
A ban on weapons of military value sure is a violation of the second amendment.
“makes one suspicious that there just is no factually based critical thinking going on there, still less any sense of perspective.”
Can’t. Stop. Laughing.
“And this view of how they treat one of their own most committed”
Committed to what? Hunting?
“and admired figures makes one wonder what would happen if they acquired any further political power over the rest of us.”
Just imagine a world where people don’t shit on the US Constitution. Oh the horror.
“And all this, remember, was an attempt to disprove Zumbo’s claim that unrestrained shooters without a sense of proportion give hunters a bad name.”
Zumbo doesn’t need our help giving hunters a bad name.
“Perhaps we should thank Zumbo for this demonstration of what “gun rights” is really about.”
It sure as hell isn’t about hunting!
“* What are commonly called “assult-type rifles”** because they are similar to, and often almost identical to, full-auto military weapons.”
Are you really that stupid?
“** Although there is no strict definition of “assault rifle”,”
There sure is.
“it being more a generic family than a specific type of weapon,”
A generic family of select fire, intermediate power rifles and carbines?
“thus allowing gun nuts who haven’t read Wittgenstein to claim that it is impossible to identify or ban weapons of this type.***
*** Spare me.”
Maybe when you get a fucking clue.
“**** I wonder what happens to people who anger the alcoholic beverage industry? Do they have to promise to immediately party hearty with Ozzie Osbourne?”
Were you drunk like Zumbo when you wrote this garbage?
Have a nice day.
Comment 2/25/2007
1. The context of the comment was in regards to you sitting on this issue until you saw which way the WaPo wanted to spin the story. Either that, or you were ignorant of the story until the WaPo brought it to your attention and you used the inaccurate information contained within to base your post and your opinion on. Which is it?
2. I did not call for his head. Go read my first post on the issue, posted a week ago.
3. Despite you claim (based on what exactly?), he had ample opportunity to respond. He totally blew his first chance, and after lengthly discourse on the ‘Nuge’s board, I think he may have a new appreciation for the 2nd amendment and the RKBA.
4. I’m eager to read about his new AR-15 techno-lust.
That was four inaccuracies in just the second paragraph. I don’t feel a need to go through the rest of you response and refute your crap line by line.
Comment 2/25/2007
KTK:
Because you don’t understand it and will lose.
Short version: boy, if there’s anything I hate more and understand less than the gun issue, it’s capitalism.
Comment 2/25/2007
Geezus on a popsicle stick KTK, just admit you pulled a Zumbo here, stepped into some big pile of dogcrap via your keyboard, and we can at least respect you.
Once again, the facts: Zumbo suggested that hundreds of thousands of law abiding shooters in the USA are actually terrorists, and gave the enemies of freedom a great deal of ammunition to use against us.
Uh, yeah, he’s gonna get called on that. He made ignorant, misinformed, and bigoted statements about a broad, sweeping, diverse group of people. Other people (Mel Gibson, The Greaseman, Michael Richards,etc) who’ve done the same have faced public rebukes. Why shouldn’t Zumbo?
Comment 2/25/2007
You people and your gun infatuation. You are all nut jobs. Guns are nothing more than an extension of your very small penis.
Comment 2/25/2007
and your unoriginal thought and stereotyping diatribe is nothing more than an extension of your very small brain.
Comment 2/25/2007
I know we shouldn’t feed the trolls, but in my experience people resorting to the “guns are penis extensions” argument are usually shit out of ideas.
To wit: if my gun is a penis extension…what is my wife’s gun? A boob implant?
Comment 2/25/2007
Let me tell of one reason for the reaction of gunowners to the Zumbo affair: Many gunowners have learned the utter worthlessness of promises by gun control advocates not to go after hunting firearms.
During the original debate over the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, gun control advocates gave much emphasis to their claim that assault weapon legislation would not ban hunting rifles commonly used by sportsmen in the US. With great fanfare, they included in the bill a list of 650 “HUNTING AND SPORTING FIREARMS” that would be exempted from the ban:
SEC. 04. EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN HUNTING AND SPORTING FIREARMS.
Section 922 of title 18, as amended by section—-03, is amended by adding at the end the following paragraph:
`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to–
`(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
`(B) any firearm that–
`(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
`(ii) is an `unserviceable firearm’; or
`(iii) is an antique firearm;
`(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
`(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.’.
The 650 “Hunting and Sporting Firearms” were listed by name in Appendix A. Among them was:
CENTERFIRE RIFLES-AUTOLOADERS
Ruger Mini-14 Autoloading Rifle (w/o folding stock).
The Ruger Mini-14 is a popular and widely-owned semiauto small game hunting rifle in the US.
However:
The “reauthorization” bill, H.R. 2038 revoked the “protection” given to all the semiauto centerfire and rimfire “Hunting and Sporting Firearms” in the original 1994 Assault Weapons Ban:
SEC. 5. REPEAL OF CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS.
Section 922(v)(3) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `(3)’ and all that follows through the 1st sentence and inserting the following:
`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any firearm that–
`(A) is manually operated by bolt, pump, level, or slide action;
`(B) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
`(C) is an antique firearm.’.
It also specifically banned by name the Ruger Mini-14:
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 921(a)(30) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon’ means any of the following:
`(A) The following rifles or copies or duplicates thereof:
`(xviii) Sturm, Ruger Mini-14;
The three categories of “protected” firearms eliminated by these changes were: “Semiautomatic Centerfire Rifles,” “Semiautomatic Rimfire Rifles,” and “Semiautomatic Shotguns,” almost 100 of the firearms listed in Appendix A.
Here is what gun control advocates have said about the listed firearms, which would be greatly reduced by H.R.2038:
1) Then-President Clinton said in “An Open Letter to Hunters and Sportsmen” on April 29, 1994:
“High-paid lobbyists argue that the assault weapons ban will infringe on our right, as hunters and sportsmen, to own guns. But what they don’t tell you is that the proposal I support specifically safeguards hunter’s rights. It explicitly protects more than 650 hunting and recreational rifles from the ban.”
2) Senator Feinstein, the author of the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, says on her web site:
Hunting Guns and Other Recreational Weapons Exempted in the Legislation
Ruger Mini-14 Autoloading Rifle (w/o folding stock)
3) The Brady Campaign said on their web site:
The amendment specifically lists 650 sporting rifles that would not be affected by the ban.
Also, The Washington Post reported:
Also specifically exempted would be about 650 rifles commonly used for hunting or target shooting.
Although the sponsors of H.R. 2038 and editorials and news reports have repeatedly stated that the new legislation would close “loopholes” that allowed “copycat” assault weapons, the Ruger Mini-14 has not changed since 1994, when it was specifically exempted by name. As we have seen above, the Ruger Mini-14 (which would be specifically banned) and the other semiauto centerfire and rimfire rifles and semiauto shotguns (which would no longer be exempted and might be banned) have already been acknowledged by gun control advocates as “hunting and recreational rifles”, “sporting rifles”, and “commonly used for hunting or target shooting”. This is a striking development. Until now, most gun control advocates have given great emphasis to their claim that assault weapon legislation would not ban hunting rifles commonly used by sportsmen in the US, but H.R. 2038 changes that, banning acknowledged hunting rifles and revoking the promised exemption of all other semiauto hunting rifles and shotguns.
