In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
An Exceedingly Modest Proposal
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
An Exceedingly Modest Proposal
August 16, 2003
By TygrBright
They call it an "epiphany" when a sudden, blinding, life-changing insight hits you. I think I've just had one.
So much of one that I'm sending in my membership fee to the NRA tomorrow, and looking for other advocacy groups to send generous checks to - groups that promote gun access and ownership rights.
I've been hearing the arguments all my life, more or less. You know the ones I mean:
"Allowing ordinary people to own guns makes neighborhoods safer. Knowing that people have the means to protect themselves deters criminals."
"An armed society is a polite society."
"Access to guns is the peoples' last bastion of protection against tyranny."
Frankly, I'd always more or less dismissed these arguments as the self-interested rhetoric of a few hobbyists, sportsmen, etc. Not that I strongly disagreed with them. Indeed, until just the other day I'd always been rather wishy-washy on the whole Second Amendment issue. I didn't want prohibition, but I worried about unrestricted access, too.
No more; I have seen The Light. Hallelujah, brothers and sisters. Hand me that Kalashnikov, willya? And throw in a little light artillery while you're at it, maybe a couple of RPGs and a launcher. I need to take responsibility for the safety of myself, my home, my neighborhood, and even my country.
Oh, yeah, and remind me to send in those subscriptions to Soldier of Fortune and Guns & Ammo, too.
So what caused this moment of truth? Like so many die-hard advocates for unrestricted access to ordnance of all types, it was an act of underhanded government tyranny that turned me around. Seeing just how far the government will go to keep the people unarmed and helpless made me understand the true nature of the threat, and revealed my obligation to stand firm against this outrageous oppression.
You might be wondering what the hell I'm talking about, if you haven't really listened to the news in the past couple of days. Friends, I am here to tell you: Hemant Lakhani is just the tip of a very menacing iceberg.
You're probably at least aware of the broadest outlines of the story of this victim of FBI entrapment, but you might not yet truly understand what it portends for you. Well, bear with me, while I explain.
You see, at first I, like many of you, heard the story of how Mr. Lakhani was "caught" trying to "facilitate terrorism" by selling surface-to-air missiles to "would-be terrorists." And, like many of you (probably) I thought, "Well, good, that's a few less implements of mayhem in the hands of evildoers. Good on you, Mr. Mueller."
Then the details came through. Mr. Lakhani was set up! It was a sting! There were no evil terrorists plotting to down good old American airplanes; it was all a con job!
It didn't bother me at first. After all, there could be lowdown swarthy men with nasty designs on us, trying to buy missiles, right? And keeping them from getting the missiles should be a good thing, shouldn't it?
Except it suddenly occurred to me: If they start entrapping sellers of surface-to-air missiles, won't it become harder for honest people who want to buy them for legitimate purposes to obtain them? And what might be the consequences of that?
Now, doubtless you, like me, first responded to this question with a chuckle. Who would want a SAM?
But here's where my epiphany happened. A little voice in my head (sounded remarkably like Charlton Heston,) said "Well, what if some guy in a penthouse apartment in New York City had a SAM handy around 9:00 AM on 9/11/01?"
It seemed absurd at first. But I couldn't shake the nagging thought. What if?
All those arguments I'd been hearing for so long took on new meaning:
"Allowing ordinary people to own guns makes neighborhoods safer. Knowing that people have the means to protect themselves deters criminals."
Damn straight. And if they know that every other household or so has a SAM launcher on the roof and knows how to use it, those damn terrorists will think twice about pulling another stunt like 9/11. If we station an RPG launcher next to every fire extinguisher, and everyone carries a grenade in their backpack, briefcase, or purse, just think of the deterrent effect! Mentally ill people planning random shootings will have to deal with the logistics of evading real firepower, in the hands of some really pissed-off innocent bystanders.
The possibilities just keep getting bigger and bigger.
"An armed society is a polite society."
Well, slap my forehead, they're right! Think about it! The solution to the problem of North Korea building a nuclear arsenal is not to dither on about nuclear non-proliferation at the UN like a bunch of girly-man wussies. Start selling our excess nuclear warheads at a special "friends discount" to South Korea, Japan, Cambodia, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore! That ought to make Kim Jong Il think twice about starting anything. It's not nuclear non-proliferation we should be pushing - we should be engaging in a coordinated strategy of nuclear distribution on a global scale! World peace is finally within our grasp!
"Access to guns is the peoples' last bastion of protection against tyranny."
Well, call it another 'duh-uh-uh' moment for me. Of course. We could have avoided the whole expensive Iraqi mess if we'd just listen to Mr. Heston. Why send more than a hundred and thirty thousand Americans to play tin duck in 120-degree heat and spend a billion a week on 'nation building?' After all, the real problem in Iraq was the terrible tyranny the Iraqis were subject to, tyranny we were just morally obligated to rescue them from.
So why didn't they ask Wayne LaPierre before getting all those young Americans killed? We could have just blanketed all of Iraq with guns and grenades, SAMs and small-caliber howitzers. Dropped 'em in by airlift. Ten or twelve billion dollars worth ought to have done the trick, I reckon, and cheap at twice the price, compared to what we're paying (and paying, and paying, and paying.) The Iraqi people could have risen up against their oppressor and overthrown government tyranny, just like we did in 1776!
Well, it's too late, now, but it might be a cheap and easy exit strategy to get us out of Iraq. Just line up every single Iraqi citizen over the age of, say, twelve. Yes, even the women. Issue each one with a Kalashnikov, a thousand rounds of ammo, and a couple of dozen grenades. Put a missile launcher in every neighborhood in the cities, and in the center of the smaller towns and villages, and give each citizen a half dozen or so missiles. They can protect themselves from tyranny for years, with an arsenal like that, and it would be lots cheaper than all this wimpy 'nation-building' stuff.
I'd write more, but I have to research militia training. After all, it'll be my responsibility to know how to use my new SAMs and launcher.
If I can find someone to sell them to me without those minions of despotism at the FBI to intimidate and entrap them.
Remember: If SAMs are outlawed, only outlaws will have SAMs!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/08/16_proposal.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>
August 16, 2003
By TygrBright
They call it an "epiphany" when a sudden, blinding, life-changing insight hits you. I think I've just had one.
So much of one that I'm sending in my membership fee to the NRA tomorrow, and looking for other advocacy groups to send generous checks to - groups that promote gun access and ownership rights.
I've been hearing the arguments all my life, more or less. You know the ones I mean:
"Allowing ordinary people to own guns makes neighborhoods safer. Knowing that people have the means to protect themselves deters criminals."
"An armed society is a polite society."
"Access to guns is the peoples' last bastion of protection against tyranny."
Frankly, I'd always more or less dismissed these arguments as the self-interested rhetoric of a few hobbyists, sportsmen, etc. Not that I strongly disagreed with them. Indeed, until just the other day I'd always been rather wishy-washy on the whole Second Amendment issue. I didn't want prohibition, but I worried about unrestricted access, too.
No more; I have seen The Light. Hallelujah, brothers and sisters. Hand me that Kalashnikov, willya? And throw in a little light artillery while you're at it, maybe a couple of RPGs and a launcher. I need to take responsibility for the safety of myself, my home, my neighborhood, and even my country.
Oh, yeah, and remind me to send in those subscriptions to Soldier of Fortune and Guns & Ammo, too.
So what caused this moment of truth? Like so many die-hard advocates for unrestricted access to ordnance of all types, it was an act of underhanded government tyranny that turned me around. Seeing just how far the government will go to keep the people unarmed and helpless made me understand the true nature of the threat, and revealed my obligation to stand firm against this outrageous oppression.
You might be wondering what the hell I'm talking about, if you haven't really listened to the news in the past couple of days. Friends, I am here to tell you: Hemant Lakhani is just the tip of a very menacing iceberg.
You're probably at least aware of the broadest outlines of the story of this victim of FBI entrapment, but you might not yet truly understand what it portends for you. Well, bear with me, while I explain.
You see, at first I, like many of you, heard the story of how Mr. Lakhani was "caught" trying to "facilitate terrorism" by selling surface-to-air missiles to "would-be terrorists." And, like many of you (probably) I thought, "Well, good, that's a few less implements of mayhem in the hands of evildoers. Good on you, Mr. Mueller."
Then the details came through. Mr. Lakhani was set up! It was a sting! There were no evil terrorists plotting to down good old American airplanes; it was all a con job!
It didn't bother me at first. After all, there could be lowdown swarthy men with nasty designs on us, trying to buy missiles, right? And keeping them from getting the missiles should be a good thing, shouldn't it?
Except it suddenly occurred to me: If they start entrapping sellers of surface-to-air missiles, won't it become harder for honest people who want to buy them for legitimate purposes to obtain them? And what might be the consequences of that?
Now, doubtless you, like me, first responded to this question with a chuckle. Who would want a SAM?
But here's where my epiphany happened. A little voice in my head (sounded remarkably like Charlton Heston,) said "Well, what if some guy in a penthouse apartment in New York City had a SAM handy around 9:00 AM on 9/11/01?"
It seemed absurd at first. But I couldn't shake the nagging thought. What if?
All those arguments I'd been hearing for so long took on new meaning:
"Allowing ordinary people to own guns makes neighborhoods safer. Knowing that people have the means to protect themselves deters criminals."
Damn straight. And if they know that every other household or so has a SAM launcher on the roof and knows how to use it, those damn terrorists will think twice about pulling another stunt like 9/11. If we station an RPG launcher next to every fire extinguisher, and everyone carries a grenade in their backpack, briefcase, or purse, just think of the deterrent effect! Mentally ill people planning random shootings will have to deal with the logistics of evading real firepower, in the hands of some really pissed-off innocent bystanders.
The possibilities just keep getting bigger and bigger.
"An armed society is a polite society."
Well, slap my forehead, they're right! Think about it! The solution to the problem of North Korea building a nuclear arsenal is not to dither on about nuclear non-proliferation at the UN like a bunch of girly-man wussies. Start selling our excess nuclear warheads at a special "friends discount" to South Korea, Japan, Cambodia, Burma, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore! That ought to make Kim Jong Il think twice about starting anything. It's not nuclear non-proliferation we should be pushing - we should be engaging in a coordinated strategy of nuclear distribution on a global scale! World peace is finally within our grasp!
"Access to guns is the peoples' last bastion of protection against tyranny."
Well, call it another 'duh-uh-uh' moment for me. Of course. We could have avoided the whole expensive Iraqi mess if we'd just listen to Mr. Heston. Why send more than a hundred and thirty thousand Americans to play tin duck in 120-degree heat and spend a billion a week on 'nation building?' After all, the real problem in Iraq was the terrible tyranny the Iraqis were subject to, tyranny we were just morally obligated to rescue them from.
So why didn't they ask Wayne LaPierre before getting all those young Americans killed? We could have just blanketed all of Iraq with guns and grenades, SAMs and small-caliber howitzers. Dropped 'em in by airlift. Ten or twelve billion dollars worth ought to have done the trick, I reckon, and cheap at twice the price, compared to what we're paying (and paying, and paying, and paying.) The Iraqi people could have risen up against their oppressor and overthrown government tyranny, just like we did in 1776!
Well, it's too late, now, but it might be a cheap and easy exit strategy to get us out of Iraq. Just line up every single Iraqi citizen over the age of, say, twelve. Yes, even the women. Issue each one with a Kalashnikov, a thousand rounds of ammo, and a couple of dozen grenades. Put a missile launcher in every neighborhood in the cities, and in the center of the smaller towns and villages, and give each citizen a half dozen or so missiles. They can protect themselves from tyranny for years, with an arsenal like that, and it would be lots cheaper than all this wimpy 'nation-building' stuff.
I'd write more, but I have to research militia training. After all, it'll be my responsibility to know how to use my new SAMs and launcher.
If I can find someone to sell them to me without those minions of despotism at the FBI to intimidate and entrap them.
