ShareThisWASHINGTON - Firearms mania seems to fall into several broad categories with elements of each in the other.
Those classified as "gun nuts" generally seem to believe that ownership of one is an unalienable right like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then there are those who are nuts about guns, who collect them and seem almost to consider them affectionate, even sexual objects.
Then there are nuts for whom guns become an instrument to fulfill the dictates of a diseased mind, like the Son of Sam or the young man who opened fire on policemen wounding two at the Pentagon last week and had his twisted brains blown out for the trouble.
Present in all three classifications is an element of paranoia, a strong belief that without these weapons one is not likely to survive the truly crazy (like maybe one's testy neighbor or a disaffected co-worker or student seeking revenge from bullies) or the ubiquitous criminals that use guns as necessary tools in their business. It is a violent world that needs violent answers.
Those who regard guns as an unimpeachable right protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States don't want any restrictions on when, where, or how they are present on a person -- always, in a bar, near a school, in a church, openly on the hip, or concealed. They eschew the notion that something bad might happen with such uninhibited possession, arguing that in fact if everyone were packing, all the other nuts would think twice, except maybe those who are truly crazy and operating on irrational impulses.
This way of thinking of course is loved by the firearms industry and its lobby, the National Rifle Association, and generally ignores all the statistics that reveal annual carnage and mayhem might have been cut drastically without the presence of that assault rifle or 9 mm automatic. So those who follow the philosophy of might makes right are once again seeking to overthrow the ability of states and municipalities to control the traffic of firearms, an estimated 300 million of which already are in the hands of citizens.
They have turned to the U.S. Supreme Court where the nation's number one gun nut, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, a turkey-hunting sportsman, holds sway. As a kid Scalia reportedly carried his Junior ROTC rifle back and forth to school on the New York subway, perhaps displaying the early onset of gun lover syndrome.
In a challenge to the District of Columbia's strict gun control laws last year, Scalia led the Court platoon that in a 5-4 vote declared the founders meant that gun ownership was an individual right not a collective one for the forming of militias when they adopted the Second Amendment. But did they mean that to apply only to federal enclaves or does it extend also to states and their cities, like Chicago, where strict restrictions are being challenged in the wake of the D.C. decision?
It seems to be a tricky question based on the issue of "incorporation" that only those who consider themselves constitutional scholars appear to understand or can even attempt to explain. Suffice it to say, that if the court does "incorporate" the Second Amendment, it would supersede state's rights and go a long way toward eliminating gun ownership restrictions for self-defense, a claim that everyone makes when he buys a handgun or assault weapon. Hunters and trap shooters generally are in another class.
The arguments before the high court took place last Tuesday on the Chicago case, just a few days ahead of the Pentagon incident where a troubled 36-year-old Californian, neatly dressed in a coat and tie, parked his car, loaded both pockets with guns and ammo, and calmly walked to the front entrance of one of the most heavily guarded buildings in America, firing without warning at the guards. It was over in seconds.
Perhaps had the incident occurred before the arguments at the court, those defending Chicago's right to limit the possession of guns, if that is even possible in this day and age, would have had an enhanced cause, even for a Scalia who otherwise champions law and order.
(E-mail Dan K. Thomasson, former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service, at thomassondan(at)aol.com.)
COLUMN
Well....
That was offensive to half of the US population.
Nothing New Here
So how many times have we been told that gun owners are compensating for below average size "equipment" and that the NRA somehow makes money lobbying for the firearms industry? The fact is that many women are gun owners. I'm not sure how they fit into the "small equipment" story. And the NRA makes all of it's income from the dues paid by it's membership. The firearms industry does have a lobby, called the NSSF, which has no conection with, or funding from, the NRA.
Now, do you think we could move on and have a serious fact based debate on the subject of the criminal misuse of firearms like adults? No? Well I really didn't think you were up to it, but I had to ask.
Now was Jefferson paranoid?
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson
Not to mention that his
Not to mention that his "statistics" (by the way he never offers any numbers does he?) are way off, since states that have concealed carry laws generally have lower crime rates that states (or in some cases cities *cough* Chicago *cough*). I would also like to point out that its illegal to buy an "automatic" weapon in the United States, and that the "Assault Rifles" he is refering too are not true Assault Rifles since they are only capable of semi-automatic fire.
Sorry, it's a popular myth,
Sorry, it's a popular myth, even passed on by the NRA, but untrue none the less. The National Firearms Act allows citizens to own fully automatic firearms, but only by payment of a $200 TAX and approval of the BATFE.
With a full background check,
With a full background check, fingerprints and takes about a year to issue the stamp and approve the transfer... yes transfer. There are no more new Class III guns out there since the mid 80's for the civilian market which makes them VERY expensive and not quite easy to afford for your local gang banger. No quite the nice and easy way to get machine guns so it seems.
Need a Change, Dan?
Oh, my. You've wet your panties again, Dan.
Dan
This one (Dan K. Thompson) has really gone of the deep end....Not to bright either.
Thomasson is a pussy!
My girlfriend would be typing this, but as I type she is choking on the large wang I pack, never ever having to compensate with a surrogate inanimate object or words like the lying, fear mongering, socialistic pinko commie fag, piece of shiite Thomasson does!
It is rather rude to wish harm on someone, but in this case, may Thomasson learn the truth about self defense the hard way, as clearly he is not ignorant of the facts. He chooses to selectively ignore them, hence he is a sloth of a meat puppet. Dancing on the end of his masters strings, eagerlying awaiting the next command to dance the maccarbe dance of the subjagated fools!
I thought the idea that the
I thought the idea that the NRA speaks for the gun manufacturers would have been laid to rest after the Smith&Wesson boycott. You know, when S&W signed off on a deal with the Clinton administration that would have screwed gun owners across the country?
That the NRA backed a boycott that destroyed the oldest and largest firearms manufacturer in the country should have made it clear where the NRA's loyalty lies. And it's not with the manufacturers.
Statistics
"This way of thinking of course is loved by the firearms industry and its lobby, the National Rifle Association, and generally ignores all the statistics that reveal annual carnage and mayhem might have been cut drastically without the presence of that assault rifle or 9 mm automatic."
Um, except for the inconvenient truth that all the statistics reveal the exact polar opposite. The stronger the gun control laws, the higher the crime. The more handgun permits, the less crime. In any given year, there are about 15,000 murders, and at least 50,000 innocent lives SAVED by firearms.
I hope those blinders you wear are itchy.
Shall Not Be Infringed Means Just That!
This guy is correct, we don't want restrictions on when, where or how we carry guns. In other words, we don't want our Creator given right to keep and bear arms infringed. Why would any one complain about people wanting the Government to obey the very document that gives them a limited amount of power. Only those intent on Tyranny would violate their oaths by violating the Constitution of the United States.
That was thoroughly offensive
So as a gun owner, I have three choices. I can believe the Second Amendment means what it says but only if I'm paranoid, be a loon sexually obsessed with inanimate objects, or be a mass murder.
Bite me.
Oddly enough, none of the many gun owners I know exhibit and sexual fascination with their firearms. The only people I see making that connection are people like Thomasson, which makes me suspect he's a very strange person.
For factual info...
Here's an answer for every silly little pro-gun control argument
http://hubpages.com/hub/Answers-for-those-who-think-that-gun-control-is-the-best-for-America
Your Link Doesn't Work
Sorry, Jack, your link to hubpages doesn't work. The message displayed is that that page is no longer published.
A better alternative might be John Lott's website, http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/. Professor Lott has pulished scholarly works on guns and violence and crime. Generally he refutes gun control positions with extensive statistice. He is also very readable, so I highly recommend his articles and books.
rustynail
III/OK
The Several Varities of Gun Nuts
What is your goal here? Winning the applause of those who agree with you? Changing the minds of firearms owners? When you, in your assumed moral superiority, call me a "NUT", my interest in your opinions evaporates. Whatever merit your ideas may have, your lack of respect for my opinions blocks any meaningful dialog.
