David,
Thanks for the dialog. I'm writing about snowballs and such today, but I generally write an anti-gun column every year or two. Please look for them. I stuck my other gun column from 2006 at the end of this note. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Burt Constable
I guess I've been dismissed. Not that he had a snowball's chance in hell of defending his inane assumptions, but we've already established that self-defense ain't Burt's long suit.
The column he attached is hardly worth reproducing here--basically, some NRA members were very nice to him and hosted a day at the range to help him see that gun owners are good and responsible human beings, but it was a waste of their time and effort.
Burt's attitude reminds me of a story I once heard involving Galileo, who on inventing the telescope discovered there were mountains on the Moon. He tried to convince the "authorities" of this, but they refused to look through the telescope because Aristotle taught that celestial bodies were perfect spheres.
It's kind of a paradox, really, but one that shouldn't surprise us any more. Our "leaders" in whatever field--politics, journalism, education, religion--are basically superstitious primitives. I'll take a good, honest heretic over the entire lot of these shamans any day.
5 comments:
Burt is an irresponsible pantywaist, not worthy of our time or efforts. There! Nows HE'S been dismissed!
".... together with the right to
support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature...."
- Samuel Adams, ('The Father of the American Revolution'), and Ben Franklin, 'The Rights of the Colonists', November 20, 1772.
So, not only does he shirk his "duty", but he defies the "law of nature". Bet he's one of those who thinks it's gov's. 'duty' to 'protect' him and his family. What a poor excuse for an American. Weak, cowardly, irresponsible, and lazy.....
He can't can't be accused of having the free ranging curiosity of mind of a heretic, he wears his dogma collar and leash right out in the open.
My email correspondence with him went like this: I sent him the GOA link, and he responded exactly the way he did to David. I replied,
Mr. Constable,
I wasn't really theorizing about your sexual adequacy--I have no grounds on which to base such a theory, and it's obviously none of my business, anyway. The link was intended to be facetious--I don't really see a connection between sexuality and a person's stance on firearm ownership.
As for your question, if it is indeed asked seriously, with a genuine (if belated) interest in the topic on which you expounded in your editorial, it's not easily answered. What gun one needs depends very much on what one's intentions are--a gun that would be an excellent choice for an elk hunt would be a rather poor choice for squirrels, and vice versa, and neither would be an ideal choice as protection from thugs. There are other factors involved, as well--the amount of weight and bulk one is willing to carry around, one's tolerance for recoil, the expected range over which one expects to be shooting, etc. all factor into such a decision.
And that, perhaps, is where lies our most fundamental difference in point of view. I believe the decision to arm oneself in the first place, and the choice of what to arm oneself with, is just that--a personal choice. I (of course) respect anyone's right to not own any firearms, when that choice is freely made. I likewise have no problem with someone owning hunting shotguns, but having no interest in handguns, or .50 caliber rifles, or so-called "assault weapons." My problem is with people who wish to impose their beliefs about firearms on me, and try to tell me I cannot legally own the gun(s) of my choice, because some people commit abuses of the fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
I don't care if you don't like guns--I promise not to force any on you. Just leave me and my guns alone.
Kurt Hofmann
He responded,
Dear Kurt Hofmann,
Thanks for the explanation. I appreciate it. I, too, have no problem with a hunter having a powerful rifle for elk. And I think the best gun for home protection would be a shotgun _ better chance to hit and stop an intruder, and less risk of killing the sleeping toddler in the apartment next door.
But if you don't want your right to bear arms infringed, shouldn't I be allowed to have a hand grenade for home protection? While I happen to be a pretty good shot, I don't think my kids could defend our house _ even with a heavy .50 caliber sniper rifle. They need the coverage that a hand grenade provides. Why won't you let me have that?
Sincerely,
Burt Constable
I answered,
Mr. Constable,
The question of explosive weapons (such as grenades) is an interesting one, and I confess to not quite having settled on a position myself. At this point I'm too busy fighting for gun rights to put much energy into helping you fight for grenade rights--if my ideological allies and I manage to fight off the civilian disarmament extremists, I might be persuaded to take up the cause of the oppressed grenade rights activists (do you have a discussion forum?).
Some make the distinction between discriminate weapons (most firearms, for example), and indiscriminate ones, which would include explosive weapons. The idea is that with indiscriminate weapons, one cannot count on having adequate control over the possibility of inflicting unintended damage to people who really shouldn't be blown up. A not entirely satisfying argument, perhaps, but the debate really hasn't gotten a lot of attention, it seems (with further debate, the arguments might be more fully developed). Maybe you have found the topic for a future column.
Kurt Hofmann
He seemed to lose interest in the conversation then. Too bad--I was starting to have fun.
what type of hand grenade was in question here?
A distraction device such as a "flash bang" type? If that's the case then hell yes people should have them for the very same reasons he brought up.
A child could easily deploy one and distract, disorient or frighten the invading gremlin long enough to seek cover or escape with a cordless phone in hand to dial 911.
Fragmentation grenades, perhaps people should have them for certain circumstances. We don't know what they're be useful for since we've been denied them.
How about less lethal weapons? I bet his kids could operate one of the "pain beam" weapons we're testing. Maybe he should armor his children's rooms with a faraday cage and install one of them. They hit a button and microwave anyone in the house.
Post a Comment