Remember: If SAMs are outlawed, only outlaws will have SAMs!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/08/16_proposal.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>
Comments
By Jim Spencer, Denver Post columnist
Don Ortega says he is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. Sometimes he walks the streets of Colorado Springs carrying a shotgun. Sometimes he takes the gun to the public library. He took it to three recent City Council meetings.
Ortega says he totes his weapon for personal protection. He says he has been threatened and that police can't keep him from harm.
I hear this sort of stuff all the time from opponents of gun control. Ortega is different. Recently he took on the role of that character in the tale about the emperor's new clothes.
You know the one. While everyone fawns over the emperor's imaginary wardrobe, this person points out that his majesty is naked.
That's what Ortega did when he started carrying his shotgun to Colorado Springs City Council meetings. He showed just how exposed Americans are because of our lack of sane gun laws.
The poetic justice of his symbolic statement was that he never intended to make it.
This country and state allow guys such as Ortega to openly carry loaded firearms almost anywhere with impunity. That more of them don't is not pure luck.
Last week, Ortega's exercise of his Second Amendment rights scared the Colorado Springs council into passing an emergency law to ban people from openly carrying guns in city-owned buildings.
Before voting against the gun ban, Springs Councilman Tom Gallagher called Ortega "an ignorant, stupid, irresponsible man."
Ortega did nothing wrong. At least not in a legal sense.
"The local media have portrayed it in a slanted manner," Ortega told me. "I never did this as a protest."
Ortega, 38, said he's considering getting a concealed-weapons permit.
Memo to the Sons of the Second Amendment, especially Tom Gallagher: He's one of yours.
He's also shock therapy.
Ortega showed how far outside the mainstream unabridged gun worship can take us.
Without meaning to, Ortega caught members of the keep-and-bear-arms crowd with their rhetorical pants down. It would be funny if the implications weren't so disturbing.
The Colorado Springs situation proves that letting people traipse around openly with weapons doesn't make people feel safer. It freaks them out.
"An openly carried weapon is intimidating," said Springs Councilman Jerry Heimlicher, a gun-rights supporter who voted for the ban. "We have teachers who bring schoolchildren to council meetings. We had a group of Eagle Scouts there the night we voted on this."
City Council often has heated debates in which people get emotional and angry. There is a chance, albeit remote, that such a situation might turn violent if someone has a gun, Heimlicher said.
"These are things that should not happen in public meetings," Heimlicher said. The citizens, he added, have a right to safe public meetings and city workers the right to a safe workplace.
Agreed and agreed.
Now, what about everybody else?
State laws make it clear that localities and private property owners must adopt prohibitions and post signs in order to compel common sense. Otherwise, it's business as usual. Creepy business. Scary business.
That's the naked truth in Colorado Springs and almost everywhere else. And if you think the weirdness is over, consider this:
Colorado Springs City Attorney Pat Kelly said the City Council instructed her to limit the gun ban to open display in city buildings.
This means Ortega or others can still scare people by legally lugging loaded guns around a city park or a public pool.
"We're kind of hoping that people will self-regulate," Heimlicher said.
And I'm kind of hoping to win the lottery.
I'm also not counting on being safe at Colorado Springs council meetings now that Don Ortega must check his shotgun at the door.
The emergency ordinance passed last week addresses only "open carrying of firearms." It does not apply to concealed weapons, city spokesman Darin Campbell said.
That's because you cannot ban concealed weapons from public buildings unless you install metal detectors at all public entrances. At this point, the city doesn't plan to do that, Heimlicher and Campbell said.
So it seems that anybody can still pack loaded pistols in City Hall. They just have to hide their heat.
The council is counting on the concealed-weapons permitting process to weed out the bad eggs, Heimlicher said.
That would be the same permitting process that the legislative gun nuts just made easier. Under a recent change in the state law, guys such as Ortega don't have to prove the need to carry a hidden weapon.
So it turns out that the new rule in Colorado Springs is not "no guns" in city-owned buildings. The new rule is "out of sight, out of mind."
As in crazy.
Jim Spencer's column appears Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays in The Denver Post. Contact him at jspencer@denverpost.com . Or call 303-820-1771.
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~27772~1578526,00.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>