Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Newsweek Hearts “Gun-safety advocates”
The Truth About Guns ^ | 13 March, 2011 | Robert Farago

Posted on 03/14/2011 6:14:25 AM PDT by marktwain

“Gun grabbers” is an inflammatory name for gun control advocates. After all, these firearms-focused folk don’t want to prise guns from [the cold, dead fingers of] Americans lawfully exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms. No, they want to change the laws so that most Americans can’t get their hands on guns in the first place. Or if they can, these not-gun grabbers want to make sure that privately owned guns aren’t too dangerous; from the way the weapons fire bullets (never automatically) to the amount of bullets they can fire without reloading (no more than 10). And they’d like them registered with the government, for a little look-see whenever they’re sold. As a certain non-presidential presidential hopeful likes to say, how’s that workin’ out for ya? Not good. You know gun control is on the ropes when Newsweek has to invent a new name for their poster children . . .

Gun-safety advocates would argue that Obama has a moral duty to stanch the bleeding, and that may be true. But what’s particularly interesting right now isn’t the moral equation. It’s the practical one. Look beyond the hoary Washington logic, and it’s clear that the present moment may be peculiar enough, and the forces at work potent enough, to produce real movement on gun safety—provided Obama proceeds carefully.

That means no outlawing specific guns. No relitigating the Second Amendment. And no frantic liberal overreach. Just two precautions that a majority of voters favor, according to a new NEWSWEEK-DAILY BEAST Poll: background checks for every gun buyer (which 86 percent of respondents support) and a revival of the recently lapsed ban on the kind of high-capacity clips that Loughner used in Arizona (which 51 percent support). If Obama came out in favor of these modest reforms, he’d have libertarians (such as the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy), Republicans (Rep. Peter King), independents (Bloomberg), and Democrats (Sen. Frank Lautenberg) on his side. Even Dick Cheney, a longtime hunter and NRA supporter, now admits that “maybe it’s appropriate to reestablish” limits on “the size of the magazine that you can buy to go with semiautomatic weapons.”

The diversity of this group reflects a simple truth: that the vast majority of us have more in common with [anti-gun filmmaker and Virginia Tech survivor] Goddard than with the two-dimensional culture warriors—the latte-sipping elites, the paranoid survivalists—who have dominated the debate for decades.

We respect guns, gun owners, and the Second Amendment, and yet we want gun violence to be as rare as possible. We know that guns can contribute to a community’s safety, and yet we acknowledge that none of the 18 mass shootings since May 2007 was stopped by a legal-handgun carrier.

If Obama recognizes this reality, and takes action, it’s possible to imagine us having a grown-up conversation about guns for the first time in almost 20 years.

Wow. That is—sorry “was” one long paragraph (I broke it up to save TTAG’s Armed Intelligentsia from wandering mouse click syndrome.) When did Newsweek become so unprofitable that the editor couldn’t afford to hit the return key?

Anyway, don’t you just love being called a two-dimensional cultural warrior, and infantile with it? Me neither. But there are compensations for enduring this kind of abuse: humor. The best kind: unintentional humor. Check this:

Back at the Lyric Theatre, Goddard was doing his part. Watching his documentary, it was impossible to ignore how little we’re doing to stop dangerous people from buying deadly weapons. Of the dozens of private sellers Goddard and his colleagues encountered at gun shows, not one ran a background check before selling them firearms, Goddard says. Vendors in Maine were the toughest: they requested a local ID. “Minnesota has a system where you can get a permit to buy a gun that proves you can pass a background check, and if you don’t have that, some people won’t sell to you,” he says. “But you can just walk to the next table and buy one there without it.” In Texas, Ohio, and Virginia, Goddard easily bought semiautomatics, often without bothering to show ID. “I bought AK-47s, TEC-9s, a Mach 11, a slew of handguns,” he says. “We could have bought books that tell you how to convert a semiautomatic to a fully automatic and how to make a homemade silencer. There were .50-caliber sniper rifles being sold to the general public almost everywhere we went.” In fact, the only time Goddard, who now works for the Brady Campaign, came under close scrutiny was when he delivered his weapons to the police. “I had to show my ID and answer all kinds of questions,” he says. “None of which were asked at the point of sale.”

As Living for 32 drew to a close and the lights in the Lyric came up, one student asked Goddard what kind of action Congress had taken since Tucson. Not much, he said. Then he smiled ruefully. “You’d think they would realize that all American citizens want to be sure that weapons are not sold to people who shouldn’t get them.”

And I know just where to start.

TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; confiscation; constitution; registration
The concept that the government could or should only “allow” certain people to have guns stands the very concept of American jurisprudence on its head. It presumes that the government knows all, controls all, and should be doing so. It is wrong and ineffective.

It is crazy to set up a huge expensive bureaucratic system, require everyone to jump though hoops and prove that they are *not* criminals in order to try, ineffectively, to prevent the few individuals who are not responsible, from having legal access to guns. This is a failed paradigm, and it should be abandoned. To accept the idea that the all gun sales should be monitored by the government, and only allowed to those it deems satisfactory is fundamentally wrong.

The entire idea of the enterprise has always been the death of a thousand cuts, where the restrictions on who can buy, and where, and how and what are continually increased until the number of gun owners is reduced to political insignificance.

1 posted on 03/14/2011 6:14:27 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marktwain


2 posted on 03/14/2011 6:16:36 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
"Gun safety advocates"? Well, that's a nice name. Who could be opposed to that?

Saaaaaaay, I have an idea: why don't we create some "Urban safety advocates"? Great concept, huh? Of course, if the goal is the removal of black people from all urban areas, I guess some folks might decide that it's not a good idea, a just idea, or a Constitutuional idea. But, hey, with a name like "urban safety advocates" I'm sure we'll get support.

3 posted on 03/14/2011 6:17:35 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Newsweek’s still publishing ?

4 posted on 03/14/2011 6:51:34 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Go Hawks !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
Excellent post, Mark.

Exactly what part of the Second Amendment do they not understand?

I especially loved the line about "how little we are doing to stop dangerous people from buying deadly weapons." Who, exactly, gets to define dangerous? (Deadly weapons is a whole 'nother story. Ask experienced correctional officers sometime about just what can constitute a deadly weapon).

There are people who would define anyone who is willing to own a gun, anyone who is willing to learn to shoot a gun, and certainly anyone who is willing to carry a gun, as "dangerous" and a probable nutcase who is liable to explode into violence at any time for any reason.

Some of these same people will also include on their list of "dangerous people" anyone who supports the TEA Party, likes Sarah Palin or Michelle Bachmann, listens to Rush or Mark Levin, reads conservative websites, votes for or contributes to conservative candidates, is a practicing Christian, or any combination of the aforementioned.

I'm not willing to concede the ability to define "dangerous" to just about anyone willing to make that decision, myself.

5 posted on 03/14/2011 6:53:51 AM PDT by susannah59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
We respect guns, gun owners, and the Second Amendment...
Oh, please, give me a break! If that statement were even remotely true then there wouldn't be a need to have a "conversation" and there wouldn't have been a 20+ year effort at gun control.
Newsweak and gun grabbers need some new spin and that "gun-safety" dog don't hunt.
6 posted on 03/14/2011 7:36:04 AM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

Can’t find the link, but there was a great post recently about a Second Amendment advocate who responded succinctly to a lib weasle asking for a summary of his views: “If you try to take my guns, I will kill you.” It’s just that simple for a heck of a lot of us. Gun registration or confiscation laws/orders would trigger the next civil war, which they will loose if these fools persist.

7 posted on 03/14/2011 7:40:48 AM PDT by dagogo redux (A whiff of primitive spirits in the air, harbingers of an impending descent into the feral.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: susannah59; ClearCase_guy; marktwain
Exactly what part of the Second Amendment do they not understand?

It is not that they don't understand it, they just choose to ignore it. Same with the first, tenth, and other amendments. The Constitution is a thorn in the side of those who are smarter than we are.

Non-smokers applaud the restrictions of where, when and what you can smoke but it is the same principle with guns, trans fats and all other things the government wants to unconstitutionally regulate, and, as always, what they say is not what they mean. They are after power, pure and simple. Their arguments are just a front for that.

A little simple logic exposes the gun controllers' argument. They say they want to keep guns out of the hands of the "wrong" people but it is already against the law for those who have proven themselves to be the "wrong" people, like felons, to possess guns. So, if there are already laws against the "wrong" people then the law must be aimed at the "right" people, us law abiding citizens. The same foolishness applies to Hate Crimes. It is against the law to kill or physically abuse someone no matter the motive. Adding Hate as a crime is a move toward thought control and even more power.

This is illustrated by their use of the term Gun Safety Advocates. That implies there are those who oppose gun safety and those are the ones who must be controlled. Straw man, straw argument.

No smoking, no trans fats, no guns are all straw men. They use the issue of health as an excuse to end smoking and other things they consider harmful to your health. Why? What business is it of theirs? Why do they care if I get sick? They don't! They use health care as their wedge. If the public is paying for health care with their taxes then the government has a say in it. They push health care for the power it gives them rather than any compassion for anyone.

An example of their hypocrisy is Medicare. It covers only those 65 and over. Now they are appalled that they are spending so much on "old" people. Hello! Is anyone at home!

They want no guns so we can't resist the other when it gets down to the nitty-gritty.

8 posted on 03/14/2011 7:56:15 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dagogo redux; All
Here is the reference that you referred to:

“Okay,” I answered, “if you try to take our firearms we will kill you.”

9 posted on 03/14/2011 8:12:07 AM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson