Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Burt Constable. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Burt Constable. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, December 07, 2006

Letter to Burt Constable

I occasionally get copied on letters written by WarOnGuns visitors that I think are worth sharing. The following is one such letter, posted here with permission of the writer.

David,
This is a letter I sent to Burt Constable. Probably will not do any good but at least it's another try.

-------------------

Mr. Constable,

I would refer you to the New Testament, the Book of Luke, Chapter 11, verse 21. "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe.” V 22, “But when someone stronger attacks him and overpowers him, he takes away the armor in which the man trusted and divides up the spoils."

Verse 23 shows neutrality impossible.

Next, in Luke, Chapter 22, verse 36, "He said to them, ‘But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a SWORD, SELL YOUR CLOAK AND BUY ONE’". (In the explanations portion: "BUY ONE". An extreme figure of speech used to warn them of the perilous times about to come. They would need protection, as Paul did when he appealed to Caesar as the one who "bears the sword."

In those times a sword was about the highest technology in weapons one could have. I feel sure that if machine guns were available then Jesus would have wanted them to have the best to defend and protect.

Mr. Constable, I just can't comprehend what it is that has turned men into such sissies that are afraid of their own shadow. I would be forever more afraid to have someone like you guarding my back in a foxhole. I dare say that I am sure you would cut and run when the going got tough. As for protecting your family, what would you do? Have your wife and children curl up in a fetal ball and await execution while you run out the back door?

Mr. Constable, I have seen several videos of the beheadings in Iraq. Often the victims are lain on the ground with their hands tied behind them and un-blindfolded. In one video 3 victims were lain out and trussed up in very close proximity waiting for the inevitable. The insurgents were gathered around sharpening knives and singing songs of praise to "Allah". The 3 victims were all calm and resigned to their fate. In no hurry, one insurgent gets on his knees astride a victim and with one hand pulls the head backward and with the other cuts the victims throat with a large knife. There is no screaming or fighting from the victim, just gurgling. Another insurgent quickly comes and holds the victims head in ways to facilitate the beheading. All during the beheadings the insurgents are shouting "Allahu Akbar". The other 2 victims quietly and somberly watch. Then the process is repeated with the last 2 victims.

In all of the beheading videos that I have seen the victims seem resigned to their fate and do not resist in any way nor do they scream out in pain, They just gurgle and blow blood. And Mr. Constable, there is lots of blood squirting everywhere.

Mr. Constable, I wonder, would you sacrifice your wife and children to beheading while you escaped or would you compliantly submit first? Or, Mr. Constable, would you be a man, arm yourself, and die like a man defending your loved ones and the loved ones of your neighbors?

In the early part of WWII the Japanese sailed up a river and attacked the Chinese city of Nanking. It was later called the Rape of Nanking. Captured Chinese soldiers were used for bio warfare testing. Three Chinese soldiers at a time were tied to a post and were used for bayonet practice to inure the Japanese troops for the killing to come. Japanese officers made a game of killing the Chinese, one; buy lining them up in a line and seeing how many they could kill with one bullet. Other officers made bets as to how many Chinese they could behead with swords before they tired out. Squads of Japanese soldiers roamed the streets raping and killing every Chinese female they could find. When the Japanese got tired of just shooting the victims they used more entertaining methods like bayoneting and herding a group of women and children into buildings and nailing up the exits then setting the building on fire and listening to the screams as they burned to death. I have seen Japanese soldiers make Chinese men and women dig fairly shallow holes then throw the Chinese in then shovel dirt on top of the live victims and tromping the dirt down tightly.

In Stalin's reign before WWII he had practically the same thing done. Death squads roamed the country and executed anyone they could find and did it by any means. Hanging from signs and street lights was very popular. The hanging bodies were left hanging up for all to see. By several estimates, Stalin executed or starved to death up to 35,000,000 Russian citizens from the time he took power in 1927 until he died in 1953. AND, this figure didn't include those lost in warfare.

Which way will you have it Mr. Constable? Will you die like sheep with your family, or will you run like a sissy? Or, Mr. Constable, will you take up arms, train with them, and defend your family and give them a chance to live?

Personally Mr. Constable, I’d rather stand like a man and have my family trained and equipped to defend themselves. I am reminded of my great aunt, born in 1872, sho came to West Texas in a covered wagon when she was a little girl. There was an Indian raid and the men were out of the wagons shooting. As there weren't enough rifles to go around, the women kept track of the children in the wagons. One of the Indians started to climb up into the wagon to capture a white "squaw" or a little boy for a fresh blood line. MY great grand mother didn't cower in the front of the wagon, she didn't scream, nor was she paralyzed with fear. She reacted, she took an axe and chopped the Indian's hand off. My great aunt told me this story more than once the same way every time when I was a little boy in the early 50's. That is the way that people that love their families should react to danger. I want my son to be able to live out his life and reproduce and to teach his family to protect themselves. Maybe someday there will be hope for you to grow a set and be a real man.

Sincerely,
Tommy Sherman

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Burt Constable Replies

I just received the following email in response to this post:
Dear David Codrea,

Thanks for the link. I love the theory that I am sexually inadequate as a male and that is why I want to take away your gun. I'm just curious. What size gun did you determine that you need?

Sincerely,

Burt Constable
My reply:

Dear Burt Constable,

That's really a function of what I intend to use it for. For concealed carry, my pistol of choice is actually quite small. The largest handgun I own has a 7 ½"” barrel--not the best choice for concealment, but invaluable as an open-holstered sidearm in wilderness areas. And, incidentally, I had to brandish it, once, almost 20 years ago. I credit that action with probably saving my life and that of my family, and everything was resolved peaceably, that is, with multiple aggressors fleeing and without a shot being fired. Credible, peer-reviewed studies, particularly by Kleck, but also by the US DoJ, prove that such defensive gun uses with such outcomes are not that rare an occurrence.

Anyway, it'’s not my theory, just one I found interesting--—and incidentally--—the Julia Gorin essay said nothing about size, so that'’s your fixation. My theory is that you'’re just another in a long line of boringly unoriginal, subversive and childish hacks who don't understand their subject matter, but insist on making public spectacles of themselves anyway. Your reading public deserves better than that, particularly since it is their rights you so smugly and ignorantly disparage.

If you're interested in challenging your own prejudices and preconceptions, I suggest starting here:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/09/can-gun-control-reduce-violence.html

Not that I think you will.

Sincerely,

David Codrea

PS: I will repro this letter and your initial reply (and any subsequent replies) on my blog. You might be interested in the original post:
http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2006/11/kathryn-johnstons-gun-to-blame-for-her.html

Friday, December 01, 2006

"If I DID Want to Protect Myself..."

Dear David Codrea,

Thanks for the link to your blog. I've heard from a couple of your readers who sent me the link suggesting that I am sexually inadequate and want to take away the guns of my sexually superior brethren so that we can all be emasculated equals. And yes, I did hear from some less articulate gun owners who say that we need to have guns to keep black men from raping our womenfolk.

OK. So how did that old lady having a gun improve her situation? That is the only point I made about her situation. So tell me how she was better off because she had her .22.

It's irresponsible for me to keep a gun for home protection as I have children who should not be entrusted with life-and-death decisions. But if I did want to protect myself, I'd have a shotgun that would increase my odds of hitting an intruder and decrease my odds of killing some child in the apartment next door. And I certainly wouldn't mindlessly defend people who want military weapons that aren't good for hunting or home protection.

In the situation you mentioned, would you have been better off if more people had been carrying guns? Had I stumbled upon the scene and saw you brandishing a gun at some fleeing young people, would I have the right to assume you are a threat and pull out my gun. Might a call to 9-1-1 have had a similar effect?

The NRA is not about "rifles." It is a shill for the gun manufacturers who are willing to use fear as the fuel to market guns.

Thanks for the dialog.

Sincerely,

Burt Constable
Dear Burt Constable,

The point you're missing is that one of the roles traditionally assumed by American males is that of protector--of themselves, their families and their communities. By your own words, you declare yourself hopelessly inadequate to the task. And nice try playing the race card--it's not we Second Amendment activists disparaging the right of all peaceable people to keep and bear arms--it's you. Still, should someone of any color decide to rape your "womenfolk," exactly what would you be prepared to do about it?

And no, that's not "the only point" you were making. Your lead sentence:
A handgun is not some useful tool that offers its owner safety and piece of mind
extrapolates a specific anecdote into a generality, and then you call in Joan Burbick to bolster that thesis at the national level. So try that sleight of mind on someone who's not watching.

No one has ever claimed that a gun will always help in all specific instances--particularly when massive police criminality is involved. That would just be foolish. But so, too, is taking one specific case and applying it to all potentialities, and the fact remains--which you have avoided responding to--guns in private hands are used to save lives and deter violence, and removing them from private hands enables predators.

It's irresponsible for you not to keep a gun in the home. Your thesis here is that all homes with children must be defenseless. That, of course, is exactly backwards. The most precious lives, the ones that trust us for everything, are the ones we have the greatest responsibility to protect. Children can be taught to safely coexist with firearms. Millions do. It's all a matter of age-appropriate training, and of course, responsible parenting. It's the anomalies that get the headlines.

Your most telling statement is "If I did want to protect myself..."

What the hell? But then, it's clear you don't. You're not up to the responsibility.

As for your choice of theoretical home defense tool, yeah, shotguns can work well under certain situations, but there's no reason for a trained person to decrease their chances of survival by limiting their tactical options. And you may not "mindlessly defend" people who wish to use "military weapons that aren't good for hunting or home protection," but that statement is pretty mindless in its own right. First, you're falling right into Josh Sugarmann's plot to deceive the ignorant and weak-minded by confusing semiautomatic firearms with full-blown machine guns, but secondly--what in the world are your qualifications for offering such an assessment? Would you like to try shotgun vs "assault weapon" in a "home protection" situation and test your theory? And since when is the Second Amendment about hunting?

As for the dgu situation I related, I have no doubt I made the right choices that night. Your second-guessing and dithering, and (Jesus, did you really recommend this?) Dialing 911 is just a hoot.

It's obvious, Burt, you've been indoctrinated with sound bites and have neither the curiosity nor the intellectual honesty to examine what are, in fact, superstitions you've bought into. But that won't stop you from passing yourself off to your readers as an informed and authoritative voice to be heeded, which is their problem--and yours. Because those of us who know better consider you a fraud--and not a very skillful one at that.

Still, I'd like to leave you with one last challenge.

Go rent the movie "In Cold Blood." Gather the family around so they can watch it with you. You can stop after the scene where the killers have bound and executed the helpless Clutter family, and then explain to everyone why the Daddy was powerless to protect any of them so that the bad men could execute them all.

And I'll even save you the need to give everyone excuses about safety, and guns and kids, and all the other reasons why you have chosen to be disarmed, which as Machiavelli observed, is "to be contemptible." Simply hold their hands, look them in the eye and say:
Mommy won't let me.
And if you really want to assert your prowess, you can promise to hit any home intruders with Joan Burbick's book.

Yeah, Burt. Thanks for the dialog.

Sincerely,

David Codrea

RELATED:
"Kathryn Johnston's Gun to Blame for Her Death"
"Burt Constable Replies"

Saturday, December 02, 2006

Burt Constable and the Mountains on the Moon

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.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Common Tyranny

Standing next to a combat rifle that is 5 feet long, weighs 35 pounds and can blow holes through armor a mile-and-a-half away, Gurnee Police Chief Robert Jones wonders why civilians still can legally buy this weapon in Illinois.

Ah, it's our old friend Burt Constable.

Yeah, chief, letting Illinois cops be "The Only Ones" who can deploy such a weapon sounds like a great idea.

And "Reverend" Oldershaw: Don't you have more important things to worry about that will better contribute to "the common good"?