The Smallest Minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. - Ayn Rand
It is difficult to imagine a greater degree of projection, of self-delusion, and of sheer gullibility than we have witnessed today. The cliché applies: You just can't make this stuff up.
"And you believe everything you see - as long as it matches what you expect to see."
Moreover, did y'all notice when this monumental, topsy-turvy blockbuster of bumfuckery made the news? It was April 16, 2008 2:31 PM, by ABC News, on the anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings. That was this afternoon, folks. So, Kevin's resident troll has produced this, well, this satire, for lack of a more accurate description, as if he had just eaten lead and shit gold, which means he had nothing when he was asked for proof. Golly, but I am impressed.
Y'know, one of the most shocking things I learned, in my early days of RTKBA activism,(such as it is), was just how many members of Handgun Control Inc. were themselves gunowners.
There were even Jews who became members of the Nazi party, Free Men of Color who owned slaves, etcetera.
The presence of such folks, who rather manifestly work against their own self-interests, does not prove the beneficence of that which they adhere to, but rather to the unlimited human capacity for self-delusion.
Alright, so I guess I am little perplexed here. When you first posted on my blog, Kevin, it was in regards to the Zumbo affair. You assured me that the large majority of gun owners were not Nazis and that Zumbo was out of line for calling people who owned AKs terrorists.
You also have assured me that gun owners , especially the ones that read and post here, are fighting for their individual rights. You have accused liberals of being fascists, insisting and demanding that their way is the "right" way, forcing people to think and believe their truth and that you are not like that.
I listened to Schoenke on the radio today and he made it pretty clear that he is the enemy of NRA and gun bloggers like yourself. I have read the things that have been said about him, including the Confederate Yankee blog, and I have to say I see a pattern developing here that doesn't jibe with what you have told me. I'm afraid I'm having trouble seeing any allowance for individuality at all. Instead, I see a group of people saying basically the same thing:
Think like us..exactly like us..ANY wavering and....you are against us, are our enemy, and do not support 2nd amendment rights.
Correct me if I am wrong...but isn't this the very thing that you accuse liberals of doing?
If the reaction occurred with just the Zumbo thing...well...he did call decent people terrorists...but now Schoenke? Who will be next?
"The Brady Campaign basically agrees with the NRA. "I see our issues as complementary to theirs," Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign, says about Schoenke's association."
but isn't this the very thing that you accuse liberals of doing?
But if you think that voting on 1 amendment is "proof" - as well as a Joyce Foundation Funded Organization's endorsement - by a group that's been obviously "astroturfing" for 3 years... Endorsing a former Joyce board member.
No, you Don't Think. That's the problem.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue! - Barry Goldwater.
So we are supposed to accept people who want our rights infringed as defenders of those rights?
Do you actually read what you type, Mark?
I'm afraid I'm having trouble seeing any allowance for individuality at all.
Really Mark? Has anyone on this board insisted that all people must own and use arms, whether they prefer to or not?
I didn't think so.
"I'm afraid I'm having trouble seeing any allowance for individuality at all. Instead, I see a group of people saying basically the same thing:
Think like us..exactly like us..ANY wavering and....you are against us, are our enemy, and do not support 2nd amendment rights."
I can understand how you might get that impression. We all agree on a basic principle, that the 2nd Amendment is to be respected as it is written, and further, that that right is constantly under attack by people who mean well...and those who do not.
On that fundamental, Mark, there really is NO room for deviance. The default setting must be always in favor of legislation doing nothing.
Arguments by learned Supreme Court Justices to the contrary, the 1st Amendment does indeed allow you to shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, (even if there is no fire).
What it does not do, is allow you to escape the consequences of your having done so.
Would you accept legislation that would require you to be ball-gagged while in a theater to prevent your possible criminal verbal mischief?
That, IMV, is what all too many bad laws exactly do to our 2nd Amnedment rights.
And as I pointed out...sometimes, there really IS a fire.
Which highlights precisely why I won't vote for John McCain...he has shown, by his record, that he is far too quick to accommodate when it comes to the fundamentals of our civil liberties.
