+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 14 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 334

Thread: Why did it have to be... Guns?

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-20-08
    Posts
    4,829

    Smile Why did it have to be... Guns?

    http://www.lneilsmith.org/whyguns.html

    Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

    by L. Neil Smith
    lneil@lneilsmith.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    But it isn't true, is it?

    Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

    You are here: Webley Page > Lever Action > Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
    Closed Account

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-06-07
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,386
    well said, Catherine
    Teachers can learn ua the rules;
    Experience teaches you the exceptions

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-20-08
    Posts
    4,829
    Thank you.

    L. Neil Smith always says it so well and is to the point. Nothing has to be added to many of his comments and other essays. If people need his comments to be EXPLAINED to them... they don't GET IT. No offense. He took the words right out of my mouth when I read this many years ago!

    Catherine
    Closed Account

  4. #4
    Member  
    Join Date
    12-24-02
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,644
    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?
    More stuff that brings disgrace on gun owners.

    WildsomeofthisstuffisasbadashuffpoAlaska

    By the way still no answer about the connect the dots issue raised earlier...just lots of drive by tripe

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    01-06-04
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    817
    Betraying an oath of public office is (or should be) a serious crime.

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-24-02
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    25,516
    More stuff that brings disgrace on gun owners.
    Not so! There's no disgrace whatever in holding our elected public servants accountable for their actions. They should all live in fear of our wrath.
    No tyrant should ever be allowed to die a natural death.

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    08-11-04
    Location
    Puget Sound
    Posts
    4,148
    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.
    Gee, I guess ol' L. Neil probably has some trouble finding any candidate worthy of his vote ... in the last hundred years or so ...
    Will

    Everything I know about cops, their respect for the citizens of this country and its Constitution, as well as the state of policing in this country ... I learned from the Internet.

  8. #8
    Member  
    Join Date
    10-30-03
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    3,228
    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.
    Gee, I guess I'm not your friend either. Maybe comes from standing across the counter at times.
    TheImwithwildalaskaonthisoneRabbi.

  9. #9
    Member  
    Join Date
    12-24-02
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,644
    Betraying an oath of public office is (or should be) a serious crime.
    It is.....unless the betrayal is based on the intepretation of a cheap militia pamphlet

    They should all live in fear of our wrath.
    How meaningless....what do you propose, line 'em up and shoot those who you disagree with politically? One line slogans are as disgraceful to the image of gun owners and the stuff set forth in my sig.

    Gee, I guess ol' L. Neil probably has some trouble finding any candidate worthy of his vote ... in the last hundred years or so ...
    ol' L Neil is another one that hurts the gun movement

    WildthisplaceneedssomecriticalthinkingAlaska TM
    Last edited by Wildalaska; March 22nd, 2009 at 12:15 AM.

  10. #10
    I am basically a one-issue voter, just not to the same extent as L Neil.
    To be a 2A supporter means to respect individual rights.
    If a politician doesn't respect an individual's right in one regard, the chances of respecting an individual right to another is suspect.
    I don't have full trust in any of the three branches of government. They are just looking out for their own self interests while denying me the same in regards to self defense (my biggest self interest!). If an individual's means of self defense is taken, then all the other rights don't really mean anything since they could be taken at will without recourse.

  11. #11
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-24-02
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    25,516
    Here's another thread I wish now I hadn't participated in.
    No tyrant should ever be allowed to die a natural death.

  12. #12
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-24-06
    Location
    The Treasure Valley
    Posts
    1,136
    I put myself in the one-issue voter category as well, when it comes to the 2nd. I figure that if a representative supports the (essentially) "unpopular" amendment, then the rest can be presumed to be supported as well.

    Might not be strong logic, but it's enough for me.
    The thorn defends the rose. It harms only those who would steal the blossom from the plant.

    When you must choose between one good and another or one evil and another, remember this: if men would contend with you, seek not their death but choose your own life.

  13. #13
    Member  
    Join Date
    12-24-02
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,644
    I put myself in the one-issue voter category as well, when it comes to the 2nd. I figure that if a representative supports the (essentially) "unpopular" amendment, then the rest can be presumed to be supported as well.
    Voting for David Duke then?

    WildcomeonnowAlaska TM

  14. #14
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-25-08
    Location
    "Bury me not on the lone prairie"
    Posts
    1,270
    "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?"

    Somehow it would seem that attempting to link discourse about health care, a certain obscure paranoia about government power, into a overall statement supposedly supporting the RKBA might be counter productive.

    Last time I checked neither private docs or public health had the need for armed squads to round up people for prostrate exams... And the whole concept might be just a little hard to fit into the Hippocratic oath...

    And in propaganda-counter propaganda it has been a established practice to find some ridiculous/humorous aspect of the other sides message and use that to undermine the other sides credibility. The Brits were quite good at that tactic so much so they set the standard with their tricks in WW-2. And being quite aware of this tradition the antis have often used the same tactic against the RKBA movement. Something like the quoted passage would be obviously too good for them to leave alone. The last thing we need is to have the antis presenting the RKBA contingent as irrationally fearful of armed government proctologists.

  15. #15
    Administrator   
    Join Date
    11-29-03
    Location
    atl ga
    Posts
    1,658
    I put myself in the one-issue voter category as well, when it comes to the 2nd. I figure that if a representative supports the (essentially) "unpopular" amendment, then the rest can be presumed to be supported as well.
    Voting for David Duke then?

    WildcomeonnowAlaska TM
    Yes, there is some faulty logic, but surely you can present a more complete answer.

    The 2'nd can function as a litmus test, but not in the affirmative like previous posters indicate. Using it as an elimination question works much better, as those who believe in restricting one freedom are much more likely to believe in restricting others.
    NRA Rifle/Pistol instructor / Utah CCW Instructor
    -- Cranky Labs Image Repository - A Human Right - Oleg Volk

    Lets face it: Nobody's ever called 911 and said they've just done something smart.
    -----------------------------------------
    I'm Amish Bill, and I approved this message.

  16. #16
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    11-16-06
    Location
    SD
    Posts
    1,758
    Sounds to me like his writing is maybe a wee bit hyperbolic, but that's what I take from it.

    For me, voting is a single issue vote. I ask, "Is this person for big, omnipresent government as evidenced by any of his stances?" And, if the answer is yes - and the other guy isn't worse - he gets my vote.

  17. #17
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-23-08
    Location
    South of the Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    2,136
    I put myself in the one-issue voter category as well, when it comes to the 2nd. I figure that if a representative supports the (essentially) "unpopular" amendment, then the rest can be presumed to be supported as well.

    Voting for David Duke then?
    And you come to this summation how?

    You seem to read a lot more into one's comments than I do.
    Igonrance is temporary, but stupidity is forever.

  18. #18
    Member  
    Join Date
    01-26-04
    Location
    San Antonio TX
    Posts
    4,839


    Thanks, Catherine. I sent this on to some gunnie friends. L. Neil Smith and Lew Rockwell are always good reads. Sort of lost track of Clayton Cramer after he fled California for more gun friendly places, but he's still got a blog up.

  19. #19
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,404
    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.
    That sums it up pretty well right there. Gun control in any form is prior restraint. We can't let just anyone have a machine gun since they might shoot up the place sounds a bit too much like we can't let just anyone hand out pamphlets since they might be corrupting the minds of our children. People usually point out that free speech doesn't kill but guns do. Wrong. Guns do not kill. The printed word does not corrupt minds. The printing press and the firearm are inanimate, they can be used for good or evil. Removing either out of fear of misuse is beyond the powers granted to the government and is dangerous to our freedom.

    I am also a one issue voter because, like Mr. Smith, I have found that a politician's view on gun control reveals much about how the candidate feels about government. Someone for gun control sees the government as our masters and the voting public as its subjects. Taken to its extreme we are creating a ruling class. Someone that opposes gun control sees the voting public as their peers and they are our representatives and servants, given the privilege to speak on our behalf as long as we see fit.

    Some of those that go to great lengths to control guns truly scare me. Many of them seem bent on creating a new aristocracy. Others seem to be fearful hoplophobes that prove to be useful idiots to those seeking positions of power. There may be some that truly seek to make the world a better place by removing violence from the world but these are just a subset of the useful idiots being manipulated by those seeking power and only serve to kill us with kindness.

    I know that some of what I typed sounds like tin-foil-hattery and I on some days I would even agree. I hope and pray that I am wrong that there are people in this country that would subvert another's freedom to serve their own selfish ends. I also have read my history and have seen how people have enslaved others so that they might live a life of luxury. Even if the people that would want to keep arms of any kind out of circulation for noble, if misguided, reasons it only serves to make it easier for a ruthless ruler to step in and take advantage of an already disarmed people.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  20. #20
    Member  
    Join Date
    12-24-02
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    5,644
    And you come to this summation how?

    You seem to read a lot more into one's comments than I do.
    Pretty obvious isn't it. He's a one issue voter. David Duke supports the 2nd Am. Thats all you need to know right.

    Here I'll make it easier for you. If Barney frank was a strong supporter of the 2nd Am would you vote for him?

    And I read more into folks comments because I read them.

    WildtryitAlaska TM

  21. #21
    And I read more into folks comments because I read them.


    sometimes i suspect they don't

  22. #22
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-11-06
    Location
    NEK, Vermont
    Posts
    578
    Pretty obvious isn't it. He's a one issue voter. David Duke supports the 2nd Am. Thats all you need to know right.

    Here I'll make it easier for you. If Barney frank was a strong supporter of the 2nd Am would you vote for him?

    And I read more into folks comments because I read them.
    And it is easier to make up a nonsensical reply. So reading deeper into what you wrote, would you vote for an American Joe Stalin over David Duke, or a Pol Pot, or an Adolph Hitler?

    By reading more into it, that seems to be what you are saying.

    yeIwishIcouldfitidioticinsultingtaglinesinmyscreennameti™
    "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
    Robert A. Heinlein

  23. #23
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-24-06
    Location
    The Treasure Valley
    Posts
    1,136
    Yes, there is some faulty logic, but surely you can present a more complete answer.

    The 2'nd can function as a litmus test, but not in the affirmative like previous posters indicate. Using it as an elimination question works much better, as those who believe in restricting one freedom are much more likely to believe in restricting others.
    Yes, thank you for that clarification.


    Pretty obvious isn't it. He's a one issue voter. David Duke supports the 2nd Am. Thats all you need to know right.

    Here I'll make it easier for you. If Barney frank was a strong supporter of the 2nd Am would you vote for him?
    Seems that both of them fail my test, so no, I'd not vote for them.
    The thorn defends the rose. It harms only those who would steal the blossom from the plant.

    When you must choose between one good and another or one evil and another, remember this: if men would contend with you, seek not their death but choose your own life.

  24. #24
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-23-08
    Location
    South of the Mason-Dixon Line
    Posts
    2,136
    Thats all you need to know right.
    Based on your twisted logic.


    I read them too. I just don't come to that conclusion. Especially since there was no reference anywhere in any post whatsoever to David Duke (prior to yours).

    I don't have to resort to stupid signature tricks either.
    Igonrance is temporary, but stupidity is forever.

  25. #25
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-29-06
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,165
    Let's go further. All laws infringe on freedom. Let's have no laws at all.

    Imwithwildalaskaonthisonefiddletown

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •