- Like
- Digg
- Del
- Tumblr
- VKontakte
- Buffer
- Love This
- Odnoklassniki
- Meneame
- Blogger
- Amazon
- Yahoo Mail
- Gmail
- AOL
- Newsvine
- HackerNews
- Evernote
- MySpace
- Mail.ru
- Viadeo
- Line
- Comments
- Yummly
- SMS
- Viber
- Telegram
- Subscribe
- Skype
- Facebook Messenger
- Kakao
- LiveJournal
- Yammer
- Edgar
- Fintel
- Mix
- Instapaper
- Copy Link
“…Demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”
— Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
I have been naïve.
My temperament has always bent toward seeking common ground — the Willie Nelson ethic of bringing the cowboys and the hippies together. I have opined multiple times in the newspaper I edit and in other forums that gun owners have significant responsibilities as well as rights and that it is incumbent upon us to work with people of good faith to reduce violence and especially horrific mass shootings. After all, we are to be a “well regulated militia,” right?
I still believe that. The problem is that I no longer trust in others’ good faith. It’s not that I question the sincerity of my friends — both gun owners and those who would prefer never to touch a gun — who have “moderate” views on the matter and truly are interested in “common sense” regulation. It’s just that they are not the ones who are driving the agenda. In fact, they have been used as a stalking horse by those whose true agenda is and always has been disarming law-abiding citizens.
Turns out, the NRA was right all along.
Give up your rifle. It’ll be fine. Promise.
I’ve had an on-again-off-again relationship with that organization. They do many valuable things in the shooting community that are overshadowed by the political bombast. I have recoiled at rhetoric that seemed extreme and likely to alienate potential allies, those moderate folk of good faith. I was wrong. The NRA was right. I’ll be re-upping at the end of this month.
Justice Stevens’ op-ed, which ran in the New York Times this week, starkly states the real agenda. Retired at 97, Stevens has no further need to mask his desires. It’s not about “common sense gun reform” or even about banning the “bad rifle.” It’s about taking it ALL.
His appeal for repeal is classic “never let a crisis go to waste” opportunism. Everyone is horrified that young men seek self-annihilation in nihilistic violence against innocents. Those who seek repeal of one of the 10 foundational amendments to the U.S. Constitution, those who seek to disarm and criminalize law-abiding citizens who have DONE NOTHING WRONG, are exploiting a very natural desire to see our children safe. But their agenda is not about safety; it is about control.
The lust for control infects both sides of the political spectrum, though it may manifest in different ways. It must be resisted.
In the words of Crazy Horse: ‘Let me go, my friends. You have got me hurt enough.’
The argument that the Second Amendment is a “relic of the 18th Century” is a popular piece of sophistry. All of the 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights are “relics of the 18th Century” if you choose to look at individual liberty as a quaint, outmoded notion. It is chilling to see how many people do.
The Second Amendment reads: “to keep and bear arms.” It does not say “to keep and bear arms permanently at the technological level of 1789.” If such were the case, the Fourth Amendment would not cover any form of personal communications other than handwritten letters. Instead, the Fourth Amendment has been — rightly — interpreted to include the contents of our vehicles, our electronic communications, etc.
We have acquiesced in many infringements upon the Fourth Amendment in the name of safety and security. Many of those infringements are so incremental and insidious that we do not really recognize that they are happening. And there are always the voices that say, “Well, if you’ve got nothing to hide…” The liberty-loving right shouldn’t feel too smug about their virtue: Remember that “Total Information Awareness” was promulgated by the Bush Administration in the name of protecting us from terrorists. Never let a crisis go to waste.
The Second Amendment also reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.” The “militia” is the people in arms. The right argues that the amendment was designed to allow for defense against a tyrannical government, which is partially true, but not necessarily the main point and purpose. It was considered important that the people themselves retain the capacity for defense and security internally as well as against external foes. In other words, in a circumstance of civil unrest or breakdown, or other threat, the people themselves — you and me — should have the capacity to deal with it.
That’s as operative now as it was in 1789. Example: For three days during the Rodney King riots in L.A., the LAPD effectively abandoned the south-central portion of the city to hordes of looters. Dozens of businesses were looted and burned and people were beaten and killed. The businesses that didn’t get looted and burned out were those of Korean and Chinese grocers who got up on their roofs — many armed with semi-auto rifles — and kept the looters at bay. That is a contemporary exercise of the intent of the Second Amendment. Other examples abound from any number of disaster scenarios, natural or man-made.
I have never believed that “shall not be infringed” means that there cannot be ANY strictures placed on the means and manner of keeping and bearing arms. That’s where the “well-regulated” part comes in. Whatever those strictures are, however, they must NOT infringe upon the legitimate rights and liberties of free, law-abiding citizens that are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. Unfortunately, good-faith discussion of what those strictures might look like is impossible. The developments of the past few weeks have made it starkly clear what the real agenda and purpose is. We can thank Justice Stevens and the petitioners of Oregon IP 43 for doffing the mask. It clarifies matters.
I will no longer be seeking common ground, because the common ground has been cut from beneath my feet. That’s on them, not me.
No negotiation of our rights. No compromise.
*
I’ve been playing this a lot for the past few days. A relic of the 19th Century, in honor of a relic of the 14th Century. Love of liberty has a long pedigree.
Wallace BledScots, wha hae wi’ Wallace bled,Scots, wham Bruce has aften led;Welcome to your gory bed,Or to victory!Now’s the day, and now’s the hour;See the front o’ battle lour;See approach proud Edward’s power—Chains and slavery!Wha will be a traitor knave?Wha can fill a coward’s grave!Wha sae base as be a slave?Let him turn and flee!Wha for Scotland’s king and lawFreedom’s sword will strongly draw,Freeman stand, or freeman fa’,Let him follow me!By oppression’s woes and pains!By your sons in servile chains!We will drain our dearest veins,But they shall be free!Lay the proud usurpers low!Tyrants fall in every foe!Liberty’s in every blow!—Let us do or die!
RLT says
Not too worried about a national repeal of the 2nd amendment. Stevens is a 97-year-old dotard, and most of the protesters calling for full repeal weren’t even alive the last time we amended the Constitution. More to the point, there’s no way today’s polarized national government could ever get enough people/states on board to pass or repeal ANY amendment, and I don’t see that changing any time soon.
Way I see it, there are two basic ways to get ‘er done. The first is the Supreme Court, which can pretty much do what it wants. But looking at who’s in that court at the moment (and will be for the rest of their lives), I doubt the 2nd Amendment is in any real danger from that direction.
The second way is for states (Like, oh, say, Oregon) to pass restrictions that violate the 2nd Amendment rights of their citizens. End of the day, those decisions will end up in the Supreme Court, who will strike them down…eventually.
But the way business is done in the last 25 years means that the states drive change, whether that’s legalizing pot, recognizing gay marriage, or cracking down on abortion or voting rights. The federal government says yay or nay, but the states are the ones calling the shots. The state you live in is far more important to your rights than the flag we all pledge allegiance to.
That’s another trend I don’t see changing any time soon; as this site has often pointed out, federal power is waning. Eventually, the Supreme Court is going to tell a state to stop doing something. It might be to stop selling pot. It might be to stop cracking down on guns. It might be to stop being a sanctuary for immigrants. What it is doesn’t matter — what matters is that the state is going to say “No.”
No matter how we fall on the specific issues in question, that moment is going to go down in history as an important step in the fall of the American empire. And it might be coming soon.
And far as firearms go, we’ll end up being outlaws one way or another. If this is it, there are worse reasons to end up on the other side of the line.
Thoughtful response RLT — and appreciated.
The danger — and outrageousness — of Stevens statement is not its practical effect, which I agree is almost certainly negligible, at least in the near term. It is the rhetorical effect of shifting the locus of debate and desensitizing the body politic to the notion that fundamental rights should no longer be fundamental. It’s an Overton Window strategy — where an extreme or radical idea is infiltrated into a debate to widen the window of what is acceptable. I have been too complacent in believing that good faith would prevail. No longer.
RLT says
At the state level, absolutely—and the fact that Oregon is even discussing that bill seriously is evidence of the window shifting. Other way of looking at it, though, is as a clear signal of what’s coming. Because even if it doesn’t happen this time around, sooner or later Oregon WILL pass that bill. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight it, but we should also be prepared for that certainty. I grin as I write that, because I’m pretty sure most of the folks here already have a leg up when it comes to those preparations…
I suspect the current national “movement,” such as it is, will run out of steam. Stevens has faith that these young activists will fundamentally change the country. I have…well, I don’t know if I’d call it faith, but certainly a grim belief that the national government will leave the youth disillusioned and worn down. I’d say there are very few things that it does better than that.
Agree on all counts. Craig and I also consider a ban and criminalization as an eventual certainty. We have to prepare for that eventuality.
Harry Pollard says
I respectfully disagree. I do not think the “window has shifter” what ever that means. The war against the 2nd amendment is largely being underwritten by a small cadre of dedicated gun grabbers that are intent upon imposing their will on the American Public. This group (Chiefly Michael Bloomberg and George (former Nazi SS) is underwriting protests, groups advocating for anti-gun legislation (by donations, for example, to EveryTownForGunSafety). Also, by offering to pay protestors to show up for anti-gun marches (largely organized by Womens March).
IMHO, it’s a lot of noise being made by small groups of people. What it is not is a spontaneous groundswell of public opinion.
Do I think these efforts should be ignored. Absolutely not. The right to defend myself, my family and my friends is not a right given by the ‘Govment’. It’s a natural freedom and right and infringing upon it is specifically denied to the government by the 2nd amendment.
I only think it will happen if good men do nothing to oppose.
I’m afraid that I’m in the position of somewhat disagreeing with the comments of RLT, which in turn means I hope I won’t be seen as somewhat disagreeable.
Anyhow, some comments:
“Not too worried about a national repeal of the 2nd amendment. Stevens is a 97-year-old dotard, and most of the protesters calling for full repeal weren’t even alive the last time we amended the Constitution. More to the point, there’s no way today’s polarized national government could ever get enough people/states on board to pass or repeal ANY amendment, and I don’t see that changing any time soon.”
I agree that I don’t see any effort at repealing the 2nd Amendment being successful. So I don’t expect it to disappear soon.
“Way I see it, there are two basic ways to get ‘er done. The first is the Supreme Court, which can pretty much do what it wants. But looking at who’s in that court at the moment (and will be for the rest of their lives), I doubt the 2nd Amendment is in any real danger from that direction.”
Here’s where I disagree. The support on the Court for the actual text and meaning of the 2nd Amendment is razor thin. One justice really.
The 2nd Amendment itself, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, does not have a meaning that’s difficult to discern. And the entire debate that tends to exist on the “well regulated militia” part of it is really largely nonsensical for two reasons. The first is that anyone with a sense of history would know that in the 18th Century context that meant everyone (or every male). Militia duty, often with “bring your own arm” requirements, was universal in the United States until the mid 19th Century and it had been universal in the English American colonies. But beyond that, it doesn’t really matter in terms of applying it as that predicate to the remainder of the sentence need bother us no more than if it had said “this being Thursday… “. The rest of the text is very clear.
But Justices like Stephens aren’t bothered by that and the Court can act like an imperial body. Indeed, I’d argue that in Obergell it did just that and usurped legislative prerogative, no matter what side of that debate a person is on.
Given the ages of the Justices and the fact that they hang on, it would be very easy to have a very liberal court relatively soon. That court wouldn’t overrule the exiting 2nd Amendment decisions, but it could distinguish them out of existence.
“But the way business is done in the last 25 years means that the states drive change, whether that’s legalizing pot, recognizing gay marriage, or cracking down on abortion or voting rights. The federal government says yay or nay, but the states are the ones calling the shots. The state you live in is far more important to your rights than the flag we all pledge allegiance to.”
This is true. .. and not. Obergfell provides a contrary example. Some states were heading in that direction, others very much not. The Court jumped in and co-opted the entire process, probably thereby guaranteeing decades of debate. Indeed, with abortion that’s exactly what happened. There was legislative movement towards it, whether a person agrees with it or not, in the late 1970s but the Supreme Court’s removal of the legislative prerogative has kept the debate going for forty years and, in fact, the tide of public opinion has largely gone the other way. Whether the Court would now acknowledge that can be debated (it probably would, and the text of Roe, no matter what a person thinks one way or another about the results of the decision, cry out for repeal as it was so poorly thought out).
“That’s another trend I don’t see changing any time soon; as this site has often pointed out, federal power is waning. Eventually, the Supreme Court is going to tell a state to stop doing something. It might be to stop selling pot. It might be to stop cracking down on guns. It might be to stop being a sanctuary for immigrants. What it is doesn’t matter — what matters is that the state is going to say “No.””
I think the degree to which Federal power has really waned is fully debatable. At some point not exercising power actually atrophies it, but whether we are there yet or not is questionable.
What you note, however, is a feature of this same debate in Canada, fwiw, where Canadian provinces have greater powers in relation to their federal government than the American states do.
There’s a lot to chew on here, and thank you for that. The ACLU argument that the original amendments all convey individual rights EXCEPT the “collective” right of the 2nd is disingenuous and has kept me away from that outfit, which does some good work on defending the others, especially the First and Fourth.
I like the way you think: Process matters and the distinct role of institutions matter and when you focus solely on a desired outcome, you distort and degrade both, with long-lasting unintended consequences.
Indeed a Court only has respect as long as the Jurist reach opinions that they clearly don’t like, as long as they are supported and required by the text of the law. There’s an interesting 19th Century case called “The Antelope” which extensively deals with Natural Law. Its fascinating in that it analyzes Natural Law in depth, concludes that slavery (which was also what the case was about) clearly violated Natural Law, but not the law of the United States.
I note that not to suggest that anything at all was admirable about slavery. It was abhorrent. But rather to note that a justice could write that it was in fact abhorrent, contrary to the law of nature, but that he had no choice but to apply the law of the nation due to the commission that bound him. I think you could have reached a different result on that one, but that the Court took so seriously its duty that it analyzed it in that fashion is amazing in a modern context.
In contrast the Obergefell majority clearly just made stuff up to reach its decision on social grounds, over ruling prior decisions sub silentio, and never reaching a larger Natural Law set of questions no one apparently brought up.
That relates here in that liberals in this context clearly wish to redefine what is a simple text into a weird and complicated one to reach their desired result, which is a disaster every time it occurs for either the right or the left. At least Stephens apparently finally reached the truthful answer of, if you don’t like a law, argue to change it. That’s the democratic thing to do and it can always be done.
Ironically, however, its been the case since at least the last few decades that “liberals” are illiberal in regards to that approach. It seems they’d rather have the Court act like sort of Oligarchic Super Legislature than pitch their causes in a manner that the law provides that they must be. They’re comfortable with the Court imposing new created law on people, but not comfortable with the Court upholding the law as it is, at least on this topic. Stephens is apparently at least admitting that the law is what is, and arguing that he thinks it should be changed. That presents its own problems as it argues that statism is benign and all protecting in a way that it isn’t, which is a comfortable thing for a person in his position to argue, but at least that opinion (I haven’t read the article and have maxed out my free access to the NYT this month) acknowledges that the law is what it is.
deuce says
I gave the ACLU money for several years until I realized they were doing NOTHING in regard to the 2A. I sent a letter, they sent back an evasive, fork-tongued reply–and the ACLU never got another cent of mine. They only stopped sending me letters begging me to come back a few years ago. They’re like a crazy ex-gf.
Send them a letter hinting that you would like to make a large donation. My father, when we lived in Texas, enjoyed toying with the televangelists in such a way. He would write a kind of Lazlo Letter pretending to be a dying widow sitting on an oil fortune. The attention that brought was uncanny. Then he would write a letter saying he was a dying widow living in a single wide with her cat. Crickets. It was a marvelous experiment he ran, I think, entirely for my benefit.
Lane Batot says
With the Native American examples above–it wouldn’t hurt to just consider establishing a nice, water-tight, well-hidden(but easily accessible) cache for certain guns, just in case! Reminds me of the Northern Cheyenne, on their epic trek back North from the reservation in the South, where they were told by the Guvmint they could return to their homelands in the North if they wished, if when they got down there, they didn’t like it. Yeah, right! After being starved and many dying from disease, they made their valiant escape to run back North, soldiers sent after them from every direction. It’s one of the most amazing, heroic, and tragic episodes in American history(told best, I think, in Mari Sandoz’s “Cheyenne Autumn”). Remember what they did when Dull Knife’s group got captured, and they were forced to surrender their arms? They turned in a few miserly, broken down guns, but took others apart, and hid them on their women and children, and had these, at least, to defend themselves in the final showdown. Not a bad tactic.…..
Lane Batot says
…andof course Geronimo(and other Apaches) would turn in their guns when forced by circumstances, but always kept caches of MORE guns and other supplies stashed in hidden caves just waiting for the next reservation break! They learned quick what to EXPECT, and how to counteract Guvmint treachery, which is one reason they held out so long, compared to other tribes(and why they were so vilified!).….
Brian H. says
I’ve similar opinions about the NRA. Some years I’ve used membership as some kind of personal counterbalance to offset more…independent political/ballot decisions. While comparing the current protests as akin to the Sixties is playing softball, the one thing I do suspect to be the same is the length and time of the road to be traveled. For years, we’ve labeled this generation as self involved to a fault. Now the kids are protesting and while it is wrapped in naivety of youth, so were those freedom riders, and the kids at the Pentagon (trying to “levitate” it?). I for one, am not going to tell a kid who had his school shot up to shut up. Anyway, good post as usual…
Thanks Brian. I, too, am not going to tell a kid — or anyone — to shut up. They have an absolute right to protest, to demonstrate, to advocate. I do not, however, feel obligated to treat their opinion as sacrosanct and unchallengeable.
Brian H. says
I am in agreement with you regarding this moment being seized upon by serious gun grabbers. It’ll be all hands on deck and stormy seas come November. Although if I was a Democratic strategist I’d look real hard it betting it all on a gun control platform, regardless of the candidate. Smarter money is on an anti Trump message with a nod and a wink to the kids in the street. The flip will show when a newly minted legislature actually tries to go after the 2nd for real. In my most cynical moments, I’m ready for it to be settled once and for all. Chips falling etc…
Indeed, the Democrats have a real history of overplaying their hands in this area. Added to that, the Democratic Boomer Elite tends to come in and ride a cause to death as they seemingly have nobody younger in the party. Therefore, if Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi don’t end up as the primary speakers, with a slightly younger Chuck Shumer added to the mix, it’ll be amazing.
Exactly.
Nor should the simple solutions of any one group ever be taken at face value. A complicated problem nearly always requires a really analyzed multi faceted approach. And that always involves a lot of real discomfort. If disregarding or altering the Constitution is part of that, the uncomfortable truth of it is that it might not be just the 2nd Amendment that has to be addressed but also the 1st and the 4th, something that very few people are really willing to ponder and for good reason.
We’re operating in a world of memes or (if you prefer old school) bumper stickers as policy pronouncements. Soundbytes and selling instead of the hard, unsexy work of crafting just and effective policy. I have looked for a “fix” to that for a long time, as so many do, and I’m past thinking this is fixable. The wheels will come off and we’ll reset, just as has happened many times before in history. But it’s not much fun to watch.
