Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

    Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
    by L. Neil Smith
    lneil@lneilsmith.org

    Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

    People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

    Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

    If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

    If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

    What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

    If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

    If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

    If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

    Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.

    He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

    And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

    Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

    On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

    Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

    And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

    But it isn't true, is it?

    #2
    Originally posted by Joey Link View Post
    If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

    /thread
    sigpic
    "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

    Comment


      #3
      needs less-single-mindedness and more-hyphens...

      Comment


        #4
        Interesting take on politicians and guns. I would say that there are other ways to judge what a politician stands for or not, but I am also of the opinion that we as a people will have to use our guns to take back our freedoms the founding fathers gave everything to insist we have. If the government wants to take my guns they will only get them from my cold dead hand!
        The difference between porcupines and BMWs is that porcupines have the pricks on the outside!

        Comment


          #5
          I'm for gun ownership, but that's pretty narrow-minded. There's more than enough litmus tests to put politicians through other than that one. And while I agree with the overall conclusion- that we shouldn't trust politicians that don't have our own interests in mind- there's too many variables in this one debate. As a second amendment supporter, I still don't think guns should be entirely unregulated. (before the flamefest starts, cars require a license and registration, as do many other large, powerful, and potentially dangerous piece of equipment.)

          To me, a much better case could be made for this sort of test by asking which politicians a.) adhere to the constitution and b.) want to decrease the size and scope of government intrusion into our lives. Isn't that what the promise of American government was based on?
          sigpic89 M3

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Ral View Post
            (before the flamefest starts, cars require a license and registration, as do many other large, powerful, and potentially dangerous piece of equipment.)
            This right here shows your fundamental lack of understanding of the second amendment. We were given the right to bear arms to protect against tyranny and the government. We can't have the same entity we're supposed to be protecting ourselves from regulating the means of defense.

            Comment


              #7
              LOL-at-us-bearing-arms protecting us from the government... that concept of the 2nd is outdated. How are we supposed to protect ourselves from the government. I have mines to protect myself from any unwelcome visitors, period.

              Comment


                #8
                Not a single amendment in the constitution is 'outdated' as you say, not even the third. The constitution was written to restrict the government of human nature, because the founders knew the natural path of every society is eventual absolute power, tyranny, and lack of freedom. Human nature hasn't changed in the past 5000 years, let alone the past 200. People from other countries say 'of course we have freedom here', but what's to stop governments from taking that away? Before you say they won't, it's happened many times in the past, and it'll happen again.

                Comment


                  #9
                  ^^ agreed.. we're seeing the beginnings of it now via "health care reform", bank takeovers, etc.
                  sigpic89 M3

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Joey Link View Post
                    Not a single amendment in the constitution is 'outdated' as you say, not even the third. The constitution was written to restrict the government of human nature, because the founders knew the natural path of every society is eventual absolute power, tyranny, and lack of freedom. Human nature hasn't changed in the past 5000 years, let alone the past 200. People from other countries say 'of course we have freedom here', but what's to stop governments from taking that away? Before you say they won't, it's happened many times in the past, and it'll happen again.
                    well damn...

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Maluco View Post
                      LOL-at-us-bearing-arms protecting us from the government... that concept of the 2nd is outdated. How are we supposed to protect ourselves from the government.

                      Maybe the same way they did over 200 years ago... Its not outdated, our way of thinking has just changed. People don't think that they can go against the government anymore.. They think that "its too big," but the English government we went against 200 years ago was also quite large.

                      Now I'm not saying "Go get your gun, we're starting a revolution." I'm saying that there will be no chance of starting one if its needed if they take away guns.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Rather that quote Joey's every post in this thread.


                        I will just say go read them all again.



                        Joey buddy you are spot on, thank you for the article its a good read. I still think you do have too look at the broader issues while picking your vote, but the 2A is right at the top of mine to weed out the undesirables 1st and fore most.
                        Originally posted by Fusion
                        If a car is the epitome of freedom, than an electric car is house arrest with your wife titty fucking your next door neighbor.
                        The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. -Alexis de Tocqueville


                        The Desire to Save Humanity is Always a False Front for the Urge to Rule it- H. L. Mencken

                        Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.
                        William Pitt-

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by mrsleeve View Post
                          I still think you do have too look at the broader issues while picking your vote, but the 2A is right at the top of mine to weed out the undesirables 1st and fore most.
                          Thanks ;)

                          I agree with that statement as well.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Jesus Fucking Christ!! What the fuck is it with everyone and their fucking guns. I don't give a shit about your fucking guns but it seems like half the fucking threads on these forums is filled with some fucking redneck going off about how everyone is trying to take your fucking guns away. Who gives a shit? No one is coming into your house to steal your fucking gun. Get over it. Am I the only person that finds this annoying? Don't any of you have lives. Isn't there anything else you can take an interest in? Those are rhetorical questions because I'm never opening another fucking thread with the word gun anywhere near it.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by ragged325 View Post
                              Jesus Fucking Christ!! What the fuck is it with everyone and their fucking guns. I don't give a shit about your fucking guns but it seems like half the fucking threads on these forums is filled with some fucking redneck going off about how everyone is trying to take your fucking guns away. Who gives a shit? No one is coming into your house to steal your fucking gun. Get over it. Am I the only person that finds this annoying? Don't any of you have lives. Isn't there anything else you can take an interest in? Those are rhetorical questions because I'm never opening another fucking thread with the word gun anywhere near it.
                              Your ignorance hurts us all. It's sad that most people know more about things that really don't matter (such as e30's) than the fundamentals of the constitution that created this great country.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X