Tag Archives: gun

Colorful Metaphors

The only time that liberals start talking about civility is when we have them on the run.

For those who are just emerging from hibernation, I’ll fill you in on current events: A nutjob with leftist tendencies named Jared Lee Loughner recently went on a shooting spree in Arizona. Google his name and that should tell any hibernators anything else they need to know.

Of course, the left wasted no time rushing to blame this tragedy on conservatives. They (and their RINO buddies) called for “civility” in political discourse. They said that using any metaphor or illustration derived from firearms, war, et cetera was now verboten. Of course, they continue to use such metaphors freely and with impunity.

Anyway, my response is escalation (military metaphor). I will not retreat (another military metaphor). Seriously, no reasonable person believes that commonly-used metaphors are responsible for violence. It’s just an attempt to browbeat (violent-sounding phrase) conservatives into sitting down, shutting up, and letting our statist betters control the dialog. Comparisons (similies, metaphors, analogies, et cetera) are highly useful in conveying information. Comparisons derive from familiar things. I use metaphors from sports, the military, firearms, music, art, entertainment, pop culture, science, history, and many other areas.

I will not allow the left to make me be quiet about my conservative beliefs.
I will not allow them to deprive me of useful metaphors, either.

Yes, my fellow trekkies, the title is a reference to Star Trek IV. (That’s the one with the whales, for you heathens.)

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Criticizing the NRA’s “carveout”

updated 6/18/2010, 6/20/2010
Note: Upon further consideration, my position regarding this issue has changed. I have chosen to leave the original parts, and simply add new material at the bottom of the article.

Redstate is among the many voices criticizing the NRA for their decision to take the “carveout” in the latest attempt at campaign “finance reform.” Indeed, many NRA members, myself included, do not agree with the decision to take this exemption from a bad and unconstitutional piece of legislation. Even a member of the NRA’s board has joined in the criticism.

It looks as though the leadership of the NRA decided to take the first offering instead of holding out for something better. Though I do not agree with their actions here, I do understand them. The NRA may be mighty (and this shows that the left fears them), but they do not have unlimited resources. They would prefer to spend their time and money fighting for the second amendment and allow other single issue organizations to fight for the first. Therefore, they took the first small victory rather than hold out for the better victory they could have attained. While I understand why they took that action, I heartily disagree with it. First, there is no guarantee that the “carveout” would survive into the final version signed into law. Second, the ‘carveout” would not protect other champions of the second amendment like the state affiliates of the NRA as well as its “rival” organizations. This does not serve the cause of our second amendment freedoms. Third, the law is, itself, unconstitutional and an affront to all free people.

The problem, though, is that this actions has led to people cancelling their NRA memberships and calling on others to do the same. This is not a good idea. I will NOT cancel my NRA membership.

To abandon the NRA because they are not perfect is not wise. If you support the right to keep and bear arms, you should be in the NRA if you can afford to spend the $35/year. If you prefer another group, such as the GOA, then join BOTH. The NRA has something other “purer” groups don’t: numbers. The left doesn’t fear the GOA, JPFO, or any other gun group. They do fear the NRA. The NRA has serious clout because of their history, their reputation, and their numbers.

Despite this disagreement, I will continue to be a proud member of the NRA. They are my best representative on second amendment issues in DC and nationwide.


6/18/2010
Let me clarify, I’m glad that the NRA participated in the fight for the first amendment. I just know that when negotiating from a position of power, one does not take the first offer of the weaker party. Am I overestimating the power of the NRA? If this exemption were all they could get, then I could see doing that, but this is the name that makes liberals go into a cold sweat.

I understand that the NRA is not a first amendment organization. They only got into this fight to protect themselves and got out as soon as they were protected. They want to reserve their resources for the second amendment. I understand that. I just think accepting the first offer from the surrendering party is not the best strategy. The NRA is exempt, but what about their state affiliates. Besides, the exception could easily be repealed and allowing the law to pass sets a very bad precedent.

Anyway, that was not intended to be the main point of my post. The point was that I am still a proud and loyal member of the National Rifle Association. Those who would leave the NRA over this would only weaken the cause of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.


6/18/2010 (addendum)
The Washington Post reports that the NRA’s exemption to the DISCLOSE act has caused disunity within the Democratic party. This may have the effect of killing the bill. I sincerely hope so.


6/20/2010
Upon further consideration of the issue, I no longer oppose the decision by the NRA to accpet this exemption. Don’t get me wrong, there is still a part of me that objects to this, but overall, I believe this is the right decision. I had considered deleting this post as I no longer agree with my original position regarding the exemption, but decided to leave it and add to it so that my reconsideration of the issue might be a part of this record.

As to the people who are leaving the NRA over this issue, my position has not changed. The NRA is the largest and most effective organization defending our second amendment. Leaving because of one or even many disagreements is not a good idea (unless you no longer agree with the right to keep and bear arms). I don’t agree 100% with anyone, even my wife, who I love beyond words. If you believe in our right to keep and bear arms, join the NRA. If you want to join other “purer” groups as well, then do that too. I believe that we need all of our organizations. They help each other (even if they don’t admit it) though they could do a better job at cooperative effort.


6/20/2010 (addendum)
What made me change my mind was thinking of the TV show M*A*S*H. The 4077th is a battlefield hospital in a war, not a civilian hospital in a quiet little town. When mass casualties arrive, the doctors there must engage in triage and meatball surgery. There are more patients than surgeons or time. Now, a TV show is not going to be consistently accurate in their depiction of medical procedures, but these procedures (as depicted in M*A*S*H) are instructive as we are engaged in a (metaphorical) war for our second amendment rights.

Triage is separating patients into categories and priority levels. Basically, some patients will live even if they have to wait. These patients can be ignored for the time being until the more urgent patients are taken care of or if their condition worsens. Other patients will die no matter what can be done for them or would require a level of care that could not be provided due to the number of patients and limited resources. As unpleasant as this is, these patients must be ignored in a crisis situation. Patients with an intermediate level of need are seen first.

“Meatball surgery” is a colloquial term for battlefield surgery. It is done quickly with the goal of stabilizing the patient enough to survive. This would allow the surgeons to move on to save other patients or transport the patient to another hospital where the surgical “fine tuning” could be done.

In this “war” to preserve our liberty we must triage or pick our battles. Some fights are more strategically important or even easier to win. Other fights must be avoided or postponed.

Similarly, we sometimes must perform “meatball surgery” – not putting full resources into a worthy fight in order to have resources available for other fights. The 4077th would “patch them up then send them out” to another hospital in order to maximize resources. The NRA joined this fight, achieved its objective, then handed the fight to other organizations – ones that are dedicated to preserving the first amendment. The NRA is mighty and greatly feared by the opponents of liberty, but it does not have limitless resources. The forces of statism are fighting this war on many fronts with the resources of wealthy progressives behind them. Unfortunately, there are more battles than can actually be fought at any given time.

Just as any physician who values the Hippocratic Oath will be pained at having to follow these emergency procedures, I and others are not completely satisfied with the outcome of this situation. However, I now believe that the leadership of the NRA made the right decision here.



The NRA’s statement regarding the “DISCLOSE Act.”

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

gun control quotes

“Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.”
Sammy “the Bull” Gravano, mafia hit man and informant, in Vanity Fair, August 1999.

Der größte Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen könnte, sei der, den unterworfenen Völkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschichte lehre, daß alle Herrenvölker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten.
[The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.]
Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler’s Table-Talk at the Fuhrer’s Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.

“The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.”
Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.

“The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”
Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis

Here’s my credo: There are no good guns, There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a good man is no threat to anyone, except bad people.
Charlton Heston, actor and President of the NRA

No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
Thomas Jefferson Founding Father, author of the Declaration of Independence, and Third President of the United States

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Paul Harvey on gun control

Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don’t matter?

CONSIDER THESE

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911,

Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.

It has now been many months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide: homicides are up 3.2%, assaults are up 8%, armed robberies are up 44%. In that country’s state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%. Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in “safety” has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in “ridding society of guns.”

It’s time to state it plainly; guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Take action before it’s too late, write or call your delegation.

Paul Harvey ….

copied from http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/faq.htm#faq01

Leave a comment

Filed under politics