This is major news - why have there been no announcements or news reports of this policy change? (Okay – that’s a rhetorical question.)
Comment 2/25/2007
I’ll respond to one point above that seems to result from reasonable thinking:
”We don’t seem to have a way to moderate these Net-mediated mob outburts.”
So you want moderation on speech? Really? Would you accept that for your own writings or just those not of the elite?
I shouldn’t have said it that way. By “moderate”, I meant “calm down” or “reduce the inflammatory nature of”, not “impose moderators on” in the way of a Web site or BBS moderator. I shouldn’t have used that word in this context.
It just seems to me - and this comment thread only seems to be proof of this - that there is a danger in the ease with which the Net allows people to whip up anger out of proportion to circumstances, and to escalate personal disagreements into attacks with truly harmful practical consequences. Previously, a letter to the editor of a major newspaper could conceivably anger thousands of people, but it wouldn’t cost the writer their entire income, community standing, or personal safety; it simply wasn’t possible for that kind of reaction to develop, and that was a good thing. You may say there are “consequences” to what people say, but in a decent and tolerant society a howling mob destroying your life cannot be a reasonable or likely consequence of expressing an unpopular opinion. It is the ability to use the Net to coordinate and exacerbate the anger of unconnected individuals that has created this - apparently increasingly common - phenomenon, and that seems to me a real problem. I think the online rabble-rousers have tasted the blood of Marcotte and now Zumbo and are finding that demonization and personal destruction are both satisfying and effective means of shouting down their opposition.
I think this is a problem that we should think about, not to the end of imposing a censoring authority, but there must be lots of ways to encourage tolerance that don’t require that. I think that if we don’t take a stand against that kind of behavior, we will lose public discourse as a means of dealing with the issues that divide us - unfettered political warfare - directed at single, private individuals - will become our only means of doing anything at all. And I think the Zumbo incident is all the proof we need of that.
Comment 2/25/2007
KTK said:
“I’ll respond to one point above that seems to result from reasonable thinking:”
Translation: I’m going to ignore every other point made because I don’t have an answer for it and will just continue w/ my rants and insults.
“Public discorse” is fine. Like I said in the rest of the post you ignored, calling for more restrictions and referring to things he admits he knew nothing about is not “public discorse” it’s inflammatory yellow journalism.
Comment 2/25/2007
Uncle,
Don’t you get it? To KTK and his ilk, the definition of “assault weapon” is “whatever Teddy Kennedy and Sarah Brady say they are.”
No wonder he can’t tell us the “strict” definition.
Comment 2/25/2007
Setting aside for a momment the knee-slapping irony of KTK criticizing people for getting all hyperbolic on blogs in a post where he engages in one of his patented stream-of-conciousness insult parades, I take offense at your accusation that the people upset with attempts to ban semi-automatic firearms are overreacting. If people were attempting to legally deprive you of your constitutional rights, I doubt you’d be any more calm about it. Just because it’s a right you don’t particularly care to exercise doesn’t mean the abrogation of it is a trivial matter.
Comment 2/25/2007
SD
He didn’t attempt to ban assault weapons. He insulted the people who use them (calling them wusses, basically, which I think had more to do with the outrage than the “terrorist” remark.). He has never worked for a ban, he has never — to me ability to find out — supported a ban outside this on off handed remark, and he has never been anything other than supportive of gun rights. To say he was advocating for a ban on some kids of guns — unless there is history here that no one has made me aware of — is really stretching the meaning of that word.
No, he called some sub set of gun owners wussies and maybe terrorists, and they vindictively destroyed him for it. That’s pretty much all there is here from where I sit. Unless someone can show me some evidence that this man either had or could be expected to support a ban on any guns (Google, after all, his hardly perfect) then I think there is much more ego here than concern for the Constitution.
Comment 2/25/2007
First of all, he clearly did call for a ban on semi-automatic rifles in hunting situations, if not in general.
But beyond that he’s also clearly advocating throwing semi-auto rifle owners to the wolves. So yeah he may not be calling for a general band, but suggesting that hunters should just stand back and let the ban happen is just as dangerous to the semi-auto owners.
And that, not the insults, is I think the real source of the rage that took down Zumbo. The semi-auto owners want to make it clear that they’re not going to just quietly allow themselves to be thrown overboard and that if the bolt-action only hunting community continues with such a strategy, they will pay a price for it.
Comment 2/25/2007
Against my better judgment, I’m going to throw my hat into the ring here. Two things:
First, if you read Zumbo’s blog post, however poorly phrased it may have been, to mean (or even to imply) people who own AR-15’s are terrorists, you are a fucking moron. It’s a wonder you can find your ass with a compass and a map. You must have some serious damn insecurity issues if that’s how you’re reading it.
Secondly, although KTK’s tone is harsh here (as it often can be), I’m afraid he’s got a point. By and large, gun bloggers simply cannot be reasoned with on gun issues. I’m a CCW permit holder in the state of Tennessee; I shoot for pleasure and have never gone hunting; I concur that the second amendment defends an individual right to keep and bear arms; I concur that this right has everything to do with personal and national defense, and nothing at all to do with hunting; and despite all this, I’ve been told in no uncertain terms, by more than one self-proclaimed “gun nut” that I’m “every bit as bad as the gun grabbers.” KTK’s tone could have been the most even you’ve ever seen, and his argument the most well-reasoned in the world, and it wouldn’t have made a shit’s worth of difference.
Finally, a little introspection is called for. Think of the last seriously dumb-assed thing you’ve said. You know there’s something. Now imagine within two days of you saying it, a virtual mob rose up to essentially destroy your career and your livelihood, before you even had a chance to defend yourself. That seem just to you? Shit, most of you shitheads blog anonymously for just that reason, but somehow Zumbo had it coming?
Uncle:
If “capitalism” to you means, “Let’s ruin a guy’s life in less than a week for making a boneheaded statement,” then maybe you’re working from a slightly different definition than the one I’ve got. I don’t think you’d take too kindly if people mobilized “capitalist” forces to wreck your career for your insensitive use of the word “retarded”; and if this did happen, I seriously doubt you’d just shrug it off and say “Oh, well, that’s capitalism.”
Comment 2/25/2007
Stormy:
I’m not sure that helps. See, that’s the thing: I don’t think the outrage would have been much less if Zumbo hadn’t used the word “terrorist.” Gun nuts, it seems, have absolutely zero tolerance for anyone ever expressing any opinion other than that all guns should be legal in all circumstances at all times.
To make an analogy to the pharmaceutical industry, if the gun lobby used the same reasoning there, they’d decry the criminalization of heroin as just the first step towards banning all over-the-counter medication. Oddly enough, though, heroin was banned in 1924 and yet I can still buy aspirin, ibuprofen, and acetaminophen.
Comment 2/25/2007
I also disapprove of the severity of the response to Zumbo. Education is the proper remedy, and Zumbo had promised to seek it.
I did not object to the 1994 assault weapon ban. I believed the promises of gun control advocates when they said that they would not ban hunting and sporting guns and listed in the ban 650 hunting and sporting guns that would be exempt. I became educated when (among other things) gun control advocates later attempted to revoke the exemption and attempted to ban hunting guns on the list of hunting and sporting guns that they had promised not to ban.
See my earlier post here for details.
Comment 2/26/2007
“Secondly, although KTK’s tone is harsh here”
That’s a bit of a understatement! Was it really necessary to call gun rights supporters that don’t hunt paranoid, girly, deranged, insane “gun queers”? Is he seriously incapable of stating his opinion without insulting or slandering us every other paragraph?
“(as it often can be), I’m afraid he’s got a point. By and large, gun bloggers simply cannot be reasoned with on gun issues.”
Because we’ve had enough! Trying to compromise with the gun grabbers has given us the 1934 NFA regulations, the 1968 GCA, the 1986 machine gun ban, the 1994 AWB and countless other state and local laws. Do you think DC’s outright ban is reasonable? The price of a NYC pistol permit? Just imagine if someone treated your right to vote with such contempt!
We give an inch, they take a mile. We’ve already watched this same scenario play out in other countries, and you know as well I do what they want. If we don’t put our foot down and say “ENOUGH!” our gun laws will soon resemble the UK’s (much to KTK’s delight).
“I’m a CCW permit holder in the state of Tennessee; I shoot for pleasure and have never gone hunting; I concur that the second amendment defends an individual right to keep and bear arms; I concur that this right has everything to do with personal and national defense, and nothing at all to do with hunting;”
If you believe that the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting, then why should we even entertain the notion that’s it’s acceptable to ban certain firearms because Sarah Brady doesn’t believe they have a legitimate “sporting” use?
“and despite all this, I’ve been told in no uncertain terms, by more than one self-proclaimed “gun nut” that I’m “every bit as bad as the gun grabbers.””
You’re right, that’s a SERIOUS problem. We need to do everything we can to unite gun owners, not drive them apart.
“KTK’s tone could have been the most even you’ve ever seen, and his argument the most well-reasoned in the world, and it wouldn’t have made a shit’s worth of difference.”
KTK (who clearly doesn’t know a damn thing about firearms) wants to see certain weapons banned simply because they LOOK like military firearms. You’re right, I would never go along with that. It’s idiotic, not to mention unconstitutional. And it won’t do a damn thing to curb crime, not that doesn’t matter to people like him.
“Finally, a little introspection is called for. Think of the last seriously dumb-assed thing you’ve said. You know there’s something. Now imagine within two days of you saying it, a virtual mob rose up to essentially destroy your career and your livelihood, before you even had a chance to defend yourself.”
This is nothing new. Several people have seen their political aspirations go down in flames after they made a single stupid remark.
“That seem just to you?”
Probably not, but we have to remember that this man’s comments will more than likely come back to haunt us. Nothing he says now will undo the damage already done.
Comment 2/26/2007
Hello, I’m a longtime reader of LeanLeft. I live and work in NYC. I am a left-wing liberal. I’ve been vegan for over 16 years. I’m also a member of the NRA.
Not because I support some of their partisan stances and not because I give a crap about hunting. But because I believe in the 2nd Amendment as much as I believe in the 1st Amendment—I support them for the same reason I support the ACLU. I’m a gun owner, and make no apologies for this. I believe in gun rights.
Why the hell shouldn’t thousands of pissed off people let their opinions be known? They felt betrayed by Zumbo’s comments. You wouldn’t have any problem with what happened if it was in regards to a topic you personally cared about, and you know it.
I’m not insular, I’m not “twitchy,” I’m not a freak or a nut. And there’s a lot more like me. And in the west, there are a lot of people who aren’t Republicans but who are very wary of the Democrats because these people also believe in gun rights. Calling us “jack-booted thugs” (or terrorists) is not any more useful than when conservatives call pro-choice advocates “muderers,” “pro-death” or “feminazis.”
Being pro-2A doesn’t make you a right-winger, a conservative or a Republican. Keep that in mind next time you feel the need to smear gun owners with names like that.
Comment 2/26/2007
tgirsch:
That’s a really weak anology. First of all, since over the counter drugs are defined simply as ‘those drugs that have no legal controls on their distribution’, your assertion that banning heroin hasn’t led to a ban on over the counter drugs is tautological to the point of meaninglessness. Even if the government had banned aspirin, ibuprofen, etc. you could still say that they hadn’t banned over the counter drugs. Aspirin, ibuprofen, etc. would just no longer be over the counter drugs.
If we expand it to a more reasonable term such as ‘medically useful drugs’ we see your analogy is false: the initial bans on drugs such as heroin did eventually lead to significant controls on medically useful drugs. There’s no reason why, for instance, nasally inhaled cortical steroids (a common treatment for seasonal allergies) should require aproval from a government gatekeeper, other than government fear that someone may start modifying them into anabolic steroids. Similarly, coedine based pain relievers (e.g. Tylenol III) are available over the counter in most of the world, but are denied to Americans because of government fears they may be used to produce narcotics. Likewise, it’s getting increasingly hard to find a decent pseudoephedrine decogestant because the government is increasingly using regulations to deny us access to them because they fear some small percentage of the population is using them to produce methamphetmines. Gun control works in a similar way. They use fear to get people to support bans on supposedly criminal guns that result in impositions on legitimate uses by law abiding citizens. Bans on ’saturday night specials’ drive prices of guns to the point where they are only available to the wealthy. Bans on ’sniper rifles’ eliminate hunting rifles. Bans on ‘assault weapons’ ban the possession of effective home defense weapons.
Finally, I disagree with your likening of heroin to assault weapons. Heroin is a drug that has no real legitimate use and is not specifically protected by the constitution. Neither of these apply to semi-automatic rifles.
The primary purpose of second ammendment to allow individuals to defend against unlawful force. Both force directed at them individually by outlaws and at their communities by civil unrest, outside invasion, or unlawful government. Semi-automatic rifles are useful to all of these purposes, and law abiding citizens should not be denied access to them.
Comment 2/26/2007
Here’s what gets me about people desperate to lump all guns together as part of an inalienable right: Where the heck do you draw the line? If it does not matter how big and dangerous the gun gets, then honestly why not a rocket launcher? Screw it, why not a nuke launcher? Is it something very technical about the meaning of the word gun that excludes these? Something which tech dudes could get around with a few tweaks? Why do people not have an inalienable right to keep nukes as ammunition?
I’m honestly not being facetious here. Please let me know what it is that excludes such things from the right to bear arms. Alternatively, please come forward and say that you support private ownership of such weapons. I’m genuinely interested to know.
Comment 2/26/2007
Mc wrote: “Because we’ve had enough! Trying to compromise with the gun grabbers has given us the 1934 NFA regulations, the 1968 GCA, the 1986 machine gun ban, the 1994 AWB and countless other state and local laws. Do you think DC’s outright ban is reasonable? The price of a NYC pistol permit? Just imagine if someone treated your right to vote with such contempt!”
That is a bizarre analogy…no one has ever been hurt or killed or committed a crime while using a voting booth.
To modify Tgirsch’s analogy a bit, I like to imbibe the occasional alcoholic beverage, and have been known to, on occasion, ingest more than perhaps is statistically advisable. I also acknowledge that alcohol is a potentially dangerous drug. Do I think it should be outlawed? Certainly not. Do I accept government restrictions on the drug, and on my behavior? Absolutely. I don’t see age restrictions on sale, or taxing of alcohol as somehow compromising my rights to enjoy it responsibly. I understand, and agree, that getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk is irresponsible and needs to be curtailed for the common good.
While I disagree with Tgirsch that the 2nd amendment addresses an individual’s right to bear arms, I do acknowledge that there are reasons and circumstances that people should be allowed to own firearms. Are guns potentially dangerous? I happen to think so. Do I think the price of a NYC pistol permit is unreasonable and curtailing peoples “constitutional” rights? Not at all, with the number of firearms on NYC streets, there needs to be some sort of regulation, and I’ll bet any right-wing dyed-in-the-wool Republican New York City cop agrees with me…their lives are on the line. Regulation hardly means denying people their rights.
Comment 2/26/2007
Pejar:
I do not believe that individuals should own rocket launchers, etc. I don’t know of any definitive definition of arms that individuals have a right to own. I suppose that a compromise should be reached.
How is this for a good compromise: We all agree upon the right to own firearms and all agree that individuals should not own rocket launchers, etc.
As to machine guns, I am OK with the 1934 NFA regulations — they seem to have worked well.
As to assault weapons, that depends upon the definition. I will be a hard sell, though: The last time that assault weapons were banned, gun control advocates later attempted to ban hunting guns that they had promised not to ban.
See my first post here for details.
Comment 2/26/2007
Pejar:
A gun, or “firearm”, is defined as a weapon which discharges a shot via the burning of gunpowder and is generally considered to be synonymous with the term “small arm”, which is defined as a portable, hand-held firearm. I believe that a “rocket launcher” or “nuke launcher” hardly satisfy those requirements. If a firearm fires a charge of shot using gunpowder, and some geek designed a rocket or something that conformed to that safely - sure, why not?
Janusz:
“Regulation hardly means denying people their rights.”
Then you would be perfectly OK with submitting your choice of religion to a .gov agency, proving you can practice that religion, taking classes on the religion, waiting the requisite 90 day period, paying a moderate fee, and finally receiving a “denied” letter from the government, claiming you had no justification to practice that religion? Would that be acceptable? Because that, in my state of California, is basically the way that CCW applications work.
And before anyone gets all worked up - no, I’m not comparing religions and guns, just using an analogy.
Comment 2/26/2007
Janusz:
Alcohol is a good analogy, as is motor vehicles. They both have the following in common:
If someone from a place where alcohol or motor vehicles was unregulated asked us if it was a good idea, both you and I would probably say “yes — it’s a minor inconvenience to pay for useful regulation.
Now ask a NYC gunowner about NYC pistol permits, and more often than not you will get a vehemently opposite answer: “Don’t let them do to you what they did to us!” So what’s going on here?
NYC gunowners (I used to be one and still know a few) will tell you that the initial cost now is about $400, plus hours of paperwork and hours of missed work. What’s more, every year or two NYC either legislatively or bureaucratically places still more obstacles in the way of gun ownership or bans guns that had been legal for years.
The same pattern can be seen in many other places that require permits for gun ownership — except in some places it has progressed to the next step: Chicago and Washington DC require pistol permits but have stopped issuing new ones, and Great Britain used to require pistol permits — until they banned and confiscated all pistols that British gunowners had permits for.
Comment 2/26/2007
Josh wrote: “And before anyone gets all worked up - no, I’m not comparing religions and guns, just using an analogy.”
But it’s a bad analogy, and you took my last sentence out of context.
My whole point was a community will often accept to curtail dangerous behaviors for the betterment of the whole. Drinking is a *potentially* dangerous behaviour, as is using firearms. Does that mean it is inevitably risky? Of course not, but the community understands the potential is there, and takes steps to limit risks. Practicing religion does not pose a danger to the community, unless, of course, something like human sacrifice were part of the liturgy. Would I accept limitations on human sacrifice? Actually yes, and I don’t think it compromises freedom of religion. A more realistic analogy might be animal sacrifice (yes, there have been cases recently). Do I feel limiting animal sacrifice is justified if it runs counter to sanitary and animal cruelty laws. Yes I do. And I really don’t think it is a threat to our contitutional right to practice the religion of our choosing, though I understand these areas are not always clear cut. Even with limiting access to assault rifles, sportsmen have alternatives to continue such activities, so their rights are not being compromised. Does one really need assault weapons for personal protection? If you’re in Bagdad perhaps. If you need them in the US, you should probably be in a witness protection program.
Jay wrote: “Chicago and Washington DC require pistol permits but have stopped issuing new ones…”
It’s interesting that the examples you cite are urban areas, as opposed to more rural areas. That may reflect the realities of current city living.
Comment 2/26/2007
“That is a bizarre analogy…no one has ever been hurt or killed or committed a crime while using a voting booth.”
GeekWithA.45 touched on this a while back…
http://geekwitha45.blogspot.com/2007_01_01_geekwitha45_archive.html#116933859523791091
“Let’s see what voting would look like if it were treated in the same way as they treat RKBA:”
A) Voters would be required to pass criminal and pyschiatric background checks, to ensure that your right to vote is current and valid, not lost due to felony convictions, and that you have never been deemed to be legally mentally incompetent. The issuance of documentation to this effect may be delayed for many months. During this process, you will be fingerprinted and mug shot, just like an ordinary criminal. In some jurisdictions, the law enforcement officers will ask you why you’d want to vote, and whether you had any nefarious purposes in mind.
A.5) There will be a fee associated with this background check. It can range anywhere from $50 to $500.
B) This background check must be kept current at a yearly interval.
C) You will need to show definitive identification.
D) At the polls, you must show the paperwork that proves A and B, and fill out a affidavit, under threat of perjury, revalidating your status as eligible to vote.
E)An instant check of all of the above will then be performed, via telephone, to a state and federal database. This database will be frequently wrong, out of commission, or overloaded. The result of this call will be one of “denied, delayed, or proceed.” If denied, expect to be arrested. If delayed, you may case a provisional vote, which might be counted later.