A bit of advice. Get over yourself. Now how do you feel?
Do you advocate unilateral
Do you advocate unilateral nuclear disarmament? It would be consistent with your views...
http://sipseystreetirregulars
http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2010/03/citizen-disarmament-advocate-dan.html
he shows TRUE liberal thinking on this....
Thomasson writes, "the ubiquitous criminals that use guns as necessary tools in their business."
So by your ideal, it's perfectly acceptable for criminals to possess and use a gun in order to perform whatever heinous act they choose to inflict upon their next victim, and the chosen target should be disarmed and legally prevented from protecting themselves or others from said attack, because after all, that poor misunderstood, underprivileged, miscreant is just doing what they have to do to "earn a living" since the rest of civil society has deprived them somehow of be handed their "fair share" and it's only right then that they take by force anything they feel deprived of. The fact that they shot someone in the head to get it....? Just part of the business, and understandable due to "The Man's" greed, right Dan?
Another nut?
Thomasson writes, "the ubiquitous criminals that use guns as necessary tools in their business."
I expect that you would include Government forces that break their oath to the Consitution to be criminals, No?
This gun nut is none of the
This gun nut is none of the above. He is a well-informed, intelligent, graduate-educated patriot who:
1. Believes in things;
2. Prepares for eventualities;
3. Approaches everything on principle;
4. Will not submit to crime or tyranny of any kind;
5. Will carrry no matter what klaws are passed;
6. Will not hesitate to defned himself against anyone.
Dan's worst nightmare.
Mostly Psychobabble
I think Mr. Thomasson needs some clinical therapy, at least were I seeing him as a patient, that would be something I'd consider having read his diatribe above beforehand. His low rent psychobabble demonstrates his problems, not to mention his obvious lack of qualifications to render any diagnosis about gun ownership.
The right to self defense, of which the right to be armed with any weapon is a subset, is intrinsic to the human existence. The right to self defense does not need any document, office, or approval to exist; it exists because we exist.
Finally, I think Mike Vanderboegh (at Sipsey Street Irregulars) has it about right, really. Will Dan Thomasson make sure he's at the head of the pack that's going to attempt disarmament of the 150 million gun owners, that own between 600 and 750 million firearms in America, or will he be so effete to send out surrogates to do his dirty work.
at least we know he's unarmed...
any desperate unemployed newsworker feel like robbing his estate for a litte payback?
Unfounded paranoia
Ever notice that the hardcore "anti-gun" people never regard their own unfounded paranoia regarding guns? The endlessly point fingers at gun owners screaming "Paranoid Gun Nuts" when the majority of us, while appreciating the the artful machinery of firearms, really just view guns as an insurance policy. Recreation coming second.
Are they not the equal opposite of us by thier own definition? They claim that we are paranoid of being victimized. Is that not exactly that same claim they are making against us....them falling victims to the Crazy gun nuts?
Wouldn't the definition of paranoia be; fearful of something based on no fact or evidence or even countrary to the evidence and facts:
Well the facts show that FIREARMS PREVENT CRIME. It is undisputable now with precedence shown by the Right to Carry states.
So who's paranoid Danny boy? Crawl back under your rock, slimball.
So what kind of gun nut are the police and military?
I am interested in finding out if Mr. Thomasson wants guns out of the hands of the law enforcement and military. I have seen many of these "gun nuts" all over the country in airports and subways. Sometimes, they forsake their oath and commit crimes like murder.
Fundamental right to self-defense and to K&BAs.
If all men are "endowed" with "certain unalienable rights", among which are "the right to life, ..." then are we not logically endowed with the right to DEFEND THAT LIFE against anyone, anywhere that threatens it or the lives of those whom we love or whom depend upon us for protection? I say, yes. The right to self-defense and to keep and BEAR arms for that purpose precedes the formation of the United States and our constitution. Therefore, no government has the legitimate authority to deny that right except in the most extreme situations (tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes nor earthquakes qualify). One of which might be in a courthouse whereby everyone entering is scanned and searched and a large number of armed law enforcement personnel are on hand charged with actually protecting the lives of all occupants of the facility. Neither the President, Governors nor legislatures at any level have the legitimate power to suspend fundamental, human rights. The congress has the power only to suspend the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus (not all fundamental human rights! See Article I, Section 9, second paragraph of US Constitution) in the event of rebellion or invasion ONLY if the public safety may require it (in other words, NEVER! How would the public safety be advanced by disarming peaceable, law-abiding citizens in a time when self-defense is most needed - e.g. in the aftermath of Katrina?)
Look, if the communists, er, I mean, Progressives want to live where they have no rights and the government has total control, there are many options already available to them around the world. MOVE TO ONE OF THEM and leave freedom-loving Americans alone!
The several varieties of anti-gun nuts
This pretty much sums it up...
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin030802.asp
Julia Gorin
Yup, that pretty much sums it up.
I think I love her even though I'd never heard of her before.
Thomasson needs to retire
It seems painfully obvious to me that when articles such as this are written by well-connected, highly-educated and wealthy individuals like Thomasson, with credentials that allow them to control the perceptions of millions via their skewed opinion pieces, that they are, in fact endemic of a priviledged class in this country that does not see reality from the perspective of the common wage-earner.
All Thomasson's article represents is another "Let the eat cake" statement from the well-shielded, socialist-minded upper class who irrationally fear a future uprising of the general public against them that might very well hurt their status.
Newsflash to Mr. Thomasson...you might not know it sir inside your world of high iron gates, chauffer-driven limos and instant 911 coverage, but it's getting pretty dangerous to live out here in the real world. It isn't as safe as it was when you still had to cook your own dinners and take the bus to college.
I'll gladly accept that each year a couple-hundred children will needlessly die in horrific gun accidents, a couple thousand a year from horrific gun violence, and that there will be violent incidences of public displays of mental incompetence involving firearms that would make even the most ardent NRA supporter cringe. But I'll gladly take my chances as a citizen in this country in order to be a part of the collective of constitutionally-sanctioned gun owners who serve three specific purposes in this great nation besides the obvious sport and herritage reasons for owning guns:
1)We law-abiding gun owners, many of us veterans, retired law enforcement and patriots, augment our overstretched armed forces, local police and military reserves so that in the event of a massive disaster, invasion, uprising, services interruption etc....America's societal order will be maintained and restored in every neighborhood that doesn't wish to be looted, burned-out or overrun by the growing American class of "have-not and could care less"-types.
2) We collectively keep the growing largesse of the U.S. government in check; just by the fact that we believe in the constitution and we will not be pushed by our corrupt "elected officials" into starvation and tax serfdom....ever... by this or any future administration. Without the 2nd amendment, nothing will stop the crooks in D.C. from turning the entire U.S. Constitution into toilet paper.
3) Criminals do not fear the police. Crooks know that the police are far too few, far too underfunded, corruptable, and far too politically regulated to effectively deter or counter the growing levels of drug-fueled, violent criminality in America today. Criminals fear us, the law-abiding, trained, confident armed civilian.
In my humble opinion, Thomasson is serving a greater master than himself in calling for disarmament. A master that wishes to see future generations Americans stripped of their sense of strength, ability to stop their government from taking everything from them, and their ability to personally resist the rising tide of crime in America from growing poverty and the unstoppable drug trade; thereby forcing us all to rely on Uncle Sugar for our protection. This master Thomasson serves wants to see the American public tightly controlled and unable to resist on the day when the soverign ground that D.C. has already sold out from under our feetto foreign powers behind our backs is physically collected-upon by tose powers when America finally defaults on its mammoth debt.
Either that, or he is so hopelessly out of touch with the common working man's level of reality that he's not fit to be the editor of anything and need to pack it in for to country club.
spelling errors....my bad
sorry about the spelling errors in the previous post if anybody bothered to read it. I hit submit when I intended to preview.