I’ll comment more later, but I can’t help but note the irony of a Supreme Court Justice declaring something to be a relic of the 18th Century. Because of the lifetime appointment nature of the Federal Judiciary, the U.S. Supreme Court tends to have a relic of an earlier age feel to it quite frequently.
Indeed, not matter what a person thinks of the underlying cause one way or another, there’s a real weird feel to the Obergefell decision for that reason. Again, irrespective of a person’s view on the cause, it sort of has the feel to it of Anthony Kennedy coming in, in rap, saying “I’m Anthony Kennedy… I’m hip and cool”, as the decision reads like octogenarians trying to get out in front of their perceptions of a social cause and its evolution, and co-opting it.
I hadn’t thought of that and it is mordantly funny.
Well played.
If not well typed.
I’m a terrible proof reader.
Me too. I read what is supposed to be there, rather than what’s there.
I do that exact same thing. I’m often surprised later when I re-read what I wrote as the errors are obvious, but I didn’t pick them up at the time.
Pfleging Jim says
You have struck a nerve with this post. Thank you. From the quantity and quality of the comments, it’s clearly a defining issue. As shocking as Judge Stevens statements were, they were refreshing. Refreshing in that they were honest and obviously long held. Like cooking a frog with slow warming water, the effort to curtail inalienable rights has always relied on intellectual dishonesty. The Judge, indeed, has let the cat out of the bag. The method and strategy is no better demonstrated by the fact that the hard left is denouncing the Judge for scaring off its prey. Their statements are as telling as the Judge’s. Of course those who were suspicious of the argument are not surprised. The moderate conservative libertarian might finally recognize the danger.
It’s ironic that weapons manufacturers have seen a significant drop in sales since Trump was elected. Not the Trump cares. The theory is that people can relax. During the Obama years it was a booming business for fear of this. No one should be that comfortable.
I too have had a love hate relationship with the NRA. But mostly because of the relentless fundraising. I guess I’ll have to look them up again too.
Thanks for the article. We need more of them.
Thanks Jim. IP 43 and Stevens’ op-ed ARE refreshing in the sense that the mask is off. It clarifies matters.
Yep — tactical error.
Brian D says
Wait, so a few people in the gun-control camp are guilty of extreme rhetoric, and you’re willing to forgive the NRA for all their extreme rhetoric and bad-faith arguments??
It almost sounds like every last person in favor of gun control has to be perfectly moderate in their statements, even 97yo former Supreme Court justices and podunk religious groups in Oregon, whereas the NRA can get away with blatant right-wing propaganda.
Not good enough. A flimflam statement. Do better. Citations help, as well as a rounded exhibition of your logic. You have contributed nothing here except an exhale.
Brian D says
Ok…
“…an “Interfaith” religious group from Portland introduced a proposal, Initiative Petition 43, which would require gun owners — among other draconian measures — to surrender or register their “assault weapons” with the government or face felony charges.”
— Craig
“…Demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”
— Retired (97-year-old) Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (quoted in Jim’s post)
From these two fringe proposals, you guys have concluded:
“Gun control advocates say a lot of things, and because they are dishonest to an extreme degree I’m no longer interested in anything they have to say. They have made their position clear. They are not reasonable, they are dangerous to free men and free societies, and they are on the march to control everyone and everything that disagrees with them by enlisting the power of the law. I will not negotiate with them and so there is no longer any point in trying find a common point to begin a discussion.”
— Craig
“I have recoiled at rhetoric that seemed extreme and likely to alienate potential allies, those moderate folk of good faith. I was wrong. The NRA was right.”
— Jim
I dispute your characterization of these proposals as “fringe.” IP 43 isn’t just talk — it’s been filed. It will probably be defeated by court challenge, which will impede the ability to get sufficient signatures, but it’s a serious bid and an extreme one. The appeal for repeal isn’t just Bill Maher gassing about it on his HBO show or people posting memes on Facebook; it’s a former Supreme Court Justice opining on the pages of the New York Times.
At the very least, such “fringe proposals” fling open the Overton Window.
It wasn’t very long ago that all the smart people were saying that Donald Trump couldn’t get nominated as the Republican Party candidate. Then he was. Then they said he’d lose the election in a landslide. Yet here we are.
“Aww that’ll never happen” is a poor defense.
As I made clear in my post, I find much of the NRA’s rhetoric distasteful. I believe — no, I KNOW — that it has alienated some moderate opinion, because I have gun-owning friends who have told me so. It’s alienated them. The NRA clearly owns a portion of the polarization of this debate. But the fact remains, that they were right about the core desire of the serious activists for gun control — they ARE “coming for your guns.” The fact that left-wing activists are criticizing Stevens for giving away the game is sufficient evidence of that.
I don’t have to sit down and break bread with Dana Loesch and Wayne LaPierre. But I’m not going to stand aside and let the NRA do the heavy lifting on ash-canning IP 43 and pushing back on the “repeal” movement without making my own contribution.
Brian D says
I appreciate your thoughtful response, Jim. With all respect, I still think you’re jumping to conclusions. I don’t see any compelling evidence for a cohesive “they” who are “coming for your guns.” And if a “they” does exist, I doubt that a pseudo-religious group in Oregon or a retired 97-year-old justice belongs to it (justices, even when active, are notorious for not being “with it” on current events). I think it’s much more likely that the mainstream media condemned Stevens’ comments because they only served to ratchet up the polarization. Indeed, the NRA couldn’t have asked for a better gift than Stevens’ op-ed to improve their popularity among more moderate gun-owners like yourself after the recent weeks of bad publicity.
I, like yourself, I hope, stubbornly remain in the camp of the rational moderates (even though it gets lonelier here by the day). Therefore I don’t attribute the ideas of justice Stevens and an activist group in Oregon to all gun control advocates, just like I don’t attribute the ideas of Mr. LaPierre and Ms. Loesch to all gun rights advocates.
I should have commented on this post on Frontier Partisans, from which I followed you here (and caught up on after reading and commenting here). Off topic, but in regards to your reviews of History Channel’s “Frontiersmen” and Kent Masterson Brown’s “Daniel Boone”, I actually met Mr. Brown at a re-enactment of the Battle of Blue Licks a few years ago. We traded Boone trivia for a few minutes with his camera crew. Nice guy. It’s a shame no mainstream outlet can come up with a proper representation of Boone or Kenton or George Rogers Clark.
That is endlessly puzzling and frustrating to me.
Much better. But what is it that you find problematic? Those statements are all factually supported. Certainly you have read IP 43, and understand that it is entirely draconian — the most intrusive proposition ever, in fact — because it forces felony charges on law abiding citizens and renders virtually every firearm illegal. The quote from Justice Stevens is accurate and in support of our claims. And therefore the conclusions we arrive at, after examining them, are well supported. I will not negotiate away my rights with people who have been dishonest for years about their real intentions. I recommend you don’t either.
Pat_H says
I ended up posting my thoughts on John Paul Steven’s editorial in a two part post on my blog.
The links are here, but I realize posting links in this fashion amount to a species of blog hijacking, so please feel free to disapprove the post.
Part I. Progressive Patrician Arrogance, or perhaps Cluelessness, and Blindness. John Paul Stevens and the Second Amendment: https://lexanteinternet.blogspot.com/2018/04/progressive-patrician-arrogance-or.html
Part II. Is there a need for a Right To Keep And Bear Arms?: https://lexanteinternet.blogspot.com/2018/04/is-there-need-for-right-to-keep-and.html
Thanks for the links. All on point and we appreciate you posting. Look forward to reading the pics later today. Never hesitate to post relevant links.
Matthew says
Sofrep article on the subject
https://sofrep.com/101691/why-we-need-access-to-assault-weapons-and-modern-firearms/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sofrep+%28SOFREP%29