Steps C, D & E are universal to exercise your right to purchase brand new arms, (the “keep” part of 2A) in all jurisdictions of the US. Steps A and B are common in many, but not all jurisdictions.
Some jurisdictions flat out prohibit all of the above, but let’s leave that aside, for now.
Sadly, that isn’t even yet the full extent of it.
What about the “bear” part of the explicitly listed right of arms?
Well, we continue:
To “bear” arms, you’ll definitely have to do parts A & B, above.
F) You will have to attend a mandatory class for a certain number of hours, taught only at certain times by certain certified instructors. In the voting scenario, I’d suppose that this class would be a compressed form of Civics 101: how our Republic works.
F.5) There will be a fee for this, ranging from $150 to $750.
G) There will be a written test of comprehension of the material.
H) There will also be a timed, practical test, wherein you must demonstrate your proficiency in your ability to cause the the voting machines to record your desired vote. After all, voting is dangerous, and we can’t have unqualified people getting confused with the levers and voting for the wrong people, now, can we?
I) You will need to recertify periodically, repaying the fees. In some jurisdictions, the fees will be discounted somewhat for return customers.
It is widely and vehemently contended by the left that poll taxes, literacy tests, or even checking IDs at the door is sufficient to disenfranchise people from exercising their civil right of voting, and yet they would gleefully pile all that and more upon the person who seeks to exercise their constitutional right of arms.”
Does this seem reasonable to you?!
“To modify Tgirsch’s analogy a bit, I like to imbibe the occasional alcoholic beverage, and have been known to, on occasion, ingest more than perhaps is statistically advisable. I also acknowledge that alcohol is a potentially dangerous drug. Do I think it should be outlawed? Certainly not. Do I accept government restrictions on the drug, and on my behavior? Absolutely. I don’t see age restrictions on sale, or taxing of alcohol as somehow compromising my rights to enjoy it responsibly. I understand, and agree, that getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk is irresponsible and needs to be curtailed for the common good.”
This argument would make sense if your right to buy and consume alcoholic beverages was explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights like the right to keep and bears arms is.
“While I disagree with Tgirsch that the 2nd amendment addresses an individual’s right to bear arms,”
Feel free to ignore everything the founding fathers wrote, all the scholarly research, and most of the relevant case law! The other amendments protect an individual right. Take the right of citizens to peaceably assemble. Sure sounds like a collective right. Does one person protesting not receive first amendment protection? Do tell what makes the second any different.
“I do acknowledge that there are reasons and circumstances that people should be allowed to own firearms. Are guns potentially dangerous? I happen to think so.”
Of course they’re dangerous. Nearly everything is potentially dangerous. What’s your point?
“Do I think the price of a NYC pistol permit is unreasonable and curtailing peoples “constitutional” rights? Not at all,”
Of course, because poor people shouldn’t be able to protect themselves.
“with the number of firearms on NYC streets, there needs to be some sort of regulation,”
And even with all these draconian restrictions, they still can’t keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Shocking! Do you really think someone willing to commit murder is going to obey firearm regulations?! All these laws do is disarm the law abiding. Can you explain how rendering more and more people defenseless makes them safer?
“and I’ll bet any right-wing dyed-in-the-wool Republican New York City cop agrees with me…their lives are on the line.”
You’re right, the rights and lives of ordinary citizens be damned, the only thing that matters is that they go home at the end of their shift.
“Regulation hardly means denying people their rights.”
What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? This isn’t a state or local issue either. My constitional rights (all of them) are not subject to state or local fiat.
Too bad we can’t regulate away your right to post garbage like this on the Internet.
Comment 2/26/2007
Janusz - Drinking isn’t a specifically enumerated right. And if you don’t think that religion is potentially harmful, I’d point out that it definitely has managed to build quite a body count through the ages.
To apply your parameters to my analogy, it would then be OK to exclude radical aspects of religion based upon what you feel, similar to banning aspects of firearms based on what are felt to be dangerous. Where does that stop? Because of the broad language of the “freedom of religion” and measured with your feelings, there can be any number of interpretations. So let’s say in one jurisdiction, Mormonism is considered damaging to the fabric of the community (polygamy maybe, I dunno) but in another neighboring area, it is allowed to be freely practiced. Is this not infringing upon people’s rights, or creating unnecessary distinctions?
By applying a subjective measure, the communities willingness to curtail “dangerous behaviors” for the betterment of the whole can be applied more stringently or liberally with little recourse, just the whim of the community. It either is the freedom of religion, or it is not. There either is the right to keep and bear arms, or there is not. No gray areas.
Additionally, many, many, many of the police agencies across the nation feel that they need patrol carbines (your so-called assault weapons) to adequately protect themselves and the community. This is not Baghdad, but Salt Lake City or Baltimore. Rifles are much, much better defensive weapons than handguns or shotguns.
Comment 2/26/2007
Mc wrote: “It is widely and vehemently contended by the left that poll taxes, literacy tests, or even checking IDs at the door is sufficient to disenfranchise people from exercising their civil right of voting, and yet they would gleefully pile all that and more upon the person who seeks to exercise their constitutional right of arms.”
Did you read my post? Voting is not a potentially dangerous activity. Using firearms is. That is why the community sees the need for regulation. Suggesting voting should be regulated is irrelevent to my argument. Also, all the examples you gave for regulation of the vote were specifically aim at African-Americans. Are you seriously suggesting gun-owners are in a similar position? Don’t be ridiculous.
“What about the “bear” part of the explicitly listed right of arms?”
What about the “well regulated militia” part of the second amendment?
“This argument would make sense if your right to buy and consume alcoholic beverages was explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights like the right to keep and bears arms is.”
See comment above.
“Of course they’re dangerous. Nearly everything is potentially dangerous. What’s your point?”
The community often accepts restrictions on certain behaviors to help minimize dangers. I would have thought that was very clear from my post.
“You’re right, the rights and lives of ordinary citizens be damned, the only thing that matters is that they go home at the end of their shift.”
What does this comment have to do with the post? The rights and lives of ordinary citizen’s are being damned because of restrictions against handguns. I don’t know where you live, but I’m not sure I’d feel safe getting into a New York City subway when half the the people are carrying concealed handguns.
“What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand? This isn’t a state or local issue either. My constitional rights (all of them) are not subject to state or local fiat.”
What part of “a well regulated militia” don’t you understand?
Comment 2/26/2007
“Did you read my post? Voting is not a potentially dangerous activity.”
That’s debatable…
“Using firearms is. That is why the community sees the need for regulation. Suggesting voting should be regulated is irrelevent to my argument. Also, all the examples you gave for regulation of the vote were specifically aim at African-Americans.”
Just like the earliest prohibitions against firearms ownership.
“Are you seriously suggesting gun-owners are in a similar position? Don’t be ridiculous.”
It was all an attempt to marginalize and regulate away their constitutional rights. Just like the gun grabbers are doing now. If they make it inconvenient enough to keep and bear arms, many people will just give up.
“What about the “well regulated militia” part of the second amendment?”
It’s very well established that “well regulated” in this context means well trained and equipped. Let’s look at the entire text:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Even if you want to read the amendment out of context, I’m fairly certain that the words “well regulated” modify the term “miltia”, and not “the right of the People to keep and bear arms”. But hey, I’m no english teacher…
“The community often accepts restrictions on certain behaviors to help minimize dangers. I would have thought that was very clear from my post.”
The “community” also accepts that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you don’t like what the Constitution says, we have a process for amending it.
“What does this comment have to do with the post? The rights and lives of ordinary citizen’s are being damned because of restrictions against handguns.”
Once again, how does rendering someone defenseless make them safer?
“I don’t know where you live, but I’m not sure I’d feel safe getting into a New York City subway when half the the people are carrying concealed handguns.”
Because only crazy people carry concealed weapons, right?
If we take an 18 year old, put him in a police or military uniform, and give him a government paycheck, he can be trusted with any type of firearm. But fast forward to retirement, put him in civilian clothes, and now you believe he can’t be trusted to participate in his own defense. Nevermind that citizens with CCW permits go through the same background checks and training as police officers.
“What part of “a well regulated militia” don’t you understand?”
What part of the english language don’t you understand?
Comment 2/26/2007
Mc: “Even if you want to read the amendment out of context, I’m fairly certain that the words “well regulated” modify the term “miltia”, and not “the right of the People to keep and bear arms”. But hey, I’m no english teacher…”
Your English is better than you give yourself credit for. The adjective “well regulated” does modify the term “militia” and refers to the Army (or Navy, Marines etc.) The second amendment doesn’t address, for or against, individual ownership of firearms. To even suggest regulating firearms is comparable to disenfranchising African-Americans, deny them the right to vote in order to maintain economic disparities is beyond ludicrous. You need to get some prespective, friend.
“It was all an attempt to marginalize and regulate away their constitutional rights. Just like the gun grabbers are doing now. If they make it inconvenient enough to keep and bear arms, many people will just give up.”
See comment above.
“The “community” also accepts that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you don’t like what the Constitution says, we have a process for amending it.”
Irrelevent to the argument, see above.
“Once again, how does rendering someone defenseless make them safer?”
So, your alternative is to make firearms accessible to everyone, without any sort of regulation? How does that make anyone safer? In an area as congested as New York,it could lead to complete chaos. We have enough accidental shootings and the like as it is, do we really need to increase the odds of those sorts of things happening habitually?
“What part of the english language don’t you understand?”
I understand enough to know what a well regulated militia is, see above.
Comment 2/26/2007
Mc:
I never said I supported Sarah Brady’s reasoning. And for purposes of this discussion, whether or not KTK does is irrelevant. This isn’t about the gun debate per se; it’s about how people with a stake in the gun debate conduct themselves, and how this conduct reflects on their movement. The Zumbo incident reflects very poorly on the gun movement, in my estimation.
Stormy:
Heroin has no legitimate use? Dude, it’s an extremely effective painkiller. It also happens to be extremely addictive, which is why we regulate it. Potentially dangerous in unsanctioned use, and all that. Good thing guns don’t qualify in that regard.
And it’s nice that guns are protected by the constitution, but that’s frankly secondary to me. Whether or not something is a good idea is more important to me than whether or not it’s constitutional. And I suspect the same is true of you. If the second amendment were repealed tomorrow, you wouldn’t stop caring about gun rights, would you? If anything, you’d care even more.
Pejar:
The closest thing I’ve seen to a good place to draw the line is that if an army infantryman can have it, you can have it. But that would re-legalize machine guns.
I’ve gotten myself in trouble with anti-gun liberals by expressing tepid support for that view, and I’ve gotten myself in trouble with pro-gun conservatives by saying that we ought to license people and firearms the way we do with cars — you’ve got to demonstrate competency, etc.
I have been surprised a few times, though. My brother-in-law is a Fox News watching police officer whose only problem with Sean Hannity is that he’s too liberal, but he supports strict competency testing for CCW permits (his state doesn’t currently have CCW at all). He likes the idea of CCW, but thinks that most states make it too easy to get such a permit. That view surprised me, coming from him.
Josh:
A gun, or “firearm”, is defined as a weapon which discharges a shot via the burning of gunpowder and is generally considered to be synonymous with the term “small arm”, which is defined as a portable, hand-held firearm.
Too bad the second amendment doesn’t say any of that. It simply says “arms.” Could you privately own a cannon in 1787? I honestly don’t know, but that would be the contemporary example analogous to a rocket launcher.
Janusz:
Practicing religion does not pose a danger to the community
…until you let those people vote.
*ducks*
Voting is not a potentially dangerous activity.
Have you forgotten 2000 and 2004 already?
Mc:
I’m not sure constitutional protection means what you think it means. In the sense used in 2A, “infringed” means “destroyed.” It doesn’t mean “inconvenienced.” Again, as I said to Stormy above, that something is allowable doesn’t necessarily make it a good idea, just as something being forbidden doesn’t necessarily make it a bad idea. While it’s nice to have the constitution on your side, appeals to the constitution are not in and of themselves valid defenses of the appropriateness (from a practical perspective) of various forms of regulation.
Of course they’re dangerous. Nearly everything is potentially dangerous.
Well, yeah, but nearly everything isn’t specifically designed to be “potentially dangerous.” Sure, cars and screwdrivers can be misused to kill people, but (many) guns are explicitly designed for that purpose. That doesn’t mean they should be illegal, but to trivialize or ignore that distinction is just silly. It’s why I’ve never put any stock in the “my gun is like your fire extinguisher” argument you’ll often hear tossed around.
[Janusz] What part of “a well regulated militia” don’t you understand?
[Mc] What part of the english language don’t you understand?
I’ve often complained that pro-gun types read the second amendment as if the phrase “well-regulated militia” isn’t there, and that anti-gun types read it as if the phrase “the people” isn’t there. Thank you both for illustrating that point.
But Mc, given your reading of the meaning of “well-regulated,” wouldn’t that make it constitutionally permissible to require proper training for firearms ownership? That’s a question I often ask people in gun debates: How would the meaning of the second amendment differ (if at all) if the first clause were gone, and it simply read, “The right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” From a constitutional perspective, I’ve often said that a big part of the problem is that the 2nd amendment is an oddly-formed sentence, and may not actually even be a sentence.
The other dirty-little-secret of 2A politics is that a big part of the reason why RKBA is protected is because in those days you needed to be able to raise an army quickly (and a standing army is expressly prohibited by the constitution), so that was a lot easier to do if all the men already had weapons and knew how to use them. That justification is obsolete, however, so you don’t here it mentioned much. (I’m afraid that in the era of modern military technology, the ability of the people to engage in an armed uprising against an oppressive government, another such justification, is also likely obsolete, but I digress…)
Comment 2/26/2007
Janusz:
You wrote
“It’s interesting that the examples you cite are urban areas, as opposed to more rural areas. That may reflect the realities of current city living.”
