Why gun owners do not trust any anti-gun advocate.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Why gun owners do not trust any anti-gun advocate.

Read the whole essay. It is blunt, honest, and outlines the nature of this growing tragic conflict better than anything I have ever read.

Share

13 comments

  • JGL

    Yeah, but Bill Maher says the the second amendment is “quaint” and “pass’e”, shouldn’t that be enough for Americans to abandon their second amendment? Bill Maher said it!

    Look at it this way, as goes the second amendment so goes the Constitution, one does not exist without the other, they are eternally linked. So if you want to “end gun violence” then eliminate the second amendment. Good luck. Its written simple so it can not be misinterperted or screwed with. And the majority of laws designed to limit access should be considered for the most part to be a form of treason and a violation of their oath for any politician who supports them.

    Most liberals do not trust themselves with a gun so they intern do not trust others to have guns. These people see themselves as being owned by their government or “subjects”, they have trained themselves to think this way. I have ground up many an opponent on this subject mainly because the majority of Americans do not understand the issue and see it only in emotional terms as was pointed out in the article.

    Heres something to think about: The founders, evidenced by what they wrote understood that when a citizen (politician) became empowered by the people (by being elected) and given the power to create and enact law that at that point they became the enemy of the peoples liberty. So each and every politician, party affiliation aside, although they come from the populous are transformed upon being elected and as such are not to be trusted with that power because their nature will be to abuse that power that they have been entrusted with.

    (Thomas I hope you are reading this, this is one of those concept things you need to absorb in order to have an opinion on the subject)

    In other words trust but verify, which actually means trust no one with your freedoms, guard them as if your life depends upon them. Because it does, no matter how comfortable or “safe” a life you think you lead.

  • john policeman

    Excllnt commnt and excllnt essay. thx Bob

  • Don Major

    Good find, Bob. Barry Snell gets an A+ for breadth, as he covers more
    facets of this conflict than I would have ever counted. Also, there is
    the running theme of liberals keeping willfully ignorant, and riling up
    the emotions of all those low-info voters out there.

  • Publius 2

    Given that Bill Maher is never without his concealed handgun, it’s safe to say his comments on the Second Amendment are hypocritical in the extreme. Likewise many Hollywood personalities who publicly support gun control yet travel with armed bodyguards.

  • JGL

    This article clip below is from a NY Post article in todays paper, I think its safe to say that when human beings like these gang memebers no longer exist and it has been firmly established that all human DNA on the planet has been modified through natual or artificial manipulation where all humans no longer are driven to abuse power as it relates to one mans power over another man (government), at that point a discussion can begin on adjusting the second amendment.

    (can someone please show these gang members where they can get on line to register and permit their weapons and recieve their allotment of ammo)

    Until then it is going to have to be lived with as written and intended.

    “The Latin Kings suspected of gunning down a college-bound Bronx teen last month knew they were firing at an innocent — but were ordered to shoot anyone they saw, sources said yesterday.” NY POST

  • JGL

    PS: And their psychological and backround checks. That is perhaps the most rediculous aspect.

  • Thomas

    Heres the short version of this opinion piece:
    The writer, doesn’t trust antigun people because they call him stupid and immoral, and that offends him.
    Actually its the anti-gun people who are the stupid and immoral ones.

    Heres a sampler-
    Gun people don’t trust anti-gun people because anti-gun people put us down with dismissals like “just another dumb redneck with a gun.”

    ‘And you anti-gunners can roll up your grandfather clauses and stuff them where the sun don’t shine.’

    He also is offended because ‘even our president says people like me are bitter’.

    Now where would anyone get that idea? Could it be because the entire article is primarily about his own hurt feelings? Nah.

    And why does he care what Obama thinks of him? I just dont get grown men getting all weepy and angry cause DaddyBama doesn’t love them too.

    And then the article takes a truly disturbing and scary turn, which is what I have already pointed out- increasingly violent rhetoric from the right, saying a time is coming when they may very well take up their guns and start shooting people they disagree with.

    Such as this intimidating threat, similar to the type of threats Hitler used to hurl at his enemies:

    “You anti-gunners out there will lead us down a path you do not want to go down. Your lack of care and understanding of those who abide by America’s oldest and deepest-rooted tradition will cause a social rift in this country of the likes we have never seen in America’s young history. Your lack of understanding chances causing a civil war — a civil war that will be far worse, more acrimonious, more prolonged and more deadly than the last one.”

    Here is my previous example.:http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2013/may/2/republicans-say-us-headed-toward-armed-revolution-/

    The right really needs to reign this rhetoric of violence and intimidation, and fast, before it turns into a spark that gets out of control and burns the entire house down. Extremely irresponsible not to do so already.

  • wodun

    “The right really needs to reign this rhetoric of violence and intimidation, and fast, before it turns into a spark that gets out of control and burns the entire house down.”

    Violence from the “right” out of politics is extremely rare but reprehensible all the same. Violence in the name of politics isn’t accepted on the “right”. People who kill abortion doctors are not treated as heroes.

    Now, when you look at the left, violence is extremely common as a means to express politics and the people who carry out these acts are celebrated as heroes. Should you need a list, I can ramble one off a long one of events over the last 12 years but it wont be all inclusive.

    According to your link, the “right” will revolt if tyranny reigns but what will the “left” revolt for? OWS was all about a communist revolution to end capitalism and our government. There were a number of OWS bomb plots that were thwarted and their general behavior has been well documented.

    So one group will revolt to uphold the values and laws our country was founded on and the other will revolt to destroy them. (Of course some found they don’t need to revolt, they just run for public office.)

  • JGL

    Thomas fails to inexorably link the second amendment and the Constitution, one will not exist without the other. The Constitution is specifically designed with the understanding of the nature of man in mind, George Washington refered to it as the depraved nature of man.

    Thomas is a man who belives that men today are a more developed and evolved kind of humans and these rules of operation laid down by the founders no longer apply.

  • Thomas

    ‘OWS was all about a communist revolution to end capitalism and our government’

    No OWS was a protest against the ‘1%’, against Wall Street for its financial misdoings, and against our govt for letting them get away with it. It was also a protest against Corporate greed in general, and against misdoings of Corporations in the Global Economy. Its just ludicrous to assert these were all a bunch of communist revolutionaries. First of all, amongst the many criticisms of them, from both left and right, was that they did not have an organized agenda, they did not know WHAT IT IS THEY WANT. There were no leaders, it was individuals brought together as a group from shared interest who FAILED to organize themselves politically (this may be because more then a few of them had an anarchist ideology). If they were participating in a communist revolt, they forgot to bring their guns, and forgot to give speeches rallying their troops to start shooting the enemy.

    But I’d love to see your long list. Since violence is ‘extremely common’ from the left, I’m sure you’d have no trouble restricting it to something more manageable, such as the last 6 months. And I’d love to see a list from you of all those convicted of, or currently on trial, or awaiting trial for ‘bomb plots’ tied to OWS. That should be easy too, since there were a ‘number of [them]’.

  • JGL

    OWS was a bunch of misguided, manipulatable, untethered, idealistic young people for the most part who were run by fellow Marxist revolutionaries (like Obama) who were closely associated with the current administration. Obama was in heaven.

    I will recognize that they had a point only to this extent, although I believe they get it technically wrong. The “1 percent” are the government and the government is the 1 percent, its a form actually of Fascism. The government as of the last 50 or so years has failed in their primary job which is to properly regulate industry (these kinds of abuses are not unique to this moment in time, it has always been a roiling mess)

    This is not a black or white issue but a shade of gray issue, government has been pushed to one end of the spectrum (choose a color) by the pressure of big money and special interests. While Americans have been getting fat and lazy and taking their freedoms for granted politicians have abused the power they have been entrusted with. This is the nature of man, a real life example that I have identified before.

    The banking abuses are a result of policy / law enacted by Washington and those policies are a result of special interests so technically the banks have for the most part not violated any law, they have written the law that regulates them (you don’t go to jail when you write the law that regulates you in your future business endevors). This is also compounded by political ideology piggy backed on top of these market abuses.

    In other words trust neither side as it relates to politics, they are both going to screw you, even though they come from your ranks. Politicians when empowered become an elite group of people and their nature is to abuse that power (party affiliations aside). When you properly understand the Constitution you will understand that that is what lies at its core and it endevors to counter balance that nature.

    Socialism is not the answer for America, its the Constitution and “properly” regulated capitalism, that is where the positive future lies for America, and by the way the world. Although there are some very interesting technologies that are going to test these basic market rules in the near future, say 10 to 20 years. The nature of man will not however be changing any time soon so the tenents of the Constitution will always be sound.

  • Pzatchok

    So many people forget the words.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
    It doesn’t mater if your Creator was Gia, Nature, God, Buddha, or the Great Jelly monster of space. It was NOT man.

    Rights given by your Creator can ONLY be taken away by that Creator. Even though they can be suppressed by man.
    Rights given by man can be taken by man.

    Which do you want? Rights that can Never be taken away or do you want rights that can be taken away at the whim of your rulers?

    This was the idea behind the Declaration, Constitution and Bill of rights.
    The fact that the Second Amendment mentioned guns was wholly for the fact that the gun was the most powerful weapon at that time.
    At the time the ownership of cannon and armed ships was not regulated either. If you could afford it you could have it. At the time it was common and accepted that if you raised a levy of men, trained them and armed them you were given rank commiserate to the amount of men you could field.
    So no, there was NO limit written into the amendments except against the state and federal government.

    I do NOT trust anti gunners because they do not accept that my Creator gave me those rights. And that so far the constitution and the amendments have best defined them.
    They want to suppress my rights with new definitions and rules until they get all that they want. The total removal of my right to defend myself the best way I can. If its with a gun then so be it. Its only what is needed then.

    If the anti gunners ever just all got together and honestly stated the limit they would accept in gun rights and STUCK TO IT, then possibly an agreement could be reached. At least we could then talk from known positions. If they agreed to shut-up and NEVER ask for more restrictions on my rights afterward then I would be willing to talk even more.
    But they have NEVER honestly debated and NEVER accepted the agreements made. They have always asked for more.
    They have nothing to give us in exchange. We already have the rights. They just want to limit them away.

    I would love to see if they could come up with a new right to give me in exchange for my right to defend myself to the best of my ability.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *