Colleague Karen Harper, the Birmingham Progressive Politics Examiner, talks about the guy who shot another guy at the movies...[More]Here's another opportunity to win friends and influence people. Go on over to her column (after you read mine, of course) and introduce her readers to the same type of intelligent and persuasive comments I see at WarOnGuns every day.
I've actually had several very cordial and supportive email exchanges with this lady, and have found her to be open-minded on gun rights.
Hey, notice anything different about my logo graphic?
25 comments:
Congratulations on your National promotion!
As an experiment, I started from the DC Examiner loaction, then went into the "My Examiners" list.
I had to drill down to find you. somewhat confusing and inconvenient.
What bothers me is that I found you because I knew I could. But that misses the serendipity of people finding you by accident.
Yes I have Toto, you're not in Cleveland any longer. LOL!
Good luck on going national aka: Prime time!
Yeah, they're looking at that. For now, you can go to their banner and click on "Change My Location" then "National" then "Politics" then me.
Or, from any city, you can click on "Politics" in the left sidebar and then find me over in the right under "National"...
The simplest way, of course, is to either bookmark my main page or come here to WarOnGuns and click on the Examiner.com graphic in my left sidebar.
But that's the crux of my expansion challenge--so far, the vast majority of readers are from what I can refer, which is why I whine and beg so damn much for help. Hopefully, the changes being implemented will bring in a good deal of traffic from their "front page", and as people discover it some will return and tell their friends about it.
Right now I'm doing a lot of self-promotion, KABA Newslinks, social networking, etc. I can't really join forums just to post my own stuff though, they don't take kindly to that, but would hope regulars here who think they get value from the work take that into consideration when I ask for help spreading the word.
Yesterday was my first day national. Gun Rights Examiner was second in the ratings for the Politics category. I don't know where it stands overall--it's not in the top 5, and the high spot is consistently held by the Celebrity Examiner.
pH factor and all that...
With your permission, i can place your logo on my page/s as a link.
With my GRATITUDE--thank you.
I'll be doing reciprocal links on my Examiner page for bloggers--probably start on that this weekend some time...
"Some People Simply Shouldn't Have Guns"
That has long been a contention of mine. But there's the problem.
How can we keep up open support of the 2nd and deny any other than convicted felons and those of known mental deficiency from owning or possessing guns?
There has to be some type of control. Not the kind the anti-gun crowd want where no one is allowed to own or use a gun, but some kind of responsible control. I am all for legal gun owners being required to take certified gun safety classes and undergoing remedial instruction. Most of us do anyway. Most of us that write about guns and the 2nd Amendment are serious supporters of *education* and safety.
I also have no real issue with Class III weapons being in the hands of those that are fully trained and certified. But I also feel that there needs to me more that a cursory examination of the background as well.
We don't need any more gun laws or restrictions, we need to enforce the ones we have and do away with the arcane laws that don't work, or can't work.
People like us, we believe in personal responsibility. The antis want to enforce their brand of responsibility, *nanny* enforcement. But there has to be some way to keep guns out of the hands of those that truly have no business with a gun, and unlike so many 2A supporters, I too believe that not just everyone should have a gun!
With your permission, i can place your logo on my page/s as a link.
Dave, I'd like to do this as well.
But...um...I'm clueless and not quite sure how. Hint?
I'd debate you on that TF, but just don't have time right now. It's certainly not the point I was trying to make.
Suffice it to say I want existing gun laws repealed, not enforced. I see no Constitutional authority for federal gun licenses of any kind, and while I advocate training, mandating it as a condition to exercise a right is unacceptable--not to mention a usurpation and abuse of government power.
Someone else feel free to take over--I'm off to do something else right now.
Be kind.
Light, not heat.
Joel--right click on graphic and save.
From your template elements page, choose "Add a Gadget"
Select "Picture"
Leave title and caption blank in the resulting pop-up. Add the Examiner link in that field.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner
Select image from your computer radio button and browse to where you stored the graphic.
Click Save.
Thanks!
Now I really gotta get outta here...
Done! Thanks.
TF,
Making mandatory firearms training laws just puts the power back in the hands of people who are "certified experts" on guns. When in reality there is no such thing. Yes, there are Marksman who have incredible skill when it comes to hitting targets with firearms, but they can be no more safe with guns than you or I.
Frankly, firearms handling should be something taught in public school, not as a pass or fail class, but as a public service. Different age groups should recieve different instruction. It should also be taught that there is no such thing as an "Accidental Discharge" or the "Gun just went off."
But forcing people attend classes where they get told that guns are dangerous for the 3,000th time is a waste of time. The difference between someone who uses and owns guns and someone who doesn't, is that the gun owner knows how dangerous guns can really be.
TexasFred- Who gets to decide if you should be allowed to own weapons? I don't believe that is "society's" choice nor any other individual's choice, either.
TF,
Not to pile on, but we've already seen what happens when we "compromise" with absolutists. No more.
Training is important, I agree. No legal requirement for training is acceptable.
Responsible behavior is important, I agree. No "responsible" restrictions are acceptable.
None. No more. It's been tried; I've been watching this since the sixties. We tried giving up slices of our freedom, to keep peace. Our enemies proved they don't want a piece of our freedom, they want it all. Well, now they can't have any of it.
You decide it however you like; this is where I am. I'm done compromising on this.
David and I aren't in total agreement as to whether sending letters and lobbying congressvermin still makes sense, but that's just a detail. On the larger picture I'm with him. I'd no more disarm - to any degree - than I'd pull my cat's teeth and claws, because my ability to defend myself is a part of my right of self-ownership and existence as an adult creature.
No more gun laws: I'll do as I like, harming no innocent, and take the consequences.
I will be adding the examiner logo to my web site and even will dust off the old blog and put it there also
I don't write to ask 'em, Joel. I write to tell 'em in no uncertain terms...:)
Thanks, all, for the support.
TexasFred,
The desire for 'reasonable infringements' is a trap. Personal responsibility is paramount in this issue. Armed robbery, assault and battery, murder and any other possible crime is already illegal, regardless of which, if any, weapons are used in the crime.
Any such arms infringement laws are demonstrable stepping stones for further infringements, and serve only to disarm people who bother to obey the law.
You show me a gun control law, and I'll show you an unconstitutional infringement. "Shall not be infringed" is plain and the final word. I am willing to fight, kill and die for it, in accordance with my Oath.
If people wish to impose personal restrictions on themselves, or choose not to exercise their rights, that is a personal choice and none of my business, but when people start proposing restrictions on MY rights, then we have a problem.
So, there we are. After 70 years of 'reasonable infringements' we are fed up. We are pushing for restoration of the Constitution and are refusing to take one more step back.
As I said, it's a predicament, SOME folks don't need to be allowed to be NEAR guns, but how do you figure out just WHO??
I got the response I figured I'd get too.. Thanks guys, I am NEVER let down by people that want unlimited gun freedom and then say, "Some People Simply Shouldn't Have Guns"..
You open a can of worms and then DO that pile on when someone says OK, HOW do we do it...
You guys are hurting your cause with this *Oh but mandatory training is a trap* crap... Do you want troops in the field that aren't properly trained in the use of weapons??
How about cops on the street?? Is NO mandatory training OK there too?? A slippery slope perhaps?? Maybe the cops will learn something they shouldn't know??
A gun owner can NEVER be over educated regarding safety and responsibility, the 2A does not address nearly AL it needs to, there are sheer RETARDS out there that own guns, simply because they can... I mean dyed in the wool freaking RETARDS that can't dress themselves without help...
But that's OK, they are a part of that militia thing, trained or not, WELL REGULATED or not, they are there and obviously, some of you have NO issue with RESPONSIBILITY!!
I am NOT arguing FOR gun control, I am arguing for responsible and well trained gun ownership, and for that to happen there has to be some regulation, and if gun owners can't or won't regulate themselves, and I really don't see how that can happen given the rise in gun violence, then the Feds ARE going to step in, and none of us want to see that!
I don't have the answer, but I am NOT the *boogeyman* that I seem to sense a few think I am. But I am guessing, by the immediate response I got, most of you are cool with the dead 8 year old kid that shot himself with the mini-Uzi too huh?? Gun freedom and NO responsibility?? That's what the majority of you are saying...
And in MY not so humble opinion, that attitude, GUNS FOR ALL, regardless of their mental capacity, that will be the death of the 2A and it will be folks like some here that bring it about!!
"Gun freedom and NO responsibility??"
Not even ONE of us is saying that. Irresponsible acts can be legitimately punished. Punishing someone just because you think they might cause harm is evil and stupid and is what the government regularly does in the name of "the common good" (otherwise called "socialism").
Punish harm; not "maybe"s.
TF, you said:
I am all for legal gun owners being required to take certified gun safety classes and undergoing remedial instruction.
and
I also have no real issue with Class III weapons being in the hands of those that are fully trained and certified. But I also feel that there needs to me more that a cursory examination of the background as well.
On the surface, these restrictions sound perfectly reasonable. If you were to show me a government that we can trust, now and forever, and I would agree with you. But history has shown us, time and time again, that there is no such thing. In reality, the very reasonableness of these restrictions is a trap that inevitably leads to tyranny.
Consider the right to vote. At one time, there were perfectly reasonable restrictions placed on that right. Simple reading and comprehension tests. The idea being that someone who couldn't read (pre-radio/television) was not able to be informed enough to vote intelligently. Perfectly sensible, right? These "reasonable" restrictions and tests were twisted and perverted by state and local governments to deny a specific group of citizens their right to vote, regardless of their actual ability to be informed and make intelligent decisions.
Remember, the Second Amendment exists specifically because we cannot completely trust any government. To give the government control of our right to keep and bear arms defeats the very purpose of the Second Amendment.
-Jake
As I said, *some* of you seem to be quite content to let RETARDS own guns...
Good day to you, enjoy this delusion as long as you can, your support of the 2A is likely very appreciated by the Obamites and all around gun grabbers..
As I said, it's a predicament, SOME folks don't need to be allowed to be NEAR guns, but how do you figure out just WHO??
Unfortunately, you can't figure it out ahead of time without punishing "maybes." As Kent says, "Punish harm; not "maybe"s."
Training by itself means absolutely nothing, as proven in the infamous "I'm the only one in this room qualified to handle this safely" video. Training also costs money above and beyond the purchase price of a firearm. Who decides how much it should cost? Who pays for that? What about people who can't afford the class?
The "if you can afford a gun, you can afford a class" argument simply doesn't work. I could afford my two guns only with money received as bonuses or gifts. My income is such that what little I manage to save is usually just enough to get my car to pass inspection each year (or replace my hard drive before it went bad and lost all my data, etc.). Under your plan, I would likely not have any guns, because I couldn't afford the training.
As far as "after the fact"? I agree with David's theory of "anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian." This is what probation is supposed to be for. Felons who violate probation should go back to jail for the rest of their sentence, and go back on probation after their sentence is done. This should continue until they show they can successfully coexist with society.
Here I thought I was being civil. Then I get hit below the belt anyway.
Well, since the toys have been picked up and taken home I will just say to the empty playground that in the eyes of the government the very desire to own guns is a sign that we are mentally ill.
As I said, *some* of you seem to be quite content to let RETARDS own guns...
There is judicial due process already in existence to have someone declared mentally incompetent. Anyone who is so declared is prohibited from owning a firearm.
Problem solved.
TF, all I can suggest is you did not thoroughly read my article, because I opened no "can of worms."
Some people can't be trusted with guns. The same ones can't be trusted with matches.
That's a fact.
Now show me any approach that's successful at stopping them short of separating them from freely moving through society.
As for training the military and police, those are job requirements and have no bearing on their rights as citizens when they're not on duty.
The fact remains, as I stated, there is NO Constitutional authority for mandating what you recommend as a precondition to exercising a right.
If you think that attitude will be "the death of 2A" I'd suggest that rewording it might help us understand the argument I perceive you're making:
The only way to preserve "shall not be infringed" is to cede to infringements.
Seems to me if we stop trying for that it's dead anyway.
As for your "RETARDS" remark, I asked for light not heat, primarily to be kind to you because I knew the reaction your assertions would bring. That's offensive and unworthy, and no one here has done that to you. My original premise has been anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian.
I think that maybe a correlation between what Fred has written, and the following commentary to that can be easily seen on a national front.
This discussion looks precisely, to me, like the differences between the NRA, and GOA. If, and make that "if" in quotes, government could be trusted with our rights, I might be able to support my friend Texas Fred. However, all that I have ever seen, is more, and more restrictions by whatever government group. From GCA 68 to the Lautenberg abomination. Government has been all about controlling you and I. Never about insuring freedom and liberty.
Post a Comment