(He also is an enemy to my particular industry and service, the US Merchant Marine...which someone should remind him, carried the fuel he flew with,the ordnance he carried, and the grub he ate before that North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gunner shot him down and vaulted him into politics).
If you're not an absolutist when it comes to your civil rights, you will sooner or later have none.
If you should happen to attend the national convention of the AHSA, tell all three of 'em that I said "Hi", okay?
How'd the "NOPE" fellow stand on the Assault Weapons Ban sunset?
That would be a much better barometer.
As would his position on CCW carry in his South Side Chicago district.
"Any individuality" being a front group w/ a laundry list of gun bans and directly working w/ organizations such as MAIG and the Brady Campaign along w/ donating tens of thousands of dollars to said groups?
This isn't a matter of one person supporting the $5 IL FOID card increase and us blackballing them. This is a group that thinks the DC handgun ban was a "laudable effort", stated it would be acceptable if people were forced to keep handguns at armories, support AWB's, ammo bans, and free access to trace data for lawsuits.
Another (now dead) front group, the Americans for Gun Safety (AGS) has this on their site:
For current gun safety data and other information, we recommend the American Hunters and Shooters Association, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns.
No NRA, SAF, or GOA there. Why would that be?
Go ahead. Keep claiming that we're just overreacting and that Schoenke et al are really on our side.
"Alright, so I guess I am little perplexed here. When you first posted on my blog, Kevin, it was in regards to the Zumbo affair. You assured me that the large majority of gun owners were not Nazis and that Zumbo was out of line for calling people who owned AKs terrorists.
"You also have assured me that gun owners , especially the ones that read and post here, are fighting for their individual rights. You have accused liberals of being fascists, insisting and demanding that their way is the "right" way, forcing people to think and believe their truth and that you are not like that."
I can see I'm going to get another whole post out of this one...
Other than he doesn't understand the nature of *proof*, and evaluating sources and claims, how?
I'll look forward to it, regardless, but I'm still bemused.
"I can see I'm going to get another whole post out of this one..."
He keeps on serving up those slow, hanging curve balls ...
Obama himself said in the debate last night that there were circumstances where the RKBA could be limited (I don't remember his exact word, but that's the gist of it.)
Which says to me that the constitutional law scholar doesn't understand basic English.
"Shall not be infringed" does not mean, "except when I think it should."
More: since the First Amendment specifically mentions Congress and the Second does NOT, I submit that the Second is an absolute proscription lain on ALL levels of government.
Barack Obama is no supporter of THAT right.
The wall street journal has a piece today on page A19 about both Hillary and Obama and their views/records on gun control.
Mark.......When the public positions of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Ownership and the AHSA are 98% in concordance, don't you think a little skepticism from the 2nd Amendment community might be justified? AHSA has had a number of years to gather support from the Second Amendment community yet they have consistantly failed to do so because their straw-man agenda so poorly conceals their sympathies. Such as that which Sen. Obama is asking us to swallow. The Second Amendment is an individual right except when it isn't. Because.He.Says.So. Just like he isn't a bigot even though his pastor....oh never mind, I won't waste more time trying to pry a bit of sense into an "open" mind.
Obama would have us believe that he is so detached from the rest of his congregation of 20 years that he was unaware of comments made by the pastor after 9/11 and nobody told him.
My wife comes back from her church nearly every week w/ gossip after talking to people.
Amazing, isn't it? He attends a church for twenty years from which the pastor thunders to be heard for blocks around, and yet he doesn't know what's going on there. But HE should be in charge of foreign policy, as if HE can tune in to the nuances of what's happening all over the whole world?
Just to jump in, I have heard John Rosenthal, President of the AHSA Foundation, speak on the radio and I have read opeds he has written. Here's my take.
Rosenthal is a gun owner and he says he loves skeet shooting. Yet, he sponsors a huge anti-gun billboard on one of Boston's main highways. He wants to ban handguns and so-called "assault weapons."
I defend his ability to own guns. He can have all the high-dollar shotguns he wants. But, he doesn't support my choice to own handguns or a modern-styled rifle. He says basically, "you can own any gun you want, so long as it's a break-action shotgun that will take no more than two shells."
That's why there is so much anger at a group like AHSA. They actively subvert my choice in firearms. So when they endorse Obama, it is just one more reason why I would not vote for the man on a bet.
Technically they don't want to 'ban' handguns. They just would support laws that forced you to keep them at "gun clubs" or Gov't armories, get permission to use them, and licensing and registration as long as you got the chance to "practice".
At least that's according to their Amicus Brief on Heller.
David Kopel offers his opinion in the Wall Street Journal today. He points out the "silly spectacle" of Obama and Clinton competing with each other for the pro-gun vote.
He points out what we've already pointed out, but I like his wording of this item:
"In 1999, Mr. Obama urged enactment of a federal law prohibiting the operation of any gun store within five miles of a school or park. This would eliminate gun stores from almost the entire inhabited portion of the United States."
Yeah, that's pro-gun, ain't it?
And here's a clear wording of another item:
"As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting."
The amended version still endorsed, without change, a complete ban on all handguns. In Obama's own words, words matter.
His bottom line pretty well matches ours:
"Civil libertarians who support Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton because of their purported fealty to the Second Amendment may be bitterly disappointed."
Yeah, there's that "bitter" thing again ...
Did you catch in the debate how he claimed that was a "different" questionaire that he never saw?
But guys, guys (and ladies, too!) - if we just educate Obama, he'll change his mind! Markadelphia says he will! And how can we doubt Markadelphia!?!? He's asked himself the right questions, so he knows the answers!
Wikipedia's page on Barack Obama and gun control is pretty comprehensive.
And Wikipedia's page on the AHSA is pretty revealing as well.
It may be rather crude, but IMHO:
1. If AHSA is not simply a front for anti-civil rights organizations such as the Brady Bunch and Joyce Foundation et al, (which is my take on them) then:
2. They are the 2nd Amendment Equivalent of Kapos in the Camps; Willing to herd everyone else into the showers as long as they are left alone, never really believing that their turn will come sooner or later.
Oops! Randy just invoked Godwin's Law.
Oh, wait - Markadelphia was first, and yet the thread continued...
Well, sure. Godwin just says that as the thread (and Mark's discussions are really one long thread) goes on, that the likelihood of the Nazi's being invoked approaches unity.
And he's right, it's a good observation.
Where a lot of people then progress past Godwin and then insist that whoever invokes the Nazis first loses the argument, and that's preposterous.
With some notable exceptions, the Nazis are well known, the individuals therein are easily identified. They raised the art of many things, propaganda, audio/visual aids, motivating speeches by an order of magnitude from what had existed before.
When someone throws Nazis as an ad-hom is where I'd side with them. But the mere mention of the Nazis shouldn't, by itself, cause a loss of the argument, even if it "invokes Godwin".
OK, Fine. For future reference, and to avoid the dreaded "G Law" (and I don't accept the part as the first one invoking it as losing, so long as the example/comparison is apt and not simply an ad hominym attack), does any one know the Gulag equivalent of Kapo?
Six of one half a dozen of the other...
AHSA is up to three members now? They hire an assistant webgofer or something?
Golly gee, guys, even Ed Morrissey thinks Obama is lying about supporting guns? He quotes Kenneth Vogel:
"Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.
"But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.
"The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”
"Obama’s eight years on the board of the Joyce Foundation, which paid him more than $70,000 in directors fees, do not in any way conflict with his campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners, Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, asserted in a statement issued to Politico this week.
Yeah, that's because his "campaign-trail support for the rights of gun owners" is a lie.
Ed sums it up nicely:
"Does anyone else see a pattern? If Obama doesn’t want to ban handguns, he certainly chose the wrong foundation to help run. Once again, his track record speaks in opposition to his blandishments towards the benighted and embittered gun owners that he wants to rescue through bigger federal government."
Uh...it is possible Senators O and C can say they don't want to ban guns, because they want now to ban (or tax to extinction) ammo, bullets, powder and primers and instead?
"There, there my bitter child. You may have and cling to all the guns you want. Just NO bullets."