So if permits are required, as the US becomes more urbanized we can expect more and more gun bans via non-issuance of permits?
That’s one reason why we resist permits (as well as Britain banning and confiscating permitted guns in all regions, urban and rural.
You also wrote
“Even with limiting access to assault rifles, sportsmen have alternatives to continue such activities, so their rights are not being compromised. Does one really need assault weapons for personal protection?”
But I already went along with limiting access to assault rifles, and gun control advocates later attempted to ban hunting guns on the list of hunting and sporting guns that they had promised not to ban. (See my first post here for details.)
Tell me why I would fall for that again?
Comment 2/26/2007
“Your English is better than you give yourself credit for. The adjective “well regulated” does modify the term “militia” and refers to the Army (or Navy, Marines etc.) The second amendment doesn’t address, for or against, individual ownership of firearms.”
Now you’re just a fucking liar. The “militia” has NOTHING to do with standing armies and everything to do with an armed citizenry. If you deny that, then you deny everything the founding fathers wrote.
“To even suggest regulating firearms is comparable to disenfranchising African-Americans, deny them the right to vote in order to maintain economic disparities is beyond ludicrous. You need to get some prespective, friend.”
And you need to open a history book.
Comment 2/26/2007
“I never said I supported Sarah Brady’s reasoning.”
I never said that you did, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. My only point was I don’t think it it makes us unreasonable to simply reject viewpoints like hers.
“I’m not sure constitutional protection means what you think it means. In the sense used in 2A, “infringed” means “destroyed.” It doesn’t mean “inconvenienced.””
I see what you’re saying, but charging $400 or more for a permit certainly destroys a less fortunate person’s ability to exercise this right. In many jurisdictions those permits can be arbitrarily denied. I find it reprehensible that places like NYC restrict CCW permits to the wealthy and well connected.
“But Mc, given your reading of the meaning of “well-regulated,” wouldn’t that make it constitutionally permissible to require proper training for firearms ownership?”
Like I said, that applies to the militia. But the second amendment doesn’t make service in the militia a requirement to keep and bear arms. Anyone who wasn’t asleep during American history class realizes that the founding fathers intended for the entire citizenry to be armed.
Back in the day the government would buy you a rifle if you couldn’t afford one!
“How would the meaning of the second amendment differ (if at all) if the first clause were gone, and it simply read, “The right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” From a constitutional perspective, I’ve often said that a big part of the problem is that the 2nd amendment is an oddly-formed sentence, and may not actually even be a sentence.”
I don’t think it would change anything. The second half of the amendment is crystal clear. All the first half does is remind us that a well trained and equipped citizenry is necessary to our continued freedom.
“The other dirty-little-secret of 2A politics is that a big part of the reason why RKBA is protected is because in those days you needed to be able to raise an army quickly (and a standing army is expressly prohibited by the constitution), so that was a lot easier to do if all the men already had weapons and knew how to use them. That justification is obsolete, however, so you don’t here it mentioned much.”
That doesn’t mean we can sweep it under a rug and forget about it!
“(I’m afraid that in the era of modern military technology, the ability of the people to engage in an armed uprising against an oppressive government, another such justification, is also likely obsolete, but I digress…)”
I firmly disagree. One need only pick up a newspaper to see evidence to the contrary. After nearly four years of fighting, the most powerful military on earth can’t seem to put down an insurgency armed with WW1 bolt action rifles and improvised explosives. What makes you think they could subjugate 300 million angry US citizens?
Comment 2/26/2007
Mc wrote: “The “militia” has NOTHING to do with standing armies…”
Fair enough…the state militias or National Guard then. The point being that the term “militia” places it in a military context. Early wording of the second amendment addressed the right of consciencious objectors not to be forced into military service, a clause that would have made no sense if the amendment was intended outside the military reference. You’re confusing the constitutional right to bear arms in an organized or well regulated militia with the common law right to self-defense.
Jay wrote: “So if permits are required, as the US becomes more urbanized we can expect more and more gun bans via non-issuance of permits?”
Honestly, I don’t have an answer for you. Am I personally against the use of guns for recreational purposes? Not at all. But I am aware that guns can do alot of damage if used incorrectly, used by the wrong hands or reached for in a fit of pique. Do I think there’s value in distinguishing between rifles used for hunting and handguns that are easily concealed or assault weapons. If it helps reduce violent crime, yes I do. Do I think regulation will end gun related killings or acts of crime. I’d be naive to think that. But if it prevents some, we’re that much further ahead of the game. What I don’t like is the talk that any sort of regulation is somehow violating a constitutionally-guaranteed right regardless of the consequences. That’s just dishonest.
Comment 2/26/2007
Janusz:
Darn — I was looking for a fight and you go and get all reasonable on me.
Unlike some others who have posted here, I still support the concept of firearm regulation. However, I place the blame on the gun control advocates for making moderate gunowners like myself overly suspicious of most such proposals.
Although the concept may seem reasonable, all of their claims of “distinguishing between rifles used for hunting and handguns that are easily concealed or assault weapons” have proven deceitful. By now I hope you have seen my earlier post about assault weapons. Here is another chapter in my education on this issue:
I now live in CT and before that in CA. Both states passed waiting periods on handguns. During the debates, the NRA warned that hunting rifles would be next. Legislators angrily denounced the NRA as paranoid liars.
Within 10 years or so, both states passed waiting periods on hunting rifles.
Comment 2/26/2007
Mc:
I see what you’re saying, but charging $400 or more for a permit certainly destroys a less fortunate person’s ability to exercise this right.
That’s debatable. It’s not like firearms ownership is cheap to begin with. Aside from the cost of obtaining the gun itself, there’s the ammunition (which many enthusiasts will tell you has a shelf life of less than a year), range time, etc. Responsible gun ownership is expensive, plain and simple. I don’t think a few hundred dollars in licensing fees makes all that much difference in the grand scheme of things.
Like I said, that applies to the militia. But the second amendment doesn’t make service in the militia a requirement to keep and bear arms. Anyone who wasn’t asleep during American history class realizes that the founding fathers intended for the entire citizenry to be armed.
If only it were so simple, or so cut and dry. I think that any honest reading of the second amendment, and the history behind its formulation, arrives at the conclusion that it was an uncomfortable compromise. Had it been intended to give a universal right to firearms totally free from regulation or conditions, it would have been worded much differently. And I’m not entirely sure “bear arms” meant in 1789 what it does today. Bottom line is, even in the late 18th century, the right of private citizens to carry arms free from government supervision was controversial.
I don’t think it would change anything. The second half of the amendment is crystal clear. All the first half does is remind us that a well trained and equipped citizenry is necessary to our continued freedom.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy it. The first clause wasn’t put there just as a “reminder,” but as a justifier, and also possibly as a check. The first amendment doesn’t start with “free speech, being necessary…” Given the construction of the rest of the constitution, I find it exceedingly unlikely that the first clause of the 2A was put there simply for rhetorical flourish.
That doesn’t mean we can sweep it under a rug and forget about it!
I never said we should. I’m merely suggesting that we should be a bit more honest when discussing the subject, and that we should acknowledge that 2007 is vastly different in many ways than 1789.
After nearly four years of fighting, the most powerful military on earth can’t seem to put down an insurgency armed with WW1 bolt action rifles and improvised explosives.
You realize, of course, that after crucifying Zumbo for making allusions to terrorists in the context of gun ownership, you’ve just made an allusion to terrorists in the context of gun ownership.
Seriously, though, two problems with this statement: first, you really think the insurgency is primarily using bolt-action WWI rifles? Second, our military actions in Iraq are still ostensibly predicated on liberation, which is a vastly different scenario than an oppressive government taking over. If a true tyrant came to power, he would think nothing of wiping out vast swaths of the population to put down such insurgencies. It’s a big part of how the guy we just deposed over there was able to maintain a sort of order. But as “liberators,” we can’t do any of that (nor should we).
What makes you think they could subjugate 300 million angry US citizens?
Apart from the above, if history is any lesson, they wouldn’t anger 300 million angry citizens; they’d anger some smaller subset of that total. Further, despite the hard-won RKBA, many people (better than half, if I’m not mistaken) choose not to exercise that right, and many of those that do have only small arms not suitable for a protracted military conflict. I have a .40 and a .22 — better than nothing in such a scenario, but nowhere near enough. And again, even an AK wouldn’t do me any good if the hypothetical oppressive government decided to start firebombing neighborhoods indiscriminately.
Janusz:
While I mostly agree with you, I think you overstate the supposed collectivist nature of the second amendment. As mentioned above, it was forged as a compromise, with some of the ratifiers wanting an individual right and others angling for a militia in the sense you’re talking about it. But throughout most of the debates, it seems that it was essentially taken for granted that the majority of the freemen in the country would be armed in some capacity.
The Wikipedia has some serious caveat emptor strings attached, but I found its page on the second amendment’s ratification debate to be surprisingly even-handed, with plenty of goodies (including quotes from the framers) to piss off both sides of the debate.
Jay:
However, I place the blame on the gun control advocates for making moderate gunowners like myself overly suspicious of most such proposals.
A problem with our system of governance is that the extremes tend to get all the play, while the moderates get drowned out. Gun control is no different. The lobby to get pretty much all guns banned and the lobby who thinks that “gun control is hitting what you’re shooting at” seem to get all of the attention, to the exclusion of those of us who think there’s a middle ground to be struck.
Within 10 years or so, both states passed waiting periods on hunting rifles.
Unless you’re talking about a waiting period of multiple weeks, I don’t think a short waiting period to obtain a deadly weapon (irrespective of intended purpose) is a significant infringement. You can argue that it’s unnecessary bureaucracy and that it doesn’t do anything meaningful to prevent or deter violent crime, but that’s a different argument. Frankly, if somebody wants a gun of any kind and wants it right now, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to raise an eyebrow.
So many of these debates involve slippery slopes, and to a certain extent, I can understand that. But on an issue of that importance, it seems to me that compromises can and should be reached.
Want an example of where better gun control makes sense? As mentioned above, I’ve got a CCW permit in the state of Tennessee. I got this permit by paying $115 fee ($65 for a background check, $50 for the permit) after taking an 8-hour gun safety class. This class involved less than two hours on the range, of which less than half was spent actually handling a weapon. I had to demonstrate that I could hit a stationary paper target human at a range of about 15 feet. Perhaps two more hours were spent discussing gun safety. The remaining four-plus hours were spent with the instructor roughly evenly dividing his time among trying to proselytize us into the gun culture, trying to scaremonger, disparaging the government, and trying to hard-sell further training.
We did not, for example, draw a weapon from a holster even once (something you’d think you’d want to be comfortable with before carrying in public). Proper care of a weapon was discussed only in passing. After this “rigorous” training, I’m now authorized to carry a concealed weapon pretty much any place in Tennessee that isn’t a federal building or a bar. I retain that right for four years. And at the end of four years, I can renew simply by paying $50, with no need to demonstrate continued competency.
Now I have the permit, but I freely admit that I think we ought to set the bar a wee bit higher in terms of determining who should and should not be allowed to carry. For the record, I never do actually carry out in public, for a number of reasons, including the fact that I don’t consider myself sufficiently trained or competent to do so, the fact that I don’t generally feel the need to do so, and the fact that I’m often in places where carrying is prohibited anyway.
(Why do I have the permit, then? I wanted to take the gun safety class anyway, and doing so turned out to be the sole qualifier — apart from the fee — for getting a permit. I have used the permit, by the way; my wife’s wallet was stolen a couple of months ago, with my drivers license in it. But my CCW is a state-issued photo ID, so it was good enough for airport security.)
Comment 2/27/2007
“Fair enough…the state militias or National Guard then.”
What does the National Guard, a select militia (something the founders were deeply suspicious of) formed in 1903, have to do with the Bill of Rights?
The militia the second amendment is refering to, the unorganized militia, includes nearly every able bodied citizen of military age. The entire purpose of the second amendment is to ensure an armed citizenry, from which can be drawn the kind of militia that is necessary to the survival of a free state.
Let’s read the amendment again…
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
It doesn’t say “the right of the People serving in a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms”. It doesn’t say the “the right of a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms”. It says “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms”! And just like the other amendments, it protects an individual right.
“The great object is that every man be armed…. Every one who is able may have a gun.” - Patrick Henry
What do you think THAT means?
Read what the founding fathers wrote. Read the scholarly research. Read the relevant case law. Nearly everything supports this viewpoint. Is the second amendment absolute? No more absolute than your right to free speech. Do I want to give weapons to violent felons, children, and the insane? NO! Does the second amendment protect all arms? No. Does the second amendment protect military small arms and firearms of military value? It most certainly does.
Comment 2/27/2007
“That’s debatable.”
You would agree that we need to make things like housing, education, and health care more affordable. Why not self defense?
“It’s not like firearms ownership is cheap to begin with. Aside from the cost of obtaining the gun itself, there’s the ammunition (which many enthusiasts will tell you has a shelf life of less than a year),”
That’s absurd! Some of the ammunition I’m using was manufactured in 1943.
“Responsible gun ownership is expensive, plain and simple. I don’t think a few hundred dollars in licensing fees makes all that much difference in the grand scheme of things.”
My first firearm was a Mosin-Nagant 1891/30. It was arsenal refinished to like new condition, and only cost me $70. I picked up a tin of surplus ammunition (440 rounds) for less than $40. Gu